BTR and BMP "Boomerang" in comparison with its predecessors

During the recent exhibition "Army-2019" it was announced that the K-16 armored personnel carrier based on the promising unified wheeled platform "Boomerang" in July goes to state trials. As a result of these activities, the issue of adopting equipment for service will be decided. Thus, in the near future, the Russian army will be able to obtain a fundamentally new sample with special capabilities, which will compare favorably with the armored vehicles it uses.

Wheeled BMP K-17 at a parade rehearsal. Photo by Vitalykuzmin.net

New approach

Unlike a number of existing armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles, the new "Boomerang" was developed from scratch and taking into account current problems. The project is based on modern ideas and solutions, due to which the required characteristics and qualities are achieved.

First of all, "Boomerang" was developed as a universal platform suitable for use in the construction of equipment for various purposes. At the same time, the appearance of the platform is optimal for creating protected infantry vehicles. In the future it is possible to develop equipment for other purposes.

The Boomerang project provides for the creation of a wheeled armored vehicle with a number of features that distinguish it from the existing domestic samples. Some of these solutions have been tested in foreign projects. Due to this, it was possible to get rid of a number of shortcomings characteristic of existing BTR and infantry fighting vehicles of domestic production.

Security issues

The problem of the safety of the crew and the landing in the project "Boomerang" is solved in several ways. The first is to book the hull. According to various sources, frontal and side projections receive combined protection with ceramic elements. Armor should provide protection against large-caliber small weapons, small-caliber artillery and various fragments. The bottom structure of the case provides improved protection against blasting. Reservation is complemented by anti-splintering. Unfortunately, the exact parameters of the armor have not yet been announced, only its most general features are known.

BTR-80 - deserved, but morally obsolete machine. Photo of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation / mil.ru

Ballistic protection may be supplemented by other means. The possibility of installing mounted modules to enhance resistance to various threats was previously mentioned. You can use active protection. In the future, “Boomerangs” are proposed to equip with a comprehensive system of protection against high-precision weapons.

Combat survivability and crew safety are also enhanced by the use of the correct layout. The power units are brought forward, and a large stern compartment is intended for the landing. The landing is carried out through the stern ramp, so that it remains for the maximum time under the protection of armor. The fighters are placed on energy absorbing chairs, reducing the negative impact of the explosion under the wheel or bottom.

Serial BTR and BMP, operated in the army, have only bulletproof booking. So, the BTR-80 without additional protection cannot withstand the fire of large-caliber rifles or machine guns. The BMP-1 / 2 is attacked in frontal projection by small-caliber artillery shells. Various options for enhancing protection do not lead to a radical increase in performance. Old armored personnel carriers are criticized because of the lateral location of the landing hatches, which leads to unnecessary risks.

Mobility technology

In various versions of the project "Boomerang" is equipped with two types of diesel engines with power 510 and 750 HP. With a combat mass of about 34-35 T, the armored vehicle has a specific power of at least 15 hp. on t. In combination with hydromechanical transmission, this ensures sufficient mobility and throughput.

An important innovation is the independent suspension with the ability to change the clearance. Moving the hull on the 300-350 mm vertically allows you to optimize the characteristics of the machine on the march or in battle. However, as mentioned earlier, the platform can receive a less complex torsion bar suspension. Despite its considerable mass, the Boomerang can float and is equipped with jet propulsion.

Armored personnel carrier K-16. Photo of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation / mil.ru

The maximum speed of the Boomerang platform on the highway exceeds 100 km / h. On a dirt road - 92 km / h. On rough terrain, acceleration to 50 km / h is allowed.

For comparison, the 14-ton BTR-80 has an HP 260 engine. and, therefore, the specific power of no more than 18,5 hp on t. Its highway speed is limited to 80 km / h, on off-road - 40 km / h. Tracked BMP-2 with a weight less than 15 t is equipped with a 300-strong engine (20 hp per ton). It can accelerate to 65 km / h on the highway, and on rough terrain its characteristics are comparable to the “Boomerang”.

Modular weapons

On the roof of the "Boomerang" case, a place is provided for mounting the fighting compartment or a remotely controlled module of a compatible type. We already know about the possibility of using a number of similar products, and some of these proposals have been tested in practice.

During the first public show on 2015, the Boomerangs were shown in two configurations. The public was shown the K-16 armored personnel carrier and the K-17 infantry fighting vehicle. The key difference between these machines was their weapons. BMP has other combat missions, and therefore received a more powerful weapon.

The K-16 BTR is equipped with an anti-aircraft gun with a large-caliber machine-gun “Kord”, which allows it to support the landing force with fire and effectively fight a number of targets on the battlefield. The BMP K-17 receives a Boomerang-BM type combat module with more powerful weapons. The 30-mm 2-42 cannon, the PKT machine gun and the Kornet missiles are mounted on such a turret.

Infantry fighting vehicle K-17. Photo "Military Industrial Company" / milindcom.ru

In 2017, for the first time, they showed a version of the BMP Boomerang with an inhabited fighting compartment B05Y01 Berehok. Such a module has missile, cannon and machine-gun armament, but is distinguished by its architecture - it is controlled by crew members located directly under the tower.

Earlier it was reported about the principal possibility of equipping the Boomerang chassis with the AU-220M Baikal or similar system. In this case, the wheeled platform becomes the carrier of a powerful 57-mm automatic cannon, which gives it special combat characteristics.

In terms of the choice of weapons "Boomerang" compares favorably with the BTR-70 / 80 and BMP-1 / 2. In order to develop the latter, different projects were proposed using new combat units, but their choices are limited. In addition, compatibility with different modules was not a key requirement for old projects.

To replace obsolete samples

The unified wheeled platform "Boomerang" was created taking into account current and future threats, as well as with an eye on domestic and foreign experience. The result was a rejection of a number of developments on previous own projects and the introduction of new solutions for our equipment.

The result of the program "Boomerang" has already become several options for experienced armored vehicles for different purposes and with different configuration. The K-16 armored personnel carrier with a large amphibious assault detachment and machine-gun armament goes to state trials and is close to being armed. He will be followed by an infantry fighting vehicle K-17.

Experienced "Boomerang" with the combat module "Berezhok". Photo Bmpd.livejournal.com

In the course of “Army-2019”, the organization-developer indicated that the current status of the “Boomerang” program allows to start creating new projects. The Ministry of Defense can now order a command and control vehicle, an anti-tank or anti-aircraft complex. In addition, the appearance of technical specifications for the wheeled tank. In all cases, a uniform four-axle chassis will be used.

However, so far we are talking only about wheeled armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles on a common chassis. In the distant future, they will have to replace the equipment of the old models and increase the combat capability of the ground forces. First of all, it is planned to replace outdated wheeled armored personnel carriers that still remain in the army. BTR-70 and BTR-80 have not met all modern requirements for a long time, but so far there is simply nothing to replace them. Successful completion of work on K-16 and K-17 will allow launching rearmament.

The proposed vehicles on the Boomerang platform have obvious advantages over existing wheeled armored personnel carriers. The latter lose in the level of ballistic and anti-mine protection, have a limited choice of weapons, and in addition, are criticized because of the not very successful ergonomics of the inhabited compartments. The new project completely removes these issues.

Various projects of the “Boomerang” family still remain at the stage of development or field testing. Rearmament with their help will begin only in the future. However, it is already clear what will be the positive consequences of the creation and implementation of such equipment. Motorized riflemen will receive improved protection and more powerful fire support, which will reduce risks and increase combat capability.

Comments

[VSrostagro]

BMP must be built with a new 57 mm gun,
and missiles "Attack".
So that when he goes to the troops, it will be not only relevant, but also one step ahead of the "partners" ..

[Lopatov]

Quote: VSrostagro

and missiles "Attack".

"Cornets" can be charged during combat. Rockets "Attack" - no. At the same time, the capabilities of "Attack" for an infantry vehicle are definitely redundant.

Quote: VSrostagro

new 57 mm cannon,

Children's BC

And the "partners" have long been overtaken.

[carstorm 11]

this is not the case. What is BMP? a car that will deliver infantry to the right place. all. why does she need a gun? Let’s give all the machines that are capable of moving tools give? business in concept. what for whom and for what.

[Red_Baron]

Dmitry, you say it right, but confuse a little one. Boomerang is a universal platform. That is, in the form of an armored personnel carrier, it has the same characteristics both in terms of capacity and armament, and so on. In the form of wheeled infantry fighting vehicles, others. In some countries, heavy mortar systems and artillery systems are placed on wheeled platforms. Wheeled vehicles have their own advantage in the form of logistics.

[yehat]

heavy weapons on wheels also have their advantages, especially the infantry is glad - this is not to drag them.

[Red_Baron]

That's for sure :))

[Blackgrifon]

Quote: carstorm 11

a car that will deliver infantry to the right place. all. why does she need a gun?

Seriously?! :) Is it okay that since the 60s, armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles have not performed the functions of exclusively "combat taxis"? Or that all modern armored personnel carriers are now equipped with cannon armament? And there are 100500 more arguments and facts why an APC with a gun is better than an APC without it. It is necessary not to understand the "concept", but first in concepts, then in tactics, states and other sciences.

[ProkletyiPirat]

Quote: Blackgrifon

It is necessary not to understand the "concept", but first in concepts, then in tactics, states, and other sciences.

You just need to correctly formulate the concept, the phrases "only roll the infantry", "withstand a hit from X \ Y \ Z", "transport N infantry", "have weapons X \ Y \ Z" is not concept. The concept primarily describes the performance characteristics, ATTENTION tactically-technical characteristics, and if you reading the concept do not see in it a detailed, consistent, algorithmic description of tactics, then this is not a concept, but something else.

[Red_Baron]

To be honest, I did not quite understand what you mean by the concept and TTX. I can still understand your words in relation to the old APCs. And, as Blackgrifon correctly pointed out, the concept often does not reflect the concept of technology.
But when you talk about it in relation to, attention, the platform I can not understand. Because the platform is modular and can provide a wide variety of options, such as a cabin, if I may say so, and weapons systems, reservations, and as the article says even different suspension options. Tell me on the TTX of the bare platform, its detailed description of tactics and everything else. And the customer will order a specific configuration for the tasks already defined by him, and not vice versa. Only the application again may be a little different?

[Bobik012]

I didn't want to ...!
The performance characteristics of this particular platform is a huge, expensive shed. Well, to be honest, it didn't work out very well :-(

[Old Michael]

PPirat:

The concept primarily describes the performance characteristics

TTX is not even mentioned in the concept, it only determines the role and place of a certain model of weapons and military hardware in predictable situations (roughly speaking - the main purpose of the weapon and its desirable capabilities in other likely conditions).
From the analysis of needs TTT are born, on their basis TTZ is formed.
And TTX is what happened with the developer with the manufacturer ...

[Oden280]

What is ahead? In an advertisement?

[Lopatov]

Quote: Oden280

What is ahead? In an advertisement?

In efficiency. And the automatic guns, and anti-tank systems mounted on the combat module.
What can I say if the best armor-piercing shells for 2A42 were developed and manufactured by Belgium? Two times higher armor penetration.

