M113 in Ukrainian is the Skif armored personnel carrier.

An experimental Skif at the testing ground

Despite all the limitations and problems, Ukraine is trying to develop and produce armored vehicles. One Ukrainian company has unveiled a prototype of the new "Skif" armored personnel carrier. It was designed with reference to foreign models of its class and taking into account operational experience with similar vehicles. At the same time, certain advantages over foreign armored personnel carriers have been achieved.

Caterpillar direction

On April 20, the first information about a new development—the Skif tracked armored personnel carrier—appeared on Ukrainian websites. Key project details were published, along with photographs and videos of the prototype being demonstrated.

The new armored vehicle was developed by UkrArmoTech. Recently, the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense commissioned the company to develop a new tracked armored personnel carrier.

Ukrainian armed forces continue to have a high demand for armored infantry vehicles. However, armored cars and other wheeled vehicles do not always provide the required mobility. This prompted the proposal to develop a new tracked armored personnel carrier (APC) with all the necessary capabilities.

Despite its lack of experience in tracked armored vehicles, UkrArmoTech took on the job. There was no official explanation as to why the military department chose this particular contractor.

Nevertheless, the company developed the Skif project and has already built a prototype armored personnel carrier. It is currently undergoing field testing. The customers and developers have deemed it possible to show the vehicle to the public, but no details regarding the testing phase have been released.

Testing and production preparations are planned for the future. The developer hopes to begin supplying the equipment to combat units. Potential order volumes have not yet been announced.

Concept and Components

The new Ukrainian armored vehicle easily resembles the American M113 armored personnel carrier and vehicles based on it. This similarity is understandable.

Previously, the US and other countries donated several hundred M113 armored personnel carriers and vehicles of this family to Ukraine. Ukrainian units used them in combat and were generally satisfied. When the need arose for their own armored personnel carrier, they developed one based on this experience.

The Skif borrows more than just its basic concepts and design from foreign technology. Its design makes extensive use of imported components—currently, around 60%, including critical ones. Localization of production is expected to increase in the future.

Technical features

The Skif APC has a welded, box-shaped armored hull with a sloped frontal armor. The base version is made of aluminum alloy. A steel version is also available, which is easier to manufacture but heavier. Depending on the hull and configuration, the combat weight of the vehicle can reach 15 tons.

The hull has differentiated armor and protects the crew from various threats:

• frontal projection - level 4 according to STANAG 4569 standard (14,5 mm bullets);
  
• side and stern - level 3 (7,62 mm rifle armor-piercing bullets);
  
• Mine protection - level 3 (6 kg of TNT under the track or bottom).
  

In the future, the Skif will receive screens or a "visor" for additional protection, as well as UAV detection and suppression systems. The specific components of these systems have not yet been disclosed.

The Skif's layout is similar to the M113 and its derivatives. The engine and transmission compartment is located in the front of the hull. The remaining volume is occupied by a single habitable compartment: the crew compartment is located directly behind the engine compartment, while the troops are accommodated in the center and rear.

The APC can be equipped with diesel engines producing at least 350–360 hp. The transmission type and model are not disclosed. The tracked drive unit has a front drive sprocket and five road wheels per side.

The Skif has a crew of three: a driver, a commander, and a gunner. The driver and commander are located behind the engine compartment on the left side, each with their own hatch in the roof. The gunner is located in the troop compartment.

The troop compartment accommodates eight soldiers. Seats are mounted along the sides of the hull. Disembarkation is via a lowerable rear ramp with a backup door in case of malfunction.

The prototype is currently unarmed—only smoke grenade launchers are mounted on the front of the hull. The roof is designed for a remote-controlled weapon station. Various stations with machine guns up to 14,5 mm in caliber can be installed; one of these is shown in promotional graphics.

The composition of the onboard electronics—communications, fire control system, battlefield management system—has not yet been disclosed by the developers.

Plans and reality

In the future, UkrArmoTech may launch mass production of the Skif and begin delivering them to the military. However, implementing these plans is fraught with a number of challenges.

For decades, the Ukrainian defense industry suffered from the same problem: the state customer lacked sufficient funds to purchase the required amount of equipment. Now the situation has changed—last year alone, UkrArmoTech delivered approximately 400 armored vehicles of its own production to the military department. This demonstrates the continued production potential and the availability of customer funding.

