Armored car ZA-SpN "Titan" is being tested

80
Armored car ZA-SpN "Titan" is being tested
Experienced "Titan" with a machine gun turret


The Russian defense industry is actively developing the direction of armored vehicles and regularly introduces new models of this class. Thus, last year they showed for the first time the ZA-SpN “Titan” multi-purpose MRAP class vehicle. Over the past time, it has passed some of the necessary checks and is now at the stage of state testing. They are going to be completed in the near future, after which the future fate of the new armored car will have to be determined.



At the exhibition and at the site


The protected special purpose vehicle (ZA-SpN) "Titan" was developed at JSC "Remdizel" (Naberezhnye Chelny). This company has extensive experience in the field of wheeled armored vehicles - it produces vehicles of the Typhoon series and regularly introduces new models. The new Titan was created taking into account the accumulated experience in the development, production and operation of previous armored vehicles.

The finished armored car of the new model was first shown last year at the international military-technical forum Army 2023. As part of this premiere, the main characteristics and features of the car were revealed. In particular, in order to demonstrate the capabilities of the configuration, the armored car was equipped with a remote-controlled combat module with missiles and cannon weapons. Compatibility with other modules and weapons was also mentioned.


An armored car with a full-fledged armored fighting vehicle at Army 2023

Recently, “Titan” was shown abroad for the first time. An armored car with a DBM was included in the Russian exposition at the World Defense Show 2024 in Saudi Arabia. The purpose of this display is to attract the attention of potential foreign customers. In fact, Rosoboronexport and Remdizel are starting to promote the armored car on the market and are counting on receiving export orders.

Participation in exhibitions, now regular, does not interfere with other events. Apparently, the first experimental ZA-SpN Titan armored car was built long before the first display at Army 2023, and by that time it had already been tested. Subsequently, various activities continued, and the equipment confirmed the calculated characteristics. Probably, in this case, shortcomings were also identified, which were then corrected.

On February 11, new relevant information was received: the TASS agency published statements by the General Director of Remdizel, Alexander Zakharov. The head of the enterprise said that Titan is now at the final stage of state testing. In this case, we are talking about the basic chassis in different modifications. The details of the tests being carried out are not specified. In particular, the number and configurations of the armored car modifications being tested are not specified.


During state tests, the ZA-SpN “Titan” product must confirm compliance with the requirements of the Ministry of Defense. Having coped with this task, the armored car will be able to enter service and go into production. However, the development organization and the potential customer represented by the armed forces have not yet raised such topics. Probably some news the future of the Titan will appear later, after the remaining tests have been completed.

The task is import substitution


In the tenth years, the Remdizel enterprise mastered the production of Typhoon armored vehicles developed by the KamAZ plant, and also continued the development of this family. "Typhoons" of all types are distinguished by high tactical and technical characteristics, successful design and good potential for modernization. At the same time, they used some foreign-made units. In addition, during operation, ways and possibilities for further development and improvement of the design were identified.

The new ZA-SpN Titan project is a variant of a deep modernization of the existing Typhoon platform, bordering on the development of a completely new model. While maintaining the basic ideas, the design was improved, and foreign units were replaced with available domestic analogues. The resulting armored car in its parameters and potential is at least not inferior to the previous Typhoons.


The new Titan is a two-axle all-wheel drive MRAP-class armored vehicle designed for transporting people and cargo, solving certain fire missions, etc. Externally and in its architecture, it is similar to some other domestic cars of its class. The curb weight of the armored car is approx. 13,6 t, full - 15 t.

The car is built on the basis of a load-bearing armored body, on which all other elements are installed. The body has a hood layout; in the center there is a two-row cabin, in the stern there is a cargo area. To protect against explosions, the bottom of the machine is V-shaped. Access to the interior of the hull is provided by four doors on the sides. The body is equipped with folding sides.

The ballistic protection of the habitable compartment of the hull corresponds to level 3 of the STANAG 4569 standard. It can withstand fire from 7,62 mm armor-piercing rifle bullets. Mine protection is declared at level 2a/b and saves the crew from 6 kg of TNT under the wheel or bottom. It is possible to install overhead armor to improve protection characteristics.