[Oden280]

And from where do you know the armor penetration of our shells, which are currently in service with our army? And anti-tank systems are checked by military operations. Our people are fighting very efficiently, but something about the European is not heard.

[Pilat2009]

Quote: Oden280

Our people are fighting very efficiently, but something about the European is not heard.

Where are our people fighting very efficiently, let me ask? If in Syria there are no opponents of the regular army level, no air defense, aviation. And Europe does not fight at all

[chenia]

Quote: Spade

Children's BC

121 projectile 57 mm -0,5 m3 We throw 2 paratroopers (4 BMP in the platoon), and not an automatic machine.

[Red_Baron]

Or make the modules compatible. And then, if necessary, it was easy to replace them. It seems to me that the release and debugging of a series of a platform is much more important now. To apply it in the army, collect data, ride in Syria and so on. The platform is not only new, but also in its design is quite different from all previous ones. The faster the military gets used to it, the better. And weapons are already under the task.

[donavi49]

So that when he goes to the troops, it will be not only relevant, but also one step ahead of the "partners" ..

Partners have long been in the 40mm series of telescopes + ATGM 3 generation shot-and-forget. Moreover, all sorts of Qatar and the UAE will soon have them. Here's a car for the Arabs from the French for example.

Here is a similar offer from the Finns.

Well, in general, to make a modern cannon with telescopes, it’s not to fasten the tape feed, the new muzzle brake and the casing to the C-60 of the Stalin era.
https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2005/garm/wednesday/duckworth.pdf

[Lopatov]

Quote: donavi49

Here's a car for the Arabs from the French for example. Here is a similar offer from the Finns.

As a result, we bought Finnish cars of Polish production with the Soviet / Russian tower 100 + 30

[Bobik012]

Well, another adherent of advertising! "Telescopes", "shot forgot" "stealth" forgot to attach more! From the same series As a brush with a pad for cleaning the tongue. The combat value is highly questionable, but advertising works for it. Explain why you need to clean your tongue, in what way telescopic ammunition is superior to non-telescopic ammunition, and how an infrared guidance system, the most jam-resistant of the existing ones, improves the characteristics of a weapon in comparison with a radio command or laser. Do you know why many of the newest ATGMs still use wire-based control? Bo is reliable! And all this fashionable husk will be slowly forgotten, beating off the loot wherever it will turn out. These ideas are more than a dozen years old. Like many bad concepts, they will be eliminated. Well, or they will find new life on a new round of technology. There are no prerequisites yet.
And yet, yes, 57 mm is currently from the same series, here you are most likely right. In my opinion, there was no leap in technology to return this weapon to armored vehicles. But I could be wrong. The ways of progress are inscrutable.
PS And don't write more about telescopes and other toothbrushes. Look silly

[donavi49]

1) Telescopic ammunition trend. The Chinese are making the system, and they are even developing an aviation system for their planes and helicopters. The French are selling. Tochmash does it with initiative. This format makes it possible to simplify and facilitate the supply system, to fit in a smaller volume - more shells or to allocate a smaller volume for shells.

2) 3rd generation ATGMs have been used in all wars for the past 15 years. Again, the Chinese are sawing just at a priority pace with their own specifics. Aliyev showed their qualities when Spikes were burning tanks on the opposite slope, without line of sight - a small UAV detected => a machine with Spikes fired back, the Armenians were shocked where they were coming from. With a cornet, this is physically impossible, because you need a line of sight.

And one moment. Selling updated Soviet products is becoming more and more difficult. For there is no loud marketing and they usually take the very bottom of the price. Even the Chinese are demanding more money. In 5-7 years it will be difficult to sell LME without anti-tank systems of 3 generations, even for an African tumba-yumba. Vaughn Algeria (the main buyer of weapons and modification kits) has now thrown ROE and is choosing between the Europeans and the Chinese 3 generation ATGMs.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: VSrostagro

BMP must be built with a new 57 mm gun,
and missiles "Attack".

Yeah ... and no landing! Otherwise ... where to put it?

[Red_Baron]

So the gun is placed on the armor, and the landing behind the armor?

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Red_Baron

So the gun is placed on the armor, and the landing behind the armor?

And the shells? Or should a gun curse shoot?

[Red_Baron]

Attacks seem to be equipped before the battle, and 100 shells for 57mm will not occupy the entire armored space. As I understand it, in the case of installation with a 57 mm cannon, despite the fact that this is part of the airborne compartment in the DBM module. But this is normal practice - if you look at similar BBM from other countries there are airborne squads for 8 and even 6 people.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Red_Baron

if you look at similar BBMs of other countries, there are amphibious units on 8 and even on 6 people.

There are .... tilki here ... according to the charter, the number of motorized rifle squads of the RF Armed Forces is from 9 "souls" ... (BMP-2 to 10 fighters ... BMP-3 to 9 ...), if it does not cheat on me memory. Well, come on with the number! There are other "interfering" factors: the cost of the gun, the "price" and the resource before replacing the barrel, comparison of the firing accuracy of a 30-mm cannon and a 57-mm gun, the cost of ammunition ... etc. After all, another solution was proposed: the adoption of a 45-mm cannon! That is, there is also a developed automatic 45-mm cannon in stock ... The 45-mm projectile allows you to propel both the programmable remote fuse and the guidance system, and the effectiveness of the 45-mm projectile is higher than the 30-mm ammunition, it remains possible to use old stocks of 45- mm shots. True, some advocate a 40 mm caliber ... they say, it is available in the "west" and such guns are easier to push around ... then. You can look at the "West German" solution: bicaliber artillery systems 35/50 mm. In the "light of bicaliber" the following options are possible: 1.art.system 40/45 mm; 2. 30/45 mm, 3/45 mm. Acquisition of bicaliberity is possible by "methods": 57. pair: a "normal" projectile of a larger caliber, a "telescopic" projectile of a smaller one ...; 1. plug-in chambers ... (but this is so ... "offhand" (!) Perhaps there are other solutions.) .. The options, alas, are "visible" and "cons" ... it remains to decide which is more ( minuses or pluses ...) and is the "game" worth the alteration! Although ... approximately the same "problems" will arise with the mass introduction of the 2 mm caliber ...

[Red_Baron]

Quote: Nikolaevich I

There are .... tilki here ... according to the charter, the number of motorized rifle squads of the RF Armed Forces is from 9 "souls" ... (BMP-2 to 10 fighters ... BMP-3 to 9 ...), if it does not cheat on me memory. Well, come on with the number!

Why ok? on the BTR, let there be a detachment, on two infantry fighting vehicles also a detachment.

About the rest I did not understand at all, what does this have to do with me? Produce whatever you want and then install on the equipment. I have to do with it. I just answered the words that no landing. And he indicated that only a few people less.
I am not a gunsmith and questions about the design of weapons are not programmed to lead. :)

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Red_Baron

Why ok? on the BTR, let there be a detachment, on two infantry fighting vehicles also a detachment.

A squad for 2 BMPs instead of 1 car - is this "karasho ... veri gut"? Despite the emergence of other problems in this regard?

Quote: Red_Baron

What does this have to do with me?

You're right ... this part of the comment is not for you! The time was already late ... it was no longer handy to write a separate comment on another "issue" ... I wrote with one "choh" ... like: "whoever wants to, read it!" Therefore ... mi sorry!

[Red_Baron]

Quote: Nikolaevich I

A squad for 2 BMPs instead of 1 car - is this "karasho ... veri gut"? Despite the emergence of other problems in this regard?

Well, of course not, it’s based on the fact that either this or that.
Well, for example, in a company if there are 8-9 armored personnel carriers and 2-4 infantry fighting vehicles.

[chenia]

Quote: Nikolaevich I

There are .... tilki here ... according to the charter, the number of motorized rifle squads of the RF Armed Forces is from 9 "souls" ... (BMP-2 to 10 fighters ... BMP-3 to 9 ...), if it does not cheat on me memory

Does not change. But having reduced the department by 2 people. Entering the platoon a group (link, section) of amplification and the fourth BMP (the number of people in the platoon does not change.
And given that 57 mm is not automatic.

Well, about the volume of the BK-121 shell 57 mm -0,5 m3

[Narak-zempo]

Quote: Nikolaevich I

And the shells? Or should a gun curse shoot?

- Petrov, why did you stop the fire?
- The cartridges are over.
“But you are a communist, Petrov!”
And he machineed up the machine gun again ...

Obviously, in the current ideological realities it is necessary to shoot spiritual bonds that will nail the adversary to the ground.

[3danimal]

As I see, Petrov, ashamed, loaded machine-gun belts stolen for sale into a machine gun)
Soviet people should be able to spin, this is such a life ..

[yehat]

gun shoots fear
A 400mm drin without shells is just as convincing as a 30mm cannon with 2-3 tons of shells.

[2 Level Advisor]

and better 125mm so that in 2 steps? and make a tank with bmp armor out of it? each combat vehicle has its own task, this one has to carry a soldier .. and the caliber is needed, including when there is no hope for tanks, because. the country does not have them ..
But if you make real modularity ... then this is really a step forward!

[3danimal]

I met research that the 40-mm gun is optimal for BMPs (range / power / ammunition). An example is the Swedish CV-90. 240 rounds (40 mm) as standard. And accuracy is on top.

[yehat]

You won’t believe it, but the IS-2 from 2 kilometers will be no less accurate with its 120mm gun.
research optimum sea, it all depends on the criteria that are voiced.

[3danimal]

You forgot about the ammunition: in IS it is too small for an infantry fighting vehicle. And then 240 shots. Unlike 130 for 57 mm.

[yehat]

it all depends on the specification of conditions.
for mountains maybe 40mm + grenade launcher fit
for urban outskirts and forests a 40mm gun is hardly suitable.

[3danimal]

Someone and 30-35 is enough)
Again, it’s better to hit tanks with an ATGM or a 125mm cannon on the BMP platform.

[svp67]

If the "Boomerang" goes, then I think that it is worth waiting for the appearance of the wheeled tank destroyer "Sprut" at its base.

[Andrey Shmelev]

yes no, let's do this

BMP - a little outdated topic in principle

there is MBT
you need an infantry killing machine - a pair of AGs with a caliber of at least 37 mm, a pair of KPVTs, a 100-125 mm cannon with low ballistics - everything must turn and rise - IMHO, on the basis of MBT, it would also have to launch "Bumblebees" from rising guides
I need an infantry delivery vehicle under serious fire - IMHO, based on MBT - there are weapons and it’s good
57 mm cannon + BB rockets - this is the anti-aircraft gun - you have to decide how to file
a lot of ATGMs - this is an anti-tank machine, you also need to decide how to file

[Red_Baron]

Andrey :) But after all, many things can be implemented easier. At the stage of ammunition.
As I understand it, this is about the platform. Which should, in my opinion, arrive and be traveled far and wide in the troops. And the application will be developed. This is not a heavy infantry fighting vehicle, and for this reason it is probably not necessary to plan a performance on the battlefield as the main weapon or close to it. Accordingly, plan weapons as such, too.
But to have a variety of means to support the infantry is natural.
Why bumblebees, there are thermobaric attacks like. Attack settings have long been developed on the same Terminators. The 57 mm cannon is a serious argument, but then it should open.

