Military Review

"Boomerang": the likely appearance of promising Russian armored personnel carrier

39
In September, at the International Exhibition of Armaments in Nizhny Tagil, the top leadership of the country will be shown a new armored personnel carrier on the basis of the average wheel combat unified platform "Boomerang". But now we can imagine what the secret BTR will look like. Virtual development work was carried out by 3D designers Artem Trigubchak, Mikhail Rozanov and independent military expert Alexey Khlopotov.


















Originator:
http://www.rosinform.ru/photo/bumerang-veroyatnyy-vneshniy-vid-perspektivnogo-russkogo-bronetransportera/#slide-10
39 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. kotdavin4i
    kotdavin4i 13 August 2013 07: 55
    +8
    Good morning Everyone, about the "military expert" - a lot has already been said here, the question is, what data were the designers based on?
    1. commbatant
      commbatant 2 January 2015 17: 57
      0
      Quote: kotdavin4i
      Good morning Everyone, about the "military expert" - a lot has already been said here, the question is, what data were the designers based on?


      tore off from the European perspective armored personnel carrier
    2. The comment was deleted.
  2. Syrzhn
    Syrzhn 13 August 2013 08: 08
    +9
    Something really looks like a striker, but it’s not the most successful armored personnel carrier, to say the least.
    1. Canep
      Canep 13 August 2013 08: 17
      +2
      I agree, very high, the Americans determined the ceiling height of their armored personnel carriers by the length of the M16. A copy will not be better than the original, which already does not shine.
      1. Max otto
        Max otto 13 August 2013 18: 36
        +4
        Well, as with a V-shaped bottom, there is no way to do anything below, so it’s high.
    2. aver
      aver 10 February 2014 16: 36
      0
      Well, the engineering reserves of socialism are over, there are none of them ... there is only one thing left ...
    3. duke
      duke 22 September 2014 15: 48
      0
      probably not like Stryker, but like Patria ...
  3. Iraclius
    Iraclius 13 August 2013 08: 16
    +7
    Good morning!
    The design is simply apocalyptic!
    Two questions - why the hell are the vertical sides and why the heck are they so tall? Copying the worst features of Western technology? With this approach, the infantry will again sit on the armor, and not inside. fool
    Only with such an arrangement of the tower here you will not especially sit. Maybe the fact is that the designers did not design the car, but
    3D designers
    as stated in the article?
    1. roma2
      roma2 13 August 2013 08: 26
      +1
      Well, you sit so high - you look far laughing
    2. svp67
      svp67 13 August 2013 10: 35
      +1
      Quote: Iraclius
      Copying the worst features of Western technology?

      Plus we add our own - pay attention to the exit door - frankly speaking, the width is not impressive ...
      1. commbatant
        commbatant 14 December 2014 00: 48
        0
        similar to LAW BMP
      2. The comment was deleted.
  4. Tuzik
    Tuzik 13 August 2013 08: 52
    +2
    have designers ever looked in armored personnel carriers? if you put the tower like that, where to shove the landing? or divide it into two groups? This is not an armored personnel carrier, but a wheeled tank.
    1. rumpeljschtizhen
      rumpeljschtizhen 14 August 2013 01: 25
      0
      I think this is not a tower but a combat module
  5. Akim
    Akim 13 August 2013 09: 47
    11
    I do not believe that the design of the Russian APC can be similar to the Finnish Patraia.
    1. klimpopov
      klimpopov 13 August 2013 10: 21
      +2
      Well, 3 d designers looked at the pictures of the Western APCs on the Internet and suggested that ours would be the same. In general, let them do it for games and deal with armored personnel carriers.
    2. Alexey Prikazchikov
      Alexey Prikazchikov 13 August 2013 10: 43
      +5
      Now all the middle wheeled platforms look about the same.
      1. svp67
        svp67 13 August 2013 11: 41
        +2
        Quote: Alexey Prikazchikov
        Now all the middle wheeled platforms look about the same.
        Fact, and there’s nothing much to say. By the way, BTR4 also does not differ in the novelty of the design ....
        1. Akim
          Akim 13 August 2013 11: 51
          0
          Quote: svp67
          By the way, BTR4 also does not differ in the novelty of the design ....