The armored car is equipped with a 350 hp diesel engine. and a transmission with torque distribution to all wheels. Independent suspension is used (type not reported); A centralized tire inflation system is provided. The maximum speed on the highway exceeds 100 km/h. Power reserve – 800 km.

The protected two-row cab seats five people, including the driver. Energy-absorbing chairs are designed for them, reducing the negative impact of explosions. The aft platform carries a load of up to 1,45 tons.

ZA-SpN "Titan" can carry different weapons, and two options for its equipment have already been shown. The first uses an armored machine gun mount, controlled directly by the shooter. At exhibitions, an armored car with an armored fighting vehicle from one of the production models is demonstrated. In this case, the armored car carries a 30-mm 2A42 cannon, a PKT machine gun and Konkurs missiles. The module is equipped with optics for searching targets and fire control, and an operator console is placed inside the armored car. This weapon system allows you to confidently hit protected and “soft” targets at distances of up to 2-2,5 km.

Based on experience


The experience of conflicts in recent decades shows the need for mass construction and widespread introduction of armored vehicles capable of protecting the crew from major threats and supporting them with fire. The Russian army took these trends into account long ago and began re-equipping accordingly. A number of armored cars of various types with differing characteristics were consistently adopted.


Armored cars of the Typhoon family occupy a significant place in the fleet of such equipment. They have shown themselves well in various conditions and operations, and now this line is being developed in the form of a new project ZA-SpN “Titan”. The promising armored car has already passed the main part of the tests, and in the near future the issue of launching mass production and adoption will be decided.

In addition, Titan has already begun to be promoted on the international market, and the first export orders are expected. Obviously, the successful completion of tests and adoption by the developing country will become additional advertising and will contribute to the speedy receipt of orders.

Thus, the ZA-SpN “Titan” project has already demonstrated the ability of our industry to create modern wheeled armored vehicles even in the current difficult conditions. In the future, he will have to solve several other, no less important tasks related to the re-equipment of his own army and making money from the rearmament of others. And there is already every reason for optimistic forecasts.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

80 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +7
    13 February 2024 05: 52
    Weight like an armored personnel carrier. Load capacity like a Gazelle.

    What tasks does he have in the war?

    Americans love to ride these around the occupied territories all over the world...
    1. +2
      13 February 2024 10: 18
      What tasks does he have in war?

      Judging by the technical characteristics, the tasks are similar to the armored personnel carrier. By the way, he will have better protection, incl. and anti-mine.
      As for the weapons module, the feasibility is not obvious. With the current dominance of FPV in the air, approaching such a distance is dangerous, and the modules are not cheap.

      And the key point is the price of the equipment. If we can make it at an acceptable price and good reliability, then the car will work. Otherwise, it will remain an exhibition piece.
      1. +2
        13 February 2024 12: 46
        Quote: VicktorVR
        Weight like an armored personnel carrier. Load capacity like a Gazelle.
        What tasks does he have in the war?

        The Titan MRAP class is a vehicle for police purposes. It is more suitable for the tasks of the Russian Guard.
        His main protection is from small arms fire and mines.

        Armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles - for the tasks of army units. They have a more likely chance of getting an anti-tank grenade on board than running into a mine, so the defense is oriented more against them and small arms (there is plenty of this stuff everywhere).

        It is impossible to protect against all dangers at once, since sometimes protection requirements contradict each other, and their combination turns the car into a monster.
        For example: it is more difficult to hit a squat vehicle with an RPG, but if it explodes on a mine, it will suffer more than a tall MRAP, but that, in turn, is practically not protected from RPGs.
        1. 0
          13 February 2024 13: 04
          They have a more likely chance of getting an anti-tank grenade on board

          You are right, the chance is much more likely, and at the same time the Titan has better side armor.
          Because the armored personnel carrier has aluminum, while the Titan has normal armor steel. winked

          Although in modern times the task of such equipment on the front end is to quickly pass through a dangerous area before the FPVs hit.
          1. 0
            13 February 2024 13: 11
            Quote: Netl
            Because the armored personnel carrier has aluminum, while the Titan has normal armor steel.

