Military Review

Protection BTR-87 reinforced ceramics and titanium

49
The Russian armored personnel carrier BTR-87 will receive additional mounted protective panels made of special ceramics and titanium, reports Messenger of Mordovia With reference to the departmental publication of the Vyksa "Case Plant"


Protection BTR-87 reinforced ceramics and titanium


This development of the “Military Industrial Company” was first presented at the international military-technical forum “Army 2017”.

The armored vehicle is considered “a radical modernization of the well-known family of BTR-80 and BTR-82 with qualitatively new characteristics”. The machine also significantly enhanced mine protection.

“A mounted combat module with a 30-mm cannon and a paired 7,62-mm machine gun looks similar to the one that is installed on the currently produced equipment. However, as you can see, the main armament is enhanced by 4 anti-tank Kornet anti-tank missiles. A thermal imager and a laser rangefinder are included in the sighting system, ”writes the author of the material, Lev Romanov.

The BTR also has improved mobility characteristics: “thanks to the engine in the 312 hp, the armored personnel carrier can reach a maximum speed of 90 km / h; water speed is one of the highest for this class of equipment - up to 14 km / h, power reserve - 800 km, ”the publication says.

Also important is the fact that the design of the BTR-87 is unified by the applied components and assemblies and can be produced at all plants located in the company's management.
Photos used:
http://vestnik-rm.ru
49 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. activator
    activator 12 January 2018 13: 37
    +5
    It’s a pity if this ersatz goes instead of a boomerang
    1. bouncyhunter
      bouncyhunter 12 January 2018 13: 40
      +8
      This is actually an export development ...
      According to reports, the BTR-87 project was developed by the Military Industrial Company LLC as part of a thorough modernization of the existing BTR-82A armored personnel carrier. The project was created on an initiative basis and is intended primarily for export.

      Source: http://alternathistory.com/opytnyi-bronetransport
      er-btr-87-russiya
      1. assa67
        assa67 12 January 2018 18: 27
        +8
        pasha hi .
        Quote: bouncyhunter
        The project was created on an initiative basis and is intended primarily for export.

        ... why not? .... cut titanium mattresses, it is possible to start up on such developments, not to lose the goodness))))
        1. bouncyhunter
          bouncyhunter 12 January 2018 19: 08
          +3
          Hi Andrey! hi So who is against it? wink
          1. assa67
            assa67 12 January 2018 19: 18
            +7
            again hi ..... it flew to you from quoting .... laughing
        2. ispaniard
          ispaniard 13 January 2018 01: 18
          +3
          That's how much I don’t look at him. The feeling that he was made on the basis of the BTR-70, but not the BTR-80, doesn’t leave ...
  2. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 12 January 2018 13: 47
    +1
    It turns out ..... Arzamas BTR-88- "on the side"!?
  3. Lexus
    Lexus 12 January 2018 13: 47
    10
    Junk on wheels. Congratulations, the Romanians were caught up in 12 years.
    http://alternathistory.com/opytnye-bronetransport
    ery-saur-1-i-saur-2-rumyniya
    1. marlin1203
      marlin1203 12 January 2018 14: 11
      +3
      Something about the Romanians, no guns, no anti-tank or other minced meat can be seen ...
      1. Lexus
        Lexus 12 January 2018 14: 23
        +2
        Do you think this could be difficult?
      2. donavi49
        donavi49 12 January 2018 14: 56
        +3
        The question is in the layout, as I understand it. Zaur (Romanian) is redone for aft exit as an BTR-87. BTR-82A - has no feed output.

