Military Review

Lurking "Lynx": can a new BMP change the balance of power in the arms market

77

In front of the whole world



Rheinmetall is heard by everyone who is not indifferent to military-technical topics. The German concern, which was founded back in 1889 (!), Is now one of the largest manufacturers of military equipment and weapons in Europe. Among the products of the concern are the well-known Puma and GTK Boxer machines. They are in good demand: as of 2018, they have built over 400 Boxer armored personnel carriers. In addition to Germany, the Netherlands and Lithuania became operators: the first in 2006 ordered two hundred of these machines.

Last year, Rheinmetall bought 55 percent of the shares of BAE Systems, one of the symbols of the British defense industry, which, among other things, produced Tanks Challenger 2. But in 2008 BAE was considered the world's largest arms company.

One of the keys to Rheinmetall's success is the spectacular presentation of new products. Recently, for example, to everyone's surprise, the Germans showed a demo video of their new development, a 130-mm tank gun with the symbol Next Generation 130, mounted on a Challenger 2 chassis (a number of media erroneously indicated the German Leopard 2 as a base, which, in general, then, it is logical).

Now the concern has decided to go further, showing one of its main innovations, the Lynx infantry fighting vehicle, as part of the NATO Brave Warrior exercise. The events presented in the video take place on September 22, 2020. "We have received extremely positive feedback from the troops!" - somewhat vaguely commented on the situation at Rheinmetall.

Two in the field - warriors


In the exercises of the North Atlantic Alliance, the most powerful version of the Kettenfahrzeug 41 (KF41) combat vehicle was used. In addition to her, another version has been developed - Kettenfahrzeug 31 (KF31). Both vehicles are completely new: the KF41 variant was presented at Eurosatory Defense on June 12, 2018. This model has a maximum permissible weight of 50 tons. In addition to the three crew members, the KF41 can carry eight paratroopers. In the stern there is a drop-down lip.


The car has a 1140 horsepower engine, which allows it to reach a top speed of 70 kilometers per hour. The BMP received a remotely controlled combat module Lance 2.0 (the KF31 has a different module - the Lance of the first version). The tower received an external protective casing, which forms many intersecting surfaces. The turret dome is complemented by a long cannon casing that acts as a mask.

The "younger" model, the KF31, was introduced much earlier. It was presented as part of Eurosatory 2016. The vehicle has a maximum permissible weight of up to 38 tons and can carry up to six troops. It is equipped with a 755 horsepower engine and can reach a top speed of 65 kilometers per hour.


Various weapon options are possible. The main caliber is the 30mm Rheinmetall MK30-2 / ABM (KF31) cannon or the 35mm Wotan 35 cannon with an electric automatic drive. The fire control system allows the use of projectiles with programmable detonation, which expands the range of tasks to be solved. There is a coaxial 7.62-mm Rheinmetall RMG 7.62 machine gun. Optionally, there are Spike LR2 anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM) or installations for launching drones. In the normal position, the missile launcher is located inside the turret, and before launching the missiles, it "leaves" to the side.


It is important to note that the “fire and forget” principle is implemented on the Israeli Spike complex. Recall that today, not a single domestic ATGM of this class, with the exception of promising developments, has such capabilities. The declared maximum range of the Spike-LR is 4000 meters (in the updated version - up to 5500). Armor penetration can reach 900 mm. According to these indicators, Spike is comparable with the best post-Soviet developments.

The panoramic sight of the commander, located on the roof, contributes to the improvement of the situational awareness of the crew. In addition to this, Lynx has already become a traditional information and command system for exchanging data with allied units.

The armor is designed to protect the Lynx from anti-tank weapons, medium-caliber ammunition, fragmentation artillery and bombs. The level of protection of the KF31 hull is officially declared according to the NATO STANAG 4569 Level 5 standard, which implies protection against 25-mm APCR shells at a distance of 500 m. The seats of the paratroopers were equipped with a folding structure: they are installed on the sides of the hull. This approach is designed to reduce the negative impact of undermining under a track or the bottom of a combat vehicle.

Prospects for new items


The concept is based on “the use of proven solutions combined with innovative production methods”. This can be considered as another attempt to make an infantry fighting vehicle that meets the requirements of the 41st century, which, at the same time, would be relatively economical. “To what extent do the armed infantry fighting vehicles meet the requirements of the future warfare? It was with this question that the Rheinmetall concern began the creation of a new family of armored combat vehicles Lynx, "said Ben Hudson, head of the Rheinmetall division, which is responsible for the development of armored vehicles, before rolling out the KF2018 BMP at Eurosatory-XNUMX.