          The BTR-4 muzzle is similar to the Soviet BTRs, the BTR-4M is similar to the Romanian Saur-2. But the general layout is different, but here is a clone.
          1. svp67
            svp67 13 August 2013 12: 28
            0
            Quote: Akim
            The BTR-4 muzzle is similar to the Soviet BTRs, the BTR-4M is similar to the Romanian Saur-2. But the general layout is different, but here is a clone.
            Here is the fantasy of the authors. That's when the car will be shown in metal, then we'll talk ...
          2. svp67
            svp67 13 August 2013 13: 37
            +1
            Quote: Akim
            The BTR-4 muzzle is similar to the Soviet BTRs, the BTR-4M is similar to the Romanian Saur-2. But the general layout is different, but here is a clone.

            Well, for sure, don't do it - it's still not like that. They let out a la BTR80 - yes, why don’t you look at world experience, no one does it. We want, in any case, according to the idea of ​​the authors, to release an armored personnel carrier, as in the whole world - again not so ...
    3. roial
      13 August 2013 21: 14
      0
      boomerang hull
  6. Ivan_Ivanov
    Ivan_Ivanov 13 August 2013 10: 20
    +2
    Design must meet the rigorous challenges facing the product. Let's try to formulate them. Here someone already quoted excerpts from charters regarding armored vehicles. Concise, accurate, correct definitions. I do not remember them literally, but I will try to build on their essence.
    An armored personnel carrier is designed to transport personnel to places of a possible battlefield, protect personnel during transportation from bullets and fragments, and support personnel with fire during defense and offensive.
    Here the potential adversary plays a decisive role rather than a decisive one, and the nature of military operations and theater of operations accordingly. If these are armies of militarily developed countries, then an armored personnel carrier should, among other things, be inconspicuous, that is, be as small as possible. Here we see a real monster about three meters high. This is a machine for battles with a small, slightly armed enemy, often waging a guerrilla war. That is, it is more likely that not large-scale clashes, not massive shelling, but point strikes from a fairly close distance at predetermined and selected targets. In this case, the armored personnel carrier does not need to be subtle, or small in size. If you decide to follow it, then it will be he who will be the target and will hit from a fairly close distance. Here, it is more important and necessary to have the most powerful protection possible, even to the detriment of size and stealth.
    Large armored personnel carriers - for colonial wars.
    1. Akim
      Akim 13 August 2013 10: 30
      0
      Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
      An armored personnel carrier is designed to transport personnel to places of a possible battlefield, protect personnel during transportation from bullets and fragments, and support personnel with fire during defense and offensive.


      In the West, they are now abandoning the division into armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles.
      1. Ivan_Ivanov
        Ivan_Ivanov 13 August 2013 10: 32
        21
        In the West, they are now abandoning the division into armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles


        In the West, they are now refusing to divide into men and women, dads and moms ...
        1. Akim
          Akim 13 August 2013 10: 40
          +1
          Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
          refuse to divide into men and women, dads and moms ...

          A plus. Well, do not bend. Tactics are changing now.
    2. luiswoo
      luiswoo 15 August 2013 11: 00
      0
      Quote: Ivan_Ivanov
      If these are armies of militarily developed countries, then an armored personnel carrier should, among other things, be inconspicuous, that is, be as small as possible.

