Manul platform: development continues

174

In recent years, the Russian defense industry has created a number of modernization projects for the BMP-3 infantry fighting vehicle. One of the latest developments of this kind was called "Manul" and was presented in 2020. Work on this project is ongoing, and new details have recently become known.

Plans for the future


On August 12, the TASS agency published an interview with Pyotr Tyukov, Executive Director of Kurganmashzavod PJSC (High-precision Complexes holding from Rostec). The head of the enterprise spoke about the current projects of infantry fighting vehicles and other armored vehicles. Together with other developments, they also remembered the promising project "Manul".



According to P. Tyukov, development work with the Manul cipher continues. At the same time, the development of such an armored vehicle is now taking into account the updated terms of reference from the Ministry of Defense. The requirements for the combat vehicle have been adjusted taking into account the experience of military operations in Ukraine, and now all this is taken into account in the development of the project.

According to current estimates, the completion of the project, the construction and testing of experimental equipment, etc. it takes about three more years. After that, Kurganmashzavod will be able to start mass production of Manuls for delivery to the troops.

Last year, at the Army-2021 forum, it was reported that Manul would become a universal platform for accommodating various modules, complexes and loads. P. Tyukov said that such plans remain in force. It is planned to build a wide range of military equipment on the BMP chassis - from air defense systems and cannon artillery to special vehicles and MLRS.


The head of Kurganmashzavod notes the keenest interest in the Manul project from foreign customers. Its appearance was facilitated by the successful concept of this machine, which reflects modern trends in the development of armored vehicles. Potential buyers are attracted by the modular design, the front engine compartment and the landing through the aft ramp.

There is no talk about interest from our Ministry of Defense yet. However, its presence is indicated by a recent update of the terms of reference. Probably, new details will appear in the foreseeable future.

Perspective development


The Manul project provides for a deep modernization of the BMP-3 using modern solutions and components. The purpose of this update is to obtain new technical capabilities and turn the existing machine into a universal platform. The project is being developed by the Special Design Bureau of Mechanical Engineering from the Kurganmashzavod. Work started at the end of the 2020s, and the first exhibition model was already presented at the Army-XNUMX forum.

The main idea of ​​the Manul project is to change the layout of the combat vehicle. The original hull of the BMP-3 was redesigned, which made it possible to move the engine compartment to the forward compartment. At the same time, volumes in the stern of the machine were released, which can be more efficiently used to accommodate troops or special equipment.

The new MTO houses a UTD-32 diesel engine with a power of 660 hp. The transmission has not undergone fundamental changes. It is planned to install an information management system that monitors the operation of the units, identifies problems and even issues recommendations for their elimination. Tracked undercarriage with torsion bar suspension as a whole remained the same. As a result of all the improvements, the mobility and patency of the Manul on land increased in comparison with the BMP-3. We also managed to save the possibility of swimming.


The Manul infantry fighting vehicle still has aluminum spaced armor with protection against 30-mm projectiles when fired from the front corners and all-round anti-bullet / anti-fragmentation protection. At the same time, the project provides for the installation of side screens to enhance the protection of the lateral projection of the hull and chassis.

In the BMP configuration, the new Manul is more spacious. In the bow of the hull, three places for the crew are saved. The new aft troop compartment can accommodate eight people. Access to the aft compartment is provided by a folding ramp with an emergency door.

Combat loads


In 2020, the exhibition Manul was demonstrated with the Epoch combat module. This product carries a 30 mm automatic cannon and a 7,62 mm machine gun, as well as guided missiles. The module is completely placed outside the case and does not occupy internal volumes. The control is carried out remotely from the operator's workplace.

At the Army-2021 forum, the new BMP was again shown in this configuration. At the same time, it was reported that in the future, "Manul" will be able to receive other payloads. An approximate list of such equipment was recently revealed, and even this information shows the high potential of the platform.

So, new combat vehicles can be created by installing certain modules / compartments on the Manul. In this way, it is possible to manufacture infantry fighting vehicles with improved combat characteristics, as well as functional analogues of Sprut-SD, Nona-S or Lotos self-propelled guns. The creation of such projects will be facilitated by a significant internal volume of the hull and the absence of serious layout restrictions. Large internal compartments also allow you to create command and staff and ambulances, RCB reconnaissance vehicles, etc.


Middle platform


At first glance, "Manul" is just a variant of the modernization of the BMP-3 - one of many presented. However, this project is based on a bolder and more interesting idea. This time, not just a restructuring of the existing model, but the creation of a full-fledged unified middle-class platform is conceived. At the same time, such a platform is as similar as possible to the existing widespread model of armored vehicles.

This concept allows you to get all the pluses and benefits that are characteristic of unified platforms. At the same time, Manul is based on available units borrowed from a serial machine. This greatly simplifies and speeds up the development of both the platform and samples based on it. In addition, all the obvious operational benefits are provided.

In fact, "Manul" gives the customer the opportunity to get all the benefits of a unified platform of a modern look, but save money and avoid unnecessary technical risk. A platform of this kind can be a successful transitional stage between existing samples and promising families.

Of particular interest is the technical appearance of the proposed platform. Due to new components and solutions, Manul surpasses the original BMP-3 in a number of key parameters. Such a technical reserve can be used in almost all projects of specific combat vehicles. In addition, now the development of a new platform is carried out according to updated requirements, adjusted to reflect the latest experience. The positive results of such processes are obvious.

Great promise


Thus, one of the most interesting exhibits of the last year's forum "Army" did not remain an exclusively exhibition model and is being developed. Kurganmashzavod continues to develop the Manul platform, and all the accumulated experience is used in these processes, incl. received in recent months. The need for some changes to an existing project may adversely affect the timing of the work, but the expected results will fully justify such an expectation.

Over the next three years, the industry plans to complete the development of the updated Manul and equipment based on such a platform. Also in these terms will establish mass production. Whether it will be launched in the interests of the Russian army or foreign customers is not yet known. However, the Manul project has every chance to go beyond the exhibition sites and test sites.
174 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -9
    18 August 2022 16: 15
    If only it didn’t work out like with an armata - a parade tank.
    1. +5
      18 August 2022 18: 05
      The latest version of the BMP-3 with the beautiful name "Manul" is still conceptually closer to the T-90M, which is a modification of the T-72, while being purchased in the series. It is interesting because, on the one hand, it seriously differs from the original vehicle in terms of layout - the engine is moved forward, and a more spacious and comfortable landing compartment with an aft armored door is equipped at the back, which facilitates loading and unloading from the vehicle under fire. On the other hand, the Manul is maximally unified with the BMP-3 in terms of chassis units, and at the same time has a new combat module, similar to what will be put on the Kurganets. The crew and troops do not sit together with land mines as in the "Dragoon". And unlike a new generation car, its launch in a series is a matter of months, not years. But most likely "Manul" will not go into production, they recently concluded a contract for the modernization of the BMP-2.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. +2
        18 August 2022 18: 50
        Quote: Hoarfrost
        the engine was moved forward, and a more spacious and comfortable troop compartment with an aft armored door was equipped at the rear,

        That is, from the layout with the location of the landing force in the most comfortable location (in the center of the vehicle), they returned to the layout of the BMP-1, where during the march this very landing force swayed. To the layout, in which, without a regular loading of the troop compartment, the vehicle, when overcoming water obstacles, will bury its nose, and the frontal sheet cannot be made sufficiently armor-resistant, since the engine makes the nose heavier anyway.
        In general, again on the same rake, but it's convenient to go out.
        1. +2
          18 August 2022 19: 18
          Quote: Bad_gr
          returned to the layout of the BMP-1, where during the march this very landing force swayed .... and the frontal sheet cannot be made sufficiently armor-resistant, since the engine already makes the nose heavier.

