The development of the BT-3F armored personnel carrier is nearing completion

76
The development of the BT-3F armored personnel carrier is nearing completion
BT-3F at one of the domestic exhibitions


The Russian defense industry is completing development work on the creation of a promising amphibious armored personnel carrier BT-3F. In the near future, the remaining activities will be carried out and the necessary documents will be drawn up. Based on the results of these events, the preparation of mass production of equipment and the search for potential buyers will begin. The creators expect that the BT-3F will be of interest to the Russian and foreign military.



Proactively


The floating armored personnel carrier BT-3F is being developed by the Kurganmashzavod enterprise and the JSC Special Design Bureau of Mechanical Engineering (Kurgan). Development work started in the first half of the 3s on an initiative basis. The aim of the project was to create a new armored vehicle for infantry based on the BMP-XNUMX chassis.

The prototype BT-3F was first shown to the public at the Army-2016 military-technical forum. In the future, this car regularly participated in various exhibitions. In addition, various options for refining the armored personnel carrier were demonstrated. So, in 2019, the BT-3F with a remotely controlled combat module of the new model was introduced, and in 2021, the Arctic version of the armored vehicle appeared.

In the middle of the decade, the newly built armored personnel carrier was put to the test. In the past, it was repeatedly reported on the conduct of certain stages of verification. In 2020-21 The BT-3F was submitted for preliminary tests, in which it had to show its running, combat and operational characteristics in all intended operating and use conditions. Completion of these activities was announced in August 2022.


Based on the results of preliminary tests, the management of Kurganmashzavod reported that the BT-3F had passed the test and confirmed all the parameters. The preparation of regulatory and technical documentation for the assignment of the letter “O” to the product has begun. After that, the armored personnel carrier can be fully brought to the market, search for customers and conclude contracts.

On August 10, 2023, High Precision Complexes reported that the initiative R&D to create the BT-3F product was coming to an end. This means that in the foreseeable future, the production of such equipment for certain customers will begin.

Potential customers


The promising amphibious armored personnel carrier BT-3F found its customer long before the completion of development work. In April 2019, Rosoboronexport and the Indonesian Ministry of Defense signed a contract for the supply of BMP-3F infantry fighting vehicles and BT-3F armored personnel carriers. The quantity, cost and timing of the transfer of equipment were not reported. Amphibious infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers are intended for the Indonesian marines.

For obvious reasons, deliveries of BT-3F vehicles have not yet begun. At the time of signing the contract, R&D continued, and in addition, the developers had to draw up all the necessary documents and prepare production. To date, all these activities are almost completed, and the launch of production with the subsequent delivery of finished BT-3F is now a matter of the near future.


Sea trials

The development organizations expect that the Russian armed forces will become another customer for the BT-3F. So, in 2022, the leadership of Kurganmashzavod reported interest from our Ministry of Defense. Then joint work was carried out to determine the required amount of such equipment. At the same time, in order to be put into service, an armored personnel carrier must pass state tests.

The presence of an order from Indonesia and a possible purchase by the Russian army should have a positive effect on further sales of the BT-3F. Real contracts and the operation of armored personnel carriers in combat units will convince third countries of the need to purchase such equipment.

On the finished chassis


The BT-3F product is a tracked armored personnel carrier designed for the transportation and landing of troops and is designed for use on land and on water. In order to simplify and speed up the development and production, it was made on the basis of the serial BMP-3F. At the same time, the original hull and its equipment were subjected to refinement, and the original fighting compartment was abandoned.

In the BT-3F project, the original building was supplemented with a superstructure in the central part, on the site of the former fighting compartment and landing sites. The resulting volume of increased height is used as a troop compartment. At the same time, the layout of the other compartments of the hull has not changed: the control compartment remains in the bow, and the power plant occupies the stern.


The frontal part of the hull retains the original spaced armor made of aluminum sheets and protects against bullets, shrapnel and small-caliber projectiles. The new add-on has a similar design and the same level of protection. In addition, measures are provided to protect against undermining, such as energy-absorbing crew and landing seats.

The power plant has not changed. Like the BMP-3, the BT-3F is equipped with a UTD-29T diesel engine with an HP 450 power. and the same transmission. The undercarriage still has six rollers with torsion bar suspension on each side. As a result, the running characteristics of the product weighing 18,9 tons remained at the level of its predecessor. A pair of jet propulsion remained in its place - one of the key units of the floating armored personnel carrier.

It is proposed to equip the armored personnel carrier with remotely controlled combat modules of various models, carrying machine guns of normal or large caliber. In addition, two bow machine gun mounts with PKT products, characteristic of the BMP-3, have been preserved. Smoke grenade launchers were used as additional weapons. Earlier it was reported about the possibility of installing a module with a 30-mm automatic gun.

The crew of the BT-3F includes three people. Landing - 14 people. On the sides of the driver there are places from which course machine guns are controlled. Above them there are own hatches. The rest of the landing force is located in the compartment under the superstructure. Access to the compartment is provided by a pair of aft passages above the engine compartment. Habitable compartments have an air conditioning system. In the Arctic version, the BT-3F is insulated and equipped with a heater.


