“Namer” in Russian: control vehicle on a tank chassis

31
“Namer” in Russian: control vehicle on a tank chassis
Patent image of the industrial design “Control vehicles on a tank chassis.” Source: new.fips.ru


Ural armor for special operations


It is premature to talk about the applicability and effectiveness of heavy tracked armored personnel carriers in special operations. Simply because none of them managed to fight. With the exception, of course, of the Omsk flamethrower combat vehicle BMO-T, which appeared in the chronicles of the Northern Military District.



This is probably one of the most paradoxical combat vehicles in the Russian Army. A highly specialized armored personnel carrier designed to support tank offensive and defensive units. Why exactly BMO-T was delegated the mission of transporting flamethrowers is not completely clear. Perhaps they can effectively destroy enemy bunkers and pillboxes - thermobaric grenades are very good for destroying precisely such targets.

They can, but the main calibers of tanks and BMP-3 cope with this no less successfully. Moreover, flamethrowers must leave the vehicle to work on the enemy, which makes such thick BMO-T armor pointless. Approach the front line under hurricane fire, including artillery, in order to parachute soldiers to certain death? And you have to really get close to the enemy - the firing range of the Shmel flamethrower does not exceed 200 meters.

It is interesting that the second flamethrower vehicle, the TOS-1A Solntsepek, having a much greater range, does not require personnel to dismount to fire. If we ignore the specifics of the machine for flamethrowers, then the BMO-T requires creative rethinking and adaptation to the needs of special operations.


Heavy armored personnel carrier BMO-T

The appearance of a patent for an industrial design “Control vehicle on a tank chassis” is very good news. The application by Uralvagonzavod specialists to the Federal Service for Intellectual Property was submitted on October 13 last year, and sketches of the car were shown to the public on the last day of January 2024.

At first glance, the product is very similar to the Israeli “Namer”, although it is noticeably different in functionality. It is not entirely clear what rank of command personnel will transport the product, but preliminary conclusions can be drawn from the published images.

The first thing that catches your eye is that the layout solutions are noticeably different from the BMO-T.


Patent image of the industrial design “Control vehicles on a tank chassis.” Source: new.fips.ru

The interior space of the tracked armored car from Nizhny Tagil is clearly larger than that of the flamethrower vehicle from Omsk. The control department, integrated with the combat and command department, is shifted forward. The driver of the control machine is located directly between the first two torsion bars, while in the BMO-T he is moved at least a meter back to the third and fourth rollers. From the point of view of mine resistance to the vehicle from Nizhny Tagil, this does not bode well, but it allows you to place more people and equipment in the armored space.

The control armored vehicle is noticeably taller than the Omsk product for flamethrowers - judging by the photo, the overall height can reach 2,5 meters or more. In order not to excessively increase the final cost of armored vehicles, the engineers left the general layout solutions from the mother T-72 the same - first of all, the rear arrangement of the MTO.

Advantages and disadvantages


The survivability of the control vehicle from Uralvagonzavod is most likely the highest possible among the entire T-72/90 armored tank family. Only the Terminator BMPT can argue with this. The patent images show developed screens on the sides, reliably covering the vulnerable parts of the armored hull with dynamic protection from the side projection. The engine and transmission compartment is covered with anti-cumulative grilles. Even the rear part of the armored vehicle was covered with dynamic protection units.

The absence of ammunition from shells predictably increases the survivability of the crew and armored vehicle when penetrated by cumulative ammunition. Now even a cheap kamikaze drone with a grenade attached can scrap a tank worth several hundred million rubles. From operators drones it is possible to carefully choose the place and time of impact on vulnerable parts of the tank, which are sufficient for now.






Patent images of the industrial design “Control vehicles on a tank chassis.” Source: new.fips.ru

Among the advantages, the convenience of landing command personnel (troopers) through the double-leaf aft hatch clearly stands out. According to good tradition, you have to get to it through the engine and transmission compartment.

The advantages of a control vehicle based on the T-72 include the remote-controlled combat module BM-03 “Okhotnik”. The product cannot be called a new product - the first samples from NPO Elektromashina were demonstrated back in 2016. The module with a 12,7-mm Kord machine gun is stabilized in two planes and equipped with a guidance system with a night vision channel or a thermal imager. Also included in the BM-03 kit is a laser rangefinder. Directly on the module, up to 250 rounds of 12,7x108 mm ammunition are placed - the total ammunition load can reach a thousand or more rounds. Let us recall that the BMO-T was equipped with a simple open turret with a Utes machine gun without any frills.