One way or another, many countries have already shown interest in the car. In August it became known that Hungary had signed an agreement with Rheinmetall on the creation of a joint venture, that is, it was this country that became the first customer of Lynx. The car must be produced on Hungarian territory. According to unofficial data, the state will receive up to 220 KF41 vehicles with the start of their deliveries in 2024-2025.

Potential operators include Qatar, Australia and the Czech Republic. The most significant victory of the Germans on the market could be the success in the US Army Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle competition, which assumes no less than a replacement for the M2 Bradley BMP. However, earlier BMP KF41 Lynx was disqualified due to the fact that they untimely provided a modified sample for testing: at least that was the formal reason. Other "foreigners" were not included in the number of finalists. So in the end, only the Griffin III from General Dynamics remained in the program, which caused the US Army to cancel the comparative test phase. And even later, the Pentagon completely reformatted the competition, changing the priority requirements. The outcome of this "leapfrog" is still unknown, but the US Army is no stranger to uncertainties about new technology.


Already, one thing can be stated: with all its advantages, Lynx has not become a revolution in the world of armored vehicles and is unlikely to be able to change the world arms market. In fact, we are facing a heavy (especially in the KF41 version) BMP, which makes it difficult to transport it by air and overcome water obstacles by the vehicle.

At the same time, booking a car can be called a compromise. According to Viktor Murakhovsky, editor-in-chief of the magazine Arsenal of the Fatherland, the Lynx is inferior in this respect to both the Israeli Namer and the Russian BMP T-15 based on the Armata (both of these vehicles, among other things, have active protection systems) ... Nevertheless, Lynx is a potentially successful development that can claim market share. Both today and in the foreseeable future.
Author:
77 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Sergey_G_M
    Sergey_G_M 6 October 2020 05: 52
    +1
    Of course it looks pretty.
    True, compared to it, the T-15 BMP looks like just a monster whose head-on from the tank is still figs, and the T-15 BMP weighs only 5 tons more and 1500 horses against 1140. Well, there are no hatches for the commander, there is no arrow great.
    1. English tarantas
      English tarantas 6 October 2020 06: 53
      -2
      Well, they can look whatever they want, in fact, it seems to me, neither one nor that has tank armor in the forehead. Like Namer. All cars are armored according to the principle of a bow, there will be no thick sandwich, but there are plenty of bulkheads, voids, reserve volume and all sorts of anti-fragmentation and anti-mine bottoms.
      1. Sergey_G_M
        Sergey_G_M 6 October 2020 07: 12
        +4
        How does Namer have no tank armor? Namer is a Merkava without a tower, everything is fine there with armor.
        1. Kostya Lavinyukov
          Kostya Lavinyukov 6 October 2020 10: 05
          +2
          The Merkava itself has specific armor. Especially the NLD.
          1. English tarantas
            English tarantas 7 October 2020 07: 12
            0
            NLD for all is a stupidly thin sheet of steel. As far as I remember at the Merkavs, up to the 4th, the armoring of the hull is reduced to an emphasis on the internal volumes of metal (MTO, partitions, armored tanks and racks), but outside there are metal-ceramic tiles and everything, maybe kinetics about ricochet, but a good cumulative will reach something anything important.
            1. Kostya Lavinyukov
              Kostya Lavinyukov 7 October 2020 13: 11
              0
              The problem is not even the thickness (the T-72 is also not so hot), but the fact that the Merkava takes 70% of the projection of the hull.
              1. English tarantas
                English tarantas 7 October 2020 17: 11
                0
                NLD? 70%? Bye.
        2. English tarantas
          English tarantas 7 October 2020 07: 07
          0
          Does the Merkava have a huge multi-layer armor in the hull in the forehead?
    2. carstorm 11
      carstorm 11 6 October 2020 11: 47
      -2
      tasks are different. t 15 is initially positioned reinforcement. at what point and not massive. for a certain range of tasks. having one heavy battalion of similar vehicles in a division, let's say. an offensive in tank formations is now an anachronism. but in certain cases it is quite a decision to bring such a reserve into battle.
    3. chingachguc
      chingachguc 6 October 2020 22: 02
      0
      the designers worked, why))
  2. Thrifty
    Thrifty 6 October 2020 07: 29
    -10 qualifying.
    57mm are waiting for this "box", enough to turn it into scrap metal.
    1. Danila46
      Danila46 6 October 2020 09: 55
      12
      no non-penetrable armor. both Russian equipment and any other can be turned into scrap metal. and for this reason, your schadenfreude looks more like a uryapatriotic screech ...
    2. chingachguc
      chingachguc 6 October 2020 22: 11
      +1
      no need to make an infantry fighting vehicle to fight another infantry fighting vehicle. BMP - for interaction with infantry and infantry cover ...
  3. OgnennyiKotik
    OgnennyiKotik 6 October 2020 08: 31
    -2
    Stealth is becoming the norm for ground vehicles. Visibility reduction measures are becoming increasingly important. The UAVs will soon be at the department level.
    1. chingachguc
      chingachguc 6 October 2020 22: 03
      +1
      the next stage is sals for a soldier)) streamlined fart
  4. silberwolf88
    silberwolf88 6 October 2020 08: 33
    +1
    not the most advanced and innovative ... BUT it will sell well ... well, that's not so, and there are many concerns left in the west that are able to offer the next version of the BMP for the army ...
    indicatively, the article does not mention the Bundeswehr ... i.e. they are in no hurry to buy their own ...
    the American market is unlikely to be opened ... it is for their own ...
    1. Nemo
      Nemo 6 October 2020 12: 00
      +2
      And why do they need Lynx, if they ordered the Puma from the same Reinmetal?
  5. Doccor18
    Doccor18 6 October 2020 09: 08
    +2
    No matter how much I read about armored vehicles, every time I am convinced that, like 80 years ago, the two leaders of the "armor" Germany and Russia (USSR), have remained. Israel makes its own armored vehicles, but it is difficult to judge it, since it is not exported ...
    And all other design countries are far behind the leaders. And this tendency only intensifies over the years. Britain actually sold everything to Rheinmetall ...
  6. iouris
    iouris 6 October 2020 10: 59
    0
    Clear. Even "transport by air" is no longer required. In Belarus the roads are good, but there everything is close by.
  7. Operator
    Operator 6 October 2020 11: 16
    -11 qualifying.
    Modern BMP without KAZ is like beer without vodka laughing