        The issue of guns and other stuffing is solved. Romanians have a prototype version with 25mm Orlikon and 3 Spikes (3 generation).
        1. donavi49
          donavi49 12 January 2018 15: 01
          +7
          In general, combat modules today are of no difficulty. Everyone is short of what they want. Usually this is an 25-30mm gun + 2-4 ATGM + machine gun / grenade launcher / something else from the wishes of the customer.
          For example, Pandur with such a module is coming. Also 30-ka good (Bushmaster2) + 2 Spike 3 generation. Moreover, it is also better-armored in the database.
          1. Vlad.by
            Vlad.by 12 January 2018 16: 24
            +1
            The accuracy of firing from this module is a big problem.
            And in general, everyone goes his own way.
            The main problem of our armored personnel carriers is not booking - not a tank, after all, but a lack of mine resistance.
            For all other parameters, it’s quite on the level. Even in the absence of a stern ramp.
            1. Dedall
              Dedall 12 January 2018 20: 44
              +5
              In 1995, under Samashki, one BTR-80 was blown up before my eyes 2 (two) times and (attention !!) drove under its own power to the base without 2 wheels. A week later, after the arrival of gearboxes and new wheels, that APC was restored.
              1. ProkletyiPirat
                ProkletyiPirat 12 January 2018 23: 02
                +1
                undermining the undermining of strife, and the problem is not the penetration of armor by mines, but the survival of the crew, or rather not so much survival as the possibility of further service after the explosion in a mine.
              2. Mih1974
                Mih1974 13 January 2018 00: 53
                +2
                And undermined it like barmalei in reality at 2-3 152 landmines with mannequins in the place where the soldiers are usually? Or, as always - empty and simple trotyl? negative The shock wave can and is similar, but only the shell 152 will shove the infantry with its fragments, so then “propulsion on its own” will not matter.
          2. ispaniard
            ispaniard 13 January 2018 01: 28
            +2
            Hi donavi49 hi Yes, the device is good, the main thing is that the gun exceeds (with an equal caliber of 30 mm) in almost all respects our 30 millimeters, that "SPIKES" with television guidance, that the combat module is unmanned, that the landing is through the stern ...
            The answer (in order not only not to be left behind but to be one step ahead) should be a “Boomerang” / “Barberry” with a 57 mm gun (module) and preferably with corners of the “ATGM” cornet (still the AGS “Balkan”) would not be set for mounted shooting and suppressing enemy infantry (lying in shelters) in the event that the development of a projectile for a domestic gun 57 mm (with a programmable projectile detonation is greatly delayed).
            1. ProkletyiPirat
              ProkletyiPirat 13 January 2018 01: 53
              +2
              you transferred so much, but you didn’t answer the main question “where is the money zing?”, all this new technology is good, exactly until you started to count how much you need and how much it will cost ... Well, you can’t do it with our budget the same equipment as in NATO. The whole problem is that our MO is not engaged in analytics at all, all analytics begins and ends with the phrases "that's how they have it, only bigger and cheaper." Manufacturers also do not want to engage in analytics, they have one thing in mind: "any whim for your grandmothers."
            2. Vlad.by
              Vlad.by 15 January 2018 01: 54
              0
              You will have to carry 57mm in the second car, otherwise the BC will be enough for only a couple of lines.
              But if we are talking about the trailer, then why not push the BM from Nona or the tank barrel, or even 152mm?
              Do we need an APC or a Death Star the size of the moon?
              1. ProkletyiPirat
                ProkletyiPirat 15 January 2018 02: 49
                0
                Quote: Vlad.by
                Do we need an APC or a Death Star the size of the moon?