            Now BMP-3s are coming to Ukraine with this kind of protection
            1. 0
              13 February 2024 13: 17
              It is not visible in the figure whether the DZ is worth it. Now they are already installing it, not just bars.
              But they still put it on an aluminum base, which does not improve the remote sensing. Because then it will break through its own side. sad

              And all because of the moronic requirement for buoyancy. Everyone understands that it is not needed, but there is not enough spirit to cancel it. Plus, the BMP-3 has a decent ammunition from 100 mm land mines, which creates additional. the risk of undermining this bookmaker.
              1. +1
                13 February 2024 13: 27
                Quote: Netl
                It is not visible in the figure whether the DZ is worth it. Now they are already installing it, not just bars.
                What about the additional bulwark made of armored steel?
                1. -2
                  13 February 2024 15: 27
                  additional bulwark

                  Better than nothing, but worse than if the main armor was steel and with better IR.

                  But again, with the current omnipresence of FPV, on the front end it may be more important to pass quickly than to withstand 1 more blow. Yes
              2. 0
                13 February 2024 22: 12
                Quote: Netl
                But they still put it on an aluminum base, which does not improve the remote sensing. Because then it will break through its own side.

                What difference does it make to you, 43 mm aluminum or 19 mm steel? The strength is the same. And the problem with remote sensing is solved by special modules with reduced recoil, you’ve probably already seen them. They are thicker than Contact, as elongated cubes look like. The T-72 is reinforced with them, at the back and on the roof.
                1. 0
                  14 February 2024 09: 31
                  What difference does it make to you, 43 mm aluminum or

                  The difference there is that aluminum armor provides comparable stability with the same weight compared to modern steel only against high explosives and small fragments. And resistance is lower against kinetic, cumulative and impact nuclei.

                  But the problem is not directly in the armor made of aluminum alloys and it could be strengthened. The problem is that there is a moronic requirement for buoyancy, which ruins the enhancement of the vehicle’s protection in any way. Our designers are trying to do something in the current situation, but these are all castrated options in relation to how they could turn around if they canceled the fucking buoyancy that is not needed anywhere sad
                  1. +1
                    14 February 2024 16: 23
                    Quote: Netl
                    The difference there is that aluminum armor provides comparable stability with the same weight compared to modern steel only against high explosives and small fragments.

                    With the same weight!?? fool

                    Quote: Netl
                    how could they turn around if they canceled the fucking useless buoyancy

                    Not needed? Have you seen fields and dirt roads after a week of rain? Apart from MT-LB, nothing can move there at all. You can only move on foot or on floating equipment. But no one is going to cross the Atlantic by swimming.
                    1. 0
                      14 February 2024 16: 37
                      or on floating equipment and you can move around

                      Why do you need to be “floating” to move through the mud?
                      The water cannon didn’t give up there. recourse
                      It’s more likely that power relative to weight, wheel diameter or track travel, ground clearance, etc. play a role.
                      1. +1
                        14 February 2024 21: 32
                        Quote: Netl
                        Why do you need to be “floating” to move through the mud?
                        The water cannon didn’t give up there.

                        MT-LB does not have any water cannons; it gets by by rewinding the tracks. And power in the mud doesn’t help at all, unless you want to bury yourself three or four meters into this muck.
                      2. 0
                        15 February 2024 09: 18
                        MT-LB does not have any water cannons

                        Well, that means we are on the same side when it comes to water cannons for the BMP-3. Yes
                        And in general, of course, a moto ski is best suited for kneading shit, especially when it has wide tracks, which means the pressure on the ground is less than that of a pedestrian.

                        As for the lack of influence of specific power on cross-country ability, I don’t agree with you, but God bless it.

