Base for Baikal. Domestic and foreign projects of armored vehicles


One of the earliest versions of AUB-220M DBM. Photo NPK Uralvagonzavod / uvz.ru


Since 2015, the AU-220M Baikal remotely controlled combat module (DBM) has regularly been shown at exhibitions. This product is equipped with a 57-mm automatic gun 2A91 high power, which should provide him with a sharp increase in combat qualities. It is planned to use such opportunities in several promising projects - both Russian and foreign.

New opportunities


It is well known that the main reason for the emergence of DBKM "Baikal" was a kind of crisis in the field of light armored vehicles. Most of these machines are equipped with automatic guns of 30 mm caliber, but they themselves are protected from this weapons. Accordingly, to combat them, tools of increased power and increased caliber are needed.

The product AU-220M was developed by the Nizhny Novgorod Central Research Institute "Petrel" and was first presented in 2015 at several domestic and foreign exhibitions. It is an uninhabited tower with machine-gun and cannon weapons, storage and supply of ammunition, fire control devices, sights, etc. Defeat targets is provided by a 2A91 gun and a PKTM machine gun. In the future, the introduction of a missile system is possible.

Baikal was originally created as a universal DBM suitable for installation on different chassis. In this regard, the main units are placed in a single housing, occupying a minimum volume inside the carrier machine. The latter has certain requirements. So, for mounting, a landing flange with a diameter of 1740 mm and a load capacity of at least 3650 kg are required. Also, the chassis must withstand loads when firing.


Experimental version of the BRM-3K with Baikal. The first Derivation looked similar. Photo by Vitalykuzmin.net

As theoretical and design work has already shown, a number of domestic and foreign armored combat vehicles meet similar requirements. Thanks to this, several models of equipment armed with Baikal have been created, and new ones may appear in the near future.

Russian development


Already in 2015, the possibility of mounting the AU-220M module on the chassis of the BMP-3 infantry fighting vehicle was shown. This combination of the base vehicle and weapons allows you to create several types of armored vehicles of different classes and for different purposes.

The first appeared version of the BMP-3 called Derivation, developed by the Uralvagonzavod NPK. The full-time fighting compartment was removed from the armored car, and a new DBM was mounted instead. This led to a sharp increase in combat characteristics and to the expansion of the range of tasks. In particular, the possibility of an effective fight against both ground and air targets of various types was mentioned.

Later, the “Derivation” project was developed. At the exhibition “Army-2018”, the first public display of the BMP-3 in version 2C38 “Derivation-Air Defense” took place. An armored vehicle with an updated AU-220M module is intended for military air defense. Fire controls have been refined to more effectively solve such problems with the 57mm 2A91 gun.


Experienced BBM "Derivation-Air Defense". Photo Bmpd.livejournal.com

In 2016, the industry showed a modernized version of the BRM-3K Lynx combat reconnaissance vehicle, also updated using the Baikal module. Together with the DBM, the armored vehicle received new optoelectronic devices suitable for reconnaissance missions.

Since 2015, it has been repeatedly mentioned that Baikal is fully compatible with the promising heavy unified platform Armata. Subsequently, a corresponding project was developed, and in 2018, the public was first shown a finished prototype of this kind. The AUB-220M DBM of the latest version, known as the “Dagger,” was installed on the chassis of the heavy T-15 infantry fighting vehicle. A characteristic feature of this modification of the Baikal is the presence of guided missiles that complement the powerful 57-mm gun.

So far, the T-15 with Baikal was shown only at the exhibition site. However, in the near future it will be shown in motion. Recently, the Ministry of Defense reported that such equipment will take part in the parade on May 9. It should be noted that previously BBMs with AU-220M in Red Square were not shown.

Foreign samples


The combat module with a 57-mm cannon is of interest not only for Russian designers and military. There is already an international project involving the installation of the Baikal on a foreign chassis. In addition, in the future, work may begin on a new machine of this kind.


Heavy BMP with a combat module "Baikal" / "Dagger". Wikimedia Commons Photos

In 2016, the Barys 8x8 armored personnel carrier equipped with the Baikal model was shown at the KADEX exhibition in Kazakhstan. This pattern was the result of triangular cooperation. The chassis was designed by the South African company Paramount Group (originally named Mbombe 8) and manufactured by a joint venture of Kazakhstan Paramount Engineering. The layout of the armament complex was presented by NPK UVZ.

It was alleged that the Barys with the AU-220M could enter service in the very near future and go into production. However, so far this has not happened. Baikal remains at the testing stage, and until the completion of these works the release of Barys with enhanced weapons is not possible. KPE is waiting for the completion of testing and is ready to continue work on a joint project.

At the beginning of February, Russian industry presented at the Indian exhibition Defexpo-2020 a number of modern developments, including DUBM AU-220M. On the eve of the exhibition, Russian Minister of Industry and Trade Denis Manturov spoke about the possible emergence of a new joint project using Baikal. Russia suggested that India develop a promising IFV capable of carrying such a DBM. The opinion of the Indian side on such a proposal is still unknown.