In the patent images, attention is drawn to the abundance of communication antennas - you can count ten of them on the roof of the car at once. In addition, six antennas for anti-drone electronic warfare systems are located at the stern. The latter is a mandatory element of all modern armored vehicles.

There is no ideal technology, especially military technology. The “control vehicle on a tank chassis” is not without its drawbacks.

Let's start with weapons.

The placement of the BM-03 module with a heavy machine gun practically prohibits firing backwards. The palisade of antennas interferes, which, even being flexible, will still be damaged when fired. At the same time, it is difficult to imagine what solution engineers can choose to level out such a feature. Why not raise the machine gun onto the mast for full circular work?

Mine warfare, which has become the calling card of the special operation, should already have an impact on design decisions in new armored vehicles. Of course, it will not be possible to avoid all threats, but small-sized roller trawls should become the gold standard for any tank and vehicle based on it. At least for protection against anti-bottom and anti-track ammunition. There is nothing like this in the patent images.

Someone will say that the control vehicle is unlikely to go on an assault as part of a strike group. This is fair, but no one has canceled remote mining, including in the operational depths of the front. Wheeled Robots The enemy has long learned to install mine barriers in the most unexpected places. The day is not far off when anti-tank mines will be secretly planted in the rear by heavy Baba Yaga-type drones. Considering that the control vehicles will be staffed almost entirely by officers, a hunt for them by the enemy is guaranteed. This, by the way, is another minus of the platform.

The control vehicle is seriously different in appearance from the rest of the armored vehicles, which cannot but attract enemy attention.

And this is where the difficulties begin.

The fact is that, apart from the electronic warfare system, the heavy tracked platform is not particularly protected from air attack. In the images, the roof of the car is completely devoid of remote sensing blocks. This, of course, will be dealt with by the troops, but why not solve this issue at the factory?

There are also no notorious “barbecues” or simple frames for mesh barriers against kamikaze drones. The experience of the special operation suggests that such solutions should be present on the equipment from the very beginning of design.

A heavy tracked armored personnel carrier is always good. Any additional protection, even at the cost of some reduction in mobility resource, pays off handsomely in the lives saved.

Therefore, it seems quite logical to continue the theme of “control vehicles on a tank chassis” in a variation for transporting infantry and airborne forces. It won't be cheap in the end, but such vehicles are highly anticipated by the troops.
Our news channels

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

31 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +1
    15 February 2024 05: 38
    Moreover, flamethrowers must leave the vehicle to work on the enemy, which makes such thick BMO-T armor pointless
    Transporting 32 RPOs gives another meaning to thick armor, both for the survivability of the vehicle and in the event of detonation of the ammunition, but for others. Again, organizationally, flamethrowers are sappers, and they were assigned to motorized riflemen and tank crews, which means they need a separate vehicle.
  2. 0
    15 February 2024 07: 36
    What does “expensive” have to do with it? War is generally an expensive thing! Is it better to make disposable carts in packs, so that it’s not expensive, but people, let’s recruit more fathers of families? We just need to take the experience of the best, what kind of monsters Israel creates and how long they can withstand. It must be expensive, reliable and safe, so that people don’t sit there like the last time. Our country is rich, it will handle it. The people are not rich, but the country is very!
    1. +5
      15 February 2024 08: 43
      Quote: Vadim S
      What does “expensive” have to do with it? War is generally an expensive thing! Is it better to make disposable carts in packs, so that it’s not expensive, but people, let’s recruit more fathers of families? It is necessary to take the experience of the best, what kind of monsters is Israel creating? and how long they can withstand.