      Nope, it should shine as little as possible on the radar and in the infrared range. For modern, and not very anti-tank weapons, the "compactness" of the target has not played any role for a long time.
  7. makst83
    makst83 13 August 2013 10: 31
    0
    Nice, if only it was effective and safe!
  8. Seventh
    Seventh 13 August 2013 10: 33
    0
    The 2A42 cannon was drawn accurately, but what kind of "rackets" on the turret is not clear, and what purpose they have, the antenna in the same place resembles the "Shroud" but without onboard add-ons. antennas. The headlights are also touching)) and a small aft gate. Well, the sides are generally a target.
    1. makst83
      makst83 13 August 2013 10: 55
      0
      Ahahaha, "racket" is the "Konkurs" anti-tank complex, which is installed on the "Berezhok" combat module!))
      1. Seventh
        Seventh 13 August 2013 11: 24
        +1
        Thanks for the clarification (I went to teach materiel), in fact, all these "hinges" in case of active actions will suffer the very first, especially touching water propellers, and also personally raises doubts about the effective use of this anti-tank complex if it remains intact.
        1. makst83
          makst83 13 August 2013 11: 29
          0
          this is a tribute to geyropeyskogo fashion, unfortunately ((
  9. Alexey Prikazchikov
    Alexey Prikazchikov 13 August 2013 10: 41
    +2
    Khlopotov said that due to increased requirements for mine protection, the appearance of the boomer has already changed. So the artists crap again, they march from the January models painted it.
  10. NOMADE
    NOMADE 13 August 2013 11: 05
    +1
    Authors + for 3D Max good , although I'm not an expert, but there are questions:
    1) Where is the V-shaped body? In the picture is he larger than the U case? Nowadays, this is relevant.
    2) Judging by the "water cannons" in the stern, it seems to be floating. But in terms of the shape of the slope and proportions of the nose, in my opinion it is not effective in the aquatic environment. Live will be more similar in proportions and angles of inclination to the BTR-80.
    3) As previously noted, raises the question of placement - the tower. How to arrange the landing? And the landing hatch, of the 2nd design, a door is cut into the ramp. Those. small door as a fallback? A ramp as the main? Is it too tricky?
  11. Chicot 1
    Chicot 1 13 August 2013 11: 16
    +3
    Maybe "probabilities" and "guesses" are enough? .. Let's just wait for the finished product ...
  12. duke
    duke 13 August 2013 11: 35
    +1
    this is just a simulation of the designers so far. Let's see what they actually roll out. And the BTR-90 is now suitable for a wheeled tank, the side hatches there are even more convenient for a small crew and for loading ammunition. Such a sample with a "melon" tower is available, or the au-220m will do. Although it is clear that unification is required. The rear ramp, of course, should be large so that the troopers with their bulletproof vests and backpacks can quickly, freely and without hindrance leave the car and vice versa load into it.
    1. Akim
      Akim 13 August 2013 11: 42
      +2
      Quote: duke
      And under the wheeled tank, the BTR-90 is now suitable,

      A wheeled tank should be with a front-engined layout so that it does not "goat" when fired.
  13. Sirs
    Sirs 13 August 2013 11: 44
    +1
    The global trend in appearance and line-up of the BTR is Boomerang, it can be traced
  14. Terrible ensign
    Terrible ensign 13 August 2013 11: 47
    +6
    Indeed, very similar to the Finnish battleship. To critics of the rear gate: Guys, take a close look, pliz ... Not quite a "gate", but rather a door-ramp with two degrees of freedom: the "gate" option opens "towards itself (outward) to the right"; option "ramp" - "outward-downward".
    The question arises of the strength of the ramp mechanism (principle - gas lifts or hydraulics - who will it be? - ours or imported? Traditionally, Italians and French have good hydraulics ...)
    Fundamentally, according to the sketch:
    1.With the engine it is clear - "front-left"
    2.mehan - understandably - "before-right"
    3. The commander? .. (incomprehensible)
    4. The location of the turret combat module is inconvenient, because divides the troop compartment "into two unequal cotyledons" - or from the front of the armored personnel carrier "people will trample through the hatches in the roof" - this has already passed ... already "delusional" turns out, frankly ...
    5. Projections (frontal side) - high (are we trying to "spoil" the enemy? ..)
    6. Vertical sides! ..
    7. Water jets (or just a propeller in the pipe? ..) are taken out of the projection of the body ...
    Designers! .. Such designers ...
    Let's wait for the official show of technology, colleagues.
    1. 11 black
      11 black 13 August 2013 16: 16
      +2
      Quote: Scary ensign
      1.With the engine it is clear - "front-left"
      2.mehan - understandably - "before-right"

      judging by the model, on the contrary - the driver’s slot is on the left, and the MTO service hatches are drawn on the right, maybe I'm wrong but judging by the photo ...