With important benefits


The use of the BMP-3F chassis gave the BT-3F armored personnel carrier a number of important features and advantages over other equipment. It is due to it that an advantageous combination of all the main characteristics and functions is achieved, which should be of interest to potential buyers.

First of all, a high degree of unification of samples of different classes is achieved. It simplifies the operation and maintenance of armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles, and the same technical characteristics provide advantages in the context of joint combat use.

The hull borrowed from the BMP-3 is distinguished by rather high protection characteristics. In this regard, the BT-3F is superior to other domestic armored personnel carriers of the main models. The caterpillar chassis, in turn, provides higher characteristics of mobility and maneuverability.

In the accessible volume of the hull, it was possible to organize a very roomy troop compartment. In terms of the number of seats, the BT-3F is twice as large as the serial BTR-80/82. In addition, the landing is carried out through the stern, under the cover of armor, which increases the safety of the fighters at this stage.


Arctic option

The BT-3F must support the landing force with fire, and for this it can be equipped with combat modules of various types with one or another weapon. So far, prototypes were equipped only with machine guns of different models. In the future, they promised to install more serious weapons, as on the BTR-82. Regardless of the type of module, there is a pair of machine guns in the bow, which improve the overall fire performance of the vehicle.

However, with all its advantages, the BT-3F differs from other domestic armored personnel carriers in greater complexity and cost. In addition, the industry is only preparing the production of such equipment, while the BTR-80/82 has long been mass-produced.

Development is nearing completion


Thus, the industry represented by SKBM and Kurganmashzavod is completing the development of a promising floating armored personnel carrier. In the near future, BT-3F will receive all the necessary documents and will be able to go into production. There is already an order for the production of such equipment, and in the foreseeable future the first batch will go to the buyer.

What will happen next, time will tell. It can be assumed that the Indonesian order will not remain the only one, and new contracts will soon appear. Earlier it was reported about the interest from our Ministry of Defense, and sales to other foreign countries are also possible. In general, the BT-3F is quite capable of attracting the interest of a potential customer, the only question is the timing and volume of future orders.
76 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +18
    12 August 2023 05: 00
    It seems that our defense industry is only engaged in initiative developments for the ground forces. The Ministry of Defense itself does not show any initiative, and the population often thinks that since it is being developed, well, it means not just like that! And then they say - where is it? So the development did not interest the customer, they did not buy anything!
    1. +1
      12 August 2023 10: 38
      Alexander: It seems that our defense industry is only engaged in initiative development for the ground forces. MO itself does not show any initiative,
      So the article clearly states that there is an order from Indonesia and a POSSIBLE purchase by the Russian army ... of equipment of greater complexity and cost.
      1. +1
        12 August 2023 13: 54
        Guys, you don't understand anything! We are getting ready to cross the Dnieper, Vistula, Oder, Rhine and Thames ... Let's add a bit of seaworthiness and go across the ocean to the Potomac with St. Lawrence. "We can not be led astray, who cares where to go," if only there was something. fellow
        1. -2
          12 August 2023 18: 24
          Is it not enough for you last year's defeat during the crossing of rivers in Ukraine? What else and with what losses are you going to force in conditions of almost one hundred percent defeat by the enemy of units forcing the barrier? Likewise with landing operations. If the Ukrainians have modern means of destruction, amphibious assault ships will not even approach the distance of landing armored vehicles. The entire course of the SVO showed the need for heavy armored vehicles, and not "cardboard" floating boxes.
          1. +3
            12 August 2023 22: 56
            Quote: Evgeny Ivanov_5
            The entire course of the SVO showed the need for heavy armored vehicles, and not "cardboard" floating boxes.

            Exactly . But no one worked on the TBTR and TBMP for us (except for the monstrously expensive and complex "Armata"). Therefore, I think that the BTR-3F will be purchased for our aircraft, the line for their production at Kurganskmashzavod is ready. On the basis of this armored personnel carrier, you can create command and staff vehicles, use it to supply the front line, and for its intended purpose.
            The lineup, of course, is not optimal and was simply made on the basis of the BMP-3. The rear placement of the engine dictated the overall architecture. Therefore, outwardly, the BTR-3F is so similar to the good old BTR-50.
            Perhaps in the future a more successful armored personnel carrier will be created based on the BMP-3M with a front-mounted MTO and a normal ramp / door in the stern.
            Quote: Evgeny Ivanov_5
            If the Ukrainians have modern means of destruction, landing ships will not even come within the distance of landing armored vehicles

            In the current conditions, the occupation of the Black Sea coast is possible only by an offensive with the forcing of the Dnieper and other water barriers. This will be possible when the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation acquire the proper condition, number and means of armaments. And when will decisions be made about the future fate of the South Russian Lands and the Northern Black Sea region.
            The issue of suppressing enemy fire weapons and, in general, suppression, is solved with the available means with proper planning of an offensive operation. Weapons of destruction and reconnaissance tools, target designation and pinpoint suppression throughout the entire depth of the enemy’s defense are enough already now. The only question is a political decision and competent planning of offensive operations.
            Quote: Evgeny Ivanov_5
            the course of the SVO showed the need for heavy armored vehicles, and not "cardboard" floating boxes.