      Yes. Thousands of T-55s and T-62s seemed to be just waiting in the wings at the BKhBT. It was possible to rearm more than one brigade with such TBMPs. But for some reason not request
      1. +1
        16 February 2024 06: 18
        Quote: Adrey
        Thousands of T-55s and T-62s seemed to be just waiting in the wings at the BKhBT. It was possible to rearm more than one brigade with such TBMPs. But for some reason not

        Firstly, for such a transformation of a tank into a TBTR (not a TBMP), a ready-made project is needed, secondly, free capacity is needed (at least a well-equipped tank repair plant), which also does not exist, thirdly, personnel, money, human resources (profitable) and understanding of the command and the country's leadership that exactly such machines are needed now. Not as command, reconnaissance, or any other special ones - you need HEAVY armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles on a tank chassis, with a tank level of protection and, without alternative (!!), with front-mounted MTOs and a rear door/ramp. The front placement of the MTO will provide additional protection in the front hemisphere, protection in the event of a mine explosion, and optimal layout of the troop compartment.
        For those who say that with a heavy engine and armor at the front, the vehicle will be a jerk at speed, I would advise you to simply stretch the rear part of the troop compartment slightly and hang two armored boxes from the stern on the sides of the door/ramp (like the Kurganets) - to balance the weight distribution and compensation for the heavy front end. And all this can be sculpted from the hulls of old tanks. If the engine for the Kurganets (860 hp) is finally completed, you can use it, it is compact and much lighter than the others. And there will be enough power if such a TBTR remains within the range of 35-38 tons.
        Quote: Adrey
        But for some reason not

        For some reason, UVZ once again shows us some kind of ersatz for a highly specialized machine, in which everything is inconvenient.
        I understand - they have orders higher than a tank turret, but the Army needs a BASIC vehicle from which the TBTR, TBMP, command vehicle, and various special ones will be combined one or two at a time. Which will be produced in a large series, will long and thoroughly satisfy both the assault infantry and the command that has placed its mobile headquarters in it.
        1. +2
          16 February 2024 09: 25
          Quote: bayard
          understanding of the command and leadership of the country that these are the vehicles that are needed now

          In my opinion, this is primary.
          Quote: bayard
          for such a transformation of a tank into a TBTR (not a TBMP), a ready-made project is needed, secondly, free capacity is needed (at least a well-equipped tank repair plant), which also does not exist, and thirdly, personnel, money, human resources (profitable)

          If the first condition is met, it is quite feasible.
          Otherwise I agree with you.
          1. +1
            16 February 2024 09: 38
            Quote: Adrey
            If the first condition is met, it is quite feasible.

            The problem we have is that of all the available options for resolving the issue, the worst is chosen.
            An example of such a transformation (from a tank to a TBTR with a front MTO) was at the Kharkov plant on the eve of the 2014 coup. From the T-64 they made a very harmonious and perfect TBTR body. Take this experience as a basis and use for such a transformation the 2500 T-64s available at storage bases, which will definitely not be used as tanks. The fitters and technologists will have to work hard to turn the hull backwards to the front to digest it into the required configuration, swap the onboard gearboxes (so as not to ride at reverse speed) and, without compromising the production of new and modernized armored vehicles, obtain the required number of armored personnel carriers for the assault infantry.
            1. +1
              16 February 2024 09: 44
              Quote: bayard
              The problem we have is that of all the available options for resolving the issue, the worst is chosen

              In my opinion, this is not the only problem we have. The Jews, when the T-55 was “sawed down” in “Namery,” were not too rich. And in general, they know how to count money.
              From “our” point of view, you won’t earn much from an upgrade (even a large-scale one). It's just a matter of designing a "wunderwaffle" from scratch! You can “cut” for a long time and a lot, but at the end of the day it won’t reach production.
              In general, we are very “rich” laughing
              1. 0
                16 February 2024 11: 01
                Quote: Adrey
                You can cut for a long time and a lot, but at the end of the day it won’t reach production.