With the appropriate contracts in place, production of Skifs is entirely feasible. However, there are limitations here too. Specifically, Ukraine is not yet capable of mass-producing aluminum armored hulls, meaning production vehicles will have to be built from steel—with a corresponding increase in weight.

Combat equipment option

The Skif is based on a proven concept: taking existing architectural solutions and adapting them to modern requirements. This has improved a number of characteristics compared to the outdated M113, but the vehicle doesn't offer any radical advantages and retains the typical vulnerabilities of its class.

First of all, the armor. Ballistic and mine protection are enhanced compared to the American model, but the Skif is still vulnerable to anti-tank weapons. weapons and attack UAVs. How this problem will be solved is still unclear.

In other respects—mobility, armament, and capacity—the new Ukrainian armored personnel carrier is virtually indistinguishable from its peers. The only significant difference is the ability to be produced independently.

Thus, the Skif is capable of partially meeting the demand for tracked armored vehicles for infantry. However, the actual scale of production remains questionable, and high combat losses will inevitably reduce the already modest practical impact of the new vehicle.

Comments

[parma]

As always with the author—bad, small, useless... though, according to soldiers on the front lines, even the basic M113 is a very nasty thing, difficult to "kill," and even if defeated, the crew and troops usually remain unharmed. And compared to our BMP-1/2 and BTR-80/82, it sounds even stranger.
PS: It's sad that in the 5th year of "demilitarization" the enemy is capable of producing armored vehicles in fairly significant quantities, and now they are mastering tracked armored personnel carriers.

[Cympak]

The problem with our armored vehicles is not so much the "foil" armor, but the overly dense layout, with people sitting on fuel and ammunition.
Looking at the M113, you'll notice its large internal volume. The hull has a simple rectangular shape, composed of large rectangular armor plates. This simplifies assembly, reduces the cost of construction, and allows for the hassle-free addition of additional spaced armor screens. As for protection against RPGs and ATGMs, the possible solutions include either an active protection system (APS) or a heavy infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) on a tank chassis.

[bushmaster]

The dense layout allows for savings on the engine, transmission, and chassis, while simultaneously achieving good mobility and armor protection at such a weight.
Where is aluminum M113 cheap?

[Cympak]

Quote: bushmaster

The dense layout allows for savings on the engine, transmission, and chassis, while simultaneously achieving good mobility and armor protection at such a weight.

That's true, but the tightly packed layout makes it harder for the crew and troops to survive, harder to abandon a damaged vehicle, and less habitable. And the increased armor gained by reducing the vehicle's size still doesn't protect against HEAT rounds and modern armor-piercing rounds fired from autocannons.

[bushmaster]

Once again, the tight layout is about how much money you have to build, maintain, and repair thousands of armored vehicles in the operating conditions of a very large country.
The tight layout can interfere with the loader, while the rest of the crew, regardless of the armored vehicle, are always surrounded by equipment
There should be no troops in the vehicle during the battle; they dismount before the battle begins.
Armor is limited by the weight of the vehicle. Compare domestic armored vehicles weighing 15-20 tons with NATO ones weighing 30-40 tons, and what does that even mean???

[P]

It's easy. This one solves the problem, that one doesn't, whether it's half a ton or a hundred.

[parma]

You're wrong, colleague. In 1960, one basic M-113 cost the Pentagon around $20, the equivalent of $200-$250 today, or 20 million rubles. As far as I remember, that's about what a GAZ TIGR cost in 2013, when the Italian Lynx scandal erupted, though the ruble wasn't worth today back then.

[P]

Cheap, VERY cheap. Just add to the cost of the APC the cost of ten citizens, each of whom has millions invested in them from conception to the start of their APC journey, and everything will fall into place.

[cast iron]

Where is aluminum M113 cheap?

Наверное в том месте, в котором он самый массовый послевоенный БТР на планете Земля?

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Cympak

The problem with our armored vehicles is not so much the "foil" armor, but the overly dense layout, with people sitting on fuel and ammunition.
Looking at the M113, you'll see that the vehicle has a large internal volume. The hull is a simple rectangular shape, composed of large rectangular armor plates.