    The BMP cannon must have a caliber of at least 76 mm to fight the infantry (no bullets of 30 to 100 mm caliber will penetrate the tank's armor anyway). Telescopic ammunition is desirable to increase the ammunition load. ATGM must be thrown into a landfill (intercepted by KAZ).

    This is why the Lunx will not take off.
    1. prodi
      prodi 6 October 2020 15: 44
      +1
      there is no point in protecting the BMP with something more than protection against small-caliber weapons: the forehead from 30-40mm and the sides from large-caliber machine guns; for it is expensive, and this is not a heavy weapon. A larger caliber in an infantry fighting vehicle will pull further acceleration in size, restriction of the landing force and profanation of protection
      1. Operator
        Operator 6 October 2020 15: 58
        -3
        Come on - there were already two guns installed on the 22-ton BMP-3 (and one of them is 100-mm caliber to work against infantry) and nothing bad happened.

        BMP, like any other armored vehicle, is in dire need of KAZ for protection from RPGs, ATGMs and loitering ammunition (see video from Karabakh). And BMP armor is needed against bullets and fragments of shells, counter-ammunition, rocket-propelled grenades, anti-tank missiles and warheads of loitering ammunition.
        1. prodi
          prodi 6 October 2020 16: 11
          -1
          Melon is good, but not for BMP, and BMP-3 is not an BMP, but something "not certified".
          So far, KAZ is not really put on tanks either, and if we assume that the infantry keeps behind the tanks (apparently on a par with the BMP), then its meaning on the BMP is questionable
          I continue to think that the BMP is generally a dead-end branch, a bundle of normally protected BMPT and armored personnel carriers is better
          1. Operator
            Operator 6 October 2020 18: 06
            0
            "Even if you call it a pot, just don't put it in the oven," - here's the hell to do philology: BMP / APC - what's the difference? The main thing is that the armored platform can support the dismounted infantry with artillery fire and is better in 76-100 mm caliber than in 30-35 mm.
            1. prodi
              prodi 6 October 2020 18: 19
              -5
              well, it is weak for her to support the attack in the first line with the "cardboard" defense, and the problems with the placement of the landing force and its defense in the vehicle are increasing.
              If you really want to, then the only alternative is seen in the form of a two-link vehicle: a common tractor with a trailed module (landing or artillery). In both cases, there will be a gain on the mine and frontal protection of the main rear module, as well as the crew and "large-caliber" ammunition
              1. Operator
                Operator 6 October 2020 18: 43
                +1
                In the first line of attack there are tanks (in accordance with the durability of their armor and a large zone of propagation of the shock wave when firing subcaliber armor-piercing projectiles), the infantry is moving in the second line, BMP / armored personnel carriers are in the third line, in the fourth line in closed positions - ACS / MLRS ...