                        The main thing is that a combat vehicle is not only a transport and tractor, like a motorized rifle, but also acceptable protection for motorized riflemen. And the requirement for buoyancy does not allow increasing protection to the proper extent. The situation was aggravated by the fact that the BMP-3, when penetrated, can detonate a large 100 mm caliber ammunition.
                      3. 0
                        15 February 2024 21: 04
                        Quote: Netl
                        And the requirement for buoyancy does not allow increasing protection to the proper extent.

                        But in fact, the requirements for increasing protection came down to some kind of crazy persecution of all lightly armored vehicles. And without it, the infantry is nowhere.

                        Well, the requirements for protection themselves are somehow inadequate. Tanks today are burned just as easily as infantry fighting vehicles, but for some reason all the civilians demand an increase in weight, which will do nothing. It is worth working towards active protection, but this is not about weight, but rather about electronics.
                      4. 0
                        16 February 2024 09: 50
                        mad persecution of all lightly armored vehicles

                        IMHO, it looks more like a release of steam. Doesn't lead to real action.
                        For example, they talked about the uselessness of buoyancy long before the SVO. Losses in the Northern Military District only increased interest. But things are still there, only there was information that a lot was stolen from the new Kurganets, which is still far from entering the army.

                        Tanks today are burned as easily as infantry fighting vehicles

                        It is not true. For example, there are a lot of videos where the impact of the FPV of a drone with a cumulative warhead reflects the remote sensing of a tank. And exactly the same should be true for infantry fighting vehicles. The thickness of the armor is like that of a tank - these are heavy infantry fighting vehicles like the Armata, which will be available no one knows when. But at least installing normal remote sensing on conventional infantry fighting vehicles is possible and necessary now. This will reduce losses.
                      5. 0
                        16 February 2024 20: 27
                        Quote: Netl
                        It is not true. For example, there are a lot of videos where the impact of the FPV of a drone with a cumulative warhead reflects the remote sensing of a tank. And exactly the same should be true for infantry fighting vehicles.

                        No not like this. DZ is capable of reflecting only the most primitive gods, like carrots from the first RPGs. Today, all fresh RPGs have a tandem warhead, all ATGMs have long had a tandem warhead. What is the point of designing new equipment with protection only against ancient RPGs? Look at the same self-made FPVs, they were screwed with what they found, but they also learned to work as a group, and if they are attacking a tank, then they strive to hit one place, where the first explosion has already cleared the armor of both the remote sensing and all sorts of other self-made gratings, etc. .P.

                        In terms of increasing armor, there is a need to strengthen anti-fragmentation protection. The main caliber has become 152-155mm and this requires armor of at least 25 mm. But this is not a reason to deprive them of buoyancy; vehicles with such armor are quite capable of this.
                      6. 0
                        17 February 2024 12: 47
                        Quote: Saxahorse
                        all new RPGs have a tandem warhead

                        But in order to expose an infantry fighting vehicle to an RPG shot, you need to drive up almost point-blank. And the PDF with a repeater starts working already from 20 km. from LBS.

                        they (FPV) have learned to work as a group... they strive to hit in one place

                        It makes a huge difference whether they hit you with the first blow or who knows what. And the crew can maneuver and prevent it from hitting the same place. And the electronic warfare can operate on the required frequency and shoot down the repeater and cover the drone operators, etc. and so on. Sometimes even seconds are worth your life. And on the scale of the entire war, this means tens of thousands of lives.

                        In terms of increasing armor, there is a need to strengthen anti-fragmentation protection. The main caliber has become 152-155mm and this requires armor of at least 25 mm. But this is not a reason to deprive them of buoyancy

                        I agree about the anti-fragmentation protection. It is howitzers and FPVs that are now the main dangers for infantry fighting vehicles. But why not a “reason” is unclear. There is no use for buoyancy other than harm, and anti-fragmentation protection is urgently needed.
                      7. 0
                        18 February 2024 18: 46
                        Quote: Netl
                        Buoyancy is of no use except harm

                        In general, I was not able to bring to your attention all the problems of working with heavy armored vehicles. I don’t know why, but the main thing is that it doesn’t float... Well, ok. Think as you want, just don’t go to the military with advice, please.
                      8. 0
                        19 February 2024 09: 04
                        In general, bring all problems to you

                        Apparently, in your attempts to “convey”, you didn’t pay any attention to what they were answering. Yes, the main idea that it was not written about swimming, but that the main thing in the current conditions is high-quality remote sensing, was not noticed.