            The BMP-3M and this BTR-3F have a degree of security that is quite high, especially if the BTR-3F is equipped with side screens, the same as those of the BMP-3M. And they (BMP-3M and BTR-3F) are quite waterfowl.
            And this (waterfowl) will still come in handy.
            Quote: Evgeny Ivanov_5
            The entire course of the SVO showed the need for heavy armored vehicles,

            But for the sake of the appearance of the TBTR (and the TBMP based on it), and at the same time not to grab onto the crude "Armata" with an astronomical price tag, you need to turn your eyes to the work of Kharkov designers, who, even before the coup in Kiev in 2014, presented two TBTRs made based on the hulls of the old Soviet T-55 and T-64. With front placement of MTO, a chisel-shaped frontal part without a break in the upper part, a spacious troop compartment for 12 (for TBTR-55) and 14 (for TBTR-64) troops, with a convenient aft ramp for dismounting, and an uninhabited non-submersible combat module on top. At the same time, the weight of the TBTR-64 ​​turned out to be in the range of 34 - 35 tons.
            This is precisely the lineup that is necessary for our TBTR based on old tank corps, of which we have thousands at our storage bases. And there is no need to disdain either the T-55 or the T-64 - they should go for such a transformation in the first place, because their combat value, precisely as tanks at the moment, is minimal. Towers and guns are being removed from the T-64 to the fullest to replace the barrels shot in the NWO, and the T-55 ... of course they are brought into the NWO zone as fire reinforcement, but solely for the sake of a huge amount of ammunition for its 100 mm. guns ... during the period of the quite naturally arising shell hunger.
            But at the storage bases we have at least 1,5 thousand T-55s and at least 2,5 thousand T-64s. What a field for the creativity of virtuoso welders !! fellow
            The cost of such a transformation of old tanks into new TBTRs will be even less than the production of their new lighter counterparts, while everything necessary for this is already available. The engine for them can be taken from the extensive stock of engines for the T-72 of previous modifications. A power of 860 l \ s for such TBTR will be quite enough. The stern of the tank turns into a forehead, the gears change places, the frontal armor is transferred to the former stern (new forehead), the spacious troop and fighting compartment form a single space and represent an armored capsule. From the roof cut to the outer cut of the fenders, an inclined outer armor plate is lowered on each side. A folding ramp and two armored cabinets on the sides of the ramp, which form a certain niche when dismounting (dismounting safety, stock of ammo, spare parts, camouflage nets, APU \ auxiliary power unit \ and other equipment) in the cabinets. At the same time, the aft cabinets on the sides of the ramp will allow you to balance the heavy bow with the MTO and balance the weight load on the chassis (so that the stern does not throw up on the move).
            These are the TBTRs that our Army needs - quickly, inexpensively, with the level of tank protection (especially if the frontal part and sides with screens are covered with dynamic protection), using the existing tank hulls, the backlog of industry / spare parts for the Armored Forces, repair / repair plants and the combat module from the armored personnel carrier -82A. Of course, welders, mechanics and electricians will have to work for glory, but the issue can be resolved quickly, inexpensively and very, VERY efficiently. And our Armed Forces of the Russian Federation need exactly 2000 - 3000 such TBTRs.
            This is if the inhabitants of the towers and their servants want to survive. For in the rapidly approaching future, they will be the number one goal. As they are now with Zelensky, they definitely will not do it.
            If you want to LIVE, show the WILL to live.
    2. +1
      13 August 2023 18: 54
      Put a box with a machine gun on the BMP-3? Let me guess, with Comrade. Stalin - 3 days.
      Yes, and the commander-in-chief recently said: R&D, R&D down with!
  2. +6
    12 August 2023 05: 07
    Something like this:
    Thus, the industry represented by SKBM and Kurganmashzavod is completing the development of a promising floating armored personnel carrier. In the near future, BT-3F will receive all the necessary documents and can go into series. There is already an order for the production of such equipment, and in the foreseeable future, the first batch will go to the buyer.

    Dear Kirill Ryabov, in combination with:
    On the finished chassis
    The BT-3F product is a tracked armored personnel carrier designed for the transport and landing of troops and is designed for use on land and on water. In order to simplify and speed up the development and production, it was made on the basis of the serial BMP-3F. At the same time, the original hull and its equipment underwent refinement, and the original fighting compartment was abandoned.

    Does not inspire joy and optimism.
    For too long, we have been accustomed to concepts that in words were "analogues in the world", but in deeds - developments without a deadline and a date for launching into mass production.
    1. +2
      12 August 2023 23: 04
      Quote: ROSS 42
      For too long, we have been accustomed to concepts that in words were "analogues in the world", but in deeds - developments without a deadline and a date for launching into mass production.