          I bet! hi Firstly, in the new version of the landing there will be more and only added fighters will rock, and secondly, in principle, like a tank, the sheet still cannot be made thicker, but the crew will cover better with MTO nodes, directly from the cumulative much more!
          1. +1
            18 August 2022 20: 49
            What such added only also will rock to sleep? In the BMP-1,2, they also tried not to land closer to the stern, two or four closer to the center. Vladimir is right, again on the same rake.
            1. +2
              18 August 2022 21: 44
              Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
              What such added only also will rock to sleep?

              Well, who knows, in the original machine there are three in front of the tower, five behind, in this version three more were added to the five, but only there is no tower, there is space under the module!
              1. +1
                18 August 2022 21: 49
                In this configuration, additional seats appeared due to the installation of a much weaker module compared to the BMP-3. Looks closer to an armored personnel carrier than to an infantry fighting vehicle.
                1. 0
                  19 August 2022 05: 20
                  Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
                  Looks closer to an armored personnel carrier than to an infantry fighting vehicle.
                  You can’t argue with that! hi
                2. 0
                  19 August 2022 22: 25
                  Overcoming water barriers, as shown, Its not a problem of machines, but of organization.
                3. +1
                  19 August 2022 22: 25
                  The BMP 3 module is exaggerated .. why not (let's put a 152 mm gun on it and a box for landing) I'm exaggerating
                  1. -2
                    19 August 2022 22: 37
                    And why exaggerate, do not be shy, offer completely unarmed equipment. As local sailors like to insist on unarmed ships in marine topics.
                    And someone else will fight, Internet fighters consider mortars to be more effective weapons than tanks. Instead of this box, someone else will go into battle.
                    1. +3
                      20 August 2022 21: 54
                      Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
                      And why exaggerate, do not be shy, offer completely unarmed equipment ..
                      BTR-MD "Shell"
                      Except for 2 PKTM 7,62mm - unarmed ...
                      But 13 "passengers" - in fact, this is a long conversation about what the army needs - either a "bus" for soldiers that transports them in the war zone to the front line - or a "militant armed to the teeth" who himself will go on the attack.
                      BMPT "Terminator 2"
                      My opinion
                      Let the soldier transport an armored personnel carrier in which you can put as many soldiers as possible in full gear, and they will be covered by a special fire support vehicle (for example, "Terminator" ...)
                      soldier
                      1. 0
                        2 September 2022 20: 19
                        Let it be, but in this case it is still necessary that the armored personnel carrier be protected as much as possible, the shell does not have a serious level of protection.
                4. 0
                  13 October 2022 13: 04
                  But wait, this is the platform on which they assemble the configuration they need for the customer
          2. 0
            6 October 2022 11: 48
            secondly, in principle, like a tank, the sheet still cannot be made thicker, but the crew will cover better with the MTO nodes, directly from the cumulative much more!
            In principle, you are not quite right, the front engine will perfectly protect against small-caliber projectiles from cumulative jets, it will not even protect against a high-explosive projectile. But the front location of the MTO makes it possible to increase the armor of the troop compartment along the sides, which will have a positive effect. Back in 2002, they asked the industry to reconfigure the BMP 3 and remove the 100mm gun. Finally, God heard the pleas of the infantry.
            1. 0
              6 October 2022 13: 58
              Quote: insafufa
              In principle, you are not quite right, the front engine will perfectly protect against small-caliber projectiles from cumulative jets, it will not even protect against a high-explosive projectile.

              Why did it happen? Front plate, transmission radiators, engine and fire armored bulkhead. CS will hold up just fine. And from a land mine only thick armor.
              1. 0
                6 October 2022 14: 37
                You probably didn’t see how the BMP 2 KS perfectly flashes from bow to stern through the MTO
                1. 0
                  6 October 2022 17: 12
                  Quote: insafufa
                  You probably didn’t see how the BMP 2 KS perfectly flashes from bow to stern through the MTO

                  In general, specifically in the BMP-1-2, a third of the frontal projection is actually a hole - there are places for the driver and the BMP commander - the squad leader. A hypothetical infantry fighting vehicle should not have such a hole. hi
                  1. 0
                    7 October 2022 07: 20
                    The truth of life is this: when an ATGM crew runs out of tanks on the battlefield, it is mistaken for infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers It’s not like a real battle does not fit with the charter of the times of the USSR, they thought that the ATGM would be against the tank and the infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers would destroy other infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers at worst Tank.
            2. 0
              31 January 2023 03: 56
              Why remove a 100mm gun? It is beautiful. Everywhere where it was used everywhere it proved to be excellent, especially when storming cities, although it is also normal in the field.
        2. +3
          19 August 2022 00: 23
          Quote: Bad_gr
          That is, from the layout with the location of the landing force in the most comfortable location (in the center of the vehicle), they returned to the layout of the BMP-1, where during the march this very landing force swayed.

          But I wonder why there is no data that the landing force is rocking in "Marders" or "Bradleys"?
          Maybe you should take a closer look at their suspension system and chassis features?
          Quote: Bad_gr
          and the frontal sheet cannot be made sufficiently armor-resistant, since the engine already weighs down the nose.

          That's like "Marder", with the same layout, can't complain about it
          1. 0
            19 August 2022 05: 20
            Quote: svp67
            That's like "Marder", with the same layout, can't complain about it

            Marder doesn't swim!
            1. +2
              19 August 2022 06: 19
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              Marder doesn't swim!

              There is such a letter in this word.
              But seriously, there are means that can make a floating machine out of a non-floating one, for a short time ...
              1. +1
                19 August 2022 06: 47
                Quote: svp67
                But seriously, there are means that can make a floating machine out of a non-floating one, for a short time ...

                Well, I think that they don’t care about weight distribution, like Ka-Mi
                [Center]
                1. +1
                  19 August 2022 06: 52
                  Quote: Vladimir_2U
                  Well, I think that they don’t care about weight distribution, like Ka-Mi

                  You can do it that way, or you can put a bulwark ... or inflatable pontoons
          2. 0
            19 August 2022 12: 56
            Quote: svp67
            But I wonder why there is no data that the landing force is rocking in "Marders" or "Bradleys"?
            Structurally, the machines are completely different. If the "Marder" (28t) and "Bradley" (21-34t) are designed only for both asphalt and soil, then ours also include overcoming water barriers, so the hull has large overhangs in relation to the supporting surface, which contribute to the rocking of the machine and the location of the landing must be done with this in mind. Yes, and balancing, preferably, should not change depending on the loading of the vehicle with troops and ammunition.
            In general, the BMP-3 has an ideal layout exactly for our requirements for the vehicle. But if the tasks for the machine are left the same, and the layout is parroted from a Western machine, then the result will be appropriate
            (You cannot harness a Horse and a quivering doe into one cart ©)
            1. +3
              19 August 2022 17: 06
              Quote: Bad_gr
              In general, the BMP-3 has an ideal layout exactly for our requirements for the vehicle.

              You know, the layout, in which the landing party is forced to leave the car in the most exposed zone, that is, you can’t call it ideal on top ...
              1. -1
                19 August 2022 22: 41
                In the BMP-3, the wings rise and cover the landing from the side, there is no such acute problem, do not invent it.
                1. +1
                  20 August 2022 10: 34
                  Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
                  In the BMP-3, the wings rise and cover the landing from the side, there is no such acute problem, do not invent it.