[Andrey Shmelev]

Why bumblebees, there are thermobaric attacks like

a little expensive, but how it smells, maybe it will be better

57 mm gun - a serious argument

question against whom: 57-mm - anti-aircraft gun, IMHO, drones fell cheaply, but the rest of the functions she does not have ice

excuse me, I like to count money, otherwise each UAV should be felled with s-500 - you can’t save any volosts :)

[Red_Baron]

Quote: Andrey Shmelev

excuse me, I like to count money, otherwise each UAV should be felled with s-500 - you can’t save any volosts :)

Quite rightly :) But no one is wetting the UAV now effectively. For large, you can use just 57mm or even a Shell rocket. But for small ones, it’s not clear.

[Andrey Shmelev]

But for small ones, it’s not clear.

say that I’m lying, but 7-8 years ago I molested my friends: until ZSU 57-2 in a new quality you reincarnate ... it will be bad - it’s cheap and
six-barrel 30 mm on land is not prizhivaitsa :)
23-4 by infantry = tin, and so it will not be enough at a distance
there was still the topic of a controlled projectile 100-152 mm, but even then it died out, but in vain, IMHO
there was also the topic of throwing a projectile based on the Grad (also with a controlled one) = accuracy 0, but there are a lot of them, in one gulp at once - and, hello

even then I drink a lot of gray hair. good evening!

[Red_Baron]

Have a good evening too! :) ZSU-57-2 is good, but rather large, it needs Zil 131 in the body.
Perhaps a remote detonation projectile can greatly increase the quality of a 57 mm gun, but this is a slightly different story. There shooting should be a piece.
I'm more worried about the smallest UAVs that those in Syria used against us - in fact, a drone with a grenade.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Red_Baron

..... But UAVs are now effectively no one wet.

Shot like a duck
In the army, a T-62 cannon was fired with a loaf of bread. They say the side of ZIL-131 pierced through and through. Maybe the guys lied a little, but who prevents a shot from a smooth-bore cannon at shooting a drone?

[Red_Baron]

Yes, I am only for
But I don’t know about buckshot. As far as I understand, her range of 500-600 meters is considered lethal, and up will be much less.
From what height can you drop a mortar mine, so that its fragments could damage the equipment? From a kilometer? More?
And guidance. I don’t think that the drone has any super-maneuverability to avoid a salvo, but the tank has no means for detecting and calculating the attack of such a target. And to make a separate means of destruction with a tank gun is most likely very expensive.
Ideally, a laser can become a means of defeating such UAVs. The whole question is to focus sufficient power on a few kilometers and at the same time not to consume electricity as a half of a city.
In the meantime, ammunition with remote blasting of medium caliber 57-76mm. I have heard about small calibres - 30 mm, but I don’t know how effective and cheap it is.
I think so.

[ProkletyiPirat]

Quote: Andrey Shmelev

question against whom: 57-mm - anti-aircraft gun, IMHO, drones fell cheaply, but the rest of the functions she does not have ice

In fact, it is expensive, very expensive when you consider not only the power supply unit, but also the BBM itself. In my opinion, it is much cheaper to use a tank-artillery (100 \ 120 \ 125 \ 152 \ 155) caliber and an active-rocket projectile with a fragmentation field directed forward, you can even cluster PSU. That is, the same projectile must also shoot down low-altitude UAVs and destroy openly located infantry.

[Aqela]

I believe that your opinion without taking into account specific figures about the cost of ammunition and artillery systems is groundless. Moreover, in your arguments about countering UAVs, you assume the use of buckshot or shells with remote detonation. If memory serves, buckshot at any significant distance is useless, shrapnel will have insufficient accuracy. The shells of the calibers you specified in the anti-aircraft version with radio fuses were not made (well, maybe if only there is a 100 mm somewhere), i.e. it will be necessary to make new ones, and not from the NZ warehouses, which will come out in a hefty amount of money, obviously much larger than an inexpensive UAV with a suspended mortar mine ...
I remember back in Soviet times a shot of a 125-mm OFS was compared with the price of a Zhiguli car. I don't think it will be cheaper now ...
In addition, horse calibers against mini-UAVs are a typical illustration of the concept of "from a cannon to sparrows" ... I think that a caliber greater than 76 mm is clearly excessive in ballistics. If I’m not mistaken, even an 85-mm anti-aircraft guns fired almost 10 km upward ... Most likely, it’s 57 mm that is better.

[Red_Baron]

I agree with many on this issue. But just what caliber ... there are so many moments. On the one hand, what will be cheaper in production, on the other hand, the number of such machines will not be large and it is possible to use guns from warehouses if there are any, which will be even cheaper. But to make specialized machines purely against small drones is expensive in itself - this is a full-fledged system + carrier. Combine with something? But what can be cheap and effective for small UAVs most likely will not be so for something else. Where not to put plugs everywhere.
In the end, I'm afraid that despite the ideas I liked, with both buckshot and 76mm, 57mm will win.
because it’s the minimum effective caliber for a fragmentation defense projectile. And it will be the cheapest to make any separate modules, which can then be installed on equipment, in the back of a truck, or installed on an elementary platform. Maybe.

[ProkletyiPirat]

As I understand it, you are proposing to save a penny on BP and spend billions on BBM? And the projectile offered by me uses a fragmentation field and cluster elements in order to compensate for the inaccuracy of the launch and the inaccuracy of the detonator. In fact, you offer a few 57mm with an EXPENSIVE detonator, and I am one 125mm with a cheap detonator. So I am not against 57mm but it is too large for a small module (overcasing), and too weak for a large module (over + casing).

[Aqela]

Yeah. Only you can safely expect that the full 57-mm BC with high-cost fuses
(which will cost a penny with mass production) will be cheaper than 5-6 125-mm shells. The savings will be apparent.

[svp67]

Quote: Aqela

Yeah. Only you can safely expect that the full 57-mm BC with high-cost fuses
(which will cost a penny with mass production) will be cheaper than 5-6 125-mm shells. The savings will be apparent.

For various jobs, mankind has come up with both a hoe and a shovel with an excavator. And no matter how innovative and modern the shovel is, it will still lose to the excavator in the amount of excavated soil in a minute. Everything has its OWN job. Do not forget that the 125-mm OFS still flies further and the "Ainet" system has been installed on tanks for a long time

[ProkletyiPirat]

Quote: Aqela

Yeah. Only you can safely expect that the full 57-mm BC with high-cost fuses
(which will cost a penny with mass production) will be cheaper than 5-6 125-mm shells. The savings will be apparent.

That's why the shell voiced by me must fulfill two tasks
1) destruction of infantry by a mounted fragmentation field (undermined by infantry, the field is directed downward, used to destroy infantry hiding behind a shelter)
2) the destruction of small low-altitude UAVs (the field is directed along the trajectory in front of the target)
In this case, the fragmentation field sizes are selected in such a way as to compensate
a) inaccuracy of operation of a cheap detonator
b) inaccuracy of the trajectory of the projectile
At the same time, my version will be cheaper, more massive and will give an advantage on the battlefield in other areas, because it will allow to reduce mortar and small artillery units instead of maximizing the number of "tanks", just these tanks will not be MBT, but _MOP_ (fire support vehicle, in fact, this is an MBT with an uninhabited turret, large aiming angles and more diverse ammunition).
But your version with BBM + 57 \ 76 simply won’t work for these vehicles either will not exist at all or will be too few in the direct combat zone.

[bk0010]

Quote: Aqela

In addition, horse calibers versus mini-UAVs are a typical illustration of the notion "from a cannon to sparrows" ... wassat I think that a caliber greater than 76 mm is clearly redundant in terms of ballistics.

IMHO, on the contrary: with modern fire control systems, a heavy projectile can hit the drone from the first shot and go to the next (even if the fragments do not fall, it will break it with a shock wave), with an average caliber, you will again have to fool about a fragmentation field, and between small-caliber shells they just fly by.

[Red_Baron]

Excuse me, do you seriously understand? And who should make this shot with a heavy shell? MBT? To protect against drones, you need to use MBT? Does he have the means to detect him, to visit, to escort? Or guns of a sufficiently large caliber should be put on air defense systems? What kind of funds will be such and what will be their cost?

Quote: bk0010

with an average caliber, they’ll have to fool again about a fragmentation field, and between small-caliber shells they simply fly by.

Well, a fragmentation field can be obtained from a medium caliber sufficient, only the installation will be much smaller and easier.

[bk0010]

You kind of talked about anti-aircraft guns? Universal guns - this is to the naval (or to Tukhachevsky). Naturally put on air defense. Means - (as it seems to me) an additional machine as part of an air defense system, carrying a gun with a caliber of 100-130 mm, a couple of dozen shells to it, a fire control system, a radar information receiving system, an optical guidance system for working through the air, a sight for direct fire (for self-defense) and communications. If you do not for the object, but for the military air defense, you will have to use a tank base and you will get a barn of the type of Coalition. Cost - how to consider: such a thing itself can’t be cheap, but the cost of the same S-400 will not increase in principle, but it will protect against drones and weapons that burst through the Shell. No, you can, of course, without it, but then it can be like the Saudis recently had the Patriots (although maybe there were problems there not so much with shooting down as with detection).

[Red_Baron]

So we talked about this above. Partially.
A module with 57mm will be several times more compact, weigh less, cost less. Roughly speaking, it can be installed almost in the prepared truck body. Or not on technology. One radar unit can control several attackers, which further reduces the cost.
Just a little earlier there was an article about similar modules "Serval" only there is a smaller caliber. And now they can even be transferred somewhere a complete set to protect a base, an airfield or something like that at a time. But to transfer several tanks or even re-tanks, if I may say so, is much more difficult.
How far will the effectiveness of a shot from a 100-130 mm gun outweigh all this?

[ProkletyiPirat]

Red_Baron and bk0010 There seems to have been a misunderstanding, in my opinion:
1) There is a stationary type of air defense (S-300 \ 400 \ 500, although they can be moved, they belong to this type because it takes time to organize the interaction between the elements)
2) There are air defense cover facilities \ directions \ sections (Tor, Shell)
3) There is military / army / assault air defense, in general, which is directly involved in the battle, in the combat zone and which should be protected from rifle and fragmentation weapons.
So PMSM air defense based on armored personnel carriers \ infantry fighting vehicles with 57 \ 76mm anti-aircraft gun for "3" will either be too small (in terms of the number of armored vehicles) or will have too small ammo, in both cases it will be useless and ineffective for "3". As for "2", then there will be excessive booking, insufficient detection (deteriorated radar / optics) and not enough range + altitude.

[Red_Baron]

Quote: ProkletyiPirat

There seems to have been a misunderstanding, in my opinion:

That's right. Each of us is a little about his own and this is normal :) The main thing is to hear the other. We are talking about air defense against drones in the order of the offtopic, not applied to the Boomerang.

I worry after the attack on our base Khmeimim drones small and damage to aircraft. on this, in the first place, I am talking about point 2.
That's why I put forward my thesis - a separate system that can be installed on a cheap affordable tool or, at worst, in the back of a powerful truck or even the ground, so to speak. The detection range, the defeat should be exactly at the distance of counteraction to small drones. That is a few kilometers. Maybe 2-3 maximum.