                In this situation, the thickness of the BMP / BTR armor is not decisive, including taking into account the work of the KAZ against RPG / ATGM (and even tank armor will not protect against artillery shells).

                Each squad leader by radio maintains communication with the weapon operator of a separate BMP / armored personnel carrier for operational suppression of enemy firing points in his attack area. In a situation of direct fire, the caliber of an infantry fighting vehicle / armored personnel carrier plays a decisive role in hitting targets from the very first shot.
                1. prodi
                  prodi 6 October 2020 19: 04
                  -4
                  What does the infantry see there behind the tanks (in terms of efficiency)?
                  When driving in the "third" line, BMPs "reinforced concrete" do not make sense against armored personnel carriers
                  1. Operator
                    Operator 6 October 2020 19: 09
                    0
                    The infantry in the second line moves at a distance of 200 meters from the tanks (the distance of the scattering of fragments from the ATGM and KAZ counter-ammunition), sees the flashes of shots from the enemy firing points and points the guns of their BMP / BTR on the third line at them.

                    Tanks in the first line are working against enemy armored vehicles.
                    1. prodi
                      prodi 6 October 2020 19: 10
                      -3
                      200m behind the tanks, the infantry does not see a shit at all
                      1. Operator
                        Operator 6 October 2020 19: 12
                        +1
                        Have you ever watched the muzzle flame of a machine gun from a frontal angle? laughing

                        If the infantry does not see the enemy's firing points, then he does not see the infantry either.
                      2. prodi
                        prodi 6 October 2020 19: 25
                        -4
                        Yes, do not care fire flashes, with an instinctive desire to see - where to lie down, on occasion. There will be no protection from ATGM and RPG! (not to mention guns and tanks)
                  2. chingachguc
                    chingachguc 6 October 2020 22: 08
                    0
                    in front of the tanks! before! this is the only way tanks and infantry fighting vehicles can protect the infantry
                    1. Operator
                      Operator 6 October 2020 22: 21
                      +1
                      I have already said that the shock wave from a BPS shot from a tank cannon will shock the infantry in the 30-degree sector at a distance of up to 300 meters in front of the tank. Plus four segments of the BPS pallet scattering for a kilometer (like cannonballs).

                      One attack - and the infantry going in front of the tank will end even without fire contact with the enemy.
                    2. chingachguc
                      chingachguc 6 October 2020 22: 37
                      0
                      then remove the tanks from the battlefield altogether. For they will burn out in 5 minutes
                    3. Operator
                      Operator 6 October 2020 23: 55
                      -2
                      They won't burn out with KAZ.
                    4. avdkrd
                      avdkrd 9 October 2020 23: 02
                      +1
                      Quote: chingachguc
                      then remove the tanks from the battlefield altogether. For they will burn out in 5 minutes

                      why should they be burned? Of what? What kind of combat are we considering? If combined arms, then the logic is approximately the following: according to the results of reconnaissance (including technical), all attached forces (aviation, artillery, mortars, UAVs) strike at the identified positions. Further, it is the tanks that break the line of defense, clearing passages for infantry fighting vehicles. BMPs provide fire support for targets identified by tanks and ensure the delivery of infantry to designated targets. Further, the interaction of tanks, infantry and the attached funds decides the outcome of the battle. The reasoning that the tanks will endure in 5 minutes is probably due to the fact that you did not see the tank in battle.

                      .
                      Next
                  3. Thomas N.
                    Thomas N. 10 October 2020 19: 50
                    0
                    Quote: Operator
                    I have already said that the shock wave from a BPS shot from a tank cannon will shock the infantry in the 30-degree sector at a distance of up to 300 meters in front of the tank.