                  Yes, of course, how about it ... Look at the height of the BPM-3, along the roof of the tower and how it covers everything ... otherwise it’s on the side, yes, only the enemy is mainly in front


                  The same garbage with BT-3F
            2. 0
              13 October 2022 12: 41
              IMHO, the definition of "overcoming water barriers" is not correct. Correct "the ability to move on water." Because how to overcome a water barrier is, among other things, to go down from the shore and get out of the water onto the shore. The realities of neighboring Ukraine (look at how many videos where pontoon bridges are built and infantry fighting vehicles go over them) have shown that the ability to swim is not the same as the ability to move off one coast and climb onto another. It takes time to search for such places and, as a rule, they can be known at all. And if the pontoon bridge needs to be done this way and that - why is waterfowl massive? Leave it as an "option" for specialized tasks, and "book" the combined arms version as much as possible.
        3. +7
          19 August 2022 04: 45
          Why do some people read text so inattentively?

          The main difference between Manul and Dragoon is not just a combat module, but a module with ammunition completely removed from the hull. Immediately, half the forum suffered that the fighters were riding in an embrace with the BC. Here you have the delivered ammunition.

          Well, by weight distribution. Here it is close to perfect. The combat module is shifted aft, compensating for the weight of the frontal armor and the engine. Eight people landing, roughly speaking, a ton with an infantry fighting vehicle weighing 25 tons will not affect the weight distribution at all from the word at all. Dirt sticks to the body more.
          1. -1
            19 August 2022 17: 06
            The ammunition load of the 30-mm cannon is not so dangerous as to consider its removal outside the hull as a great achievement. Because of this, far from always a justified condition, we currently do not have an automatic 57-mm cannon on light vehicles.
            1. 0
              19 August 2022 18: 29
              They are trying to push this combat module everywhere
              K-17 "Boomerang"

              B-11 "Kurganets-25"

              T-15 "Armata"

              Now the turn has come to "Manul"
              1. -1
                19 August 2022 18: 37
                Maybe the module is not so bad, but it is difficult to attribute it to serious achievements. It has the only 30-mm cannon, obsolete, specifically for infantry fighting vehicles, which does not allow confidently resisting heavy NATO infantry fighting vehicles.
                1. 0
                  19 August 2022 23: 07
                  For some reason, no one paid attention to the fact that KAZ is on this BM.
                  1. +3
                    20 August 2022 16: 10
                    For some reason, no one paid attention to the fact that KAZ is on this BM.
                    Because this is not a KAZ, but a set of laser radiation indicators and an SDR installation.
                    1. 0
                      20 August 2022 16: 52
                      Quote from: New-pechkin
                      Because this is not a KAZ, but a set of laser radiation indicators and an SDR installation.
                      Thanks for the information.
                      I took green boxes for KAZ mortars, which, according to your scheme, are the "Curtain Setting System" ..
              2. +1
                20 August 2022 10: 36
                Quote: Bad_gr
                They are trying to push this combat module everywhere

                Well, that's what it was made for...
            2. +1
              21 August 2022 09: 03
              On porkua 1400 kJ for each shot in an infantry fighting vehicle? Bofors 40mm on the Swedish and UK BMP 500 kJ. Either variations with a charge to adjust the muzzle energy + variations with the caliber of the projectile, or 45mm are prohibitive from the current point of request for an infantry fighting vehicle.
            3. 0
              28 August 2022 13: 22
              At Army-2021, he was shown with another Epoch, on which there is just a 57 mm autocannon.
        4. +2
          19 August 2022 21: 42
          Quote: Bad_gr
          In general, again on the same rake, but it's convenient to go out.

          Another nonsense. The developers are not aware that the decision of the Ministry of Defense has long been made that guns of at least 57 mm should now be installed on infantry fighting vehicles? And what will they modernize there for three years? Just how to call another heresy a novelty and stuff money into your pockets for this. Stalin would have been surprised if he had been shown a dead-end model of a tank and told that the modernization would take three years. The modernizers would have had to modernize the axes at the logging site. I am not a supporter of Stalin, but without his methods the country will stagnate in place.
          1. 0
            26 August 2022 08: 32
            comrades waved a ton of state-owned spirits himself?
        5. 0
          18 October 2022 14: 52
          Apparently, the experience of current hostilities has been taken into account, where the hp of the squad inside the BMP does not make many kilometers of marches, especially since forcing water barriers to swim, even more than once a month .... you always have to choose from something ...
      3. 0
        19 August 2022 22: 24
        Too bad it won't go
      4. +2
        22 August 2022 18: 34
        Different upgrade packages are more designed for foreign customers, it seems to me.
      5. 0
        2 September 2022 20: 28
        I like Manul more than Kurganets, the development of which has stalled a lot. One can, of course, complain that the Kurganets is a new generation vehicle and why make a garden from the modification of the BMP-3, but it is more realistic to launch this vehicle into a series, because new BMPs are needed now, and not someday.
      6. +1
        27 September 2022 18: 29
        He worked in Sverdlovsk at one factory, which was the first to start making something necessary for the army and there they wrote down what was needed, what tools were used to measure steel and so on. A little under Khrushchev still was and remains what was under Stalin. In general, a huge experimental plant. We started at the experimental site, then went to the sites where the already made tools were tested. Of course, design engineers seemed to give hints and directions that they already called at work - what not to do, just not to work. I had to correct, prompt and get a fig for it. And then the people remembered that earlier for each rationalization proposal the one who invented it, and not the one who attributed it to himself, received. Under Khrushchev, the Communists received nothing to do with this. Even then they began to steal from the people, as now, now openly.
    2. +3
      18 August 2022 18: 11
      Leave behind about Almaty better as with her, and not as with the T-64, which was brought to the troops for decades and as a result, THREE new tanks had to be adopted ...
      1. -5
        19 August 2022 12: 18
        Leave me alone about Almaty, it’s better like with her, and not like with the T-64, which has been brought to the troops for decades

        Yes, here money can be immediately spent on yachts, it is undoubtedly better for the oligarchs and their support teams. Urya-Urya
      2. -1
        19 August 2022 22: 49
        Armata will be like t 35 at one time for parades and scare - in fact there will be no such tank in the troops
        1. 0
          22 August 2022 07: 31
          There is such a concept as a technological structure, humanity has approached the ceiling of today, therefore each new piece of equipment that is capable of replacing the previous one will be developed ten times longer and will be ten times more expensive .. Easy and simple ways ended a long time ago ..
    3. +4
      18 August 2022 19: 18
      Quote: Leshak
      If only it didn’t work out like with an armata - a parade tank.

      In this case, the story of Kurganets-25, the same KurganMashZavod, is more relevant, how many years has it been tested? And where is he?
      Now we urgently need to make changes to the scheme of the State Defense Order. It is necessary to be critical of the weapons already ordered, I am sure that part of its PURCHASES should already be REFUSED, in particular, the mass of BMD.
      And in this case, pay for the production of one and a half dozen of these "Manuls", part - a company of 10 vehicles for military tests in the NVO zone, and heels for the test site, to test there, while at the same time assisting in setting up the production of this BS. The next year, order the production of VIENNA, ZPRK (Pantsir or Tunguska-M), self-propelled mortar, SPTP ... and again, some to the troops, some to the training ground.
      Time is what matters now. Three years before the appearance of experimental machines of a small series, this is a lot, in the current situation, a lot
      1. -3
        18 August 2022 20: 53
        But not so. In the article, just the car is declared in the role of command and staff. Each platoon on the BMP-3 has one such "pepelats" for the commander and signalman-operator of the UAV, and for transporting zinc, mattresses and ATGMs with AGSs.
        1. +1
          19 August 2022 00: 13
          Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
          But not so. In the article, just the car is declared in the role of command and staff.