      In this case, the usual self-interest and foreign trade in arms came to our aid. The BTR-3F was developed specifically for and by order of Indonesia. and although in layout it strongly resembles the BTR-50 and it has a very uncomfortable dismounting ... the armor is still at the level of the BMP-3. If he hangs side screens from the BMP-3M (now being mass-produced), which, in turn, are taken from the failed "Kurganets", then the RF Armed Forces will receive a completely suitable armored personnel carrier. And also floating.
      The production of BTR-3F and BMP-3M is already underway at Kurganskmashzavod, as mentioned in the video from this plant itself, with a demonstration of the production lines that assemble these two vehicles.
      The magic pendel apparently still took place.
  3. +5
    12 August 2023 05: 12
    Something on the prototype armament is rather weak for such a machine and its weight.
    Indonesia became the starting customer for the new BT-3F. The BMP-3F vehicles have long been in service with its marines, and it is planned to develop a fleet of such equipment. To this end, in April 2019, a contract was signed for the supply of 22 infantry fighting vehicles and 21 amphibious armored personnel carriers. The total cost of the BT-3F vehicles was $67,2 million.
    The transfer of finished equipment was expected in the coming years, but news of this kind has not yet appeared. Probably, the production of serial BT-3F has not yet begun due to ongoing testing. However, production facilities are reportedly ready for the series.
    In March 2020, it became known that the Indonesian Ministry of Defense plans to place another order for Russian armored vehicles. It allocated $286 million to purchase a new batch of 79 BT-3F armored personnel carriers. According to the results of this contract, the total number of new cars was to reach 100 units.
    The reference book "The Military Balance" for 2022 reports the presence in Indonesia on 01.01.2021/54/3 as part of the Marine Corps XNUMX BMP-XNUMXF.
    There is evidence that under the 2019 contract, Indonesia should receive 22 armored personnel carriers and 22 BMP-3Fs.
    There are also messages, incl. SIPRI on the supply of BMP-3F in the amount of 54, incl. 17 (2010), 37 (2013) for $114 million.
  4. _6
    +8
    12 August 2023 05: 13
    The concept is already outdated, they will ride on armor. Armored vehicles, in principle, are going through hard times. A more or less viable option is a BPM with tank-level protection. As a temporary half-measure, a conversion from old T-55s and other tanks is suitable. Much has been written about this here. As an armored personnel carrier, it is better than MRAP, and even cheaper and more practical - an armored capsule for the body of the Urals + suspension reinforcement and minimal cabin armor (glasses, doors)
    1. _6
      -1
      12 August 2023 06: 05
      With this design, it should be possible to rearrange the armored capsule in the field to any other Ural or Kamaz. Crane or winch, it doesn't matter.
    2. +3
      12 August 2023 13: 12
      Quote: _6
      A more or less viable option is a BPM with tank-level protection.
      Yes? And does tank-level protection help the tank much? It's not invincible now. And the price will be at the level of the tank. And there are not three people in the BMP, why pull them to where tank armor is needed for survival?
      1. +1
        12 August 2023 13: 57
        Yes? And does tank-level protection help the tank much?

        If it does not help, why are they being used so actively?
        1. _6
          0
          12 August 2023 14: 29
          Modern combat showed the long overdue problem of changing tactics, and technology too. To understand that the cavalry had become obsolete, it took frontal attacks with a saber unsheathed on the tanks. Now tanks are in the role of cavalry, and the future enemy is robotic platforms with anti-tank systems. So, when the realization of this indisputable fact reaches our strategists with large shoulder straps, and the appropriate tactics are formed, then super-protected infantry fighting vehicles weighing 50-60 tons without weapons with a retinue of ground and air drones will be needed. To all the debaters - offer an alternative, well, except for how to crawl in armor to the front line. Future wars are drone battles. And they should be like the T-34: cheap and effective.
          1. +2
            12 August 2023 18: 35
            Are you ready to start mass production of such equipment in September, or are we still fighting the old way? It’s easy to throw cheap phrases about the need to start massively building death stars, robotic tanks, laser air defense stations and Su-57s with a swarm of drones on their tails right tomorrow.
          2. +1
            12 August 2023 21: 59
            Quote: _6
            To all the debaters - offer an alternative, well, except for how to crawl in armor to the front line.
            The issue was resolved back in the mid-50s: a nuclear strike (or an artillery barrage) was launched, which destroys everything that is not protected by armor. Then, through the center of defeat, tanks go, which destroy everything that was protected by armor. Behind the tanks are BMPs with infantry. After breaking through the defense, a cauldron is organized for the enemy. The infantry blocks the boiler, the tanks with motorized infantry go further, destroy the rear. When a new defense node is found, everything repeats.
          3. +1
            12 August 2023 23: 22
            Tanks from their very appearance suffered from guns, mines and other things. In order for the enemy to suffer, tanks must be covered by both infantry and from the air, then the ATGM crews will be quickly detected and cleared by high-explosive fragmentation shells. And stupid incoherent attacks with small forces will lead to the loss of anything, even the titans of the "Emperor" class
        2. +1
          12 August 2023 21: 55
          Quote: spektr9
          If it does not help, why are they being used so actively?
          Because, in addition to anti-tank weapons, there is still a breakthrough of other weapons that tank armor holds perfectly.
      2. -3
        12 August 2023 18: 31
        Then the logical question is why armor at all if it does not help? Let's get back to the huge number of non-armored vehicles from the word in general. Cheap, cheerful and no one needs to be stuffed into a box. We got into the open conveyor and forward. In case of danger, they jumped over the side and forward.
      3. 0
        12 August 2023 23: 58
        Quote: bk0010
        And does tank-level protection help the tank much?