                Now times are different, priorities are changing. But for such a conversion of tanks into TBTR, a separate well-equipped repair plant is needed, and in our country all the surviving ones are loaded with orders for repairs and modernization, not only that, two more are being built in the European part, they should be launched this year. So it was not for nothing that I put it in the beginning about free capacity. And secondly, the presence of a ready-made project, because no one here has done this. So, first of all, they decided to remove it from storage and modernize the existing equipment. And here we need to allocate design personnel, technologists, and we need smart personnel. And it is unclear whether anyone in the General Staff and the Defense Ministry understands the need for such equipment and the opportunity to quickly and relatively inexpensively obtain it.
                I’ve been writing about the need for such TBTR from the T-64 for about 6 years now. Based on the experience of the battles in Donbass and based on the nature of the battles we face in the future.
                1. 0
                  16 February 2024 11: 11
                  Quote: bayard
                  Times are different now , priorities change. But for such a conversion of tanks into TBTR, a separate well-equipped repair plant is needed, and in our country all the surviving ones are loaded with orders for repairs and modernization

                  The time before these “nows” was “a carriage and a small cart”. And now that the “roasted rooster” has bitten, yes, it will cope with the urgent needs. There is no time for global modernization and innovation. At least make sure that the existing one works as it should, with the minimum necessary improvements.
  3. +6
    15 February 2024 08: 14
    Why not raise the machine gun onto the mast for full circular work?
    You need to raise the antennas and place them on top of the anti-drone “cap”, without which this pepelats has no business being in the range of FPV drones.
    And the boarding and disembarkation is not thought out. There is one small hatch on top, and bosses with considerable shoulder straps usually also have a considerable belly. Well, there is no protection from enemy fire at the time of landing. There should be a door at the back, and the MTO should be moved forward accordingly.
    In general, we recorded beautiful pictures for reporting, and nothing more.
    1. +1
      16 February 2024 06: 27
      Quote: Nagan
      In general, we recorded beautiful pictures for reporting, and nothing more.

      This layout solution/obscenity has been slipped in by some pests many times in various upgrades. The MTO must be in the front (!), and the door/ramp in the back. But someone in the Ministry of Defense persists in feigned stupidity, as a result, the BMP-3 "M" with their classic lineup went into production again, instead of the magnificent "Manul" or "Dragoon"! Someone definitely needs to force our fighters to climb through the engine!! It seems that no one in the Ministry of Defense and the General Staff can find the pest and roughly reward it. "Roll square, carry round."
  4. +1
    15 February 2024 08: 45
    Moreover, flamethrowers must leave the vehicle to work on the enemy

    What prevents you from lifting the tube from the inside like Chrysanthemum and its predecessor?
    Why are there flamethrowers at all?
  5. +4
    15 February 2024 08: 46
    They designed and designed, and they ended up with some kind of “coffin” with sticks on top... Shoigu needs to go to this design bureau and instruct the design engineers there.
  6. +3
    15 February 2024 10: 10
    They planned to adopt the T-15 TBMP, but it didn’t work out.
    But here there is practically no protection from drones.
    The cord can fire only in the front hemisphere. The roof of the BMO-T is not protected by anything. Any drop is from the Baba Yaga and there is no equipment.
    And the presence of antennas clearly tells the enemy that there are officers inside, and the enemy will not spare drones to eliminate it.
    MGTT-LB resembles, only without protective screens.
  7. +3
    15 February 2024 10: 13
    This is commendable, but still “not that.” The hulls of T-72+ tanks as transporters... are tempting, but they are not too susceptible to such manipulations. There is also a front-engine "Armata" platform. Even if it now has some problems with engines and new “high-tech bells and whistles,” but here it is possible to do without them (the layout is typical of a single-volume infantry fighting vehicle). It seems best to make a sort of “T-15 of the first stage” (with an engine from the T-90M - due to the lack of a turret, the power density should not drop) with the same machine-gun module and equipment. Immediately for the future, but of course the unification of parts with the 72nd family will suffer.
    1. +1
      16 February 2024 01: 41
      Quote: CouchExpert
      This is commendable, but still “not that.” The hulls of T-72+ tanks as transporters... are tempting, but they are not too susceptible to such manipulations. There is also a front-engine "Armata" platform. Even if it now has some problems with engines and new “high-tech bells and whistles,” but here it is possible to do without them (the layout is typical of a single-volume infantry fighting vehicle). It seems best to make a sort of “T-15 of the first stage” (with an engine from the T-90M - due to the lack of a turret, the power density should not drop) with the same machine-gun module and equipment. Immediately for the future, but of course the unification of parts with the 72nd family will suffer.