                    This is an interesting question about the shell shock from a BOPS shot. But how, then, does a tank on the defensive shoot? After all, a tank trench in a platoon stronghold is always behind the trenches of its infantry.

                    Quote: Operator
                    Plus four segments of the BPS pallet scattering for a kilometer (like cannonballs).

                    It is doubtful that the irregularly shaped light pallet segments will fly a kilometer away. After flying out of the trunk, the pallet is divided to the sides of the departing BOPS and, judging by this photo

                    the pallet segments fly up and down. Segments flying downwards immediately stick into the ground, flying upwards will not hit anyone and, tumbling from aerodynamic drag, quickly lose speed and also fall to the ground.
                  4. Operator
                    Operator 10 October 2020 20: 05
                    -1
                    A tank placed among the infantry can shoot (without consequences for the infantry) only with caliber OFS.

                    The pallet segments of the sub-caliber BPS fly apart, incl. to the sides.
                  5. Thomas N.
                    Thomas N. 10 October 2020 20: 21
                    0
                    Quote: Operator
                    A tank placed among the infantry can shoot (without consequences for the infantry) only with caliber OFS.

                    So the question remained, how then does the BOPS shoot at the advancing tanks a tank standing in a trench in the middle of the VZOP (400x300 m)? Maybe 300 m of shell shock is still an exaggeration?
                    Quote: Operator
                    The pallet segments of the sub-caliber BPS fly apart, incl. to the sides.

                    To the sides does not mean parallel to the ground. Anyway, above and below the shot line.
                  6. Operator
                    Operator 10 October 2020 21: 57
                    -1
                    BPS - only if there is no infantry tank firing in the sector at a distance of less than 300 meters

                  7. Thomas N.
                    Thomas N. 11 October 2020 19: 06
                    0
                    Quote: Operator
                    BPS - only if there is no infantry tank firing in the sector at a distance of less than 300 meters

                    A beautiful photo, but it does not give an answer to the question about BOPS firing in defense, when the trench of its infantry is clearly less than 300 m away (the entire depth of the VZOP is 300 m, and the tank is in its center). If 300 m is a safe zone, then it would be good to give a link to the document where it came from.
                  8. Operator
                    Operator 11 October 2020 19: 26
                    -1
                    The size of the muzzle flame from the incomplete combustion of an additional charge of gunpowder in the composition of the BPS shot visually demonstrates the magnitude of the shock wave propagating in the front hemisphere in front of the tank at a speed of movement of the powder gases (about 2 km / s).

                    In other words: if you want to place a tank in a company strongpoint with the ability to fire at enemy armored vehicles, clear the firing sector in front of it from your infantry.

                    300 meters is a guaranteed protection against shell shock, as well as, for example, 200 meters is a guaranteed protection against fragments of ATGM and KAZ counter-ammunition.

                    For thrill-seekers, you can shorten the distance laughing
              2. psiho117
                psiho117 11 October 2020 16: 50
                +1
                Quote: Thomas N.
                Maybe 300 m of shell shock is still an exaggeration?

                An obvious exaggeration. Maybe, theoretically, the elements of the pallet can fly 100-150m, but the shock wave at 300m is a myth. In urban conditions, a shot along a narrow street - and even then, no more than 100 m of the propagation of a shock wave, and even in an open field - there will not be even 50 m.
                The figure of 300m could have arisen from the well-known suspiciousness of sappers and demolition men, who calculate the safe zone from detonation according to the principle "find the line where 90% of the fragments fell, and multiply this distance by two" - and here, so that for sure, someone wrote 300m ...
      2. psiho117
        psiho117 6 October 2020 22: 31
        +1
        Quote: chingachguc
        in front of the tanks! before!

        I recommend that you familiarize yourself with such a "cute" method of urban battles - a tank drives out in the middle of the street and just fires a shot along (it can even be blank), as a result - all the glass from the windows for 100m on both sides of the street is negative, snipers and grenade launchers sitting they feel good outside these windows too.
        The interaction of infantry and armored vehicles in a DB conditions in a city is a big and complex issue. You can't just say - "in front" or "behind" the infantry should follow, everything very much depends on the circumstances.
      3. Operator
        Operator 7 October 2020 00: 06
        0
        As for the battle in urban areas - without options, it is conducted by assault groups of infantry (Chuikov's method), and armored vehicles are used in the second line as a means of fire support.