        Strongly . Especially from heavy fragments in the conditions of the Artillery War, which we now have.
        Quote: bk0010
        It's not invincible now.

        Only with a direct hit by a powerful ammunition, preferably with a tandem cumulative warhead. Or a direct (!) hit by a heavy projectile. In all other cases, the tank survives. A TBTR with a landing force inside will also survive.
        Quote: bk0010
        And the price will be at the level of the tank.

        Do you really think that the bulk of the cost of a tank is its armor? Perhaps I will surprise you, but this is not even a chassis with an engine.
        These are its weapons, sights, means of observation, communications, ballistic computers. In a word, all of its high-tech stuffing. All this TBTR is not necessary. Simple viewing devices, communications equipment and an inexpensive combat module on the roof are enough - something like on the BTR-82A. The task of any armored personnel carrier is to deliver l / s to the front line or to the line of dismounting before battle / in battle.
        Quote: bk0010
        . And there are not three people in the BMP, why pull them to where tank armor is needed for survival?

        To take them to the place of battle, and not to die on the route of advance.
        TBTR with the level of tank protection will be able to advance to the battlefield in the same battle formations with tanks and BMPTs and under their fire cover, up to the dismounting line. TBMP will be able to quite effectively evacuate the wounded or troops under enemy fire, to ensure the supply of the front edge of the BC and everything you need.
        Quote: bk0010
        the price will be at the level of the tank.

        And if you take the same T-55 and T-64 for the conversion / transformation of the hull of old Soviet tanks from storage bases and convert them into TBTRs, as the Kharkov designers did right on the eve of the 2014 coup, then the price will generally become ... very budget . You will need a certain amount of armor plates, a stern ramp, possibly a new one (from the warehouse from the T-72 of previous versions - 860 l \ s will be just right) an engine and a combat module from the BTR-82A. And of course the work of welders, mechanics and electricians.
        Oh yes - even a repair plant in sufficient configuration.
        request And that’s it. Yes bully
        1. +1
          13 August 2023 21: 07
          Quote: bayard
          Strongly . Especially from heavy fragments in the conditions of the Artillery War, which we now have.
          For this tank armor is not needed.
          I quote:

          The formulas for the statistical distribution of the mass and velocity of fragments[10] make it possible to estimate the proportion of fragments that are dangerous for armored vehicles (with a penetration capacity of more than 15 mm equivalent of steel armor) at 3-4%, and the radius of the zone dangerous for armored personnel carriers is 20 meters from the point of detonation of the projectile.
          Thus, to hold fragments of a 155-mm projectile, 30 mm of steel armor equivalent is sufficient (a margin in case of small fragmentation of the projectile and the appearance of especially heavy fragments).
          Quote: bayard
          Do you really think that the bulk of the cost of a tank is its armor? I may surprise you, but this is not even a chassis with an engine. These are its weapons, sights, means of observation, communications, ballistic computers.
          And why did you decide that this is not necessary for the BMP? Yes, her gun is much more modest, but there are ATGMs, they are expensive.
          Quote: bayard
          And if you take the same T-55 and T-64 for the conversion / transformation of the hull of old Soviet tanks from storage bases and convert them into TBTRs, as the Kharkov designers did right on the eve of the 2014 coup, then the price will generally become ... very budget .
          Strongly against such a campaign. Yes, you will get a TBMP, but you will lose the old one, but the tank. The tank is more useful (IMHO, of course). But BMPs still need new ones, the existing ones are already old.
  5. +1
    12 August 2023 05: 36
    I understand that this product is designed for a foreign customer? judging by the reports of military correspondents at the front, such equipment is not used ...
    1. 0
      13 August 2023 12: 55
      BT-3 was not purchased by the army. BMP-3, BTR-82 and various armored cars + caterpillar all-terrain vehicles + a pod of mobile reserves went to the troops and, fortunately, go.
  6. +2
    12 August 2023 06: 36
    In addition to the machine gun, you also need some kind of combat module, at least with a 30-50 mm cannon. This is the dictate of modern combat, the NWO showed it. soldier
    1. +1
      13 August 2023 12: 56
      Then it’s easier to buy BMP-3 - the level of protection is at the level + firepower.
  7. Eug
    +2
    12 August 2023 06: 50
    "A couple of passes over the MTO" for landing is, of course, a song ... okay, the Indonesians are small, but the marines are mostly rather big, and even with a pack ...
  8. +7
    12 August 2023 07: 10
    Something he looks like an BTR-50
    everything is new - well forgotten old
    1. +1
      12 August 2023 07: 39
      Something he looks like an BTR-50

      has no analogues in the world, except for the USSR
  9. Owl
    +4
    12 August 2023 08: 09
    On the basis of this armored object, for units equipped with BMP-3, it is necessary to create a KShM, an ambulance, a communication vehicle (BREM and ATGM on the BMP-3 chassis have long been created).
    1. +3
      12 August 2023 08: 43
      KShM on its base would look good because of the internal volume. But ambulance transport is unlikely to succeed due to the lack of a full-fledged loading ramp behind. Dragging a stretcher with the wounded over the engine is probably such a pleasure ...
      1. +1
        12 August 2023 09: 34
        Quote: Dmitry Ivanov_8
        Dragging a stretcher with the wounded over the engine is probably such a pleasure ...