                No, you’re wrong, we need a _TBM_ transport combat vehicle, that is, an armored personnel carrier + BMP, and you just need a 45-82mm gun, but this is not the 57mm gun that they offer, it's about the “AU220M Baikal”, the reason why this module does not fit you correctly indicated.
                1. Vlad.by
                  Vlad.by 19 January 2018 17: 08
                  0
                  We already have an armored personnel carrier, with all its disadvantages. And the Mi-24 transport and combat helicopter. The car is strong, but in principle redundant. A bunch of guards from Mi-38 or Ka-52 combat helicopters and a dozen Mi-8/17 are quite enough. the efficiency of specialized machines is much higher.
                  1. ProkletyiPirat
                    ProkletyiPirat 19 January 2018 20: 36
                    0
                    so I’m talking about that, TBM first letter Т that is, transport functions above combat. And so the main difference from armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles (in the sense of the existing Soviet ones) is the high altitude and all the weapons in the form of an uninhabited overhead combat module. According to my estimates, the winnings will be from about 30-40% to 60-70% reduction in the number of equipment with the same number of l / s. True, I need to make a reservation here, I thought first of all for the Airborne Forces, secondly, taking into account changes in the staff structure, thirdly relative the structure of the USSR Airborne Forces (now everything has changed in the Russian Federation, but what and how I have no information on the technical composition), in the fourth everything depends heavily on the specific design of the machine and in the fifth percent it is very impractical because it depends on the type of unit (company \ battalion \ regiment \ etc (the larger the unit, the greater the percentage)) and on the type and quantity of equipment in the unit.
    2. The brightest
      The brightest 12 January 2018 15: 09
      +1
      Very good. The main thing that would drive gave protection from rifle and mines, the rest are show-offs.
  4. wolfkill
    wolfkill 12 January 2018 13: 47
    +1
    somehow he reminds me of the BTR-4
  5. max702
    max702 12 January 2018 13: 57
    +1
    The engine means they installed the YaMZ-536 .. Well, well, places in the car were clearly added .. And yes, in the army version of EURO-0 it gives out 451 l / s ...
  6. tchoni
    tchoni 12 January 2018 14: 27
    +1
    Russian version of Khokhlyatsky BTR4? But what about the boomerang? Is it dear to us?
  7. san4es
    san4es 12 January 2018 15: 00
    +5
    the BTR-87 design is unified by the used units and assemblies and can be produced at all plants
    soldier
    1. Dreamboat
      Dreamboat 12 January 2018 16: 32
      +4
      In general, as options for upgrading the BTR-80, it’s not bad, not everyone will need a heavy and expensive Boomerang. Something more serious was directly requested in the 82a combat module .... It was also necessary to strengthen the reservation a long time ago, especially if the screens would be removable, in case of crossing water barriers.
      But there are several things for which the gaze immediately clings to: the airborne squad does not seem to be connected to the command and control squad, which means 2 small volumes that suffer greatly when breaking through, the crew again do not use the rear doors .... The side exits were removed for some reason, if an armored personnel carrier is hit, the landing will only go one way ....
      Airborne seats are not suspended, without compensation for blows undermining .... There is no anti-shatter lining ...
      Everything is like little things, and people will cost their lives.
      1. Inok10
        Inok10 12 January 2018 19: 15
        +1
        Quote: Dreamboat
        But there are several things for which the gaze immediately clings to: the airborne squad does not seem to be connected to the command and control squad, which means 2 small volumes that suffer greatly when breaking through, the crew again do not use the rear doors .... The side exits were removed for some reason, if an armored personnel carrier is hit, the landing will only go one way ....

        ... connect ... and a side emergency on the port side ...

        Quote: Dreamboat
        Airborne chairs are not suspended, without compensation for blows undermining ....

        ... but, what does YOU do not like with side mounting? ...
        Quote: Dreamboat
        There is no anti-fragmentation lining ...

        ... the model for the exhibition may differ from the serial for the army ... about additional protection, too, there was no earlier conversation ... hi
        1. ProkletyiPirat
          ProkletyiPirat 12 January 2018 23: 06
          +2
          Quote: Inok10
          Quote: Dreamboat
          Airborne chairs are not suspended, without compensation for blows undermining ....

          ... but, what does YOU do not like with side mounting? ...

          You can set the side, it is important to move the seat, or rather the efficiency of upward impulse compensation in the process of undermining.
        2. Dreamboat
          Dreamboat 13 January 2018 00: 09
          +1
          And you, through such a side exit, leave in armor and a full crew from a burning armored personnel carrier ?!
          God forbid that finalized ...
      2. ZVladimir222
        ZVladimir222 15 January 2018 04: 05
        0
        - You know, this box will not protect from cumulative penetration.
        Maybe some old RPG-7 with a successful hit in the dynamics and yes, in part. But some "Vampire" or God forbid "Hashim" then - Allahu Akbar!
        About ATGM and say nothing. Here, apparently the emphasis was on the DShK. Maybe with all these stray head-ons and KPVT will not break through at certain angles. But just not on board.
        A KPVT only at barmaley. Against NATO on this box is nowhere. The 25mm Bushmaster and the 35mm Oerlikon will sew it like a piece of paper, whatever these manufacturers would lie there.
        All this wheeled junk is out of date.
        In modern warfare, riding him is a suicide bomber.
        The only plus is speed.
        Overcoming water barriers is the eternal silly dream of strategists. This is the most disastrous event with due opposition. Whenever possible in a war this action should be avoided.
        Moreover, with such speed on the water. Read E. Manstein.
        Well, if there’s nowhere to go, more radical watercraft are needed. High speed.
        Mass grave of infantry and landing in one word. At best, a rear truck.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  8. Berkut24
    Berkut24 12 January 2018 15: 07
    +1
    Well ... I understand that I want money from the Ministry of Defense, but the guys are already far behind. The BTR-82AM is already on its way as a forced measure in anticipation of the Boomerang. Do not be like farmers. Their meanness and poverty in the means of modernizing technology are understandable and excusable, but here Russia is!
    1. assa67
      assa67 12 January 2018 18: 30
      +7
      here is a nuance ...
      Quote: bouncyhunter
      The project was created on an initiative basis and is intended primarily for export.