        There is, of course, Shamanov's method (which I like better) of fighting in the city - total artillery destruction of urban buildings along the offensive lines, after which the tanks move in the first line, and the infantry follows them, but in this case, the battle is de facto waged in the field conditions bully
      4. English tarantas
        English tarantas 7 October 2020 17: 22
        0
        conducted by assault infantry groups (Chuikov's method)

        The method of the Germans (no one knows who exactly) in WWI.
        Shamanov's method (which I like better) of fighting in the city is the total artillery destruction of urban buildings along the offensive lines, after which the tanks move in the first line, and the infantry follows them, but in this case the battle is de facto carried out in the field

        What? What kind of destruction? Have you seen photos of WWII cities, and modern wars (well, after 1990)? How are you going to let the tanks go forward? What are the field conditions? Your Shamanov, vaguely understands what he said, and if he has anything to do with the Armed Forces, then it is very sad. (I suspect what Shamanov, but the one about which I think 2 words cannot connect, I saw it live)
      5. Operator
        Operator 7 October 2020 17: 34
        -1
        My Shamanov (later commander of the Airborne Forces) actually grinded Chechen settlements into rubble and formed a rocky desert in their place - in the offensive zone, naturally.

        You know better about words laughing
      6. English tarantas
        English tarantas 7 October 2020 19: 00
        0
        To be honest and in fact, he spoke to the radio there, and the people who surrounded me did the business. Privates. You need to consider the conflict in detail, it could be that he commanded well then (that is, it worked), and then something happened, it could be that the order sounded: "Here I was told that the enemy is there, destroy", and there the guys figured it out themselves.
  • chingachguc
    chingachguc 6 October 2020 22: 06
    +1
    I find 100mm very bad for an infantry fighting vehicle. A powder magazine, covered with foil, carries a squad of soldiers. Nicely ))
  • Oleg83
    Oleg83 6 October 2020 11: 25
    +2
    Rheinmetall bought 55 percent of BAE Systems last year

    The authors at least check the sources of information. Rheinmetall bought not BAE Systems, but BAE Systems armored plant https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2019/07/01/rheinmetall-bae-consummate-armored-vehicles-joint-venture/
  • carstorm 11
    carstorm 11 6 October 2020 11: 43
    +2
    50 and 38 tons ... the sky-high price of one unit ... what army of the world can even in theory collect from this a thousandth park? Yes, the world will go faster. these cars look cool, but with the weight of the MBT and the price of the MBT, the sense of mass character simply disappears
  • dgonni
    dgonni 6 October 2020 11: 44
    -2
    The most important thing in German developments is that the Proturai work on the principle of fire and forget, and the cannon has programmable projectiles. Therefore, such an assembly makes it possible to very effectively deal with typical targets on the battlefield and is an order of magnitude more effective than the same T-15 platform.
    Doy chi what to take from them?
    1. Nemo
      Nemo 6 October 2020 12: 05
      0
      The platform has nothing to do with it. But the fact that there are no systems of the "fire and forget" type in Russia is bad. And if we compare the platforms, then, in my opinion, it is more correct to compare not with the T-15, but with the Kurganets-25.
      1. dgonni
        dgonni 6 October 2020 13: 23
        -2
        Well, Kurganets fits into the easy option. T-15 heavy. The problem is that neither one nor the other can fight small drones, and when firing anti-aircraft guns, you need to accompany the target until it hits.
        Armor is certainly a good thing, but the hit of a high-explosive shell makes the tank worse, and for the BMP there is nothing to say. So whoever saw and fired the first won. And new platforms still have problems with the effectiveness of this process.
  • Tamer
    Tamer 6 October 2020 12: 07
    -2
    5 years from the start of development, according to Rheinmetall.
    The article does not mention the modular concept of the Lynx KF41 (perhaps this was mentioned in earlier articles about the Lynx KF41 on the VO) - the conversion of the BMP into an armored personnel carrier / armored vehicle - up to 8 hours.
    In addition to the specified ballistic (including the ability to protect the upper projections from cluster munitions) and mine protection (up to 10kg, as already mentioned on the VO), it is possible to replace such packages in the field. In addition, it is possible to install an active protection complex to protect against RPGs and ATGMs.
    https://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/en/rheinmetall_defence/systems_and_products/vehicle_systems/armoured_tracked_vehicles/lynx/index.php
    The main caliber is the 30mm Rheinmetall MK30-2 / ABM (KF31) gun or the 35mm Wotan 35 cannon with an electric drive of the automatic. The fire control system allows the use of projectiles with programmable detonation