        In ordinary ambulances there are guides for the stretcher rollers - the legs of the stretcher with wheels are folded there when pushed by a special bumper and the stretcher then rolls along the rails with rollers on the frame. Once a team loaded a person far over 100 kg into such a machine and it was convenient and understandable to work with such a stretcher and without any training - for the first time I saw them there. The only thing that an armored personnel carrier needs to be provided for is the regular operation of such a stretcher system with significant distortions and slopes - taking into account the unevenness of natural soils, unlike asphalt.
  10. +3
    12 August 2023 08: 15
    The original BMP 3 is quite mobile being equipped with additional armor. And this is already 23 tons. Why did they save on protection again. Creating a very necessary technique almost from scratch, half-hearted solutions are again used. It was impossible to strengthen the sides initially ??? Or directly in the basic configuration at the factory to put additional armor on the sides.
    Knowing that the hodovka confidently holds 23 tons, it was necessary to put all this weight into defense.
    Well, DUM is wiser. Such a machine should be able to support the landing and defend on the march. A machine gun is not enough for this. A bunch of 7,62 × 54 and AGS 40 mm, or at least an old man AGS 30 mm, would look more harmonious than just a machine gun.
  11. +6
    12 August 2023 08: 32
    Again, flat bare sides, and even what height - the dream of a crane thrower! Well, there is already experience, not only bullets fly into equipment, tanks suffer, but what is this? The simplest RPG and 14 souls yeah! Let it be more expensive, but people need to be protected and not budgets, when will our die-hards realize that the population is not stupid meat, these are individuals!
    1. +2
      12 August 2023 19: 27
      Well, it is low compared to Western technology.
      Hanging screens and remote sensing from the BMP-3 is not a problem at all.
      Only the car was developed not for Russia, but for Malaysia, and there was a requirement for buoyancy.
      1. 0
        21 September 2023 10: 05
        Hanging screens is not a problem if there are ready-made, factory-made mounts for them.
  12. +1
    12 August 2023 10: 01
    For the presence of the words "floating" and "airborne" in the performance characteristics of armored vehicles, it's time for customers and developers not to cut the budget, but to give real terms. But we have bloggers assigned to the role of enemies of the people and military correspondents - it’s easier to nightmare them.
    1. +2
      12 August 2023 11: 19
      I add fiercely, the experience of the NWO seems to have proved everything to everyone. Where was the vaunted airborne landing and buoyancy used interestingly? But there is no our MO like sheep sing the same mantra. Ugh evil is not enough.
    2. -1
      12 August 2023 13: 16
      Quote: UAZ 452
      For the presence in the performance characteristics of armored vehicles of the words "floating" and "airborne" it's time for customers and developers not to cut the budget, but to give real terms.
      Well, the technique will not swim, will it increase its protection? Nifiga. To increase protection, a more powerful engine and a reinforced chassis are required. And this is unrealistic at any sane prices. No, if you take an infantry fighting vehicle at the price of Bradley, then no problem: they will supply you with a tank diesel. But how many of these can you buy?
      1. +2
        12 August 2023 14: 21
        Well, then we need cheap disposable armored vehicles. But they also need cheap disposable crews in commercial quantities.
        And if the production of several thousand diesel engines per thousand "horses" is an insoluble problem for the country, then are we in our right mind, claiming some kind of great power?
        1. +1
          12 August 2023 21: 49
          Quote: UAZ 452
          And if the production of several thousand diesel engines per thousand "horses" is an insoluble problem for the country, then are we in our right mind, claiming some kind of great power
          Not a few thousand. Both infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers appeared in commercial quantities due to the fact that infantry had to be transported through the lesion. Therefore, one vehicle was required per motorized rifle squad. These are tens of thousands of cars, and even more engines (replacement stock).
      2. +2
        12 August 2023 16: 45
        That is, the reliability of that engine will be at the Cummins level? Bradley-level surveillance equipment? No? But then why would this BMP have a price from Bradley, and everything else not from Bradley? We laughed at the stupid ami in the movie "Pentagon Wars", in the price of bradley cuts and kickbacks, but it has a reliable cummins and many other goodies, including a fairly accurate fluff. And what will be in your BMP for the price of Bradley? And if in your BMP everything will be obviously worse even in terms of performance characteristics, then where did such a price come from? Our workers began to receive wages, as in America?
        1. 0
          12 August 2023 21: 52
          Quote: Letterhead
          That is, the reliability of that engine will be at the Cummins level?
          This is how it will turn out, with the reliability of powerful engines somehow not very good.
          Quote: Letterhead
          Bradley-level surveillance equipment?
          I hope it's better, the 21st century is in the yard.
          Quote: Letterhead
          But then why would this BMP have a price from Bradley, and everything else not from Bradley?
          Because they want to screw tank armor on it. And, besides, well, even if it is half the price of Bradley, will it be affordable for our motorized infantry?
          1. -1
            13 August 2023 02: 53
            I also hope ... but where can they come from if the radio-electronic industry is a little below the world level. A little bit. What about the connection there? Network-centricity or as usual?
  13. 0
    12 August 2023 12: 18
    As an export version of the BT-3F, a good car, because. there is a paying customer.
    And for our country ... SVO showed the inferiority of the concept of lightly armored armored vehicles with the ability to swim and the complete unsuitability of landing equipment.