                        It seems that the reluctance to listen and hear is growing. sad
                      9. 0
                        20 February 2024 00: 24
                        It seems that the reluctance to listen and hear is growing.

                        Apparently this is mutual. I seem to have repeated several times that remote sensing as a method of protection is outdated. There are also remote sensing modules for infantry fighting vehicles with their 19mm side, these are now installed on the roof of the T-72, they are also thin there. But the likelihood of meeting an enemy with an outdated warhead is becoming less and less. Only self-made FPVs with often rotten carrots. Now the production of such drones will be set up a little and they will be equipped with normal tandem cumulative ones.

                        There is no longer such a thing - “high-quality remote sensing”; it was invented a long time ago and its penetration was put into practice.
          2. 0
            13 February 2024 13: 24
            Quote: Netl
            Because the armored personnel carrier has aluminum

            Since when did armored personnel carriers have aluminum armor? Maybe they mixed it up with the BMP-3?
            1. 0
              13 February 2024 13: 38
              BMP-3 may have been confused

              You are right, I confused it with the BMP-3.
              The armored personnel carrier has thin steel.
          3. 0
            13 February 2024 14: 23
            Which armored personnel carrier has aluminum side armor, may I ask?
            1. 0
              13 February 2024 15: 03
              You are right, I confused it with the BMP-3.
          4. -1
            13 February 2024 15: 00
            Which armored personnel carriers have aluminum armor on the sides???
            1. 0
              13 February 2024 15: 04
              You are right, I confused it with the BMP-3.
              1. 0
                13 February 2024 15: 08
                Aaaand question number two. And what is this aluminum side from the BMP 3 holding????
                1. +2
                  13 February 2024 16: 00
                  Quote: garri-lin
                  And what is this aluminum side from the BMP 3 holding????
                  The BMP-3 holds a 30 mm projectile in its forehead, and a large-caliber machine gun bullet on its side.
                  The side of the BMP-3 is 43 mm aluminum armor (thickness), the side in the bow is 60 mm aluminum armor, the front plate is 60 mm aluminum armor + 2 steel sheets.

                  And we have armored personnel carriers made of aluminum armor among our landing forces (BTR-D, BTR-MDM “Rakushka”)
                  1. 0
                    13 February 2024 17: 17
                    Airborne Forces outside the brackets. They have different tasks and different ways to achieve them.
                    So 43 mm aluminum and holds a machine gun. Do you think this is not enough??? For a light infantry fighting vehicle? Russia needs a heavy infantry fighting vehicle and no one can argue with that. But for an easy one, this is enough especially together with grilles, remote sensing screens and everything else.
                    Most MRAPs have parity with the main armored personnel carrier in terms of side protection. You can add additional armor to both the MPAP and the armored personnel carrier, as is done on the Stryker, and raise the protection to “holds BB 12,7”, that’s just finances.
                    1. 0
                      13 February 2024 18: 39
                      Quote: garri-lin
                      So 43 mm aluminum and holds a machine gun. Do you think this is not enough??? For a light infantry fighting vehicle?
                      Who are you asking questions to?
                      1. 0
                        14 February 2024 14: 19
                        Come on. Didn't notice. Sorry. Bad internet, the icons didn’t load, so I immediately went to answer. The frenzy of controversy.
  2. +2
    13 February 2024 06: 03
    And what advantages (if, of course, does it have) such equipment over classic armored personnel carriers (BTR-80, 82, 90)?
    1. +2
      13 February 2024 08: 57
      Tell me, does anyone know if there is any special feature in protecting wheels from damage from bullets and shrapnel? I know about automatic tire pressure inflation, but this is only for one small hole. I know about aviation fuel tanks with self-sealing of holes. Is there something similar in wheeled vehicles, or maybe they are not inflated with air at all, but with some kind of filler that is not afraid of bullets and shrapnel?
    2. -3
      13 February 2024 09: 09
      It is at least 2 times cheaper than an armored personnel carrier and is perfect for supplying/rotating the first line of defense.
      1. -2
        13 February 2024 10: 42
        You can also add that the armored personnel carrier is superior in:
        Economical;
        Less noise;
        Security;
        Speed ​​and maneuverability;
        Ease of maintenance.
        1. +6
          13 February 2024 13: 04
          And in addition to the driver, it can accommodate as many as 4 people. It is absolutely not suitable as a replacement for an armored personnel carrier. This is a vehicle for its tasks: escorting convoys, strengthening roadblocks, patrolling in the front line, in a captured (liberated) city, etc.
          1. +4
            13 February 2024 13: 26
            replacing an armored personnel carrier is absolutely not