[ProkletyiPirat]

1) the fact that the wheels of a conventional truck is true
2) but the fact that 57 \ 76 under EXISTING shots is not true. Because this is the LAST line of defense, and here the density of fire is important. For machine guns / guns (30 mm) it is good with a rate of fire but bad with a density of fire near the target and very poor with the consumption of ammunition per unit of the target. Existing guns lack accuracy and rate of fire. All this is clearly visible in the test video and training shootings.
Personally, I used to think that a certain hybrid of a 50-80mm gun and MLRS would be best, but in the end I deviated from this opinion because there is also a high consumption of ammunition (less in quantity and may be larger than existing guns (30mm) in volume). Now I think that it is better to use a direct-fire projectile with active-reactive guided projectiles with wire / laser control. In this version, there will be 2-3 shells per target, and in the installation itself 40+ (like MLRS-grad).
Thinking that it is really possible to determine what is better, only the corresponding R&D can ...

[Red_Baron]

Quote: ProkletyiPirat

2) but the fact that 57 \ 76 under EXISTING shots is not true. Because this is the LAST line of defense, and here the density of fire is important.

Under existing is possible. To be honest, I did not even find any estimates of more or less professional in the possibilities of evading modern small drones. In semi-handicraft, which are usually used these features are even lower. In my completely unprofessional opinion, such tools can be destroyed even by rather small particles, the size of which should be determined more by the range of expansion. Accordingly, the carrier may be a fairly small caliber. But most likely more than 30mm.
In my opinion, the cheapest way is if it is a classic shell. At the same time, the launcher will be somewhat more expensive, but the possibilities will be greatest. The speed of the projectile, and range will be sufficient for any purpose, including for maneuvering. Moreover, it can be completely aimed shots by shells of remote detonation of the laser beam fed to the receiver. The cost of the shot will be quite low.
Your option is more interesting in that it is much simpler and more efficient to install. But the cost of each shot due to design features will be much higher, more difficult to manufacture and there may be difficulties with defeating a maneuvering target with one shot. So the cost of interception will increase. In fact, the type of shooting should be slightly different - the creation of a cloud of damaging elements on the route of the target.
This is how I see it.

[ProkletyiPirat]

Quote: Red_Baron

But the cost of each shot due to design features will be much higher, more difficult to manufacture and there may be difficulties with defeating the maneuvering target with one shot.

Just a larger projectile will have a more voluminous fragmentation field, which will allow for less accuracy. and compensate for the aiming error. But smaller and faster projectiles have a problem in high flight speed, which, together with a small fragmentation field, requires ultra-high-precision detonators. But in any case, everything is too dubious here and requires full-fledged experimental confirmation (and these are years and billions). Since perhaps today's complexes, supplemented by anti-aircraft UAV fighters, will be ideal. (at least in option "2")

[Aqela]

A light helicopter flies up to the quadric and from there it is crushed - ON

[yehat]

there are too many types of targets on the battlefield for everything to fit onto one machine at once
Designing Trishkin Kaftan makes no sense.
Which is better - 57mm or 100mm gun? And neither, you need both one and the other,
there is only one way out - to design a single platform that is as flexible as possible for reconfiguration.
and revise the states and composition of parts with new conditions.
In this regard, I like the way Americans work on a striker or the Israelis on their carrots.

[3danimal]

Super-versatility entails the deterioration of each individual side. As anti-aircraft capabilities - enough maximum sighting system and the presence of shells with remote detonation.
And then we will see something like the Kim family’s tanks in the DPRK, where there are both AGS, MANPADS, and a 20mm cannon. So they are more for parades)

[Scharnhorst]

Finally, we’ll start to protect Mother Infantry! It just confuses the combination of speed characteristics - more than 100 km / h and power in 750 hp. Still, we are not creating a racing car for the formula, but a workhorse for our army and a third of world consumers. Have you forgotten to calculate the questions of the power reserve, logistics, profitability and the oil industry proper of the country's economy?

[carstorm 11]

Yes there is no such principle and never will be. to save infantry. it all depends on the task that is set before it. Do you people understand what is happening on the battlefield?

[Aqela]

Along the way, you have an unformed stream of incoherent thoughts. Beer sorted out the day before? If you are trying to participate in the discussion, please, take the trouble to formulate your thoughts at least somehow ...

[Red_Baron]

Now this is a necessity, not talking specifically about 750 hp. But quite powerful engines. The mass of the machine is 2 times more than that of its ancestors. And 100km / h on the highway is a little different. You must have moved in a column. The first cars go at a normal speed somewhere around 80 km / h, but sometimes the rear ones are forced to catch up with a much higher speed.
But I do not think that the movement on the highway over 100 km / h was an end in itself. Most likely there was a calculation of the movement of a machine of such mass on the road with maximum load and weapons and its patency. Hence the power of the engine, and, as a result, higher speed parameters in lighter conditions. I repeat all my IMHO.
Israeli Eitan with a comparable mass is also equipped with a 750 hp engine. My beloved Patria is really less powerful, but she’s easier.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Red_Baron

You must have moved in a column. The first cars go at a normal speed somewhere around 80 km / h, but sometimes the rear ones are forced to catch up with a much higher speed.

You just need to comply with the standards. 40 km / h is excellent for the column. And there will be no "accordion"

[Red_Baron]

Quote: Spade

You just need to comply with the standards. 40 km / h is excellent for the column. And there will be no "accordion"

I don’t know how fast the landing party was moving to Pristina in some areas, but maybe then 40 would not be enough.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Red_Baron

but maybe then 40 would not be enough.

These are all value judgments. "not enough", "too much" ... Increasing the speed even more is a direct path to the fact that the unit in which the first car goes under 100 will arrive later than the unit, the first car of which goes under 40 km / h.

In general, we were taught in the first year of college: if you don’t want problems, count the march for three minutes a kilometer

[Red_Baron]

Quote: Spade

These are all value judgments. "not enough", "too much" ...

Quote: Spade

Increasing speed even more is a direct way to ensure that the unit

In each specific situation, someone will decide which is more important. I recalled a situation where arrival time was important.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Red_Baron

I recalled a situation where arrival time was important.

Do not confuse the arrival time of one or more vehicles with the arrival time of the alert unit.
If there is a need to "stop the stopwatch at the first" - you just need to send a couple of cars outside the convoy. If you do not mind them. And to start up the convoy at the classic speed "three minutes a kilometer".

[Lopatov]

By the way, the "throw to Pristina" is 500 km in 22 hours. 2.6 minutes a kilometer. Almost classic three minutes. And this is taking into account the absence of the likelihood of an attack on the column on the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

[Aqela]

ABOUT! Not only did I remember Pristina!

[Red_Baron]

Well, these are common, I specifically wrote - plots. Through settlements, they moved more slowly, somewhere faster, somewhere they generally waited.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Red_Baron

Well, these are common, I specifically wrote - plots. Through settlements, they moved more slowly, somewhere faster, somewhere they generally waited.

And this is what is called the "accordion" which arises from a disgustingly organized march. It seems that some cars accelerate to hundreds, but as a result, the average speed is microscopic. And while the column is torn / stretched. That has a catastrophic effect on the combat readiness of units. The same nonsense happens to them as to the column under the wise leadership of the gene. Khrulyov in Ossetia.

[Aqela]

It seems to me that the power of the dvigla is laid down for the reserve, so that it is enough for a wheeled tank.
In addition, someone may come to mind as a raid on Pristina

[Bobik012]

The first cars go at a normal speed somewhere on the order of 80 km / h, and

!!!!! A new word in tactics. Column at a speed of 80 km / h! The possibilities are far advanced!
Well, that's me, I just admired the figure :-)

[3danimal]

100 km / h - this is the maximum speed, due to the dynamics, thrust-weight ratio. The machine must be able to accelerate quickly, be more mobile than the same MBT.

[Lopatov]

On a dirt road - 92 km / h.

This is either a strange primer, similar to a German autobahn, or someone misleads the patronymic ...
Such speeds on dirt roads without active suspension are unattainable.

[Andrey Shmelev]

so for sure, I would like to look at the aftyr, on which tachil it can 92 km / h on the dirt road
and where will he find such a primer to begin with

[Red_Baron]

I’ll even take it from Wiki https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Pushkino_village.jpg
I traveled about this, only a little more potholes in some places.

[Andrey Shmelev]

bro, you haven’t seen the primer)

PS. I add, I apologize for the expressiveness, the second half a liter, rubbish

[Red_Baron]

Everything is fine :) But I rode something like this.

[Andrey Shmelev]

oh, well, "about this" is uncountable, in the 30s it would have been a "highway", as I understand it

[Aqela]

I believe that "primer" here means "a road without a hard surface" (that is, like a German grader - sprinkled and rolled, but without asphalt / concrete), and not "rough terrain" ... In Russia, under "primer" more often mean "direction to the northwest, bypassing the swamp"

[Red_Baron]

Well, you are exaggerating the concept of "dirt road" too much. I was driving at 90 on a dirt road - I can't say exactly how much. On the vaz-2109. True, not for long, less than half a kilometer, but as I jumped out onto the highway, I added. About 15 years ago it was, 20-25 kilometers from Moscow, photos are not available now.
I am not saying that this is normal. But the fact that since an old nine can, then I think such a colossus easily.

[Andrey Shmelev]

well, I once had 21099 "injection" (then !!!)
even fika I don’t believe you, forgive me generously,
it is scary on highway 110, and on dirt road 90 - it is good to fill, "I also catch pike for one and a half centners every day"

[Red_Baron]

Well, do not believe it, so do not believe it, I had a carburetor with a 1,5 engine. On the highway was normal 140+. After 100 it’s scary, at 100-110 even the old mirror was developing, but I solved this issue, put a new mirror :)
And about the primers you have some kind of prejudice. The primer is not always 2 ruts huge and a mess of dirt. They are quite smooth, with pebbles of course and potholes, but you can drive quite quickly, if you do not mind the suspension.

[Andrey Shmelev]

at 100-110 even the old mirror was developing, but I solved this issue, put a new mirror :)

there is such a topic, so for sure!

They are quite smooth, with pebbles of course and potholes, but you can drive quite quickly, if you do not mind the suspension.

so I want to see the primer on which to give out 92 km / h on the APC)

[Aqela]

Along the way, you do not take into account that the armored personnel carrier has more wheels than the "Lada-Kalina" and is better suited to off-road conditions. In addition, the greater mass makes the ride more comfortable, oddly enough. The old technique when driving on a dirt road on a GAZ-66 or ZIL-151 is to throw half a ton of sand into the back and carry people more comfortably. Shakes noticeably less.

[Bobik012]

Come on, the knurled field road is quite 110 - 120 on a car allows. An empty GAZ-53 was sometimes overclocked to hundreds. (I worked in agriculture in my youth, and now I often visit the village). Naturally, I don't mean black soil after rain :-)

[3danimal]

There are serial MBTs with active suspension, for example, Leclerc. Perhaps they finished off the active suspension themselves (there are immediately questions about quality), or bought a license from the same French until 2014 (more encouraging).