      .... they themselves were blinded, simply put, and hope to compete with other suppliers of such weapons ... we are not talking about state funding hi
  9. Romka47
    Romka47 12 January 2018 16: 28
    +1
    Active protection must be put guys! Only active defense will save in future (and already ongoing) conflicts
    1. Vlad.by
      Vlad.by 15 January 2018 02: 00
      0
      In this case, KAZ will be more likely a means of destruction from friendly fire. When dismounting, triggering AZ is deadly for the landing
      1. Romka47
        Romka47 18 January 2018 16: 19
        +1
        I somehow missed this moment ...
  10. Sergeant71
    Sergeant71 12 January 2018 19: 12
    +2
    Another upgrade upgrade?
    "Boomerang," awww ?! Are you still alive??
    1. onix757
      onix757 13 January 2018 10: 03
      0
      Alive of course !!! Soon, the Deribaska will replace 80% of the imported komplektuhi with domestic analogues and it will go. Soon.
  11. ZVladimir222
    ZVladimir222 14 January 2018 04: 02
    0
    - It’s the trough. They do not want to make a normal armored personnel carrier.
    For a long time already in the West all have heavy armored personnel carriers.
    In the USA - “Bradley” (30 tons), in Germany - “Puma” (43 tons). The Israeli Puma Centurion is no easier either. The old one!
    And the weight is only increasing: the personnel must be protected by armor!
    The farthest went the “Israel” with its 60 ton “Namer”.
    The soldier must be protected!
    But this is not familiar to our generals. They continue to throw people into battle on such tin cans that even do not protect against DShK, not to mention more serious weapons.
    Why ... "Women still give birth" As the "great" Zhukov used to say.
    Where I just did not write! There is only one answer - "Everything is fine in Russia!"
    Yes, they’re doing well. Warm cabinets (with secretaries) in Moscow, cottages, Swiss bills ...
    The soldiers are bad. On these "Mass graves" here to fight.
    Once I wrote to them like this - let's buy 50 "Nameers" from Israel, two - to the factory (copy), the rest - to the battle!
    Answer: "Our armored vehicles are the best in the world, impractical!" The letter is lying around ...
    From my point of view, it is most advisable to collect all of them, these leaders, generals and other "beneficiaries", put them in these tin boxes and - on the attack! On ISIS and on Bandera. It is a pity that they throw white flags only.
    It is necessary to establish detachments. The soldiers will understand me.
    In addition, our gunsmiths have long known that a gun is needed not 30, but 35 millimeters. She is optimal. Especially for air targets. And it will be easier to sell - the standard is NATO-vsky.
    But nothing is being done. "Ah ... And so it will do!" "Armata will be soon." Where is she? How much is?
    Even the site does not allow what kind of words beg!
    1. Mih1974
      Mih1974 14 January 2018 04: 42
      +1
      belay What are you ozverina (odurin) drunk? Can’t you yourself realize that in the army of Russia (formerly the USSR), the BTR-80 was like the Americans had a "hemi". No, our analogue was not a “kazel,” but it was an armored personnel carrier. That is why he surpasses the Americans. But their perversion of "Bradley" - does not fit into any category and therefore resent the comparison with anything, nor with the tanks against which it has ATGMs, nor with BMPs, nor with armored personnel carriers that give it in speed, firepower and survival . And from DShK I’m sleeping their "Bradley" tongue . Actually, only the Israeli “passenger tank” “Namer” can be worthy of a wake, it’s like they did the “Kurgan” under it, but again - this is solely for the assault on urban fortified areas. request Well, it's like comparing a “cardboard box” and an “iron safe” and you can store something there and there, but they don’t sell shoes in safes laughing , there is no such need. So the “cardboard” BTR-80 should not be used to attack a fortified enemy.
      1. ZVladimir222
        ZVladimir222 14 January 2018 05: 18
        +1
        - - And still used! And not only the armored personnel carrier, but also the BMP is used! And even MTLB! Even in the operation "Storm 333", BMPs and armored personnel carriers went on the attack. And then - everywhere. Because there is nothing more to use!
        There was no heavy armored personnel carrier in our army - no!
        And all the bosses don't give a damn about it. In uniform or not - no difference.
        I am not saying that Bradley is a great know-how. However, 30 tons is already something.
        You are tormented by it from DShK and even from the KPVT to shoot. Especially versions starting with M2A2 / M3A2. She holds a 30 mm gun in her forehead.
        And she herself has a gun against your DShK.
        In addition, she has a rear crew landing, unlike our armored personnel carriers.
        And most importantly, NATO has almost 10 of these “Bradley”, not counting the Pumas and other junk, including the “Intent”. Counted, counted - nearly 000 heavy APCs they counted and lost count.
        How NATO will trample on us, together with Ukraine, Turkey, Pakistan, Arab monarchies, Japan and more. He knows with whom ... And all in heavy armored personnel carriers. Not counting the lungs.
        How to protect yourself? “Armata”? Only tanks? And the infantry? Passed in 1941!
        The same rake with light armor!
        We have nothing! Although the development was a long time. This is all because the new government sold all metal abroad, along with conscience and everything else.
        And this whole Armata project is another PR move. Because how to spit on the soldier.
        I don’t know if Zhukov really said so or not - this is most likely a libel. But the fact that the current generals think (it would be better if they only thought, or even do) is exactly the way and not the other way, I have no doubt.
        And "Intent" - yes, we need it. And Merkava yet. Heavy and front-wheel drive (as well as armored personnel carriers). To ATGM "held", both on board and in the roof. Yes, in the forehead 120-mm their gun at point blank range. Yes, so that the hatches for the crew were in the stern. That's all the technical task. Only in this way and nothing else.
        The rest is all for sale and for scrap. These troughs are suicidal.
        1. Vlad.by
          Vlad.by 15 January 2018 02: 07
          +1
          Valerian drink and more! Urgently !!!
          And then have a sleeping pill and laxative!
          And then, just trample these 40000 !!!! BTR (!!!) Bradley. Right here right away and from all the cracks ...