    And we have projectiles with programmable detonation for guns (even the fashionable 57 mm wink) BMP is still in "development". There is also an MSA for them.
    1. psiho117
      psiho117 6 October 2020 19: 05
      +1
      Quote: Tamer
      And we have projectiles with programmable detonation for guns (even the fashionable 57 mm) BMPs are still in "development". There is also an MSA for them.

      There is no need to worry too much - apart from the Germans, no country in the world has controlled detonation shells in its BMP.
      So if we become at least third or fourth, it will already be huge step forward.
      And if ATGMs of the 3rd generation appear ...
      Eh, dream dreams repeat
      1. Tamer
        Tamer 7 October 2020 10: 20
        0
        Quote: psiho117

        There is no need to worry too much - apart from the Germans, no country in the world has controlled detonation shells in its BMP.

        Bushmaster carriers (Mk. 44 Bushmaster II)?
        1. psiho117
          psiho117 7 October 2020 11: 12
          0
          Quote: Tamer
          Bushmaster carriers (Mk. 44 Bushmaster II)?

          No, except for the German Puma, none of the BMPs in the standard ammunition rack have 30mm shells with remote detonation. It is in service, but not in the BMP.

          If we consider not only 30mm - The Swedes, the CV9040 should also have a 40mm "tri-pe", the Koreans also have a programmer on their K21, and they produce such a 40mm projectile under license.
          CV90 with 35mm guns (Denmark and Holland) also have such a shell.
          The only question is how many of them are there in the ammunition rack - usually they only talk about "the possibility of use", and the maximum that was voiced is 15-20 shells.
          Expensive wassat
          Puma, however, does not have conventional shells in the ammunition rack, only BOPS and programmable ones.
          What, a rich country, Germany hi
  • Ivan Tixiy
    Ivan Tixiy 6 October 2020 12: 58
    -1
    BMP operating in battle formations with tanks, where it is more preferable not to be able to swim, but to protect and mobility. And the requirement "..that makes it difficult to transport it by air and overcome water obstacles by the car." just goes back to the Soviet generals, who, instead of developing pontoon parks, for some reason were constantly concerned about creating hordes of light floating trash, which seems to be armored, but in fact ..... that there is armor that it is not. And let specialized vehicles for the landing fly through the air
    1. Tamer
      Tamer 6 October 2020 15: 02
      -1
      "Light floating trash" after World War II was created by almost everyone. And this is a question not only for Soviet generals.
      Requirements for the protection ("shield") of the "trash" began to increase due to the spread and development of the "sword".
      "Light trash" is still not able to withstand the "sword". Only the mass character of the current protected "rubbish" and the mass character required in the Cold War are different things. Then - "tank wedges" and weapons of mass destruction, now concerns are different. Times are different.
      Landing equipment and pontoon parks, EMNIP, were in every TD / MSD of the SA division. Only the likelihood of their defeat increased more than their protection increased, not even so - than their defenselessness decreased.
      1. Ivan Tixiy
        Ivan Tixiy 6 October 2020 16: 08
        0
        Please read carefully. I do not need to quote the structure of the motorized rifle and tank division of the USSR, as well as the types of equipment in service, most likely I know them better than you.
        With such a quantity of equipment, pontoon parks were clearly insufficient. The point is that, despite the breakthrough design of the BMP-1, for the sake of its ability to transport by air (in the presence of an excessive number of airborne forces) and swim (God forbid, why was it needed, especially such a poor ability), sacrificed armor. For the sake of the ability to shoot on the move, the infantry received a complex and expensive hull design. And the grenade launcher "Thunder" is not a cannon but an anecdote .... But back to our BMP so to speak. Already the first participation in hostilities showed all the inferiority of a light, weakly armored BMP. But MO continues to cling to the general swimming ... It seems that common sense has finally won out in recent projects.
  • chingachguc
    chingachguc 6 October 2020 13: 30
    +3
    somehow everything is too modest for such a mass
    1. Tamer
      Tamer 6 October 2020 15: 16
      -2
      What is humble? Protection round against the "Russian" 30 mm? Mine protection? "Angry" 35mm shot? 8 troops?
      The price is very immodest))
      1. chingachguc
        chingachguc 6 October 2020 22: 00
        0
        with such a weight, projectile protection should be)) and the cannon is weak. In fact, this is a heavy infantry fighting vehicle. A heavy infantry fighting vehicle should go on a par with tanks in the same formation ...
  • Paul Siebert
    Paul Siebert 6 October 2020 15: 45
    -2
    It looks solid and modern.
    A sort of mini-tank of the Space Marine from the saga about the future ...
    A large number of paratroopers. Not bad security. Rear ramp.
    Tall, of course. But that's the price to pay for the many people on board.
    Let's see how this "shelezyaka" will help the microbalts defend the independence of the Fatherland ... laughing
  • yehat2
    yehat2 6 October 2020 16: 28
    +1
    the German car looks very interesting, a whole list of new products has been introduced, but the price?
    one stands like a BMP-2 regiment.
    1. psiho117
      psiho117 6 October 2020 19: 14
      0
      Quote: yehat2
      one stands like a bmp-2 regiment