          Well, yes, well, yes ... We CAREFULLY read the text from the article ...
          At first glance, "Manul" is just a variant of the modernization of the BMP-3 - one of many presented. However, this project is based on a bolder and more interesting idea. This time, not just a restructuring of the existing model, but the creation of a full-fledged unified middle-class platform is conceived. At the same time, such a platform is as similar as possible to the existing widespread model of armored vehicles.

          So, new combat vehicles can be created by installing certain modules / compartments on the Manul. In this way, it is possible to manufacture infantry fighting vehicles with improved combat characteristics, as well as functional analogues of Sprut-SD, Nona-S or Lotos self-propelled guns. The creation of such projects will be facilitated by a significant internal volume of the hull and the absence of serious layout restrictions. Large internal compartments also allow you to create command and staff and ambulances, RCB reconnaissance vehicles, etc.

          So, "Manul" is a "middle-class caterpillar base chassis" and KShM is one of the options for its use, but it also implies its use when creating an infantry fighting vehicle, with a remote weapon station
          1. -3
            19 August 2022 17: 08
            Certainly one of the options. But in this application, the machine is ready now and immediately.
        2. +1
          19 August 2022 08: 43
          Well, great ... Command vehicles are like golden shoulder straps for a sniper.
          1. -3
            19 August 2022 09: 56
            That kind of logic sucks. The Armed Forces of Ukraine and the ambulances showed increased attention. So what? Will the enemy not pay attention to ordinary BMP-3s? And even tanks are prime targets. And them, with tanks, what are we going to do?
            1. +2
              19 August 2022 20: 45
              Well, ok, let's put some more stars on it, so that it can be seen from afar. The logic "let's create a bunch of all sorts of machines with our own spare parts" is touching, so that the deputy technologist ... gets tired. And then half of this park does not work or something was not reported, as in those Kantemirov T-80s with DZ blocks without explosives.
        3. -1
          19 August 2022 22: 50
          Once again, BMP 3 with this pair of guns and a minimum of space for landing is not needed and there will be none
          1. -3
            19 August 2022 22: 56
            We'll see, we'll see, while they go to the troops in echelons.
  2. PCF
    +15
    18 August 2022 16: 17
    Yeah, they took the BMP-3M "Dragoon", removed the 100mm cannon and put 4 ATGMs, and the force was like that of a commissar!
    Maybe somewhere they will think about the unification of weapons? Maybe you should not play with the possibilities, but should you start mass production and introduction into the troops?
    1. +1
      18 August 2022 16: 39
      Well, why, from a really useful one - they moved the engine to the bow of the car. And this will make it possible to make a well-protected armored personnel carrier or infantry fighting vehicle from such a platform.
      Although everyone knows that in the end, this will not appear in the Armed Forces.
      1. PCF
        +20
        18 August 2022 16: 50
        BMP-3M "Dragoon", in my opinion, has existed in hardware since the age of 15, everything has been done there for a long time, the engine is in front, the ramp is behind, the DBM, the operator with screens and other buns with gingerbread. Where is all this en masse in the troops? Why are they driving BMP2 in Ukraine?
        1. +11
          18 August 2022 16: 52
          If the platform has really existed for a long time, then it is even sadder that the country's leadership continues to spend money on meaningless projects or "support for the poor" oligarchs.
        2. 0
          20 August 2022 17: 53
          Quote: PCF
          Why are they driving BMP2 in Ukraine?

          Because there is no money. There is money for yachts, villas, luxury cars, apartments in London, Paris, New York and other attributes of a good life, but not for the army. We can make gifts worth three hundred billion dollars to dear partners, but we cannot buy drones and thermal imagers in bulk for our army.
        3. 0
          13 October 2022 12: 51
          I will assume that all this is a fiction and in fact there is nothing in stock or in the degree of readiness for mass production. I did not analyze the system of interaction between the customer (represented by the Ministry of Defense) and the R&D performers (represented by quasi-private / semi-state) performers, but most likely all work stops after the R&D maximum. Nobody thinks about production - for years they have been developing and receiving funds for this
      2. +2
        18 August 2022 17: 05
        There will be no good protection with the front MTO - overload ...
        1. 0
          18 August 2022 18: 22
          How can there be an overload if the engine is the same. It will change the balance, that's a fact. But as a platform for armored personnel carriers, which, by definition, do not have heavy weapons, this is not so critical. But the protection in front of the lecture will increase. At least if the project provides for an armor partition with anti-fragmentation padding between the engine and the crew. All the same, a layer of suckers and armor (which can always be strengthened to sacrifice seaworthiness) + the engine give a sufficient mass of metal in the path of the projectile. So many missiles and shells will withstand (although it is clear that not all. But the engine in such a scheme, having stopped the shell / cumulative, while at the same time generating a cloud of fragments for them, we need a partition
          1. +3
            18 August 2022 19: 08
            Quote: Mustachioed Kok
            How can there be an overload if the engine is the same.
            Read the history of the creation of the BMP-3. The engine was moved back to balance the car after the installation of a frontal armor plate (1 layer of aluminum armor + 2 armor plates of steel). The result was a very balanced vehicle, with the location of weapons and troops in the most comfortable place.

            Quote: Mustachioed Kok
            But the protection in front of the lecture will increase.
            You are confusing this with World War II aircraft. Compared to thin fairing duralumin and plywood, yes, this is protection. But if compared with normal armor, which obviously will have to be reduced in the forehead of the car (due to the centering shift towards the nose of the car), then the protection from the frontal projection of the Manul is probably lower.
            PS
            Some pistols can shoot through the engine block, what kind of protection are we talking about?
          2. +4
            18 August 2022 20: 17
            I'll disappoint you, but the engine won't stop anything. There simply is not enough strong metal. Well crankshaft, flywheel, connecting rods. Miser.
          3. -2
            18 August 2022 21: 25
            Again-
            1. There are no highly protected BMs with a front MTO, especially floating ones.
            2. A heavy engine loads the front rollers and contributes to the rocking of the machine, which will make it difficult to aim even with a stabilizer.
            3. BMP-1,2 does not really help the front MTO.
            4. Manul shit, like the Dragoons themselves, another cut.
            As a result, we have a deterioration in almost all characteristics compared to the BMP-3.
            1. -3
              19 August 2022 22: 52
              In fact, bmp 3 pe bmp there, everything is just not for landing
          4. 0
            19 August 2022 00: 34
            Quote: Mustachioed Kok
            How can there be an overload if the engine is the same