      I agree about T15. Only on the T90 base is needed as an intermediate stage. As an example of moving the vehicle forward - the Manul BMP
    2. 0
      16 February 2024 10: 45
      T-72+ tank hulls as transporters

      Conjectures creep into my head. That this may not be so much a project for a new car, but rather a project for reusing old cars.
      The problem is that it moved forward to carry forward, if the body in the forehead still undergoes such changes. A couple of dozen such machines will still be made in the order of “manual work”.
      Rather, waste-free decommissioning of the T-72A and others like them.
      1. 0
        16 February 2024 13: 21
        If this is really the case, then there will be more embarrassing moments. By hand, of course, you can do “something,” but certainly not “everything.” Here is the BMO-T mentioned above (even being produced from 0, and not converted) - a vivid example of this approach (i.e. how not to do it). Simply by removing the turret and “sealing” the horizontal sheet with metal of the same thickness (and they did just that + the sides were simply raised up) we do not get the same protection that the original tank had vertically (all other things being equal, even due to the height of the turret - after all, before the ammunition would have fired higher and the path of the jet into the fighting compartment would have been lengthened), and in general. Despite the fact that in modern conditions, threats from above have multiplied many times over and protection here needs to be not only maintained at the tank level, but also strengthened. And for this, ideally a roof:
        1. A solid part (in a tank with a manned turret you cannot do without hatches, here there are hatches in the stern and it is quite possible to reduce the number of “interventions” to a minimum: only for control/surveillance/communication cables, as far away from each other as possible).
        2. Combined armor (what was in the forehead of the tower should be here too, durability/composition/thickness is a debatable issue, but certainly not a homogeneous piece of iron, its cumulative form mercilessly makes holes, and drones cheerfully carry things with penetration equivalents of 500+ mm and it will only get worse).
        3. Remote control (see clause 2.).
        4. Screens/grids/barbecues (to taste, to what extent/if they do not interfere with the operation of the equipment/do not reveal too much).
        5. KAZ (if they give money, although it will be easier to do due to the limited operating angles of the antennas).
        It’s now not a shame to hang the crew seats from such a roof. As far as the mass is enough, apply all of the above to the sides, moving from the roof down. If they can bother with all this during the alteration, then take the flag. But if it’s like on the BMT-O, no, thank you (especially considering the purpose of transporting valuable personnel). For me, this already calls for a separate large-scale work to study ways to strengthen the protection of armored vehicles in relation to the realities of North-West-shaped conflicts. Perhaps they should give rise in the future to something significantly more different from the “Namers” (as, for example, MRAPs appeared from armored personnel carriers).
        PS Now raise your hands who laughed at “Azovets”. Well, don't be shy! Or “this is different”?
  8. 0
    15 February 2024 11: 12
    If you give it to tanks, then you can give a tethered copter to such a machine with optics and a laser control center.
  9. +2
    15 February 2024 11: 50
    At one time we had a vehicle for the authorities, based on the T-80 tank - the Ladoga military-technical vehicle. On its basis, a completely normal CVS can be obtained. Of course, retrofit according to new requirements against new threats, with an anti-drone umbrella and go ahead..
  10. 0
    15 February 2024 13: 06
    A variant of a control vehicle providing for the use of a MLRS installation with thermobaric ammunition on the basis of a BMPT and for remote-controlled combat robots with powerful weapons, places for operators using UAVs, was patented in Russia back in 2017 and the model was demonstrated at the Army 2018. China exhibited something similar a year later. My name is "Chariot of Mars". In general, this is a variant of the control vehicle for the UVZ "Storm" project
  11. -2
    15 February 2024 14: 35
    The idea is correct, but the implementation is crude. A front-engine "Armata" platform is required (for a comfortable landing for the command). If there are problems with the standard engine, then it is necessary to replace it with another one, family B or with a gas turbine engine 1250. Strengthen the protection in the upper projection. Provide protection from drone and missile attacks. But this requires armored air defense systems to protect the control vehicle.
    1. +2
      15 February 2024 20: 31
      Please teach me how to determine the dampness of an implementation from a picture
  12. +3
    15 February 2024 21: 11
    Even during the Second World War, the Germans understood very well that a command vehicle on a tank base should be as similar as possible to a linear tank, for which they did not hesitate to install false guns and other means on such vehicles that would make it difficult to identify them on the battlefield...
    But here, disguise is for cowards. Our CMU should be as similar as possible to the most important target and, first of all, for the enemy!!!
    1. +1
      16 February 2024 06: 41
      Quote: Bogalex
      our CMU should be as similar as possible to the most important target and, first of all, for the enemy!!!