            Rather, a replacement for the ubiquitous loaves, Hiluxes and sometimes gazelles to supply the guys on the front end.
            The existing armored personnel carriers are superior to Titan in protection, but in modern conditions the role of armored personnel carriers as transport to the line of attack is no longer so obvious.
            Because, taking into account the repeaters, the FPVs already confidently fly up to 20 km from the LBS.
        2. +1
          13 February 2024 15: 03
          Didn't hit it at all. Not at all.
      2. +6
        13 February 2024 10: 50
        It is at least 2 times cheaper than an armored personnel carrier and is perfect for supplying/rotating the first line of defense.

        I wonder what makes it cheaper? The roughest calculation is by mass. The mass is comparable.
        But the armored personnel carrier has fairly simple pieces of hardware that have long been mastered in production; all the R&D and other things have long since paid off.
        But for now, everything on Titan is piecemeal, and judging by the picture, it’s not as easy to manufacture as an armored personnel carrier, and the bourgeoisie will want to reimburse all the costs for R&D and launch into production.

        The only (rather utopian option) is that in the production of armored personnel carriers there are a bunch of parasites (but this is just real), both in the form of people and organizations, and suboptimal processes, and Titan is designed as optimally as possible for production, (already) not in the design " “freeloaders,” there won’t be any in production (including suppliers), and the bourgeoisie will set a minimum profit (15% per year), and a maximum payback (10 years). And of course, production will be launched as quickly as possible and organized optimally, which is generally a fantasy in the current realities, but the reality is “why are we making parts on this machine, it’s not for that at all? - so the managers bought such a thing”, “why such low cutting conditions? "So the instrument is expensive. Why they don't buy a cheap one is a question for managers." etc.

        Repair and maintenance in aircraft is a separate issue.
        1. -1
          13 February 2024 11: 14
          what makes it cheaper

          Due to greater unification with civilian cars.
          Plus, for an armored personnel carrier there is a moronic requirement for buoyancy, which requires aluminum armor, a water cannon, and a bunch of other distortions in the design that worsen the characteristics and increase the cost. Yes
          1. 0
            13 February 2024 13: 28
            Quote: Netl
            Due to greater unification with civilian cars.

            With which? What kind of civilian vehicle components are installed on the Titan? Dashboard?
            1. -1
              13 February 2024 13: 53
              What are the components of a civilian car?