            It would be more correct to say not an overload, but a change in weight distribution. But in the end, your opponent is right - overloading the bow. With all the "charm" all those jambs that were fully on the BMP-1/2 will appear.
            And the power block is not protection. This is a source of shrapnel and burning fuel and oil. Defense is armor. Which will not be because in the nose instead of it there is a potential motor with a transmission. There are no armored vehicles with good protection with a front-engine layout.
            1. +1
              19 August 2022 09: 06
              The correct overload of the front rollers of the chassis, even additional shock absorbers did not help with the BMP-2. Because of the heavy engine, it works like a pendulum dynamically loading the suspension.
              And the sofa tankers who fell in love with the front MTO so much should be put into the landing of the BMP-1,2 and ride 100 km along the country road.
              1. 0
                21 August 2022 03: 25
                We change the weight distribution, change the setting of the suspension shock absorbers. The nose of the vehicle, which has become heavier about the engine, is compensated by an increase in the protection of the troop compartment. We shift the landing positions closer to the center. In the stern, in front of the ramp, we have a stack for grenade launchers, as in Kurgan.
                I don't think there is anything to argue about. They will make running prototypes, conduct tests, and then it will be possible to draw conclusions about the buildup of the car. The combat module, I think, will be different - "Epoch" with a 57-mm cannon + Cornets + Damascus steel. What is now installed with a 30-mm cannon is not the Epoch BM, it is called the Boomerang-BM
                1. +1
                  2 September 2022 20: 42
                  An era is not needed for an infantry fighting vehicle, there is a huge ammo, which poses a huge danger in the event of a detonation. It’s better then to add Derivation without landing to units, as reinforcement vehicles, something like light tanks with the ability to fight UAVs.
            2. +1
              2 September 2022 20: 38
              The bradley and cougar have good armor for the class. The front-engine layout has long been the standard for such machines. We cannot unequivocally judge how this Dragoon is doing, maybe they rearranged the car in such a way that it completely retained its weight distribution.
      3. +1
        18 August 2022 18: 13
        And why was the engine in the stern when developing the BMP-3? And the same engine? Were incompetent pests and MO pests sitting in the design bureau?
        1. +3
          18 August 2022 20: 57
          Because the BMP-3 has a very successful layout, much better than the BMP-1,2.
          1. +2
            18 August 2022 21: 03
            You try to explain this to the local "specialists" ..
            1. 0
              18 August 2022 21: 48
              Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
              Because the BMP-3 has a very successful layout, much better than the BMP-1,2.

              Quote: max702
              You try to explain this to the local "specialists" ..

              Here is the opinion of someone who knows what he is talking about:
              https://2009-2020.oborona.ru/includes/periodics/maintheme/2013/0513/113510702/detail.shtml
              1. +1
                18 August 2022 21: 56
                I read it a long time ago and repeatedly quoted it here .. But the local "specialists" don't care about this .. They see it that way ..
              2. 0
                19 August 2022 23: 35
                Read already.
                With what to compare? So, all our troops have always traveled on armor, because BMP 1 and BMP 2 are simply without landing protection. And as an infantry fighting vehicle, they don’t use it, but use it as an ersatz tank. Just like support during the database. The landing force never sits in it. And she left and shot back, of course, he likes the 100x30 spark more. But this is due to the lack of the concept of building and applying modern technology.
          2. -3
            19 August 2022 22: 53
            For whom. The best? You would be in the place of the landing and under fire through the top.
            1. 0
              19 August 2022 23: 06
              If you were attentive to the design, then the doors open there and cover the landing.
              And it would take you inside the BMP-1, the brain would quickly be cleared about the front location of the engine and the buildup because of this.
              Exit through the rear doors or the ramp is not much more convenient and safer than under the cover of the doors in the BMP-3. Unlike you, we tried, we know.
              1. -1
                19 August 2022 23: 27
                And you still compare with a war chariot. All over the world it has already been decided that the rear ramp is the most convenient landing. BMP is for motorized riflemen. And the bmp3 is a fucking under-tank p/s, I studied the BMP 3 device even when it was shown in the beginning of 2000, maybe even earlier. And then it was clear that the military-industrial complex gives birth to nonsense
      4. -2
        18 August 2022 18: 36
        of course it won’t appear - this is not a massive infantry fighting vehicle
        this is a European tactic for using technology - on picnic
        because you can’t expel anyone from the BMP to the position of the squad
        self-digger - to create a caponier,
        if KAZ is delivered, then protection from ATGMs
        protection against splinters 155 mm, mortars 120 mm
        right living room only without a fireplace for 8 people - you can drive into cards and tea
        air conditioning, heating,
        no toilet - you don’t need to dig trenches for yourself - but why still have
        LEPOTA
        deliveries are possible only to strike units, for example, to tank divisions
        NOT for motorized riflemen who are mainly on the defensive - BMP-3 is enough for them
        1. +1
          18 August 2022 20: 58
          No, the BMP-3 is not enough, each platoon needs one more such vehicle for the commander and control of the drone.
    2. +2
      18 August 2022 17: 15
      well, bmp-3 to the troops and so it goes
      1. 0
        19 August 2022 23: 36
        And good . Dead concept
  3. +3
    18 August 2022 16: 20
    has been discussed recently
    CBO is on, we need the "latest" equipment there - and not in other places
    but about the need for everything - you need to ask the guys at the front - their opinion is "worth a lot"
    1. +1
      18 August 2022 17: 22
      For 5 years, our entire leadership has been advertising a miracle of technology! There was no time for serial production. Now they are advertising another perfection, but it will never get its own in Ukraine. So in 25g it will not be needed in serial production, since the war in Ukraine is over. Coalition - we have been passing tests for more than 5 years. The same with Kurganets-25. From 19g, tests are being carried out! Also stretched for 5 years, and then it will not be needed in the series. 2300 tanks were released throughout the country in 5 years! As for 70 billion dollars = 5% of GDP, you can arm the country if Germany, France, England spend around 60 billion with an area 30-50 times smaller than the Russian Federation
    2. +4
      18 August 2022 18: 09
      With what joy should their opinion be of interest to parquet generals sitting a thousand kilometers from the battlefield in super-soft leather chairs in front of huge screens? sad
  4. +3
    18 August 2022 16: 25
    The "saw" of the budget is working. Yes, gasoline will not run out in it even with a live CBO ...
  5. +3
    18 August 2022 16: 34
    The ability to swim, damn it! How many of our guys crossed? Wouldn't it be better to add armor?
  6. +4
    18 August 2022 16: 38
    Cyril, you in the Moscow Region ask where the vaunted-over-praised Boomerang, Kurganets, why is the T15 not visible? Why, instead of the mass production of NEW equipment, did someone push through the modernization of the BMP 1 ??? marten place, back to the army!!!!! Manul is the same crap as a bunch of platforms and projects that we spent, with zero results, a lot of money!
    1. -11
      18 August 2022 16: 51
      Quote: Thrifty
      junk, which has a place in blast furnaces and open-hearths

      Well, in open-hearth furnaces - still here and there ... but in a blast furnace they smelt cast iron ... from ore Yes

      Your ignorance touches sometimes.
      1. -1
        18 August 2022 16: 59
        Diffetent or Replicant - in fact, the article, as always, is a complete zero ??? Just to act like a fool on the site ....
        1. -2
          18 August 2022 17: 10
          Quote: Thrifty
          Diffetent

          Ouch. And who is this? belay

          Quote: Thrifty
          in fact, the article, as always, is a complete zero

          You have - yes. Good luck, I'm too lazy to bark something with you ... like a thread another time.
          1. 0
            18 August 2022 17: 39
            Quote: Repellent
            Ouch. And who is this?

  7. +6
    18 August 2022 16: 44
    This time, not just a restructuring of the existing model, but the creation of a full-fledged unified middle-class platform is conceived. At the same time, such a platform is as similar as possible to the existing widespread model of armored vehicles.