[WapentakeLokki]

And no one has compared the height of the old man BTR-80 and the newcomer Boomer ??? But in view (of course, due to the protivodnitschevoy protection) Boomer is clearly made much higher ... and this is not a gut .. In addition, it would be interesting to compare the acceleration characteristics (how quickly it can maneuver, accelerate from a standstill and slow down a beginner - and it is a question of survival under RPG fire) and of course the question of habitability; and the inside view from Boomer ... for some reason is not shown, but for those who are interested, google and take pity on our lads as with the old man knocking his knees and poking his shoulders (and even in the bronics, huh) ... well ... sure. .we wanted the best, but it turned out ...

[Blackgrifon]

Above, but it is equipped with active protection systems +, according to rumors, it was "underestimated" + "the possibility of changing the clearance" = all this neutralizes the minuses from the height. But there are disadvantages in the form of weight.

[Red_Baron]

Xs what there for boomers. Boomerang in height below patria, at the level of Stryker, Santero. I didn’t find the dimensions for Eitan. So compared to which of his classmates is he tall?
Compared to Lamborghini, Diablo is a bit tall.

poor people in a striker sit knocking on their knees.

[Bobik012]

So compared to which of your classmates is he tall?

It is not in comparison. He's just tall. The fact that others are from the same series does not make him any better!

[Bad_gr]

Quote: WapentakeLokki

And no one has compared the height of the old man BTR-80 and the newcomer Boomer ???

I wanted to find the dimensions of the car in net - failed.
I have the impression that the new APC is not only higher, but also already old. Or I'm wrong ?

[Red_Baron]

I would not rely on 100% because he fell into a kind of informational vacuum so far. In the beginning, everyone wrote articles about the Boomerang and tried to hook the reader at least somehow, the characteristics were pretty rough, then they changed and the specifics of what and how were not considered anywhere. And then they all scored. After adoption, the information will be updated and will be already specific with details. And then the weight with a difference of 10 tons. From the original 25 to 34 announced now. It depends on the weapon module, on the reservation, and what else is not reported.
But what there are.
BTR80 - Boomerang
length 7,6 - 8,5
width 2,9 - 3
Already it seems because of the central part. On the other hand, it has a thicker side, so the inside is definitely not wider.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Red_Baron

..... BTR80 - Boomerang ....

thanks for the info

[Per se.]

Quote: Bad_gr

I have the impression that the new APC is not only higher, but also already old. Or I'm wrong ?

[Bad_gr]

Yes, really ... You won’t be able to ride on top of this on the armor, since you won’t collect bones if you have to jump from this height with all the equipment ...

[Saxahorse]

Fact. Natural steamer. And they’re talking about some kind of speed on rough terrain .. The average will obviously be about zero, taking into account a couple of days to pull it out of the first wet lawn.

[bk0010]

Is it really done armored personnel carriers for normal people, and not for preschoolers ?! Or maybe there on the sides and boxes for locking up junk made ?!

[Bobik012]

If the scale is met, then comments are unnecessary. And the eighty is also very big, if anyone saw it live

[Red_Baron]

A gorgeous car that it was high time to make and use. Time is wasted and therefore it is necessary to catch it seriously. Use cars in Syria and so on. Many countries have switched to a similar concept of wheeled armored personnel carriers, now they are improving their systems. Both passive, to protect against the same ATGMs, and various active ones. In my opinion, some time of operation must pass before the Boomerangs begin to be talked about habitually and easily like 80s. And that they would show their advantage, not only in terms of booking, but also in other respects. Or identified flaws for modernization.
The main thing is that, as it should be, the Boomerang would return.

[shoroh]

As the infantry more and more becomes valuable and professional and the importance of a platoon of soldiers has grown many times over in comparison with the past, the presence of such vehicles has long been a necessity. And what module will be put on this chassis, let those who know why they specifically need this or that type of weapon decide.

[Catfish]

In! I read the comments and thought that I would be so smart to say it myself. But you, Vitaly, very correctly summed up the whole of our talking, and I can only fully join you and subscribe to all of the above.

[Saxahorse]

I don’t even know what to say in advance. Swear or admire. On the one hand, Boomerang really like. Finally, protection from 12.7. finally the ramp. On the other hand, 35 tons! This is a freeway BMP, you cannot say otherwise. It’s ridiculous to read about its speed on rough terrain, except that the terrain was previously concreted ..

It is strange to read claims to the BTR-80 side hatches. They saved hundreds of lives! They allow the landing party to choose the side to which to jump .. For a wheeled vehicle tied to roads, an attack from the side is an 80% chance. I don’t understand why the Boomerang was not given three ways out, in all directions ..

Weapons are also incomprehensible. The inhabited tower is yesterday (and gnaws off a bunch of space below, near the landing), despite the fact that there is a bunch of remote modules ..

Well, by the way. In the photo in the article are several completely different cars. Two at least. You just look at the silhouette .. So which one is Boomerang?

[Red_Baron]

Quote: Saxahorse

On the other hand, 35 tons!

And what does it mean? For example, what is this mass with a combat module, which weighs under 4 tons? And what is this weight still worth? Is it possible to book? According to boomerangs, data is from 25 to 36 tons. What kind of performance will be and what the mass will have to look at after the release of some official data.
Have you compared with anything, or is it just sighing on a bench? Boxer - 36 tons. Patria with a maximum reservation of more than 30 tons. Frechia and Pars are less than 30 tons, but they differ in other parameters. VBCI - 32 tons. Eitan -35 tons.
Freeway BMPs ... chatter.

Quote: Saxahorse

It’s ridiculous to read about its speed on rough terrain, except that the terrain was previously concreted ..

This is also from the same series - I haven’t seen it, I don’t know, but can I smell it with my scent?
"On rough terrain, acceleration up to 50 km / h is allowed." - this is from the article, did you get your idea of ​​its speed on rough terrain from this? Aaaa, I understand, if the tank does not get stuck then it is not crossed.
"According to the latest reports, a speed of 50 km / h was obtained during tests on rough terrain." This is from an article about the Israeli Eitan, which is under 35t mass. Probably they lied there too, let's laugh. Here are the clowns - some kind of tests are being carried out to measure the speed. And then the man laughed and sensed everything.

Quote: Saxahorse

For a road-bound wheeled vehicle

In your reality.

Quote: Saxahorse

I don’t understand why the Boomerang was not given three ways out, in all directions ..

And here I believe, believe that you do not understand. Although much has been written about this about any APC of this type. when using such a reservation, the possibility of replacing it, installing additional and so on, side hatches are not possible. Or it will be something lighter like the BTR-80, a striker or the like more easily armored armored personnel carriers. So BTR-82, BTR-90 haven’t gone anywhere.

Quote: Saxahorse

Weapons are also incomprehensible. The inhabited tower is yesterday (and gnaws off a bunch of space below, near the landing), despite the fact that there is a bunch of remote modules ..

Tell me, everyone knows that the inhabited tower is yesterday. And then I went over most of the well-known wheeled platforms - many have an inhabited tower. Maybe their developers should write or customers? Well, suddenly help with what? But uninhabited modules are at the Boomerang.
"The K-16 armored personnel carrier is equipped with a DBM with a Kord heavy machine gun, which allows it to support the landing force with fire and effectively fight a number of targets on the battlefield." - and you definitely read the article?

Quote: Saxahorse

Well, by the way. In the photo in the article are several completely different cars. Two at least. You just look at the silhouette .. So which one is Boomerang?

It is possible in more detail, I will write down ..

Quote: Saxahorse

I don’t even know what to say in advance. Swear or admire.

I honestly cried when you opened my eyes to all this bacchanalia. Especially at the end with the substitution of the Boomerangs.

[Bobik012]

And what does it mean?

This means that this mass must be transported, from here the engine is like a tank, the mass must be kept afloat, i.e. a huge displacement hull, the mass costs money, and yet, yes, the mass makes demands on the road surface, no matter what they say about the increase in the area of ​​the supporting surface.
The fact that he is no worse than his classmates does not mean that he is good, they are also bad, with the same shortcomings. The level of technology determines their parameters. How much they are needed is a moot point. Perhaps an old eighty is the best option. Or maybe heavy equipment based on MBT. And the wheel options are limited to the Toyota + DShK combination. So far, all these thirty-ton sheds have not shown themselves in any way and look very unconvincing. Although ... Warriors from different countries order them. Maybe they know more than me :-)

[Red_Baron]

Quote: Bobik012

Warriors from different countries order them. Maybe they know more than me :-)

But what if? :)

Quote: Bobik012

the mass costs money, and yes, the mass makes demands on the road surface, no matter what they say about the increase in the area of ​​the supporting surface.

Nenene not to the road, but simply to the surface. There are completely different means for transporting military personnel on the roads. They say A and B, the resistivity of soils and the possibilities of such equipment on them. For example, the Israeli Eitan somehow drives off-road. https://youtu.be/5UKFxZm1DfA
Or is everyone else much worse?

Quote: Bobik012

The fact that he is no worse than his classmates does not mean that he is good, they are also bad, with the same shortcomings.

I didn't quite understand this phrase. Rather, I did not understand at all. If there are shortcomings regarding its purpose, and somewhere and application, then by all means announce it. And if some are general, then this is the question of the correct application. Because so any technique has its drawbacks. There is no ideal and universal for all times. You always have to compromise to get results.

Quote: Bobik012

The level of technology determines their parameters.

And here I did not understand. This type of technology is created and operated all over the world here and now, the level of technology does not differ in any way, even the wildest countries can buy equipment in extreme cases.

Quote: Bobik012

How much they are needed is a moot point. Perhaps an old eighty is the best option. Or maybe heavy equipment based on MBT

This issue has been discussed even within the VO many times. First, a list of requirements for such a technique is taken, the experience of predecessors is considered, and priorities are inserted. So the same eighty in the overwhelming majority of cases does not pass in most parameters. At some point in the past, in some conditions - definitely yes. But now it is more and more difficult to find these conditions and in the framework of a modern war they most likely will not exist. It is impossible to create a technique taking into account its use only against the barmaley. And not quite rich.
heavy equipment based on MBT? So they are, the same Name for the use of which it is quite possible to follow.

Quote: Bobik012

Warriors from different countries order them.

Nenene is not entirely true. They are ordered by different countries, and then passed on to their warriors, because the reasons for the order may be completely different and even have nothing to do with the aspirations of the military.
Covering the road you say?
https://youtu.be/2d-GN20EaAQ
https://youtu.be/68DhdQKhj7k

[Couchexpert]

Attempt to translate the article into normal language:

BTR and BMP "Boomerang" in comparison with its predecessors

"Boomerang" in July goes on state tests (like).

Picture of Boomerang No. 1

New approach

Structurally, it is also possible to construct different towers (including uninhabited ones) on the Boomerang and change the hull like any armored vehicles before it.

Security issues

There will be anti-mine protection (armchairs too), a more solid body (with a lining, possibly a combined forehead, you should hold a 12,7 mm circle), the exit is from the stern, KAZ - if you buy it (hardly). Old bottoms that were not give this.

