Protection BTR-87 reinforced ceramics and titanium

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"

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.

Comments

[activator]

It’s a pity if this ersatz goes instead of a boomerang

[bouncyhunter]

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

[assa67]

pasha ...

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))))

[bouncyhunter]

Hi Andrey! So who is against it?

[assa67]

again ..... it flew to you from quoting ....

[ispaniard]

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 ...

[Nikolaevich I]

It turns out ..... Arzamas BTR-88- "on the side"!?

[Lexus]

Junk on wheels. Congratulations, the Romanians were caught up in 12 years.
http://alternathistory.com/opytnye-bronetransport
ery-saur-1-i-saur-2-rumyniya

[marlin1203]

Something about the Romanians, no guns, no anti-tank or other minced meat can be seen ...

[Lexus]

Do you think this could be difficult?

[donavi49]

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).

[donavi49]

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.

[Vlad.by]

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.

[Dedall]

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.

[ProkletyiPirat]

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.

[Mih1974]

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? 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.

[ispaniard]

Hi donavi49 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).

[ProkletyiPirat]

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."

[Vlad.by]

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?

[ProkletyiPirat]

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.

[Vlad.by]

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.

[ProkletyiPirat]

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.

[The brightest]

Very good. The main thing that would drive gave protection from rifle and mines, the rest are show-offs.

[wolfkill]

somehow he reminds me of the BTR-4

[max702]

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 ...

[tchoni]

Russian version of Khokhlyatsky BTR4? But what about the boomerang? Is it dear to us?

[san4es]

the BTR-87 design is unified by the used units and assemblies and can be produced at all plants

[Dreamboat]

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.

[Inok10]

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 ...

[ProkletyiPirat]

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.

[Dreamboat]

And you, through such a side exit, leave in armor and a full crew from a burning armored personnel carrier ?!
God forbid that finalized ...

[ZVladimir222]

- 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.

[Berkut24]

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!

[assa67]

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

[Romka47]

Active protection must be put guys! Only active defense will save in future (and already ongoing) conflicts

[Vlad.by]

In this case, KAZ will be more likely a means of destruction from friendly fire. When dismounting, triggering AZ is deadly for the landing

[Romka47]

I somehow missed this moment ...

[Sergeant71]

Another upgrade upgrade?
"Boomerang," awww ?! Are you still alive??

[onix757]

Alive of course !!! Soon, the Deribaska will replace 80% of the imported komplektuhi with domestic analogues and it will go. Soon.

[ZVladimir222]

- 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!

[Mih1974]

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" . 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. 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 , there is no such need. So the “cardboard” BTR-80 should not be used to attack a fortified enemy.

[ZVladimir222]

- - 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.

[Vlad.by]

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?

[ZVladimir222]

- You about the transition to personalities - go to another site. Maydaunovsky.
To their American and Bandera masters. Jump higher.

[Vlad.by]

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.

[ZVladimir222]

- 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!

[max702]

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 ..

[ZVladimir222]

- 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.

[ZVladimir222]

- 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.

[LuidmilaN1956]

BTR-90, that's what at one time had to be adopted.

In the process of modernization, it could turn into this.

And we could have a cheap analogue of the Boomerang.