Simply put, the M113 is a classic APC: a bullet- and shrapnel-protected infantry delivery vehicle from the rear to the LCS, a "frontline taxi" without the ability to provide fire support for infantry in both offensive and defensive situations. Fire support is provided by infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs) and armored combat vehicles (BBMs), which have both armor protection and armament. Plus, the chassis of this APC, thanks to its large internal volume, makes an excellent platform for all sorts of support vehicles—mortars, anti-tank guided missiles, command vehicles, communications, ambulances, etc.
The downside is that you can't send such APCs into an attack alone; even a couple of Marine BTR-82s on the road is already an overkill for them (there were, admittedly, MRAPs and BA, but classic APCs weren't much better than them).
In our pursuit of MSO firepower and mass production, we crossed a hedgehog with a snake: we gave the APC the functionality of an IFV (because even the funding for an IFV wouldn't be enough for all the MSO). And since the vehicle is a combat vehicle, that means we need to squeeze the space as much as possible and cram in something heavier than the standard 0,5" armament. But the armor remained at the level of an APC. We ended up with a cramped...eggshells armed with hammers"©.
Our infantry ran out of classic armored personnel carriers with the BTR-50 and perhaps only the Airborne Forces have them left.

[P]

If we take into account that in addition to the crew, two teams of UAV operators with expendable vehicles can be crammed into this APC, then the BTR-82 won’t be much of a game

[bushmaster]

What's so difficult about killing this "Pazik"?
This is essentially an analogue of our MTLB, with the only difference being that the aluminum armor made the hull larger, but it is still the same bulletproof armor from 7,62, similar to our steel
The crew and troops usually remain intact thanks to modern ammunition
And so I seriously doubt that if this M113 gets hit by a burst from a 2A42, that everyone will remain unharmed.
How can NATO be demilitarized in 5 years?
This armored personnel carrier, the materials for its modernization, and most importantly, the money, are all allocated by NATO countries.

[Cympak]

Quote: bushmaster

What's so difficult about killing this "Pazik"?

We are not talking about the difficulty of "killing this "pazaik", but about the survivability of the crew and troops after defeat.

[bushmaster]

Survivability is the same as with any light armored vehicle, it depends on your luck...

[Nord11]

We'll see what the actual results are. We can declare the Death Star's creation, but what about the armor plates? That's not a rhetorical question. For obvious reasons, metallurgy in Skakuasia is currently in disarray, so we'll wait for the line and the final word.

[Bad_gr]

Judging from the redesign, by increasing the vehicle's frontal dimensions, the center of gravity was shifted forward, which is where the engine and transmission are already located. The track width was left unchanged, which, given the small contact surface area of ​​the entire track, would be critical when adding additional protection (screens, anti-drone nets, etc.). In any case, the enemy's additional equipment (even if not a masterpiece) increases their mobility, which is not good for us.

[bushmaster]

As always, we have "coffins," and they have a "miracle of technology" that saves the crew and troops from everything and everyone.

During the 1982 Lebanon War, the M113 became the Israeli army's primary armored personnel carrier. The Zeldas were prone to quickly catching fire after being hit by a shell, leading infantry to prefer riding outside the vehicle rather than inside. During the first days, APC losses were so high that Israeli command withdrew them from the front lines of the offensive. In total, Israel lost 135 APCs during the operation, most or all of which were M113s.

Israel periodically uses M113 Zelda armored personnel carriers, while the Arab side used a small number of Lebanese armored personnel carriers. In May 2004, the Palestinians destroyed two Zeldas. In the first case, the APC, which was carrying explosives, was hit by an RPG and exploded along with the entire crew. The second hit a mine, killing the entire crew of six. On August 5, 2006, an M113 of the Lebanese army was destroyed by fire from Israeli helicopters. In July 2014, an Israeli Zelda was completely destroyed by a Palestinian rocket, killing seven crew members. The Israeli Defense Minister was condemned for using old, unprotected M113s in the modern conflict.[97][98][99]

[Cympak]

Quote: bushmaster

During the first days, the losses of armored personnel carriers were so great that the Israeli leadership withdrew them from the front lines of the offensive.