Picture BTR-80

Mobility technology

There are 2 engines (510 and 750 hp), variable clearance (maybe), the mass is 2 times more, but the ride and swim will be no worse than the old troughs (acceleration right up to hundreds!).

Picture of Boomerang No. 2

Modular weapons

You can put:
1. 12,7 mm "Cord";
2. 30-mm 2A42 + "Cornet";
3. 57-mm AU-220M (in wet fantasies);
4. The tower from the BMP-2 (if the attendants are not enough for what is higher).
5. The tower from the "Octopus" (for the Airborne Forces or Marines m. B., Though ...)
In general, typical kits are similar to existing machines.

Picture of Boomerang No. 3

To replace obsolete samples

The RF Ministry of Defense, at last, looked around and was ashamed of what motorized rifles were fighting on. It was guilty downcast and promised not to do so anymore. As always...

Picture of Boomerang No. 4

Author: Kirill Ryabov (which is not surprising)

[Red_Baron]

Quote: CouchExpert

Attempt to translate the article into normal language:

The article is written much more literary and interesting. Not only that, there are much more details in it that you missed, considering them not very interesting for yourself, but for all, too, as they say, it is not necessary to know. For example, about the possibility of installing different types of suspensions.

Quote: CouchExpert

57-mm AU-220M (in wet fantasies);

Well, you don’t get wet, do you think there are insurmountable obstacles to installing it?

Quote: CouchExpert

In general, typical kits are similar to existing machines.

judging by the tone should be some kind of unexplored unusual? for example with an electromagnetic gun or a laser system? By the way, I was also surprised that it is proposed to install modules on the equipment that the suppliers have, and not those that are not. Why is the mystery ...

[Ehanatone]

"Author: Ryabov Kirill (which is not surprising)"
Reply
Yes, for the most part, Cyril, especially Ryabov, is a recognizer, from the first reviewer, like Damantsev, but if you read the latter cheerfully and interestingly, then with Ryabov everything is exactly the opposite, burdensome, several times repeated ...
But there are completely unrecognizable articles, the last one of them ....

[Vlad.by]

Quote: Andrei Shmelev

yes no, let's do this

BMP - a little outdated topic in principle

there is MBT
you need an infantry killing machine - a pair of AGs with a caliber of at least 37 mm, a pair of KPVTs, a 100-125 mm cannon with low ballistics - everything must turn and rise - IMHO, on the basis of MBT, it would also have to launch "Bumblebees" from rising guides
I need an infantry delivery vehicle under serious fire - IMHO, based on MBT - there are weapons and it’s good
57 mm cannon + BB rockets - this is the anti-aircraft gun - you have to decide how to file
a lot of ATGMs - this is an anti-tank machine, you also need to decide how to file

Did you describe the Terminator?
And where to put the infantry squad in it?
BMP is a BMP, not a monster for all occasions.
If there is MBT + BMPT + BMP and behind them also an armored personnel carrier, then the enemy has nothing to catch. And if there is also Tunguska behind the APC, then nothing shines for helicopters

[Aqela]

About flamethrowers (not reactive - but like that. Judging by Hollywood products, it's even worse! ) and the mine sweep was forgotten in the "wet dreamy config" ...

[xax]

The author claims:

the Russian army will be able to get a fundamentally new model with special capabilities that compares favorably with the operating armored vehicles

Let's look for these very features in his article:

The problem of crew and landing safety in the Boomerang project is decided in several ways

The first is the reservation of the building ... Unfortunately, the exact parameters of the reservation have not yet been announced

Ballistic protection can be supplemented other means

Ранее was mentioned the ability to install mounted modules to enhance resistance to various threats. Attention! use of active protection. In the future, "Boomerangs" are proposed to be equipped with an integrated system of protection against precision weapons.

And here is something fundamentally new, unprecedented in fear of cars:

The power units are moved forward ... The landing is carried out through the aft ramp

An important innovation is independent suspension with the ability to change clearance. Howeveras mentioned earlier the platform can also receive a less complex torsion bar suspension.

Boomerang can swim and is equipped with jet propulsion

«Boomerang"... the armored car has a specific power of at least 15 h.p. on t

Wherein:

BTR-80 has ... specific power no more 18,5 h.p. on t

In terms of the choice of weapons, the Boomerang compares favorably with the BTR-70/80 and BMP-1/2. In the order of development of the latter, various projects were proposed using new combat units, but their choice is limited.

And the "Boomerang", excuse me, is it infinite?

In conclusion, the author reiterates:

The proposed machines on the Boomerang platform have obvious advantages over existing ones.

Do you agree with the statement tomorrow?

[Aqela]

Given that the landing through the stern was used on the BMP-1 and, if the sclerosis does not change, on the BTR-40 ... Then these innovations are so new! ..

[Ehanatone]

It looks a lot like advertising or propaganda.

[Ross xnumx]

First and foremost, thanks to the author for his work in the epistolary genre.
I overslept the main time of upheavals - a time difference, but I understood one thing - the saying remained true:
Generals always prepare for last war
I was pleased with the idea that infantry should be protected in battle. It remains to be clarified - in what form do you think the modern battle of motorized rifle troops seems to be? I remind you:

Now indicate the place and role of wheeled armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles on a common chassis in these military operations ...
As a result, one can find out that one of the tasks assigned to the armored personnel carrier is to deliver the l / s to the battlefield safe and sound in the shortest possible time through water barriers and minefields. Does the Boomerang variant cope with this? copes.
To support motorized riflemen in battle, to combat camouflaged firing (machine-gun) points, snipers need a vehicle of sufficient firepower capable of destroying both UAVs, tanks (if necessary), enemy infantry fighting vehicles, and bunkers, and effectively fight snipers without leaving people without cover. Is there such a variant of Boomerang? Can be assembled.
Therefore, the idea of ​​the article is correct and the author tried to reveal it. And in modern combat, motorized rifle troops (special groups) have to perform different tasks. And it is unlikely that it will be possible to combine in one car a conveyor for transporting military and combat ammunition and a fire support vehicle.
Conclusion. A platoon of motorized rifles also needs transporters for transporting squads and support combat vehicles (at least one) to suppress the enemy with powerful and effective fire weapons.
Then it will be possible to save l / s, and not throw it as "cannon fodder" against an enemy armed to the teeth.
By the way. According to the video. I liked the battle legend. There are no civilians in the city, but there are militants on the upper floors ... And who is stopping the destruction of these militants who have settled on the upper floors remotely? Without direct contact? At least the bulk? Or reinforced concrete boxes are more expensive than the lives of military personnel?
This is IMHO. According to the memoirs of the service in 272 MSP.

[Aqela]

Along the way, in addition to laser imitators, it’s still useful to drag different drawers to simulate chicken coops and home furniture.

[Sasha ___]

And what is the difference between bmp and armored personnel carriers in this case? From the article it is clear that there is a difference in the combat module and armament, but if you install another module on an armored personnel carrier, will it get a bmp or something? I wonder what else is the difference in 2 options

[Couchexpert]

We will reason. This is exactly the BMP (well, the military believes so):

And this is a new technique:

1. The tower is the same;
2. Protection - strengthened (to make the car 2+ times heavier and not even strengthen involuntarily the protection - this is not even possible for ours);
3. Capacity - more;
4. Driving dynamics - better;
5. Movement on the water - also there;
Could it be a BMP?

[Sasha ___]

Yes, everything is clear with bmp, but no with btr. After all, it’s supposed to be more mobile, roomy, and cheaper. It’s interesting to have it all in a boomerang, and is it appropriate to call the resulting armored personnel carrier at all.

[Saxahorse]

Quote: CouchExpert

Could it be a BMP?

You forgot to portray a ditch in the photograph. In which the wheeled vehicle will shake for a long time and the tracked one will slip through without noticing. This is the first sign of the difference between armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles.

[Couchexpert]

Quote: Saxahorse

You forgot to portray a ditch in the photograph.

Like this?

[Saxahorse]

This ditch is also nothing like that!

[Red_Baron]

Quote: Saxahorse

This is the first sign of the difference between armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles.

Wow wow, you keep on surprising.
That is, an armored personnel carrier can only be wheeled, and an armored personnel carrier only caterpillar, did I understand you correctly?

[Red_Baron]

Everything is written in the article. Here is the complete answer to your question. That in the variant with the BMP, the capacity of the airborne squad may be somewhat sacrificed, but there will be more powerful or special weapons.

[Sasha ___]

I re-read it again and did not find about capacity and other differences. Based on common sense, we can assume the difference in the number of troops, ammunition, booking, etc. It's just a pity that the article is not told

[Red_Baron]

Quote: Sasha ___

It's just a pity that the article is not told

Indirectly but told.
"Such a module has missile, cannon and machine-gun armament, but differs in its architecture - it is controlled by the crew members located directly under the tower."
"The K-16 armored personnel carrier with a voluminous troop compartment and machine-gun armament is entering state trials and is approaching being put into service. The K-17 infantry fighting vehicle will follow." It was probably worth emphasizing here that since K-16 with a more voluminous one, then K-17, since it is written in contrast, with a less voluminous one. But in principle, this is understandable when compared with Western technology of this type.

[bk0010]

Quote: Sasha ___

And what is the difference between bmp and armored personnel carriers in this case?

The main difference between bmp and armored personnel carriers is in tasks. There are wheeled infantry fighting vehicles, there are also heavy armored personnel carriers. If you need to go after the fire shaft and tanks - BMP definitely. If it’s just carrying infantry, it’s an armored personnel carrier, even if it’s armor, like Merkava’s.

[Couchexpert]

But if there is, for example, a certain army motorized rifle unit in the war. And she has her own fleet of equipment. Of the same type. Let's say the BMP-2 brand. And this unit operates in conjunction with a certain tank unit, goes after them to attack. Can we set her the task of transporting infantry? And be in the arsenal of the BTR-82 - can we set the task to drive the tanks to attack?

[bk0010]

Quote: CouchExpert

Can we set her the task of transporting infantry?

It will come out a little expensive, but you can. The trick is: an armored personnel carrier should be enough for everyone, it should be cheap, it is allowed to use civilian nodes. An infantry fighting vehicle must be capable of fighting (in the style of World War 2 or 3), but it costs money (enhanced (compared to armored personnel carriers) reservations, increased engine, gun, ATGMs, all sights, all this is very expensive), a lot you don’t get them stuck.

Quote: CouchExpert

And be in the arsenal of the BTR-82 - can we set the task to drive the tanks to attack?

It is unlikely: not only because of the increased resistance of the enemy (especially artillery), but also because the people can be beaten with fragments from their own fire shaft directly in the armored personnel carrier. On Namer - it is possible, but he has no weighty arguments for a dispute with the enemy.