In the context of joint projects, one can recall the Atom wheeled infantry fighting vehicle developed in the framework of cooperation between the Russian Uralvagonzavod and the French company Renault Trucks Defense. This armored vehicle received a combat module BM-57 with a 57-mm automatic gun. It seriously differed from the modern AU-220M, but showed the fundamental possibility of equipping wheeled armored infantry fighting vehicles with increased caliber weapons.


Wheel BMP "Barys 8x8" with Russian weapons. Photo by Kazakhstan Paramount Engineering / kpe.com.kz

The Atom project has not been developed. In 2014, the French side refused to work together due to a change in the political situation. However, some ideas and solutions could find practical application. Less than a year after this, the Petrel Research Institute showed the AU-220M combat module.

Wide range of equipment


DBM AU-220M "Baikal" was developed just a few years ago and still has not left the test stage. At the same time, the industry managed to create several options for the module and work out a number of military vehicles with its use. The possibility of installing a new product on several chassis of domestic and foreign production with the receipt of BBM for various purposes was shown. In addition, the appearance of new armored vehicles, including joint development.

The prospects of all developed combat vehicles with Baikal directly depend on the progress of work on the combat module itself. According to domestic media reports, the development and testing of this product is nearing completion. Thus, in the near future, the military department will have to evaluate new developments and choose the most successful ones for further production and operation in the army.

Obviously, first Baikal will go into service with the Russian army. At the same time, it is not yet clear in which particular sample. Several BBMs have been developed on serial and advanced chassis, and all of them may be of interest to the army. It remains to wait for official statements and data on this subject. Then it is possible to launch a series of South African-Kazakhstani "Barysa" with Russian weapons. In the long term, the appearance of the Russian-Indian BMP with such weapons can be expected.

However, to obtain such results, it is necessary to complete the ongoing work. Only after all activities are completed, the AU-220M will be able to go into production and into service. And only then will the army or a foreign customer be able to get all the desired benefits associated with promising weapons.
Author:
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

86 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Nikolaevich I 21 February 2020 06: 08 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    Well, what ?! How the "folk wisdom" votes: if you suffer for a long time, something will work out! They say something about the 57-mm gun of "high ballistics" ... then they say about the 57-mm low-pulse gun of the "grenade launcher type" ...! As the matchmaker put it in “Balsaminov’s Marriage”: that vodka, that cologne, everything with degrees! yes But in order to figure out which projectile to stuff into the gun, one ruler for 57 mm will be needed! fellow And if by that time the 57-mm "anti-aircraft nails" to the "Shell" arrive in time, then we will use them! Versatility-IN! good So, "marfusha" ... should we live in sorrow ?!
    1. Private-K 21 February 2020 10: 01 New
      • 4
      • 2
      +2
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      They say something about the 57-mm gun of "high ballistics" ... then, they say about the 57-mm low-pulse gun of the "grenade launcher type"

      Fundamental and substantial the difference between them is that the 57-mm low-pulse grenade launcher was ordered by the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation for military tests on a dozen samples; and the 57-mm high-ballistic automatic from Barricade-Uralvagonzavod no more than prototypes from which GBTU of the RF Ministry of Defense denies (although lobbyists can push through for the Parade).

      Well, the article itself simply informs us that the Uralvagonzavod is installing its DUMB on many basic chassis. But, in general, it does not contain at all any specifics on the real combat capabilities of the 57-mm high-ballistic assault rifle - and this is precisely the main thing.
      Well, we can state the fact of extreme desire of the Nizhny Tagil Uralvagonzavod do not miss out show "factory patriotism" (tm) and does not allow to put on the T-15 normal weapons in the form of a 100 mm gun; neither in the variants from the Tula KBP, nor in the variants of the Kurgan Special Design Bureau - although the combat module from the Dragun infantry fighting vehicle is straightforward ..
      1. Romario_Argo 21 February 2020 10: 58 New
        • 0
        • 3
        -3
        I see optimization in the form of combining 2 guns in the tank tower
        smooth-bore 125-mm and automatic 57-mm in one block by analogy with the BMP-3
        1. max702 21 February 2020 11: 13 New
          • 7
          • 1
          +6
          Quote: Romario_Argo
          I see optimization in the form of combining 2 guns in the tank tower
          smooth-bore 125-mm and automatic 57-mm in one block by analogy with the BMP-3

          Doesn't weight scare you? What about the price? And now the most important thing, will you take the space for the 125mm and 57 mm automatic loader? What about ammunition? I'm afraid even in a monstrous armature (T-15) THIS will not fit ..
          It would be wise to finish “Bahchu” from 100mm to 120mm from the “Vienna” and it would be happiness .. But even this is extremely difficult technically ..
          1. Romario_Argo 21 February 2020 11: 32 New
            • 0
            • 5
            -5
            By the way, it would be optimal to put 14-mm and a 152-mm submachine gun on the T-57 Armata and rework the tower by the analogy of the T-90 welded with ceramic packages from 4 sides, but not completely inhabited
            and after 152 mm it will be possible to launch the ATGM Cornet
            1. Private-K 21 February 2020 22: 09 New
              • 2
              • 2
              0
              Such pathos brutalism is appropriate in Vakha 40K, but not in real life.
        2. Private-K 21 February 2020 22: 07 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Quote: Romario_Argo
          I see optimization in the form of combining 2 guns in the tank tower
          smooth-bore 125-mm and automatic 57-mm in one block by analogy with the BMP-3