              There is little information on the subject. Titan is a development of Typhoon, and it was created taking into account unification with Kamaz and Ural.
            2. 0
              14 February 2024 23: 12
              Titan is a continuation of Typhoon without imported components. So there will be unification with Typhoons, which is already a plus.
    3. +2
      13 February 2024 15: 02
      Nothing at all. And we can say parity in price.
    4. +1
      13 February 2024 16: 31
      1. This is not a replacement for an armored personnel carrier. And an addition.
      2. Advantages:
      - higher resource
      - much better ergonomics
      - higher protection from mines and shrapnel
      - the ability to transport troops UNDER the cover of armor.
    5. 0
      14 February 2024 23: 23
      “What are the advantages” - well, convenience for soldiers, for example. Driving many kilometers in a Mrap or an armored personnel carrier makes a big difference for those sitting inside. Well, don’t forget about the body, the armored personnel carrier doesn’t seem to have one at all. And all this with good booking, and DBM. Don’t forget about evacuation, here the armored personnel carrier is also inconvenient compared to the “classic”. So the car is good, our guys have more of them and different ones.
  3. +2
    13 February 2024 07: 51
    Yet how the war pushed progress in this matter! There were some exhibition samples, and now a series of new models and then modernization. Now track lovers will swoop in and start arguing that the wheels are only for asphalt and all that. Armored wheels are needed and more and more varied ones need to be placed on them.
    1. +3
      13 February 2024 08: 53
      And they will correctly begin to prove that wheels are for asphalt. This vehicle with a 30 mm cannon is suitable for patrolling, escorting, escorting and other auxiliary functions. Or a car of the last chance, when it’s all over and we have to fight. This is also a chassis for mortars and anti-aircraft guns.
      But for operations in the field, you need tracks or at least a larger number of axles, four like the armored personnel carrier or at least three for the Typhoon and Akhmat.
  4. +2
    13 February 2024 08: 28
    I read this “news” a week ago wink
  5. 0
    13 February 2024 09: 09
    And what is this “motley” “menagerie” for?
    1. 0
      13 February 2024 09: 19
      There is also Tiger-2. MCI based on trucks can not be considered - these are cheap options for the Russian Guard for patrols.
  6. +1
    13 February 2024 09: 17
    For such vehicles, lighter autocannons are needed than 2a42 and 2a76... The Americans use a gun from Apache - a cartridge case from a 20mm cannon and a 30mm projectile...
    1. -2
      13 February 2024 11: 16
      There is no point in inventing a low-ballistic gun or using a smaller caliber gun. There are automatic grenade launchers for such purposes.
      1. +1
        13 February 2024 11: 20
        Why do they do the same? The USA has a large arsenal of guns. And grenade launchers.
        1. 0
          13 February 2024 11: 25
          Maybe they do, but more likely for lighter cars. With a mass of 13,5 tons, there is little point in reducing the ballistics of the gun.
          Now, if you bet on a lighter Tiger, you already need to think about it.
          1. +1
            13 February 2024 12: 56
            Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
            Now, if you bet on a lighter Tiger, you already need to think about it.
            The manufacturer offers "Tigers" with a 2A72 cannon (30mm)
            1. 0
              13 February 2024 14: 56
              Not such a bad idea. But an anti-aircraft module with a modernized version of the ZU-23-2 equipped with a MANPADS to boot is preferable.
          2. 0
            13 February 2024 14: 07
            It is redundant even for the BTR82. Not to mention 4x4
            1. 0
              13 February 2024 14: 54
              Before the advent of the cannon module on the armored personnel carrier, when ambushed or attacked on the march, the armored personnel carrier was a victim. And with the advent of the cannon, those attacking him became victims.
              Are you proposing to disarm the BTR-82A?
              1. -1
                13 February 2024 14: 57
                I suggest not making a cardboard BTR82 into an infantry fighting vehicle. And give them an appropriate gun (not an oblique one, like the 2a72), and convert the infantry fighting vehicles themselves to a gun larger than 30mm (37mm-45mm-50mm)
                1. -1
                  13 February 2024 14: 58
                  Just like that, right away. But at the moment the BTR-82A is a formidable and massive vehicle.
    2. +1
      13 February 2024 19: 56
      The Kovrovites from ZiD proposed installing a 23-mm AP-23 cannon on the Arbalet-DM DBM, interchangeable with the 40-mm AGS MGK-40. But the AP-23 has non-standard ammunition for the army, 23x115 from the aviation GSh-23.