This makes sense. The APC isn't designed for frontline operations. Its purpose is to transport and evacuate troops, not to attack.

Quote: bushmaster

In total, Israel lost 135 armored personnel carriers during the operation, most or all of which were M113s.

What are the total losses among the crews and troops?

Quote: bushmaster

In the first incident, an armored personnel carrier carrying explosives was hit by an RPG and exploded, killing the entire crew. The second hit a mine, killing the entire crew of six.

It's hard to find an APC that could carry explosives without suffering the same fate as the Israeli M113.
More details are needed for the second incident. For example, how many explosives were in the "mine"? Some IEDs in Iraq launched a 50-ton Abrams into the air.
In the third case, it was most likely a heavy ATGM (TOU or Kornet), the detonation of which resulted in a breach in the armor and the leakage of blast debris into the APC. The consequences of such a hit would be dire for any APC.

Quote: bushmaster

Israel's defense minister has been condemned for using older, less-than-protective M113s in a modern conflict.

What I wrote about:

Quote: Cympak

As for protection against RPGs and ATGMs, the possible solutions are either an active protection system or a heavy infantry fighting vehicle on a tank chassis.

But having only heavy armored personnel carriers is expensive. Lighter Sashins are perfectly suitable for a wide range of close-in missions. However, drones have significantly shifted the concept of "close-in" from LBS.

[bushmaster]

So nothing has changed, the M113 armored personnel carriers are used on the front lines and in attacks on fortifications, they don’t land troops 300-500 meters from the enemy

There is no data on losses, here, as with any light armored vehicle, it's a matter of luck
The only thing is, the large silhouette makes it easier for the enemy to work; anything that might fly over the armor ends up hitting the armor and getting inside.

If it was a landmine, they would have written it like that
I watched a video about an M113 explosion in Toretsk. Two tracks were blown off, fire erupted inside the APC, and the ramp opened on its own. The funniest part is that those standing near the ramp didn't get out on their own; they were thrown out of the APC by the explosion. What happened to those farther from the ramp, including the crew, is unknown.

BTRs and BMPs are not required to hold RPGs and ATGMs; it is the responsibility of the tanks driving ahead to catch all of this, including the BMPTS.

[bushmaster]

By the way, this Skif armored personnel carrier claims to have mine protection against 6 kg of TNT, but what about the regular M113, and then the TMKA-62? Explosive mass (TNT, TGA, MS): 7,5-8 kg.

The hull has differentiated armor and protects the crew from various threats:
frontal projection - level 4 according to STANAG 4569 standard (14,5 mm bullets);
side and stern - level 3 (7,62 mm rifle armor-piercing bullets);
Mine protection - level 3 (6 kg of TNT under the track or bottom).

By the way, the BTRA-80, which has no additional anti-mine protection, only receives concussions from the TMK, while the M-113 with anti-mine protection is somewhere nearby.

[Senior seaman]

Despite a lack of experience in tracked armored vehicles, UkrArmoTech took on the job.

Engineer Hans didn't want to go to the Eastern Front?

[irontom]

That's right, assemble a demonstrator from imported components and then promote it

[Saxahorse]

The new Ukrainian armored vehicle easily resembles the American M113 armored personnel carrier and vehicles based on it.

Frankly, they're not very recognizable. The shape and layout of the front end are significantly different. The M113 has a crew of 2 and a troop of 11, while the Skif has a crew of 3 and a troop of 8. They have five road wheels and a square hull.

[Nord11]

The most important issues are technological advancement, affordability, and the ability to produce such equipment in significant quantities. The problem is that, for now, UAVs have relegated light armored vehicles to the category of expendable weapons.

[P]

Wow. Who would have thought that the protection of an APC's engine wouldn't hurt, that soldiers have legs (wow), that armor makes soldiers wider and taller, not narrower and smaller. That a large habitable volume is great, and a rear door, or (the Ukrainians seem to have made an unprecedented discovery) a ramp, is a must, not a luxury. It turns out that a soldier can be wounded and needs to be put down somewhere LYING down. It turns out that infantry sometimes needs to carry equipment and weapons and (nobody could have predicted this) explosive ordnance. And all of this needs to be stashed somewhere. No one knew an APC could be like this. No one, right?