          It's pointless.
          Both the 125-mm tank gun and the 57-mm clone S-60 are high-ballistic guns with a similar range of targets - primarily combat vehicles and targets with a pronounced noticeable vertical projection. At the same time, a 125-mm gun is 12 times more effective than a 57-mm gun - and penetration is much higher, and accuracy is worked out, and there is a powerful OFS.
          This is not to mention the great difficulties with the layout in a single block of two of these guns. Here is the case when size and energy matters.
      2. fk7777777 21 February 2020 19: 19 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Well, what’s the difference in the technical plan ?, it’s personally violet to me, who ordered what and where is trying to put it, do you really need this? For what? How effective, because 23 mm, is a transition gauge. A 30 mm main, so laid, but where to stick 57mm? It is clear that if a simple infantryman ran with 57 mm of fluff, then generally cool, but ....?
      3. Saxahorse 22 February 2020 01: 55 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Quote: Private-K
        and does not allow to put on the T-15 normal weapons in the form of a 100-mm gun; neither in the variants from the Tula KBP, nor in the variants of the Kurgan SKBM

        By the way, yes! The terminator is already unclear why it is needed, and even its wretched armament in the form of a 30 mm double-barreled shotgun makes the idea even worse. What does not suit a great option with a combat module BMP-3? A 100 mm gun and a 30 mm finishing machine solve all support tasks.
    2. Uncle Izya 21 February 2020 11: 18 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      And without torment, nothing comes of nothing
    3. Chaldon48 30 March 2020 02: 15 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Dreams, dreams, where is your sweetness? Now when all this enters the army en masse, then we’ll see, otherwise it wouldn’t work like with the Armata tank. Pull pull pull can not.
  2. Amateur 21 February 2020 06: 41 New
    • 5
    • 2
    +3
    Nizhny Novgorod Central Research Institute "Petrel" in the late 90's. Overhauled Grabinskaya S-60 and since then has been trying to stick it at least somewhere.
    If you suffer for a long time, something will turn out
    1. neri73-r 21 February 2020 09: 09 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Amateur
      Nizhny Novgorod Central Research Institute "Petrel" in the late 90's. Overhauled Grabinskaya S-60 and since then has been trying to stick it at least somewhere.

      Is it sarcasm or a statement of fact? Do you think this gun is bad?
      1. Amateur 21 February 2020 09: 37 New
        • 1
        • 3
        -2
        Do you think this gun is bad?

        I do not think it is not bad and not good. The main thing is what this "chisel" is for and what it is used for. The 57 mm caliber itself was identified in the design bureau of V.G. Grabin as the optimal anti-tank
        At the same time, our accumulated experience allowed us to confidently tackle such a difficult task as determining the best caliber for a new powerful anti-tank gun. According to our calculations, the new anti-tank gun was supposed to penetrate 100 mm thick armor from a distance of 500 meters, and 90 mm thick armor from a distance of 1000 meters. (Weapon of victory. V.G.G)

        What was excellent in 1942-1955. in 2020, it’s no longer suitable as an anti-tank one, I don’t know how to use a field one with a low-explosive high-explosive shell. And as an anti-aircraft gun - against light drones is redundant, against helicopters - not long-range and quick-fire. The number of shots on the mobile platform is significantly inferior to the same 30 mm. If there is a sufficiently wide scope of this tool, then probably it will be quite good.
        PS I focus on sailors who have actually abandoned 57 mm.
      2. Private-K 21 February 2020 10: 04 New
        • 3
        • 2
        +1
        It is neither bad nor good. It’s just about anything for BMP - it has TTX unnecessary for BMP, and doesn’t have the necessary ones.
        Like an anti-aircraft gun - it may well be.
        But - the shot is terribly outdated. It is necessary to change the form factor, sleeve material, etc., etc.
        1. neri73-r 21 February 2020 11: 13 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Cons are not mine.
      3. max702 21 February 2020 11: 17 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Quote: neri73-r
        Quote: Amateur
        Nizhny Novgorod Central Research Institute "Petrel" in the late 90's. Overhauled Grabinskaya S-60 and since then has been trying to stick it at least somewhere.

        Is it sarcasm or a statement of fact? Do you think this gun is bad?

        Not necessary .. This is a naval system, but there it is not needed due to the small caliber and scanty series as such .. So they try to attach it at least somewhere .. But on land there are more sane options, when designing the BMP-3, we considered this option but they refused because of low characteristics for all tasks ..
        1. Grigory_45 21 February 2020 22: 36 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: max702
          when designing the BMP-3, we considered this option but refused because of low characteristics for all tasks ..

          when creating the object 688 considered the option with a 57-mm gun? From this place in more detail.

          I saw a lot of work on the OCD Fable, incl. the variant with the weapons delivered on the gun mount, in the process of choosing weapons for the new machine, VNIITransmash offered a 76-mm gun, and TsNIITochmash - a 45-mm machine gun. But I didn’t hear about the 57 mm
    2. Alexey RA 21 February 2020 11: 49 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Amateur
      Nizhny Novgorod Central Research Institute "Petrel" in the late 90's. Overhauled Grabinskaya S-60 and since then has been trying to stick it at least somewhere.