    In the next 30 years, Russia needs only well-armored infantry fighting vehicles / armored personnel carriers equipped with KAZ, since there are a large number of lightly armored vehicles, despite losses.
  14. -1
    12 August 2023 13: 17
    The preparation of regulatory and technical documentation for the assignment of the letter “O” to the product has begun.
    For mass production, "O1" is required. This is another 3 to 6 months.
    The BT-3F must support the landing force with fire, and for this it can be equipped with combat modules of various types with one or another weapon.
    So this is an infantry fighting vehicle, not an armored personnel carrier.
    1. +2
      12 August 2023 21: 08
      BTR-82A after installing a 30-mm gun on it ceased to be an armored personnel carrier?
      1. 0
        14 August 2023 19: 42
        Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
        BTR-82A after installing a 30-mm gun on it ceased to be an armored personnel carrier?
        An armored personnel carrier or infantry fighting vehicle is determined not by caliber, tracks and armor, but by the assigned tasks. If a vehicle fights with infantry, it's an infantry fighting vehicle. If the car just brings up infantry, and it has a machine gun for self-defense, then it means an armored personnel carrier. If an armored personnel carrier is fighting along with infantry, then it means that it is being used incorrectly, and this will cost him dearly. And the infantry too.
  15. 0
    12 August 2023 13: 59
    They would have done it already on the basis of the manul, it makes sense to leave this idiotic way of landing through the engine
    1. +3
      12 August 2023 18: 29
      Weight distribution!
      At sea, there is nothing to do with the front MTO.
      This is Indonesia. 100500 islands.
  16. +2
    12 August 2023 15: 01
    How many photos and videos of armored personnel carriers have I seen in combat areas, on all landings on armor and not behind it. Mass insanity of fighters? No . survival experience. It's easier and faster to leave the car and snuggle up to mother earth. Armament with one machine gun, albeit a large caliber, is quite enough, because this is not a combat vehicle, but a transporter, a delivery vehicle and nothing more. The latter apparently reaches the developers with difficulty, and perhaps a complex and expensive machine is simply more profitable for the manufacturer.
    1. -1
      12 August 2023 17: 27
      Painfully expensive pleasure is obtained, as a means of delivery to the battlefield. Look at the Alyosha tank, how it dealt with such armored vehicles that fulfilled this goal. It is the BMP, which replaced the armored personnel carrier, that delivers the infantry. And armored personnel carriers, except for cannons, are now not a means of delivery, but a means of transportation and not to the front line.
      1. -1
        12 August 2023 18: 44
        Deliver by trucks. Cheap and cheerful. Jumped overboard and into the bushes. Flatbed truck is cheap.
      2. -2
        13 August 2023 17: 11
        Tank "Alyosha" on the drum who is in front of him, armored personnel carrier or infantry fighting vehicle smile the ending will be the same. During the Second World War, the Germans and ours practiced the simultaneous use of tanks and armored personnel carriers on the front end, but then the times were different, and the weapons were different. As a delivery vehicle, an armored personnel carrier with mine protection and an open body, with moderately armored sides, has the right to life. And as a light crossing means, too. The main thing to remember is that the main part of any weapon is the head of its owner.
    2. 0
      12 August 2023 19: 20
      It’s not always that the landing party rides on armor ...
      How the landing party travels depends on how big the danger is. If the mines are all on the armor, if the art and fvp are drones, everyone drives inside.
      1. 0
        19 August 2023 23: 18
        They ride on armor mainly for two reasons, inside in the summer you can suffocate and get sick, and the second, in case of being ambushed on the march, have time to detect the grenade launcher's shot and react in time.
  17. +1
    12 August 2023 16: 40
    The hull borrowed from the BMP-3 is distinguished by rather high protection characteristics.