[Couchexpert]

This is all, of course, interesting, but we have the same part. It cannot have two types of different machines at the same time, and tasks can change "in the course of the play." If we look specifically at the BMP-2 and the BTR-82, is there so much quality gain for the first over the second (and any one can hit with fragments at a close burst - the armor is almost the same)? Yes, even if one is more expensive than the second, what does it matter to us? We have already dealt cards in our hands and we need to play.
I think that both of these samples are approximately equivalent tactically (armor / weapons / speed / capacity, etc.) and equally suitable (or not suitable) for the tasks we need.
That is, it turns out that the difference between infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers is not in the mover and not in the tasks, but ... rather, simply in the naming tradition. It’s traditional for us that with powerful weapons (more than 14,5 mm), it’s the BMP. BMP-1 - yes, BMP-2 - yes, BMP-3 ... With machine guns - armored personnel carriers: BTR-70 - yes, BTR-80 - yes, BTR-82 ... - another cannon armored personnel carrier or already wheeled BMP? - already more interesting. Western heavy 4-wheeler wheeled vehicles with 25-40 mm guns - what are they? As a manufacturer call me. Americans, for example, have caterpillars - BMP (operate with tanks), wheels - armored personnel carriers (whether there is at least a 105-mm barrel, operates with similar vehicles as the base, it is airborne).
There is a clear tendency to the erosion of this division, and even if the towers are also replaceable ... In general, I think it would not be a great exaggeration to say that at present there are no unequivocal clear signs of the division of combined arms combat vehicles into armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles. At some point, fighters and bombers merged in aviation (it would seem that what tasks are different), the principles of unification and economy prevailed over everything else (though after a while IB-light and IB-heavy were distinguished, but this is already " a completely different story ").
Of course, I would like to have 100500 front-engine "Armata" for the base as an answer to all 7 troubles (and she could do it), but we understand that "not in this life." Another question is how many bases to leave specifically to motorized riflemen: 2 as it was (psaltery + wheels: Kurganets (instead of BMP-1,2,3, MTLB, etc.) + Boomerang (instead of APCs and Typhoons))? And again, look for vehicles for tasks (keep both types in each brigade: one closer to the tanks, the other - farther away) ... But we can't get to one mass standard platform? How will we suffer with tanks ("wear out" the T-80 or not, and it is a pity to throw it out, and it is hard to carry), as with airplanes (MiG-29 is "Sukhoi's sad stepson")? This is the same "mine" will have long-term consequences, and there will be no budgets for all "Wishlist" like in the union. The concepts of using (and interacting on the battlefield) of new platforms need to be worked out just now, while many have not yet been riveted.

[shahor]

Quote: CouchExpert

And be in the arsenal of the BTR-82 - can we set the task to drive the tanks to attack?

On the attack, I don't know. But in 1975, I happened to participate in the march at the exercises as part of the SME. And then in the SA, if anyone does not know, there were SMEs for armored personnel carriers and SMEs for BMPs. And often as part of one division. Do you understand already? We walked along the "dirt road" (ha-ha 3 times) in an armored personnel carrier behind a tank company. The clever staff officer had planned that. Moreover, dzhdichek barely drizzled. They began, albeit not immediately, but very soon. So I respect wheeled vehicles, but with increased attention.

[riwas]

Interestingly, and the option with mounted dynamic protection like the M2 "Bradley" worked out?

[Red_Baron]

And Bradley is also an armored personnel carrier?

[riwas]

K-16 for booking as a BMP.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: riwas

K-16 for booking as a BMP.

And the 60-ton Israeli Namer is an APC.
Booking was not enough to be called BMP?

[riwas]

No, the point is that passive armor can withstand a dynamic explosion.

[Reklastik]

Something like that I did not understand what is fundamentally new in the BMP on this platform. Ground clearance - could change either on the BMP, or on the BMD, I do not remember exactly. Recently there was an article about, possibly, the most successful armored personnel carrier of the Second World War - Japanese, it had an outlet for landing in the stern. We, it seems, did not have this, but this option is definitely not fundamentally new. In short, a change in the concept of BMP / BMD is quite an evolutionary path. Fine.

[svp67]

Quote: Reklastik

his landing was in the stern. We didn’t seem to have this,

How was it not? And here?

[Reklastik]

Ok, it was ...

[Red_Baron]

A fundamentally new layout here. And the creation of a platform. This imposes a lot of different points. This is a completely different attitude to armor and mine protection. If it used to be what it was from the factory, now it is possible to influence it to some extent. In the future, there will certainly be a hinged reinforcement, at least in the form of a grid, again if necessary.
Variable clearance was and is now in the BMD.
The landing of the landing from the stern, as well as hatches on the roof are now present, I do not see anything revolutionary here, this is the only possible arrangement for an armored personnel carrier of this design. We are not pioneers here.

Quote: Reklastik

In short, a change in the concept of BMP / BMD is quite an evolutionary path. Fine.

It seems to me, if not revolutionary, the transition to a new platform and its development, then at least quite important. We are almost the last to do this from major players. But further evolution will take its course as exploitation and identification of weaknesses.

[Reklastik]

Thanks. Well, I am so ... "Workers 'and peasants'" estimate

[prodi]

a 35t wheeled vehicle, and even a floating one, is such a game ... Surely, it’s not a fighting horse and not a workhorse

[Aqela]

Why? For the European theater of war - this is it. Considering that in Europe there are quite a lot of different kinds of rivers and canals with a fairly decent network of roads, tracked vehicles are not quite suitable, but wheeled vehicles are quite, and even with the possibility of swimming (if the bridge over the river hooted, for example).

[prodi]

even if he had 10 driving wheels, he should not have left the roads, not to mention the exit from the water to the shore. In addition, I doubt that the box is 3x8x2 cubic meters. with 35t of armor and other equipment placed inside it will retain sufficient internal volume for buoyancy

[Aqela]

It seems like this platform has buoyancy ... Not negative

[prodi]

that's just not clear at the expense of what? If the initial volume is 48 cubic meters. in terms of a ton of water - suitable, then judging by the "remaining" troop compartment, even 2.2x2x6 (26.4t); plus the control compartment and quite a bit - the engine compartment. Well it just doesn't work

[Red_Baron]

I think you do not quite correctly think. Data on the machine are average. But different modifications are indicated. Perhaps in maximum armor and using heavy combat modules the car will not be floating. But in the BTR variant, its mass can be much lower. For example, as was stated everywhere earlier in 25 tons.

[Red_Baron]

And where does the number of driving wheels? Could you please state to whom what is possible or impossible according to the results of tests and not idle chatter based on ... personal sensation?

Quote: prodi

In addition, I doubt that the box is 3x8x2 cubic meters. with 35t of armor and other equipment placed inside it will retain sufficient internal volume for buoyancy

This phrase is wonderful in everything. And can Patria be approximately similar in size and maximum mass, or is it impossible to swim like Boomerang? Our Atom, created on the basis of the French VBCI with a mass of 32 tons, can also swim, and probably it can, but not Boomerang. :)))
Wow, this is your instinct :)))

[prodi]

the number of driving wheels is not only the load on the axle, but also the hook of these wheels on the ground
Atom is generally sticky, as for Patria, 27t is not 35t, although I doubt very much about the fighting qualities of more than 18 ton wheeled vehicles of the 8x8 formula

[Red_Baron]

Quote: prodi

the number of driving wheels is not only the load on the axle, but also the hook of these wheels on the ground

Naturally, only 4 axes are not at all for this, but for load distribution.
About Atom, the question is not at all in the Atom, but in its basis VBCI. On it, I did not find data whether it can swim.
Patria when using a maximum reservation of 30 tons. Why do you take data on Boomerang not the minimum declared in 25 tons, but the maximum. And in Patria, less than the maximum? :)

Quote: prodi

although the fighting qualities of more than 18 tons of wheeled vehicles of the 8x8 formula I strongly doubt

I strongly trust your instinct. But a little more (very little) I trust the Europeans with their machines similar and similar to the theater. And I trust Israel even more, who constantly fight and however build the Eitan.

[prodi]

Well, there will be no cross-country ability, buoyancy, and the mobility of these new armored personnel carriers is similar to that of the BTR-82 with any engine in the latter. Only protection will tighten, along with size and price

[Red_Baron]

You know better.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: prodi

..... even if he had 10 driving wheels, he shouldn’t get off the road,

Pictured is a Liebherr T 284 (2012) with a carrying capacity of 363 tons (there is also a BelAZ-75710 (2013) with a carrying capacity of 450 tons, etc.). Rides, not on the asphalt.

If this is not a problem for them, then what is stopping the BTR?

[Red_Baron]

And if he put 10 wheels, it would be better! Well, at least put a part in the body.

[Saxahorse]

Quote: Bad_gr

Pictured is a Liebherr T 284 (2012) with a carrying capacity of 363 tons (there is also a BelAZ-75710 (2013) with a carrying capacity of 450 tons, etc.). Rides, not on the asphalt.

Maybe he also swims?

Look carefully at the ground. The whole division of road cars smooths and equips the road to these giants.

[Saxahorse]

Quote: prodi

a 35t wheeled vehicle, and even a floating one, is such a game ...

Game definitely. Not a single floating vehicle heavier than 21-23 tons was even seen in the picture. Floating 35 tons is a joke to say the least ..

[bk0010]

AAV-7 - up to 30 tons.

[Bad thing]

Quote: bk0010

AAV-7 - up to 30 tons.

So it’s the size of a good barn, the larger the mass of the floating machine, the larger its dimensions, because displacement should exceed the total mass.

[Mazuta]

And I thought that to me alone the article (and most of the comments /) resemble the report of Ostap Ibragimovich in Vasyuki ...

[Rostislav]

A more powerful engine is needed, 15,5 per ton is not enough, "old men" had 18-20.

[Red_Baron]

So this is from 15 tons. In the most low-power performance and the largest mass. And if you take 750 hp and 35 tons. We get 21,4 hp per ton. Nothing at all.

[Zaurbek]

In any case, we need 37-40-45mm guns for infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers. In our design, the modern Western armored vehicles are designed for our 30mm ammunition. 57mm is redundant and heavy for armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles (not specialized). And we need very modern BOPS for 30mm guns.

[Red_Baron]

For armored personnel carriers, even 30mm is redundant.
As one of our colleagues from Israel said that they don’t want to put weapons on their Eitans, so that the crew would not want to engage in battle. Hopefully not distorted his words.
And for the BMP 57 is probably not superfluous, due to range and power. To confront the goal with maximum distance and minimal impact. Maybe.

[Mister who]

Norm, the infantry will not have to run, but if the tank is around the corner, you can handle it with cornet))

[demiurg]

[quote = donavi49] [/ quote]
And characteristically, there are no photos or videos of how these 30-35 ton wheeled vehicles crawl along normal dirt. Do not watered sand / gravel with decorative puddles with water, namely, one and a half wet with clay and chernozem.
And 57 mm broads on the BMP needed anyway. Almost all modern guns are bicaliber. And suddenly 30mm shooters can become 50mm guns.
My sofa IMHO, this is an export project. For BTR, the Boomerang is redundant in armor. Because of the wheels there is no chance to live outside the roads in winter.

[Red_Baron]

Quote: demiurg

Sand / gravel with decorative puddles not watered with water, namely, one and a half wet with clay and chernozem wet

You had to contact the test officers in advance and clarify this.

Quote: demiurg

My sofa IMHO, this is an export project. For BTR, the Boomerang is redundant in armor. Because of the wheels there is no chance to live outside the roads in winter.