      It all started even earlier.
      First there was the 57-mm naval gun A-220, developed in the late 60s - early 70s. The fleet refused him - he already had an AK-176. In the late 90s CRI "Petrel" upgraded the gun in the A-220M and offered the fleet and border guards. The answer was traditionally negative, and the reason was traditional - the same AK-176.
      And then the "Petrel" decided to try his luck at the army. smile
  3. Zaurbek 21 February 2020 07: 48 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    a version of the BMP-3 called “Derivation” appeared, developed by NPK Uralvagonzavod.

    Is this car lucky for landing? Or is she not an IFV?
    1. Grigory_45 21 February 2020 22: 05 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Zaurbek
      a version of the BMP-3 called “Derivation” appeared, developed by NPK Uralvagonzavod.

      Is this car lucky for landing? Or is she not BMP

      BMP The landing party is saved. The fighting compartment with 100- and 30-mm guns was replaced by a Nizhny Novgorod combat module with a 57-mm gun
  4. Zaurbek 21 February 2020 07: 50 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    a version of the BMP-3 called “Derivation” appeared, developed by NPK Uralvagonzavod.

    Does she carry motorized rifles or is she no longer an infantry fighting vehicle?
    1. Private-K 21 February 2020 10: 06 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Derivation-air defense is precisely the anti-aircraft gun - ZSU. And it has a typical "anti-aircraft" GRAU index - 2C38 (in Tunguska, for example, 2C6).
      1. Zaurbek 21 February 2020 10: 10 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        So it’s necessary to write about the memory ... and then that people are rubbed about the new BO on the BPM with 57mm.
      2. Grigory_45 21 February 2020 22: 06 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Private-K
        Derivation-air defense is exactly the anti-aircraft gun

        do not confuse BMP-3 OCD Derivation and Air Defense System (ZAK) Derivation-Air Defense. These machines are united only by the BMP-3 chassis and the used gun.
        1. Private-K 21 February 2020 22: 18 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Let's try to guess repeat : The theme of “Derivation-Air Defense” appeared immediately, as soon as the GABTU refused to look simply at “Derivation” as an weapon for the BMP. hi
  5. Strashila 21 February 2020 08: 15 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    The solution is interesting, it would be on a tank chassis with a light turret to hold a 30 mm shell and the ability to mount a DZ, 57 + 14,5 + 7,62 + add a couple of ATGMs, a birdhouse on top, we get an excellent support vehicle on the battlefield. The main thing here is that the optics do not disappoint with viewing angles.
    1. Zaurbek 21 February 2020 10: 14 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      They showed the tower in 3 versions and the weight there was different ..... The question is what the platform will pull.
    2. max702 21 February 2020 11: 18 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Quote: Strashila
      The solution is interesting, it would be on a tank chassis with a light turret to hold a 30 mm shell and the ability to mount a DZ, 57 + 14,5 + 7,62 + add a couple of ATGMs, a birdhouse on top, we get an excellent support vehicle on the battlefield. The main thing here is that the optics do not disappoint with viewing angles.

      Put in the tank tower "Bahcha-U" and do not worry all have long been ..
      1. Strashila 21 February 2020 11: 22 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        That's it in the tank, and not for infantry fighting vehicles or armored personnel carriers
    3. Grits 21 February 2020 15: 12 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: Strashila
      The solution is interesting, it would be on a tank chassis with a light turret to hold a 30 mm shell and the ability to mount a DZ, 57 + 14,5 + 7,62 + add a couple of ATGMs, a birdhouse on top, we get an excellent support vehicle on the battlefield.

      Tank chassis? And why doesn’t the T-15 suit you? You can use part of the infantry compartment for the module and ammunition. The T-15 has tank level security
    4. Private-K 21 February 2020 22: 25 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Well, and how will it be better than normal MBT? The main caliber is 12 times worse than a 125 mm tank gun.
      What is the best BMP with the right weapons? Complete inability to hit the Ave. in the folds of the terrain, behind obstacles, etc.
  6. Constanty 21 February 2020 10: 18 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    The Baikal example shows how weapons and infantry fighting vehicles are changing. Currently, such a BMP-3 with Baikal in the Dragon version is one of the best BMPs in the world. Its armament is slowly establishing a development trend for this class of infantry vehicles.

    Meanwhile, 25 years ago, in the mid-1990s, when the BWP-2000 with a 60mm OTO-Melara gun was developed in Poland ...

    all experts criticized the choice of weapons - and there were too few ammunition, too powerful for armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles, too weak for tanks and so on.