      otherwise, the photo is extremely unsuitable for modern warfare, since the vertical sides of 3 meters high are an excellent target for a grenade launcher (and indeed for everything that shoots), since it will not be able to book them properly (maximum you can hope for good armor forehead, no more weight will pass), I think the KPVT will sew them (sides) at once ... we do not see active protection, the "Competition" on the tower is not protected, the tower itself is poorly located (divides the infantry compartment, takes up precious space) .. . in general, I hope that this boomerang will only be very distantly similar to this work of artists. Eh, they would have shown it as soon as possible, and up to this moment all the conversations are empty chatter.
      1. Terrible ensign
        Terrible ensign 14 August 2013 07: 10
        0
        Black, you're right, I was wrong - in a hurry I posted ...
  15. washi
    washi 13 August 2013 12: 41
    +2
    All discussions had to be carried out before being embodied in metal. And now it remains only to wait ...
  16. Figvam
    Figvam 13 August 2013 13: 47
    0
    It seems to me as a builder that there should be two doors to the landing.
  17. krot00f
    krot00f 13 August 2013 14: 01
    0
    Even a simple motorist understands this "plane" will not fly. Too tall. The turret has been shifted back specifically so that the landing party would fit less ...
  18. edge
    edge 13 August 2013 15: 16
    0
    my opinion of what I saw; Yes, he does not even reach the -82th. If the BTR-82 slightly completes the chassis, it will be an order of magnitude superior to this squalor
  19. tupolev-95
    tupolev-95 13 August 2013 15: 41
    +1
    Some kind of copying of mediocre Western concepts. Where is the smoothness of lines and the swiftness of the silhouette inherent in the Soviet school? Poor Western-style tin can. Combat module - "Berezhok", processed by a plane. I hope it's just a fantasy.
  20. Akim
    Akim 13 August 2013 16: 06
    +1
    Either 2A42 was made too short or a huge batter would turn out.
  21. Pimply
    Pimply 13 August 2013 16: 21
    +2
    If Khlopotov - the car will definitely be different
  22. Armata
    Armata 13 August 2013 16: 51
    0
    A somewhat futuristic appearance, video cameras on the sides (a thing necessary for viewing the space behind the stern) are unlikely to appear on a serial car, why were smoke grenade launchers stuck in "boxes on cranes"?
  23. Daduda
    Daduda 13 August 2013 17: 24
    +2
    Some headlights on oblique corners say a lot about experts. It is likely that the armored personnel carrier was better visible not only from the front, but also from the flanks.
  24. Owl
    Owl 13 August 2013 19: 45
    0
    Pleased with the lack of huge bulletproof glass (as in KAMAZ), but the absence of loopholes is incomprehensible.
  25. Crang
    Crang 13 August 2013 20: 34
    0
    Yes ETOGES BTR-90! But what is such a small cannon? You need to put 125mm from the tank like the "Ruikat" - this will be the technique.
  26. sergey158-29
    sergey158-29 13 August 2013 23: 14
    0
    But what about the experimental chassis with a hybrid power plant and electric transmission, created as part of the research work "Krymsk"?
  27. Prapor Afonya
    Prapor Afonya 13 August 2013 23: 25
    +1
    Quote: roial
    boomerang hull

    Ahhhhhh! Spien! Chekists, grab him for shit ..... u !!!
  28. jjj
    jjj 13 August 2013 23: 56
    0
    In general, when you realize that the guys drive Urals with a slightly armored "wagon", then the height of this specimen may even seem acceptable.