    So was it "creating a platform" if it is "as similar as possible to the existing sample"? Those. differences yet to be searched and found??
    Marketing geniuses! Aces of sales! Change not the technique, but the way you look at it...
    If it were a food processor, this joke could be stopped.
    1. +5
      18 August 2022 17: 01
      For that, everything is in business. And there is always something new to show at the exhibitions.
  8. +5
    18 August 2022 16: 52
    Why so little? Three years of testing, why not 33?
    1. +7
      18 August 2022 16: 59
      In three years, just the next new platform will be developed, and then the next ...
      1. -2
        18 August 2022 17: 17
        to speed up the project, you need funding and a procurement decision, and so at your own expense
  9. +2
    18 August 2022 17: 05
    Pluses of modularity - real - I do not see point-blank. A single platform is the same: "The duck can fly, swim and walk. And she does it all sucks"
    But the front MTO and the landing force, which is not under the bullet - this has already been lured to discuss. And the opponents of this - themselves in the BMP, let them come out of it under a machine gun
  10. +2
    18 August 2022 17: 18
    I don’t understand why Dragoon / Manul is for the platform if Kurganets is ready. But where is Kurganets?
    1. -3
      18 August 2022 17: 56
      Kurganets is a promising platform that should probably serve until the creation of an anti-gravity suspension what there, innovations are being introduced to correspond to the 21st century, and for these innovations, chips are needed, which you still need to learn how to make feel , but it’s still time to change the BMP2, so we need a platform based on existing parts, the BMP2 is outdated, the BMP3 as a platform is more suitable, so they gamy the car from the available parts, but it looks like a bright future, so that the army could at least master tactics recourse
      1. 0
        19 August 2022 00: 08
        I do not believe that in Russia there is such a critical lag in technology. But at the same time, there is a feeling that the introduction of new weapons in the ground forces ends up with about nothing. And it's very strange. What have they been doing there, in the Moscow Region, for the last decade.
        1. +2
          19 August 2022 08: 46
          In the previous post I have sarcasm, not a good one feel
          I didn’t come across any news about Kurganets, but I somehow heard about Boomerang that several prototypes have already been made, and they turn out to be different, even the dimension changes. Those. the layout of the machine is being completed, as I understand it, in order to create a platform for different tasks, for different equipment. They want to make different machines, but on a standard platform, before that they are looking for the optimal size and configuration, so that later they would not change anything, but only stick different modules bully
          Kurgan turns out to be excessively expensive, everyone writes about it, it is quite possible they are trying to solve problems to preserve the desired characteristics, but in cheaper ways what it is possible that the process is not simple and the work is delayed, but there is no time to wait anymore, manufacturers offer alternatives with similar characteristics and pleasant prices wink Manul can also become a temporary solution, or maybe Kurganets can be pushed under the cloth belay
          1. -2
            19 August 2022 09: 20
            Thank you for the clarification hi
            If they choose Manul, it will, of course, be a rollback back to the 90s.
            1. 0
              22 August 2022 18: 38
              Rather, it will be either as an intermediate stage, or they will offer modernization to foreign operators of the BMP-3.
  11. 0
    18 August 2022 17: 25
    However, the Manul project has every chance to go beyond the exhibition grounds and test sites.

    Ah, it's not difficult to deceive me! ..
    I'm happy to deceive myself!
    Another Peremoga
  12. +1
    18 August 2022 17: 26
    Until the leaders of the design bureau go through the camps and charades, this is how everything will be: armats, boomerangs, kurgans, dragoons, manuls, and so on, so on, so on ... Exhibitions, parades, tests, revisions, revisions, projects, delights, reports, articles ... And an ordinary infantryman will solve problems on the good old BMP 2. And not only the management of the design bureau needs to be introduced to the sawmill, but also many in the defense order and the Ministry of Defense. But this is not our method, to find out which one is ours ...
    1. +5
      18 August 2022 17: 54
      Do you think Russians can only work behind barbed wire or at gunpoint? There is no need for this, you just need to raise the culture of management and learn from those who can.
      1. +3
        18 August 2022 18: 32
        I could be wrong - please correct me. The management culture begins with responsibility. He received a task, mastered funding, issued a result, was delighted with premium. Everything! In all other cases, the prosecutor is disassembled. Culture does not fall from the sky, it must be instilled, but it is not possible to instill it with who think about how to steal and saw it ... The Pekhtur went into battle on the coffins, it is too much to vaccinate, to cut out, otherwise amputation cannot be avoided.
    2. 0
      18 August 2022 18: 15
      Ours is to punish the innocent and reward the uninvolved.
    3. -1
      18 August 2022 18: 45
      Eeeee ...... And what about the leaders of the design bureau?
      If they play Lego at their own expense - their problems. Let them report to the owner. If at the expense of the treasury, then there is tz, a state customer and other cabbage with horseradish. Within the framework of the so-called built - all questions to the customer. Nk within the framework - the customer does not easily sign the acceptance. And then other people ask them questions. And he is not responsible for the production of design bureaus. So you need to go to other offices with noble anger ......
      1. 0
        18 August 2022 19: 04
        That's right, don't read past the middle.
      2. 0
        18 August 2022 22: 01
        That's right, let's punish the janitor first, then the supply manager .....
        And then the director will retire, or get promoted ..... Therefore, it is necessary to punish the janitor.
        If that's how you bake, then you need to start from the head. Then the tail, without waiting for organizational conclusions, wags itself.
        But from the head we have no comme il faut?
        1. -2
          19 August 2022 17: 42
          I would like to recall such a surname as Grabin. He was the head of the design bureau at the plant, but he was completely independent in his decisions, because he was a personality.
          Here, take a look at the picture.


          I would like to see something similar on the roof of the "Tiger" car, but with a decent ammunition load outside, around the circumference, around the hatch. So that there is a 360-degree rotation along with a machine gun, and the ability to fire in three modes, leaning out, in fully manual and semi-automatic, as well as from under armor in remote.
          Did our design bureaus produce something similar? Not familiar with such solutions.
          But there is a video where our shooter from the roof of the "Tiger", having found the enemy, fires reloading the tape, and in the end gets wounded.
          And it should be like this, the machine gunner is observing, rotating the installation in all directions, when he finds the enemy he immediately opens fire in semi-automatic mode, and then, dropping under the armor, continues to fire, without feverish reloading of the tape.
          But not so that the hatch overlaps the module.

          And the ammunition load around was located according to a similar design.
          1. +2
            19 August 2022 18: 51
            Now the troops are buying T-90M. Machine gun mount with remote drive, no need to stick out from under the armor, you don’t need to turn the hatch along with the machine gun. In general, sitting inside the tank and looking at the screen, shoot where you want
            1. -1
              19 August 2022 19: 01
              That's the problem, you can't get out. If not for a tank, then for light vehicles, such an opportunity should be mandatory, to watch, observe, listen to the surrounding area. Even in the event that the automation fails, it should be possible to lean out and fire in manual mode. On the contrary, remote firing on the display should go as an option, and the module should only provide for full automation.
    4. IVZ
      +1
      18 August 2022 19: 49
      And not only the leadership of the Design Bureau needs to be introduced to the sawmill, but also many in the defense order and the Ministry of Defense. But this is not our method, to find out which one is ours ...

      Radically, but useless. Lost not only conscience (not all), but also to a large extent, professionalism. In this paradigm, you need to be more careful with people, but if you deserve it, you can’t forgive and regret ..
      1. -1
        18 August 2022 20: 02
        Be careful with the soldiers, with the fighters. And with "people" It is necessary according to the law. Yes, and a few years in rigor, in the mode and in the fresh air may well develop both conscience and professionalism. Lost time can not be returned, but with the rest you have to try.
    5. +1
      18 August 2022 20: 20
      Until the leaders of the KB go through the camps and charades, this is how everything will be: armats, boomerangs, kurgans, dragoons, manuls and so on, so on, so on ..
      I hope you will be there earlier ... Fools must be taught ...
    6. -1
      19 August 2022 00: 11
      It would be enough to admit mistakes, several high-profile resignations and independent supervision of the development of the army. + disaggregation of the Rostec concern and admission to the defense market of private traders. + Strengthening the headquarters structures in the Defense Ministry (or the General Staff), the return of sectoral institutions if they were killed under Serdyukov.
      It was a plan to achieve victory from the couch.
  13. 0
    18 August 2022 17: 27
    Oh, and I want to be sarcastic ... But I only wish the project to be put into service in mass production like the BMP-2.
  14. -1
    18 August 2022 17: 39
    Potential buyers are attracted...
    When it starts with this, ours definitely can’t wait.
  15. 0
    18 August 2022 17: 45
    In addition, now the development of a new platform is carried out according to updated requirements, adjusted to reflect the latest experience. The positive results of such processes are obvious.