    This, of course, was not without BMP flaws, and Russian vehicles are at a much higher level, however, it shows a change in thinking about armament in this class of armored vehicles.
    1. Tamer 21 February 2020 10: 56 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Quote: Constanty
      BMP-3 with Baikal in the Dragon version is one of the best BMPs in the world.

      and in the galaxy
      1. Constanty 21 February 2020 11: 02 New
        • 0
        • 3
        -3
        This is just my opinion. In the version with Baikal, this BMP is definitely more balanced than the version with the original tower. The ramp is also a world standard solution.
        There are also disadvantages such as light armor, but this is a very good BMP. Baikal significantly increases its capabilities and versatility.
        1. Grigory_45 21 February 2020 22: 15 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Constanty
          In the version with Baikal, this BMP is definitely more balanced

          just the regular BMP-3 BO (as well as the Bakhcha) is more optimal and universal for solving combat missions (there is a quick-shooter for lightly armored and unarmored vehicles, there is a fairly powerful OFS and TOUR). The 57 mm shell is neither fish nor meat. His legs are growing from the “punch” of the Second World War, but now time does not stand still ...

          Quote: Constanty
          There are also disadvantages such as light armor

          Before the advent of Kurganets, the BMP-3 was the most armored of all domestic light armored vehicles.
          1. Constanty 21 February 2020 22: 58 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Let me start from the end
            Before the advent of Kurganets, the BMP-3 was the most armored of all domestic light armored vehicles.

            This is undoubtedly true, but I didn’t compare the BMP-3 with the “penny” or the BMP-2, and we will call it the western level. Here, Russian infantry fighting vehicles are less armored, but they can swim.

            For weapons reasons, two systems are a complication when the 2A72 is quite known for inaccuracy, and a 100 mm gun will not destroy MBT from the forehead, from the side it will do the same 100mm and 57mm, while the latter will provide a high rate of fire or a larger stock of ammunition.

            The capabilities of 57 mm will increase significantly if new ammunition is introduced, and not just those that remember the S-60.

            also interesting on the other hand is the Epoch module LShO-57 and the Bulat missiles, the Kornet ATGM

            Huge selection of features!
            1. Grigory_45 22 February 2020 10: 27 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Constanty
              2A72 is quite famous for inaccuracy

              in that case, if the gun is installed without devices to increase the rigidity of the barrel (low accuracy is precisely this, in the increased vibrations of the barrel 2A72). On the BMP-3, the “thirty” is fixed rigidly to the barrel of the “hundred”.

              Quote: Constanty
              A 100 mm gun will not destroy MBT from the forehead, from the side it will do the same to 100mm and 57mm

              in the BC there is a TOUR, as well as the ability to use the Konkurs-M ATGM missiles with armor penetration up to 750 mm.
              For modern MBT, this, of course, is not enough to defeat the frontal projection. But how many modern MBT in the world? In order to destroy a modern tank with high probability, it is necessary to have either a gun with good ballistics with a caliber of 120-125 mm and BOPS, or an ATGM caliber of 152 mm (like Cornet). Or hit the roof.

              You won’t argue that the power of the 100 mm OFS cannot be compared with the 57 mm? Weaving is well suited for the destruction of manpower and fortifications of the enemy
              1. Constanty 22 February 2020 16: 48 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                I’m not going to argue with the higher efficiency of the 100 mm OFS, because this is an indisputable fact, but the Konkurs-M ATGM can be added to the Baikal module.

                There is such a concept in small arms (especially sniper), the so-called "free barrel". supporting or attaching the barrel end to another, otherwise heating element, does not necessarily affect accuracy. Is it possible with 2A72 in the BMP - I don’t know. But it is possible.

                Currently, most western infantry fighting vehicles can withstand Soviet / Russian 30mm strikes in the frontal projection. 57 mm net BMP-3 will have to use a 100 mm a small amount of ammunition
                1. Tamer 23 February 2020 22: 11 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: Constanty
                  Now most Western infantry fighting vehicles withstand the blows of the Soviet / Russian 30mm in the frontal projection.

                  Without additional mounted armor sets - units of samples. With the appropriate weight and price. The vast majority are only with additional mounted armor sets. For protection requirements from 30mm, read STANAG. Distance - from 500m
                  Some armor-piercing shells for the "Russian 30mm" of foreign production significantly surpass the domestic "Kerner".
                2. Alexey RA 25 February 2020 11: 00 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: Constanty
                  There is such a concept in small arms (especially sniper), the so-called "free barrel". supporting or attaching the barrel end to another, otherwise heating element, does not necessarily affect accuracy. Is it possible with 2A72 in the BMP - I don’t know. But it is possible.

                  Here is the standard installation for 2A72.