      I'm afraid that her combat effectiveness is comparable. This is a heavy, highly protected vehicle of generation 3+, with high firepower, a modern complex of observation devices and advanced network-centric capabilities.
      And the BMP-2 is, as it were, softer - well, not a kosher product at all.
      1. Thomas N.
        Thomas N. 11 October 2020 19: 22
        0
        Quote: psiho117
        Quote: yehat2
        one stands like a bmp-2 regiment

        I'm afraid that her combat effectiveness is comparable.

        Is one Lynx comparable in efficiency to the BMP-2 regiment? Hehe ... Well, this is only if Siegfried is sitting inside this "Lynx" laughing , and even then you first have to bury yourself in a hole and wait until the "dragon" substitutes the belly.
  • yehat2
    yehat2 6 October 2020 16: 37
    0
    Quote: Doccor18
    Israel makes its own armored vehicles, but it is difficult to judge them, since they are not exported.

    Israel mainly parasitizes on other people's developments, specialists and makes a little of the components itself.
    The same Merkava, although it looks completely unique, is mainly assembled from other people's solutions, somewhere developed a little further. This also applies to trophy, and modular armor, etc.
    China is doing roughly the same thing.
    So it is better to look at the Russian Federation, the USA and Germany. There are only 3 leaders left.
  • abc_alex
    abc_alex 6 October 2020 23: 56
    0
    This model has a maximum permissible weight of 50 tons.

    ??? 50 tons? This is a tank and not the lightest ... And with 30 mm weapons and 25 mm armor protection? What is this, another anti-barmale wunderwaffle?
  • ecolog
    ecolog 7 October 2020 01: 09
    0
    I'm looking at this eel and it becomes clear where Musk stole the "design" of his cyber-truck. What are all these polygons on the tower for? What is this fat body filled with? Polyurethane foam?
    1. psiho117
      psiho117 7 October 2020 11: 28
      +1
      Quote: ecolog
      What is this fat body filled with? Polyurethane foam?

      Spaced armor, removable ceramic panels - everything is sharpened to protect against RPGs.
      However, the protection against BOPS is also at the level - circular from 25mm uranium sabot, from 500m. This means that our 30mm will not take it at close range.

      But yes, the design is a bit weird.
  • Gust
    Gust 7 October 2020 13: 14
    0
    Quote: psiho117
    This means that our 30mm will not take it at close range.

    This means that you need 57mm high ballistics.
  • Gust
    Gust 7 October 2020 13: 14
    0
    Quote: psiho117
    This means that our 30mm will not take it at close range.

    This means that you need 57mm high ballistics.
  • Gust
    Gust 7 October 2020 13: 14
    0
    Quote: psiho117
    This means that our 30mm will not take it at close range.

    This means that you need 57mm high ballistics.
    1. Thomas N.
      Thomas N. 11 October 2020 20: 07
      0
      Quote: Rafale
      Quote: psiho117
      This means that our 30mm will not take it at close range.

      This means that you need 57mm high ballistics.

      Was one message not enough? laughing You need three high ballistic 57mm BOPS, right?
      1. Gust
        Gust 12 October 2020 19: 08
        0
        Gluck;)) In general, at least 2: an ordinary knowledge base and a telescope with tungsten.