    This is what... :)
    But floating...
    Where they are going to swim is not clear ...
    Even on your own, it never came in handy ...
    Instead of "water swimming", it would be better if they increased the armor ...
    1. 0
      12 August 2023 19: 16
      Well, firstly, there is no problem to fix the screens like on the BMP-3, and the same DZ ...
      But the meaning of a different buoyancy is the requirement of the main customer - the Malaysian Armed Forces.
      The buoyancy didn't stop, where did you get it from? Now the offensive is underway, all the small rivers are first crossed, a foothold is captured, the enemy is thrown back, only then are crossings for the transportation of supplies, as well as the transportation of non-floating equipment.
    2. +1
      13 August 2023 13: 54
      The BMP-3 has excellent protection, at the level of any BMP, except for those made from tanks ...
    3. 0
      14 August 2023 16: 03
      The technique is not done under the SVO, but in general. But I agree that in each case improvements are made. How in Afghanistan BMP-2D was made from BMP-2. Increased armor and to hell with this buoyancy.
      1. 0
        19 August 2023 23: 22
        in Afghanistan, the rivers are mountainous, fast, where buoyancy did not really help. I read about a tragic incident during the crossing. It is also advisable to have life jackets.
  18. 0
    12 August 2023 19: 05
    Turned BTR-50 of which there are plenty in storage. The repair cost of which is cheaper and faster than the design and creation of the production of BT-3F. The reserve for modernization of the BTR-50 will more than cover the requirements of both domestic and foreign aircraft, given many years of experience in operating this very versatile machine. Legendary not lower than that of MTLB, and maybe even higher good
  19. 0
    12 August 2023 19: 11
    This is an analogue of a shell, only based on the BMP-3 ...
    If it goes into a large series, it will be an excellent replacement for the motorcycle league.
  20. 0
    12 August 2023 19: 19
    And that the side walls of the armored personnel carrier cannot be tilted ?????
    1. 0
      13 August 2023 17: 17
      It is possible. Extremely slightly increase armor protection and eat up internal space
  21. 0
    12 August 2023 19: 44
    Uncle Vasya did in the garage. Looks disgusting
  22. -1
    13 August 2023 00: 01
    Lord, the whole world has not been making floating armored personnel carriers for a long time, but we all drag this "dead horse". It would be better to think about the security and comfort of accommodation and dismounting.
  23. 0
    13 August 2023 01: 27
    No, well, if Indonesians like this BDSM-3F, then please. Any whim for the client's money. But this miracle Yudo with such a landing scheme does not suit us. They imagine how Ryabov would smash him if he were American or German ...
  24. 0
    13 August 2023 08: 37
    In general, it’s not sour to work on an armored personnel carrier for 7 years. What did they do during this time? Maybe there every bolt pulls on an invention?
  25. +1
    13 August 2023 09: 40
    It's a good thing to fight against pistol troops. Remove the "wings" from the aluminum above the tracks. Still get ripped off. And climbing to the top will be more convenient. There was no armor and no. Boards are high. So there will be more space inside. I did not catch the convenience of loading and unloading. Judging by the bevel to the stern, it will not be very good. In general, a new motorcycle league has turned out. For all cases, except for the infantry at the front end, it is safe to unload and pick up .. I think they will tune it on the spot, like a motorcycle league. Naturally, off-road driving will be healthy. The base from the BMP 3 is all the same. Everything is better than a motorcycle league. Well, the additional function is to swim. So it's all from the evil one. At the front, you need it very, very rarely. Well, about like a hare's fifth leg. Infantry ARMOR!!!! needed. And KAZ on the armor. And convenience! CONVENIENCE!!! loading and unloading from the stern. And not to squeeze through the hatches for the pygmies in ammunition. Forgive me pygmies. In general, something like this. soldier
  26. +3
    13 August 2023 09: 52
    I will add. I hope they installed a removable generator as standard? So that in the field, the separation and charge of the radio could and which systems could be turned on without the main engine. All this is very necessary. Why removable? Yes, because when the squad in positions costs less demoscuing factors, the car gave out. All of my insignificant wishes and observers voiced in these comments are not taken from the ceiling. And not from the couch. wink
    1. 0
      21 September 2023 10: 18
      I agree, very sensible comments, but it is not necessary to remove the wings above the tracks; they can either be made with protrusions or with holes so that there is something to cling to.
      But the requirement for a wider loading from the stern in the BMP-3 layout is impossible. It will be a different car with an engine in the middle or in the front.
  27. -1
    13 August 2023 13: 10
    In my opinion, the frontal part should be made integral with the removal of the driver's hatch to the roof. Forward machine guns are located near the waterline, there is a risk of flooding in heavy seas and have small pointing angles, their presence is of no practical importance.
  28. 0
    14 August 2023 08: 36
    That's what you want - but he's a freak. BMP-3 did not want to redo too much.
  29. 0
    19 August 2023 02: 34
    After 70 years, Russian engineers have reinvented the aluminum BTR-50...
  30. 0
    21 September 2023 08: 11
    The letter "O" is assigned to design and technological documentation. Regulatory and technical documentation includes national and interstate standards, organizational standards, and recommendations for standardization. It does not have any NTD letter.
  31. 0
    21 September 2023 20: 47
    1. This armored personnel carrier is only for marines and is a stretch. Exclusively because of its seaworthiness. Its weight distribution is good due to the layout and there are no problems with sealing doors and ramps. These are all advantages. Probably normal for Marines. And that’s not a fact, because Marines are people too, and loading/unloading on this armored personnel carrier is only convenient for aliens.
    2. God forbid this armored personnel carrier will be accepted as the main one in the army. This would be complete idiocy and outright disregard for the needs of the ordinary soldier.