                  As you can see, the gun barrel has an additional mount in the muzzle, providing accuracy and accuracy according to the statement of work. And the BMP-3 with 2A72 is fine.
                  All problems with 2A72 began when it was "taken out of the cradle" and put into the installation without this additional fulcrum (BTR-82). Immediately flew accuracy and accuracy. As a result, I had to reduce the rate of fire.
                  ... for more than a year, designers have worked to ensure an acceptable result: accuracy and accuracy should not be lower than that of 2A42 on the BMP-2. Without fulfilling this condition prescribed in the statement of work, the car was not taken into service. One machine was even made with a third fulcrum: a casing on top of the gun with a ring at the end in which the barrel walks.
                  But it didn’t help much either. The solution was found after watching ultra-fast shooting shooting.
                  Some time after the shot, the gun barrel takes its initial position, so the rate of fire was adjusted so that the next shot occurred at that moment. Yes, the maximum rate of fire became slightly lower than what is indicated in the tabular values ​​for 2A72, but sufficient to solve the same problems.
                  © Denis Mokrushin
                3. Dzungar 25 February 2020 14: 50 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  There is such a concept in small arms (especially sniper), the so-called "free barrel". supporting or attaching the end of the trunk to another,
                  As they say - I heard a ringing, but I didn’t understand what it was about .... A “free” barrel, either “hung out” or “floating” - this is a barrel fixed to a bed ONLY in the chamber area, AND ALL. And no
                  supporting or attaching the end of the trunk to another,
                  1. Constanty 27 February 2020 20: 08 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Either my spelling is incorrect, or there is a misunderstanding. Yes, I know what a “free trunk" is - the solution in the BMP-3 is exactly the opposite - there the trunk has support from both ends. And this is what I wrote in BMP-3, and not that it has a “free barrel”. I am writing with a translator, so this is probably a translation error
    2. Romario_Argo 21 February 2020 11: 01 New
      • 0
      • 3
      -3
      as an option to develop an art installation of 2 guns for BMP-3 and subsequent modifications
      100 mm + automatic 57 mm (instead of 30 mm)
      1. Constanty 21 February 2020 11: 07 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        two mushrooms in borsch, however, an exaggeration. 100 + 57 may exceed the chassis capacity in terms of weight and interior capacity. This can greatly affect
        Amount of infantry or ammunition - in my opinion
        1. Romario_Argo 21 February 2020 11: 34 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          This can greatly affect
          Amount of infantry or ammunition - in my opinion

          maybe then it will be pure BMPT on BMP meringue
          without landing, but to support the infantry wassat
          1. Grits 21 February 2020 15: 17 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +1
            Quote: Romario_Argo
            maybe then it will be pure BMPT on BMP meringue
            without landing, but to support the infantry

            My opinion is that for these purposes there is nothing better than the Bahch module, as now on the BMP-3. But with the addition - a grenade launcher as on "Berezhka", a couple of ATGM just in case, and all this on the basis of a heavy and protected T-15. It is possible without landing, but with enough ammunition
            1. Romario_Argo 21 February 2020 15: 46 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              vicious circle again.
              BMPT based on the T-15 with the Bahcha module (100 mm + 57 mm) but without landing - too long.
              Chassis recycling required.
              it is economically feasible to simply create a BMPT on the T-72 or T-90 chassis
              but they are already in the BMPT metal Terminator (T-90) and Terminator-2 (T-72)
              but there is no pure BMPT based on BMP-3 (!)
              and there is an elongated base - Lotus with a 125-mm gun
              1. fk7777777 21 February 2020 19: 31 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                What for? Missiles are simpler, more reliable, and they are improving at a tremendous speed.
              2. Bad_gr 22 February 2020 00: 19 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Romario_Argo
                but there is no pure BMPT based on BMP-3 (!)

                BMPT on a tank basis with weapons BMP-3

                1. Romario_Argo 22 February 2020 00: 28 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  this is not a serial technique, still raw, and even more so the story - not that
          2. Grigory_45 21 February 2020 22: 17 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Romario_Argo
            maybe then it will be pure BMPT on BMP meringue

            BMPT should have a level of protection comparable to tanks. Either a tank chassis or a heavy infantry fighting vehicle chassis is better suited for this purpose.
      2. fk7777777 21 February 2020 19: 25 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Yeah, let’s immediately give 406 mm, we’ll put down, and what was the capacitor, ...
  7. Alexey RA 21 February 2020 11: 13 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    It is well known that the main reason for the emergence of DBKM "Baikal" was a kind of crisis in the field of light armored vehicles.

    The main reason for the appearance of the Baikal DBMS was the fleet and the FSB's next refusal to install a 57-mm Burevestnik cannon on the ships, which the KB has been trying to push into sailors and border guards since the 70s of the last century. smile The naval forces once again stated that they were completely satisfied with the AK-176, which even fits on the RCA, and they are not going to reduce the power of the projectile.
    And then the design bureau converted the gun into a land version and offered it to the army team.
  8. God save the king 21 February 2020 12: 16 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    It is much more reasonable to let the mass increase into the building up of security, otherwise, with the same success, tank landing can be carried on top of MBT.
    There are simply no niches for light tanks in the modern combined arms army.
  9. Operator 21 February 2020 13: 58 New
    • 6
    • 4
    +2
    Both the 57 mm guns became obsolete before they were born - now guns using telescopic shots are in trend. Plus, for installation on the BMP / BTR, a low-pulse low-ballistic gun is required. From this pair of parameters, the required caliber of 76 mm and the ammunition of the calibrated OFS and the sub-caliber BS are obtained.
    1. fk7777777 21 February 2020 19: 29 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Do not forget that even on the t-34, the anti-aircraft shell entered the ammunition, that’s the fact, but few people know. And why, for the whole WWII, 57 mm anti-aircraft guns didn’t appear? After all, there were any calligres ...
      1. Grigory_45 22 February 2020 14: 24 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: fk7777777
        on t-34, the anti-aircraft shell entered the ammunition

        where are the firewood from? And why does the tank need anti-aircraft shells?