          Damn, this is from which ward is sick then?
          1. ZVladimir222
            ZVladimir222 15 January 2018 03: 41
            0
            - You about the transition to personalities - go to another site. Maydaunovsky.
            To their American and Bandera masters. Jump higher.
            1. Vlad.by
              Vlad.by 15 January 2018 09: 39
              0
              Forgive me, colleague, but the oscillatory circuit from your avatar has become overexcited. Instead of filtering it only adds “harmonics” to your brain. No offense.
              1. ZVladimir222
                ZVladimir222 17 January 2018 21: 21
                0
                - Well, it’s good that you switched to a steady tone. This, at least, does you honor. Unlike some under-educated "personalities" on this site.
                And the avatar (integrating filter, by the way) - I filter what I say.
                And if you want to constructively oppose - speak essentially.
                Arguments and numbers. For emotional calculations - there are other sites. And here, please, about the weapon. About him one and more, we ask politely, nothing!
    2. max702
      max702 17 January 2018 01: 15
      0
      Quote: ZVladimir222
      Why ... "Women still give birth" As the "great" Zhukov used to say.

      This note was not said by the Great Zhukov, but by Menshikov, for which there was immediately a shell on the faces of Peter ..
      And after that this phrase was not attributed to Toko ..
      1. ZVladimir222
        ZVladimir222 17 January 2018 21: 25
        0
        - Thank you for prompting. I did not know about Menshikov. They attribute everything to Zhukov. Although, I already wrote, I doubt that Zhukov said this. Rather, it is libel.
        However, if he didn’t say that, he won’t add respect to Zhukov. A person is judged primarily by deed. And again, according to the words.
        But the soldier Zhukov, yes, did not spare. Or did not really try to regret.
      2. ZVladimir222
        ZVladimir222 17 January 2018 21: 33
        0
        - By the way, Zhukov (not looking at his stiffness in the war) was not at all against heavy armored personnel carriers, but for.
        He generally loved heavy equipment. And the problem of their apparent insufficiency (any) more than once posed to Stalin. However, then there were no opportunities.
        It is not clear why this was not done after the war. Well, Zhukov is understandable - for the most part, he led the army a little after the war. Again, first a bomb, then rockets. Then Zhukov was gone. And the result - there were no heavy armored personnel carriers in the army, so no!
        I think if Zhukov were alive today - he would support the idea. He really had to ride along the fronts under fire on the "light" armor and just on the "M" -ke.