      But the lying infantry will see who is coming, and will jump up and stand at attention in advance. And if they see it from very far away, they will still have time to catch their boots tongue bring shine.
  13. Owl
    +1
    15 February 2024 22: 20
    “a heavy tracked platform is not particularly protected from air attack,” in addition, having a different appearance from the main types of armored vehicles, it will attract special attention as an obvious control vehicle, which will entail attacks by kamikaze drones or targeting it artillery fire. The Soviet KShM based on the BMP-1 was not visually particularly different from the base vehicle; they even installed a telescopic antenna on the turret, imitating the Grom 2A28 gun. Don't stand out - you'll live longer.
  14. 0
    16 February 2024 02: 19
    Moreover, flamethrowers must leave the vehicle to work on the enemy, which makes such thick BMO-T armor pointless.

    It is a well-protected transport for ammunition and outfit

    On board the BMO-T there are 40 sets of RPO Shmel.

    Flamethrowers must leave the vehicle and act at their own discretion. The main thing is to protect valuable ammunition
  15. 0
    16 February 2024 02: 39
    Taking into account the considerable mass of any tank chassis - and the associated costs of its operation and transportation

    All this makes all proposals to use tank chassis for other purposes very doubtful. Tank units are deprived of some of their most valuable units (MBTs) and are replaced by strange all-terrain vehicles of the same weight category. Instead of 125 mm, they are armed with a machine gun, or at best a module with a 30 mm cannon, which are found even on MRAP armored cars. The remaining tasks of the “all-terrain vehicle” will also be handled by CVMs created on the chassis of lighter vehicles.
  16. 0
    16 February 2024 10: 37
    I really don’t understand how the Terminator can compete with the new product in terms of armor.
    It's almost the same tank, only with a cardboard turret. It seems like a fire monitor installation. This is about the Terminator based on 72 and 90.
    As for the new car, I don’t understand why the author missed the most obvious disadvantage - the MTO at the rear.
    This is a very big minus.
    The car will most likely be attacked by FPVs and DShRGs. That is, simple RPGs, but in all projections. And this back of the head, as well as the prospect of dismounting through it, is depressing.
    Really, look at Namer. It is armored all around, and even has a roof.
    And the front MTO will also save on armor, which can be spread over the sides and roof. If on this patent, in general there is armor on the sides, if it is there somewhere besides the remote control.
  17. 0
    16 February 2024 15: 18
    My deep couch opinion.
    Every chief of staff of a battalion and above should have such a device.
    Regarding TBMP.
    All T-62s should be modernized and transferred to the Russian Guard. Take other tanks from there.
    Convert all T-54/55 into TBMP and supply them to the troops.
    In the future, switch to TBMP based on the T-72.
    Only T-80 and T-72 will be left at the BHVT.
    I am for unification)
  18. 0
    16 February 2024 18: 24
    Among the advantages, the convenience of landing command personnel (troopers) through the double-leaf aft hatch clearly stands out. According to good tradition, you have to get to it through the engine and transmission compartment.

    It’s hard to imagine greater stupidity...
    The whole “thought” of this guy is pathetic...
    It’s unlikely that this is a “battalion commander” level, but even if it is, it won’t be “ahead on a dashing horse” - why the hell would such armor be, it’s unclear...
    Anyone who has been in a tank knows that with any layout, there are places like crazy...
    Even in the SA, for the commander of an infantry fighting vehicle company, there was a command vehicle based on an infantry fighting vehicle, without a turret - there is plenty of space, sit comfortably and spaciously for the whole headquarters...
    The command control machine must be CONVENIENT and ERGONOMIC...
    There must be enough space, an engine in front, a ramp in the back for entry and exit, high-speed (unlike a tank), visual surveillance equipment (drones, periscopes, etc.), armor protection against a 30mm projectile + passive/active protection kit (following the example BMP "Dragun/Manul") - this is enough, because... will burn a large power supply unit and a tank...
    For these purposes, something based on the “Kurgan” level was quite suitable...

"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"