        Quote: fk7777777
        why for the whole WWII, 57 mm anti-aircraft guns did not appear?

        low rate of fire with insufficient projectile power. Small-caliber (20-40 mm) machine guns took a rate of fire, 76-, 85-mm and larger-caliber systems - when a shell burst, a rather large fragmentation field was formed
        1. Alexey RA 25 February 2020 11: 04 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Gregory_45
          where are the firewood from? And why does the tank need anti-aircraft shells?

          It seems to me that this “anti-aircraft shell” is ordinary shrapnel. And he entered the BC you know why: the main and additional plans for the release of the BR-350A NKBP failed miserably, so the main armor-piercing projectile for guns with ballistics of the 3 "division was shrapnel, put on strike. Moreover, even in the middle of 1942
          1. Grigory_45 25 February 2020 11: 06 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Alexey RA
            It seems to me that this “anti-aircraft shell” is ordinary shrapnel

            there are no questions about shrapnel. The anti-aircraft projectile still has a fuse installation in height. Agree, different things. Therefore, the question arose, I think, quite reasonable
    2. Grigory_45 22 February 2020 10: 37 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: Operator
      installation on a BMP / BTR requires a low-pulse low-ballistic gun. From this pair of parameters, the required caliber of 76 mm and the ammunition of the calibrated OFS and the sub-caliber BS are obtained.

      for the first time I hear such a brilliant idea to shoot a low-ballistic projectile with a caliber projectile) And I hope for something ...
      1. Tamer 23 February 2020 22: 33 New
        • 0
        • 2
        -2
        And what about ballistics ?! What is sub-caliber, what is cumulative - there’s no difference, since both are designed to pierce wink
        Once on the T-34 and put a 57-mm gun - so there were "anti-aircraft" shells on the "thirty-four" wassat
        1. Grigory_45 24 February 2020 10: 11 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: Tamer
          What is sub-caliber, what is cumulative - no difference

          The difference is very significant. If they taught physics at school, then everyone would understand for themselves. The cumulative projectile pierces the armor due to the cumulative effect, armor-piercing - due to kinetic energy. If a high speed COP is not needed, then a BR is simply necessary. A BPS fired from a low ballistic gun (which a priori has a low initial projectile velocity) is simply incapacitated. Everyone who says that it is possible to effectively shoot BPS from low-ballistic weapons is simply ridiculous, and, to put it mildly, very stupid people.
        2. Grigory_45 24 February 2020 10: 15 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Quote: Tamer
          Once on the T-34 and put a 57-mm gun - so there were "anti-aircraft" shells on the "thirty-four"

          I do not see any relationship.
          The BK of the "land" anti-aircraft 57-mm S-60 gun included fragmentation tracer and armor-piercing shells, and the BK of the naval AU AK-725 (also with a caliber of 57 mm) - only fragmentation tracer. The composition of the ammunition is determined by the tasks facing the artillery system. The tank can not fight with the aircraft, and anti-aircraft shell for him unnecessarily.
          1. svp67 24 February 2020 12: 10 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Quote: Gregory_45
            In the BK "land" anti-aircraft 57-mm gun S-60

            An anti-tank 34-mm gun was installed in the T-57, what is now known as the ZIS-2 and it has its own ammunition and ballistics
            1. Grigory_45 24 February 2020 12: 16 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: svp67
              An anti-tank 34-mm gun was installed in the T-57, what is now known as the ZIS-2 and it has its own ammunition and ballistics

              Why are you here T-34 dragged?
              Quote: Gregory_45
              The BK of the "land" anti-aircraft 57-mm S-60 gun included fragmentation tracer and armor-piercing shells, and the BK of the naval AU AK-725 (also with a caliber of 57 mm) - only fragmentation tracer. The composition of the ammunition is determined by the tasks facing the artillery system.
              1. svp67 24 February 2020 12: 17 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Gregory_45
                Why are you here T-34 dragged?

                here to this ...
                Quote: Gregory_45
                Once on the T-34 and put a 57-mm gun - so there were "anti-aircraft" shells on the "thirty-four"
                1. Grigory_45 24 February 2020 12: 24 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: svp67
                  here to this ...
                  Quote: Gregory_45
                  Once on the T-34 and put a 57-mm gun - so there were "anti-aircraft" shells on the "thirty-four"

                  those. signed that they didn’t understand anything. I will not give a proverb, I think you already know it, about the book and ..)

                  That ZiS-2 and S-60 have different cartridges, I am well aware. An example was to show that
                  Quote: Gregory_45
                  The composition of the ammunition is determined by the tasks facing the artillery system.

                  And since
                  Quote: Gregory_45
                  The tank can not fight with the aircraft, and anti-aircraft shell for him unnecessarily.

                  Read carefully, and may you be happy)
                  1. svp67 24 February 2020 12: 29 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: Gregory_45
                    those. signed that they didn’t understand anything.