    I doubt very much that if they change the requirements every year, they won’t do it even in 150 years, because the best is always the enemy of the good, and our designers understood this very well during the Second World War. Therefore, equipment was produced, especially aviation series, where the machines of the first series sometimes differed significantly from later ones.
  16. -6
    18 August 2022 18: 48
    For manuls - 20 billion, for armata - 100 billion, what platform did they spend more money on for parades?
    Lord, at least for decency, they would conclude large contracts for the modernization of old equipment, but even that is not there.
    Just tin, loot is poured into these design bureaus and enterprises - where is the income from them, at least in terms of equipping the army?
    1. 0
      19 August 2022 12: 42
      signed for modernization and a lot
    2. 0
      22 August 2022 18: 42
      There are plenty of large contracts for the modernization of old equipment. How long have you been crawling out from under the rock?
  17. 0
    18 August 2022 18: 56
    Well, now the tests are again for 3-5 years, and there the Defense Ministry may again want something new, and in the meantime the army will be on the ancient BMP-1 and BMP-2 ....
  18. IVZ
    0
    18 August 2022 19: 40
    I would like to understand exactly in what parameters "Manul" surpasses "Three". By convenience for the landing? -it is unlikely. By armament? - Statements of this kind are extremely unconvincing. By mobility? Not with that kind of spread. By novelty? Yes. But what prevents new equipment from being installed on the BMP-3? After all, in principle, it suits everyone in terms of armament, mobility and ergonomics. And even the method of landing does not cause serious complaints. It is only necessary to strengthen the protection and improve the equipment. This can be done faster and cheaper, especially if improvements are introduced in stages. And "Manul" is just a remake of an original and well-proven vehicle, as a result of which someday it will still turn out to be very average in terms of characteristics (if we take the world level) BMP of a traditional layout without any advantages over classmates. And the need for a new base chassis (by the way, I don’t understand why the BMP-3 chassis doesn’t suit you) can be developed specifically, precisely as a base chassis. For unification, this is much better.
    1. +1
      18 August 2022 21: 08
      For this machine, there is an application, namely as a command and staff vehicle. Put the platoon commander there, the drone operator, put a large, high-resolution monitor. Finally, there is a place for a sniper with a long rifle, a place for transporting ATGMs and AGS.
      1. IVZ
        0
        18 August 2022 21: 28
        All this can be solved in the BMP-3. By the way, I don’t understand why a long rifle is needed in a car with such a set of weapons, but above the engine of the troika it’s the right place.
        1. +2
          18 August 2022 21: 41
          About a long rifle, this is to the fact that it was crowded with it in the BMP-1,2. This car is more spacious, now SVDM with a folding butt has appeared, it has become easier. But the sniper also needs to be transported somewhere, as well as the AGS and ATGMs. A spacious car is needed, this is one of the options and not the worst.
  19. 0
    18 August 2022 20: 17
    It takes a long time to develop and test, and it becomes obsolete and is not accepted into service, but they begin to develop again like an octopus, the self-propelled gun is outdated, and they started all over again ..
  20. 0
    18 August 2022 20: 25
    You read such news and involuntarily a thought arises in your head; - "And Stalin's sharashkas were a good idea!" Everyone is doing anything but what they need! Time, resources, money are spent on the development of any "promising" junk instead of bringing the existing samples to mind. All that is required is a normal and systematic (without such eversion with fur inside as in the article) modernization of the BMP-3 and finally bringing Kurganets to her mind to replace it. BMP-1/2 for scrap! stop raping old people. Instead, we see only a flight of fancy of designers and soldiers, as in the good old days, riding on the roofs of their combat vehicles. I have never been an all-rounder, but something is already starting to piss me off from all this booth!
    1. IVZ
      +1
      18 August 2022 21: 01
      Designers do what they can, taking into account the possibilities of production, the "element base". allocated funds and available intellectual potential. Another thing is who in general and on the basis of what research develops and (or) approves the TK. Who studies the experience and operation and combat use? Who, on the basis of such studies, issues recommendations and predicts needs? Although the question is different, but is it done at all?
    2. -1
      18 August 2022 21: 11
      Sharashki were needed so that the engineers would not be paid. Because they were not paid, there were almost none left. Maybe it would be easier to raise your salary a little. laughing
    3. 0
      22 August 2022 18: 52
      Just the same, the development of such modifications is inexpensive in itself. And it gives you a lot of choices. Of course, the ideal option is to rivet 100500 fittings, mounds and boomerangs. But that's just we do not live in a world of pink ponies. It must be understood that after the collapse of the Union, a lot was destroyed and died. This process continued until the end of the 90s. After that, the economy began to recover to a more or less acceptable level. And only at the beginning of the 10s did some kind of development begin. By this time, no decent replacement had been prepared for many models of equipment, competence in some industries had greatly decreased, a huge amount of almost new equipment was written off as scrap (due to improper storage, some became unusable, some were simply disposed of, some remained in the former countries Union). With such a deplorable state and a limited budget, it was first necessary to plug holes in priority areas.
      Therefore, they use BMP-2, and therefore modifications for old equipment begin to appear actively. You have to be realistic.
  21. -3
    18 August 2022 21: 31
    Along the way, this music will be eternal!

    BMP-3 with a combat module "Bahcha-U"
    BMP-3 with a complex of optoelectronic countermeasures "Shtora-1"
    2001 BMP-3 with dynamic protection "Cactus"
    2003 BMP 3 with KAZ "Arena"
    2015 BMP-3 "Derivation"
    2015 BMP-3M "Dragoon"
    2015 BMP-3 with the installation of anti-cumulative grilles and FCS with the Sodema sight
    2020 BMP-3 "Manul"
    2021 BMP-3 with the installation of the combat module "Berezhok"
    2021 BMP-3 with the installation of the Epoch combat module
    2022 again BMP-3 "Manul"

    But, hooray, development continues!
    And after 20 years of continuous improvement of the BMP -3, now in the form of a project, the Manul project has every CHANCE to go beyond exhibition sites and test sites!
    It becomes very joyful from such news, I just want to hug the creators of all this and cry, with joy, of course.
    1. IVZ
      -2
      18 August 2022 21: 59
      But I was thinking, what kind of Soviet development was it possible to replace (not finalize, not improve, not create another option, namely, replace) with the Russian one and why?
      1. +1
        18 August 2022 22: 07
        None.
        But there is nothing surprising in this, development is always based on R&D of previous developments. Reinventing the wheel is very expensive.
        1. IVZ
          0
          19 August 2022 04: 32
          But how then did new basic developments appear in the USSR? But now many are outdated and yet there is really nothing to replace. There are no analogues of many new and relevant types of NATO weapons either.
          1. 0
            19 August 2022 07: 41
            So they appeared with 0, with accompanying errors and unsuccessful samples, building an engineering school, but in the 30s the subject area was hundreds of times simpler.
            The fact that there are no analogues does not mean that the development went from scratch, usually it is based on 0% of the solutions obtained in previous developments.
    2. 0
      22 August 2022 18: 54
      The more different modifications (not serial) - the better, in my opinion. There will be plenty to choose from. Moreover, the development of such modifications is relatively cheap.
  22. -1
    18 August 2022 22: 22
    "Stroke the cat, su.a" (c) everyone likes cats
  23. 0
    18 August 2022 22: 36
    This pipelac was needed 30 years ago. Where is the modernity, the relevance of this war!
  24. +1
    19 August 2022 01: 07
    Perhaps the new discovery of R&D for the Manul project is nothing more than simply financially supporting the design team. To avoid running away from hunger.