Which means it is redundant if the armor can be installed at the request of the customer. And not only armor.

Quote: demiurg

Because of the wheels there is no chance to live outside the roads in winter.

Finns with their Patria did not stop it.

[demiurg]

1. I usually specify that the sofa expert.
2. Minimum 25 tons. This BMP-3 with silhouettes in any projection is much larger and greater specific pressure on the ground.
3. Well, the Finns and BMP-2 are still in service. They have an army for the physical training of youth.

[Red_Baron]

Quote: demiurg

2. Minimum 25 tons. This BMP-3 with silhouettes in any projection is much larger and greater specific pressure on the ground.

I don’t know about the specific pressure - I was not interested. And about the sizes - in any other way. Somewhere since 2000+ this is the standard. V shaped bottom with protection against mines, more armored sides. It seems to me that it makes no sense to even sigh. A boomerang is not something taken out of context. This is part of world reality. It makes sense then to talk not about a specific model, but about a concept in general. As far as I see nothing better came up with.

Quote: demiurg

3. Well, the Finns and BMP-2 are still in service. They have an army for the physical training of youth.

I apologize but it doesn’t matter at all. Let's talk that their borscht is not tasty, that women are not the most beautiful. And it’s better that the country is somewhat north of ours and there are at least no less snow and winters there. However, they were one of the pioneers of this technique.

[demiurg]

Why not be interested? Either two tapes uniformly stretched over the entire length of the body, or four exact contacts.
About the size, I already unsubscribed here. Even the Yankees are really fighting on Bradley. On strikers, only captured territories are patrolled. Dumb, huh?
Oh well. But the Swedes ride the infantry on a harp. Norwegians too. The United States has heavy Bradley brigades. Finns are neutral who have an army for show.

[Red_Baron]

Quote: demiurg

Why not be interested? Either two tapes uniformly stretched over the entire length of the body, or four exact contacts.

Not everything is so linear. Fully produced tires with low specific pressure. And it would also seem 4 contacts.

Quote: demiurg

About the size, I already unsubscribed here.

Bradley size - length 6,5 - width 3,3 - height 3m

Quote: demiurg

Even the Yankees are really fighting on Bradley. On strikers, only captured territories are patrolled. Dumb, huh?

Well, at the expense of whether or not I can not say here. I can say about the production.
M1128 Stryker Mobile Gun System - 134 units
M1129 Stryker Mortar Carrier - 441 units
M1134 Stryker Anti-Tank Guided Missile Vehicle - 133 units
it's all with heavy weapons, not armored personnel carriers.
B-1 Centauro more than 320 pieces - these are Italian also with heavy weapons.
AMX-10RC more than 450 pieces - France, cannon
It’s more difficult to say about the boxer, in such accessible sources all modifications are indicated. But their number is generally huge.
Order hundreds of infantry fighting vehicles for their armies, dumb, right?

Quote: demiurg

Oh well. But the Swedes ride the infantry on a harp. Norwegians too. The United States has heavy Bradley brigades. Finns are neutral who have an army for show.

No, of course. Nobody rides caterpillar tracks. It just so happened - design features. On the battlefield, yes. The vast majority of equipment with a landing caterpillar and I do not argue with this, but I’m talking about this. But on delivery to this battlefield or wherever they use wheeled.

[demiurg]

On cross we close the question. Although for Russia with a territory from the tropics to the Arctic with a small number of roads, the issue is crucial, given the fact that you need to have the park as unified as possible.

Frechchia is two meters longer. And Bradley’s body is lower.

The United States refuses cannon strikeers. The price is like an adult tank, and security is not ice. And the 105mm gun. You can drive Basurman, but it is unlikely to fight with modern MBT.
Frechchii only in the army of Italy. They don’t see snow, but there is a developed network of roads. The Italians themselves and the tank produced, also moderately strange.
But the AMX-10 is not the topic. He weighs 16 tons. Bulletproof armor.

The march speed is 40 km / h. Faster than that, Lopatov painted everything perfectly above.

[Red_Baron]

You don’t think that I find fault. If you look in general, then we are both talking about the same thing. The difference is not even in the details, but in the directions or something.

Quote: demiurg

Frechchia two meters longer

According to open sources, the length of Frechchia is 8,6. Boomerang 8,5

Quote: demiurg

And Bradley’s body is lower.

Well, as far as I understand, Bradley does not exist without a tower, and therefore the total height of the hull counts with it, and yes.

Quote: demiurg

The United States refuses cannon strikeers. The price is like an adult tank, and security is not ice. And the 105mm gun. You can drive Basurman, but it is unlikely to fight with modern MBT.

I understand, read about it. But we talked about the fact that there are and apply wheeled infantry fighting vehicles. That's why I gave a list of equipment with heavy weapons. In addition to cannon, there are anti-tank with mortars.

Quote: demiurg

Frechchii only in the army of Italy. They don’t see snow, but there is a developed network of roads.

And I don’t argue, but I just brought it as an example that in other countries there is wheeled technology not only armored personnel carriers. And not as an example of cross.

Quote: demiurg

But the AMX-10 is not the topic. He weighs 16 tons. Bulletproof armor.

Just the topic. I brought him as well as Stryker and Centero (I taught English and I know only his pronunciation) just as an example of wheeled vehicles not only armored personnel carriers. In response to your words.

Quote: demiurg

The march speed is 40 km / h. Faster than that, Lopatov painted everything perfectly above.

Yes, he painted, but again we are a little about something else and he mentioned it. This is on the march of the column 40 km per hour. And several cars can move much faster. And they are moving not only in the composition of the columns. And among them there are generally reconnaissance, command and various special types of equipment.

[Bodipancher]

IMHO in the wheel hypostasis it should be strictly an armored troop-carrier or BRDM, the machine of the battlefield should be on the goose. It would be nice, of course, in addition to the aft ramp, the possibility of landing through the side hatches, but judging by the picture there is no place for them. And so the aft ramp is of course good, loading and unloading, including the evacuation of the wounded, is much more convenient. The fire support function for the APC is secondary, the main one is still transport.

[demiurg]

A wheeled vehicle weighing 25+ tons with eight wheels in any case will lose on tracked terrain. And the silhouette will be larger due to the complex transmission and large wheels, which means that with equal weight and the same volume for weapons and landing it will be weaker protected with the same quality of armor.
I already wrote here, heavy wheeled BBMs are white bevan safari cars. Really rich country leading regular hostilities, Israel fights only on the harp.

[Red_Baron]

Quote: demiurg

A wheeled vehicle weighing 25+ tons with eight wheels in any case will lose on tracked terrain.

So what? No one has any super-off-road qualities on her. Hammer nails with a hammer, and do not chop nuts with a microscope. But an acceptable off-road level I think is quite possible.

Quote: demiurg

And the silhouette will be larger due to the complicated transmission and large wheels,

And once again forced to disagree. First of all, due to the shape and design of the bottom.

Quote: demiurg

it means that with an equal mass and the same volume for armament and landing it will be weaker protected with the same quality of armor.

In this case, you need to try to ride in BMD for example, or to take an impression of this. And compare the size of the troop compartment.

Quote: demiurg

I already wrote here, heavy wheeled BBMs are white bevan safari cars. Really rich country leading regular hostilities, Israel fights only on the harp.

A bunch of countries with hundreds of vehicles in service probably will not agree. In addition, wheeled vehicles can make quite a long throw on their own. A caterpillar? will expect a train trailer?

[Viknt]

Quote: ProkletyiPirat

perhaps the ideal option would be today's complexes, supplemented by anti-aircraft UAV fighters. (at least in option "2")

having sucked all conceivable options came to the UAV-fighters. Using a drone against a drone is quite logical. And the site already had a video with such a "fighter". You should pay attention to the performance characteristics of small drones, such as relatively (low) speed. This allows and even suggests using the same low-speed ammunition to combat such drones. In particular, there are developments of UAVs launched by MLRS. So it is not scary to "miss" because you can adjust and accurately target.

[Prokhorov]

That is, on Red Square there was equipment that did not pass the state. tests.
And if she doesn’t pass them, who will they put in?
And in general, even if the pens were welded onto the body, how to climb up to it? Substitute a box?

[fruit_cake]

BMP object 1200

[Pavel57]

Maybe someone knows why they excluded from consideration 37mm and 45mm.?

[Bobik012]

"Boomerang" compares favorably with the BTR-70/80 and BMP-1/2.

Of course it differs - 2,5 times in mass and very much in size. With comparable weapons. With protection, too, the question is interesting - the grenade launcher and the BPS probably do not hold automatic cannons (from them only tanks, and this is a completely different weight category), and these are the most likely sources of danger. And was it worth building a garden? We wanted something like Bradley and the Cougars, so they don't swim and are far from being wunderwales. And then a huge displacement hull, weapons at the same level, a dubious level of protection. We tried to combine the incompatible and shove in the unpushable. This is possible with a breakthrough in technology or with a brilliant designer. Yes, this is possible (for example, the T-64), but sooooo rarely happens. In this case, frankly it did not work out. As far as I could understand, the soldiers rejected Kurganets for these reasons, here, apparently, the same perspective. Although recently they have been moving the subject for export. I think the price will be an insurmountable obstacle. In terms of fighting qualities, they tried to take the best from heavy and light armored vehicles, but it turned out as always, they combined the disadvantages.
It seems advisable to have heavy equipment based on the same Armata, including a high-level infantry fighting vehicle of a high level of protection for conducting combined arms combat (if such is at all possible in the future) and, for auxiliary purposes, light amphibious armored vehicles, but at least on the basis of the same Dragoon with the same the most uninhabited combat modules, and vehicles based on (SPRUT, light self-propelled guns, Chrysanthemum and the like ZRAK), the combat value is almost the same for the hero of the article, but very cheaper. A wheeled platform can also be composed if what is drawn at the beginning of the article is lightened, reduced and simplified.
And then wait for a breakthrough in technology, which will allow you to cram something that is not crammed.
In fairness, no one has yet been able to create a floating combat vehicle for ten airborne troops in acceptable dimensions, weighing up to 20 tons and the level of security of the main tank. We didn't succeed either. Nothing wrong

[Bobik012]

By the way! Or out of place. I didn't find something. Does he fit into the Il-76?

[Sergei N 58912062]

Our army will not soon see armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles based on the Boomerang platform, if at all. It is a pity that at one time the BTR-90 was not adopted for service.

[Vladimir Ivanovich_2]

An infantry fighting vehicle should be built with a new 57 mm cannon, I don’t know where the internal combustion engine is now in the front, but it was not in vain that the internal combustion engine gearbox was installed from the back, because when the weight is from the back, it’s easier to pass obstacle ravines, or rather, it’s possible to pass. this was shown by the tests of the USSR. when the internal combustion engine is in a fart, it pecks into a trench in a ravine and does not move. and from the back of the internal combustion engine, it slips and then tightens the ass .. in general, it’s stupid to put it in front, but I don’t know how in the middle, it’s easier to make an internal combustion engine and put it in the back, I think

[HeZombu]

For some reason, you can’t see them especially on the NWO. And at the parade they said that this is the BMP of the future. What future, why