                    I did not expect such self-criticism from you. The man remembered you about T-34/57, but you tell him about S-60 ... And then you try to blame others for your sins ... Well, isn’t it funny?
                    Quote: Gregory_45
                    That ZiS-2 and S-60 have different cartridges, I am well aware. An example was to show that

                    So it was necessary for a person to tell about it right away, and not to get into "high matters".
                    You have a "woe from wit"
                    1. The comment was deleted.
                      1. svp67 24 February 2020 12: 43 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        You, apparently, are very pleased to arrange an elephant out of a fly, or have you still not let offense?

                        You know, it’s very interesting to read a person’s accusations of what he does?
                        You think too much of yourself. With what “fright” I am offended by you, but the “insult” in you sits firmly, and most importantly does not let go. Well, God will judge you ...
                      2. Grigory_45 24 February 2020 13: 30 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: svp67
                        You think too much of yourself.

                        you'd better watch the logs in your eyes. Ile without sin?))

                        Quote: svp67
                        What a "fright" I take offense at you

                        you yourself know it perfectly.

                        Quote: svp67
                        but in you, "resentment" then sits firmly, and most importantly does not let go.

                        deep purple in parallel to you

                        PS to write the answer to my comment deleted by you - characterizes you from not the best side. And as a person, and as a moderator. Either nothing is deleted, or the comments of both opponents related to the place of the dialogue that crossed the “ribbon” are deleted. And you know this rule.
                      3. Tamer 25 February 2020 12: 07 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Actually, it was sarcasm)) and about the cumulative, and about the "anti-aircraft" shell. When you read, then think about what they write before sending everyone to school))
    3. Dzungar 25 February 2020 15: 02 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      A sub-caliber projectile is a scrap piercing ONLY due to its high speed, more than 1500 m / s. A low-pulse cannon IS NOT ABLE TO PROVIDE THIS EQUIPMENT WITH SUCH SPEED ..... And you did not know ...? Would you go better to learn addition and subtraction. Now they teach you at school ...?
    4. Dzungar 25 February 2020 15: 05 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      57 mm gun mounted on the T-34 - this is an anti-tank gun ZIS-2 ..... AND HERE "anti-aircraft" shells ... ???
  10. Operator 25 February 2020 15: 00 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: Gregory_45
    shoot a low-ballistic projectile with a caliber projectile

    The magic abbreviation is ARS.
    1. Grigory_45 25 February 2020 17: 04 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Operator
      Magic Abbreviation - ARS

      the magic abbreviation does not make the shell magical, or rather, in everything losing to the tank BOPS. Guess why? ..))
      1. Operator 25 February 2020 17: 06 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Familiarize yourself with the concept of "kinetic rocket" and all questions will be removed by themselves.
        1. Grigory_45 25 February 2020 17: 43 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Operator
          and all questions will be removed by themselves.

          I have no questions, as well as doubts, that at a distance of up to 1,5-2 km (tank battle distance) the BOPS will cover your vaunted ARS in all respects. Your miracle, like all RS, has a low accuracy, and to what speed can you accelerate it at a kilometer distance? Above 1500 m / s ??? It’s funny to me already)) BOPS leaves the trunk at a speed of 1500 - 1800 m / s, and slowly loses it (at a distance of 1,5-2 km)
          1. Operator 25 February 2020 18: 29 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            The accuracy of the solid-state inertial guidance system has now reached 10 cm in 1 second. At a speed of a kinetic missile of 2 km / s at a distance of 2000 m, the CVO of the missile will be 20 cm, at a distance of 4000 meters - 40 cm (with a front projection of the tank hull 2x3 meters).
            1. Grigory_45 25 February 2020 18: 40 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Operator
              Solid State Inertial Guidance Accuracy

              and BOPS has neither an engine nor a guidance system. They do not need a fuck to confidently break through the armor of the tank. Cheap and cheerful.
              Well, you can continue to rave NAR for the tank

              And so, finally))
              Quote: Operator
              At a speed of a kinetic rocket of 2 km / s

              Well, at what distance will the rocket develop such a speed? Flying 3-4 kilometers ??)))

              PS For general development and understanding of what ARS is and why they are bad at short distances, read about the Gyrojet pistol. Very clear. And extrapolate to the tank gun.
  • Dzungar 25 February 2020 14: 11 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Plus, for installation on the BMP / BTR, a low-pulse low-ballistic gun is required.
    You want to say that the 73 mm Thunder gun from the BMP-1 is again becoming more preferable than others ....? Yes, even shoot from a low-pulse cannon with caliber shells ...... Are you out of your mind at all ..?
  • Grad-Xnumx 24 February 2020 16: 48 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Express module with a 57mm gun on the BKM Barys.


    1. psiho117 25 February 2020 12: 12 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      It layout 57mm guns ...
      1. Grad-Xnumx 25 February 2020 17: 39 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Representatives of Rosoboronexport on armored vehicles at the KADEX exhibition were stubbornly silent. They did not give out military secrets wink
  • Dzungar 25 February 2020 14: 07 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    It seems to me alone that the barrel of the 2A91 is shorter than that of the S-60 ...? How then can this new weapon be of "increased power" ..? I understand that increasing the power of the gun is achieved not only by the increased length of the barrel, but still ....
  • Operator 25 February 2020 20: 02 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    Quote: Gregory_45
    rave NAR

    H (unmanaged) arom you rave, however laughing