    The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, today, is not ready to purchase NEW infantry fighting vehicles, the same BMP-3. There is a drafted budget, including the expenses of the SVO. As it were, there does not appear to be an increase in the cost of purchasing new products from Kurganmashzavod.

    But in the army, including in storage, there are thousands of old cars. With minimal cost, you can improve their performance characteristics. Everything is logical and completely natural.

    As an example, you can look at the American Bradley. Since 1985, it has undergone several upgrades, I may be mistaken, but it seems 4. And only this year, R&D was opened for a new BMP. But, according to the plans of the Pentagon, Bradley will be in service until 2050.
    1. IVZ
      0
      19 August 2022 04: 56
      What does the Americans have to do with their Bradley? They don’t ride on it and in general “an example is not a reason”.
  25. -2
    19 August 2022 06: 54
    You can fit the article in 1 sentence: outdated crap, but we can’t do anything better. Where is the kurgan???
    1. +1
      19 August 2022 09: 57
      at four...
      1. We cannot saturate instead of BMP-1 and 2, BMP-3M .... with a heat pack and all things massively
      2. Why do we spend money on BMD4M (which is 30% more expensive than BMP-3M
      3. We do not develop further BMP-3
      4. We can not master the new infantry fighting vehicles
    2. 0
      19 August 2022 14: 04
      It is one thing to develop a new model of technology, and another to introduce it into production. And in the light of modern problems with import substitution, this task can sparkle with new and unexpected colors. "Manul" is just what you can get relatively quickly and as inexpensively as possible. Thanks to this project, it is expected to get a much more secure vehicle than the standard BMP-3, while not requiring any special costs in terms of time or money. Moreover, to get not just a car, but a ready-made platform. Of course, this is not Armata and not Kurganets, but this is what can replace them at first.
      1. -2
        19 August 2022 14: 58
        They have already been developed and even rode at the CP in 14, but there is no series, why? because these were cardboard layouts, not BMPs. at 39 they put you up against the wall for this, and now they give you medals.
        1. 0
          19 August 2022 18: 54
          There is no series because the costs - including time - for introduction into production are just too high. Manul, in fact, will be a modernization of samples already launched in a series, it will require an order of magnitude lower costs.
          1. -3
            19 August 2022 22: 58
            Launch an armored personnel carrier 152 and a lorry, or rather a donkey-drawn cart, in general, the cost is minimal. If the Russian Federation positions itself as a power with a strong army, it should be equipped with modern machines, and not a half-century-old bucket.
  26. 0
    19 August 2022 09: 54
    You can compare it with the Chinese BMP ... they immediately made their own version with the front MTO and BO from the BMP-3 (100mm + 30mm)
  27. 0
    19 August 2022 15: 28
    Quote: Hoarfrost
    The crew and troops do not sit together with land mines as in the "Dragoon". And unlike a new generation car, its launch in a series is a matter of months, not years. But most likely "Manul" will not go into production, they recently concluded a contract for the modernization of the BMP-2.

    Too bad it won't go into production.
    Conceptually, this is a great car. The engineers did a good job, such modernization could be carried out in a sane time frame. It would be better if they sent two for export. And our fighters were given Manuly.
  28. -1
    19 August 2022 16: 38
    Already obsolete
  29. 0
    19 August 2022 20: 41
    Three years great! It is possible to have five, and develop a wider line. There is plenty of time.
  30. -1
    19 August 2022 22: 23
    Fundamentally better than BMP 3. The rejection of the idiotic twin guns is positive. BMP is not a tank, it has the function of delivering and supporting infantry in BMP3, this is not support (due to the lack of armor and weapons like a tank of the 50s), and the landing force is poorly deployed there. Equipment does not work without infantry
  31. -3
    20 August 2022 00: 50
    The idea of ​​​​bmp 3 is nonsense vpk. There are people sitting there who are very far from the army, or generally narrow-minded. Why create not up to the tank? And so why is an infantry fighting vehicle created to ensure the delivery of its landing and support in battle. In fact, the infantry fighting vehicle is directly the home of motorized riflemen from it there is a connection, provision and life largely depends on it. And bmp 3? This is not up to a tank with shitty armor, shitty weapons relative to the tank, even shitty weapons relative to the BMTP. In general, crap with an uninhabited compartment for landing. Why is she? Then let the landing force ride over the top of the tank - the same security for motorized riflemen and fire support is even better. Our military-industrial complex gives birth to freaks in the field of armored vehicles. BMP3 from the late 90s, when they sculpted everything just to sell the community to Africa.
    1. 0
      11 September 2022 01: 05
      Absolutely true. There is a concept of LT, which has its advantages over MBT - a lower silhouette, the ability to swim, higher speed. The task is to suppress firing points, that is, you need a machine gun, or a 30 mm cannon. There is an armored personnel carrier concept - this is a means for transporting infantry under artillery fire. They do not need a low silhouette, but they need mine protection, they need habitability, they need the ability to transport additional equipment, they need the ability to effectively observe and fire from personal weapons with a good view for landing. These are more or less mutually exclusive. Well, there is the concept of a heavy armored personnel carrier, a kind of bus directly to enemy positions - but this thing must be protected more than MBT, and this is not a means for constant transportation, it should be a means of strengthening sapper-assault units. And an ordinary armored personnel carrier should not fight with infantry at all, ideally.
  32. 0
    20 August 2022 10: 21
    Quote: rumpeljschtizhen
    In fact, bmp 3 pe bmp there, everything is just not for landing

    This is who told you such nonsense. The relatively low level of longitudinal vertical oscillations of the hull + plus the landing of the landing party in the direction of travel makes the position of the landing of the BMP-3 during the march quite comfortable. Especially compared to vehicles with front MTO and side landing.
    1. 0
      25 August 2022 22: 16
      And you climb in and climb in .. any term will go into its landing compartment. It's really not for people.
  33. 0
    20 August 2022 14: 54
    Consider a new version instead of "Kurganets" for life, we are waiting for an increase in muzzle velocity at 100 and 30mm, range, respectively. We are switching to modernization from the storage of all BMP-1,2.
  34. 0
    21 August 2022 08: 24
    Quote: Cympak
    We change the weight distribution, change the setting of the suspension dampers.

    This is how the clowns from Rostec argue - as a result, we have what we have - BMP-1 and 2 are going into battle. Can you answer - why change 100 mm + 30 mm for BMP-3, for a 57-mm short-barreled whistle? The question is rhetorical, you don’t have to answer, for cutting into R&D.
  35. 0
    26 August 2022 14: 43
    My vision of the current BMP:
    1. front engine location (mine protection)
    2. comfortable rear ramp (soldiers will not ride on armor and safe loading and unloading)
    3. protection against RPG, 30mm in front, 12.7 in a circle
    4. the ability to sail as a mounted option (for export, the client can replace it with additional protection)
    5. 30mm gun (support for infantry with fire and tanks between shots) + ATGM, thermal imager and modern sights
    6. unification with the BMP-3 (cost reduction and acceleration of serial production)

    ideally, of course, shells with remote detonation and an integrated UAV :-)
  36. 0
    13 October 2022 13: 56
    But is it possible to sacrifice buoyancy by making steel armor instead of aluminum to reduce the cost?
  37. 0
    27 October 2022 16: 21
    He drank, everyone is happy, but we are fighting in the NWO on the T-62 ...
  38. 0
    15 November 2022 18: 12
    The cat door is the icing on the cake. How to "landing" into it with a grenade launcher in armor and body kits?