      Even at Army 2022, the 40-mm combined automatic gun-grenade launcher (KAPG) “Vorchun” developed by BSTU “Voenmekh” was presented.
      1. -1
        14 February 2024 14: 27
        Well, about Grumpy, it is still unclear what it is and how much it corresponds to reality. There is hope though.
        1. +1
          14 February 2024 21: 09
          “Grunt” and AP-23 are most likely initiative developments made in the understanding that the army needs a lighter automatic cannon (primarily in terms of recoil compensation) than the existing 30-mm 2A42 and 2A72. And it has better ballistics than the AGS, i.e. some analogue of the American M230LF
          1. +2
            15 February 2024 09: 20
            Well, the infantry needs a weapon with low ballistics. For canopy shooting. With a range of 2-3 km. AGS 40 mm ideally meets this requirement. A unified tool for use both on a machine in the field and on equipment.
            Further 57 mm on heavier equipment and 82 mm on the old one.
            High ballistic guns are not needed in the field. And you need to leave them.
            And don't talk about drones. Both 23 and 30 mm are ineffective without an expensive and very smart sight.
    3. +1
      14 February 2024 15: 01
      Quote: Zaurbek
      For such vehicles, lighter autocannons are needed than 2a42 and 2a76... The Americans use a gun from Apache - a cartridge case from a 20mm cannon and a 30mm projectile...

      For such machines, a 23 mm module would be quite suitable. gun. Or even the KPVT with its 14 mm would be more than enough.
      1. 0
        23 March 2024 19: 06
        I agree, the sample presented in the article is one of the adequate combat vehicles, in which both a tank gun and a vehicle for transporting soldiers are not mixed together. This vehicle is precisely a transport protected by armor, optimized specifically for this particular transportation task, but also having the ability to install a weapon of reasonable power (which will obviously be a machine gun, maximum ZU-shka), but does not turn the transport into a powder keg.
  7. +2
    13 February 2024 09: 30
    Well, finally, they put a birdhouse on the car. Otherwise they’ll start talking about the 30 mm cannon module and what should they do with such a machine? And it’s expensive not to shoot and carry.
  8. +2
    13 February 2024 10: 55
    Nice fighting machine! Only these have long been required to be equipped with electronic warfare “out of the box”!
  9. 0
    13 February 2024 14: 03
    I wonder if it’s possible to have the same one, but with a civilian direction? What an interesting all-wheel drive truck with good carrying capacity.
    1. +1
      13 February 2024 14: 47
      A civilian semi-truck weighing 13 tons? This is the ultimate perversion
      1. Alf
        +2
        13 February 2024 19: 30
        Quote: Letterhead
        A civilian semi-truck weighing 13 tons? This is the ultimate perversion

        You can remove the armor, and the weight will fall off. Although, a good replacement for Shishige for geologists.
        1. +1
          13 February 2024 22: 08
          Quote: Alf
          You can remove the armor, and the weight will fall off.
          If the armor of this vehicle is removed, not only will its weight drop, everything will drop, including the transmission, engine and wheels. The Titan's armored box is a load-bearing box - everything is attached to it.
          1. Alf
            0
            14 February 2024 20: 01
            Quote: Bad_gr
            Quote: Alf
            You can remove the armor, and the weight will fall off.
            If the armor of this vehicle is removed, not only will its weight drop, everything will drop, including the transmission, engine and wheels. The Titan's armored box is a load-bearing box - everything is attached to it.

            You're right. I didn’t pay attention to the fact that the body was monocoque, I confused it with a frame Tiger. I think that it will also be possible, if there is a civil order, to produce an unarmored body.
    2. 0
      13 February 2024 14: 49
      He will be “ash” and no better than PP Valdaev
    3. 0
      14 February 2024 15: 04
      Quote: Trapper7
      What an interesting all-wheel drive truck with good carrying capacity.

      Are you ready to pay for extra liters of diesel fuel that carry “extra” armor?
  10. +1
    13 February 2024 22: 14
    The car is too heavy.

    We need a massive armored car, large-scale. Like the American JLTV Oshkosh. Curb weight 6 5 tons. Full 10 tons.

    And this is a small-scale bandura.
    1. -1
      14 February 2024 10: 11
      Your dream has already found its fulfillment, this is the Tiger armored car
      1. +3
        14 February 2024 19: 34
        Sergey, there is no protection against mines.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned), Kirill Budanov (included to the Rosfinmonitoring list of terrorists and extremists)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"