Military Review

At the RAE-2013 exhibition, the BTR-MDM armored personnel carrier will be the first to be shown to the general public.

31
In the upcoming Russian Arms Expo-2013, which will open on September 25 in Nizhny Tagil, about 400 companies and organizations will take part. All of them are preparing to demonstrate to specialists and the general public both the projects that have been previously shown and the new developments. For example, enterprises from the “Tractor Plants” concern are going to demonstrate at the exhibition several armored vehicles for various purposes, created in recent years. The BMP-3M infantry combat vehicle, the BMD-4M airborne combat vehicle, and the Sprut-SD self-propelled artillery 2СXNNXX will be on the exhibition site. In addition, the Tractor Plants on RAE-25 will show their new development for the first time - the armored personnel carrier BTR-MDM, intended for the airborne troops.


At the RAE-2013 exhibition, the BTR-MDM armored personnel carrier will be the first to be shown to the general public.


The new BTR-MDM armored personnel carrier was created at the Special Design Bureau of Mechanical Engineering (SKBM, Kurgan). This machine is designed to solve various transport problems facing the airborne units. First of all, it is transportation of personnel, but transportation of necessary freights is possible. In addition, the design of the BTR-MDM allows it to be used as a base platform for other machines. Thus, in the near future, the new Kurgan vehicle could become one of the main tracked chassis in the fleet of airborne vehicles.

The purpose of the SKBM staff in developing the new armored personnel carrier for the Airborne Forces was the unification of the already existing combat vehicles BTR-MD and BMD-4M. In addition, in the design of the power plant and the chassis of the new armored vehicle uses a large number of components and assemblies borrowed from the infantry fighting vehicle BMP-3M. Due to this, it is supposed to facilitate the development of the production and operation of BTR-MDM armored personnel carriers.

The development of the BTR-MDM armored personnel carrier was launched in 2008, as part of the Shell-M project. Requirements for the new armored vehicle were presented by the Main Armored Directorate of the Ministry of Defense and the command of the airborne troops. Within a few months, the employees of the concern “Tractor Plants” created a project and prepared for testing the first prototype of a promising armored personnel carrier.

According to the results of tests and finishing work, the current appearance of the BTR-MDM armored personnel carrier was formed. The 13,2 tonnage vehicle can carry up to two tons of payload. The main cargo of an armored personnel carrier is a detachment of 13 paratroopers with equipment and weapons. Own crew of an armored personnel carrier - two people. The mass and dimensions of the BTR-MDM allow it to be transported by military transport aircraft and landed using the available parachute systems.



For unification with the existing technology, the BTR-MDM is equipped with the UTD-29 multi-fuel engine with horsepower 500. The engine is coupled with a four-speed hydromechanical transmission. In the applied mechanisms, a power take-off for two jet propulsion units and for a hydraulic system pump drive is provided. With such a power plant, a promising armored personnel carrier has a fairly high power density - about 34 hp. per ton of weight. Thanks to this, the BTR-MDM on the highway can reach speeds of up to 70 kilometers per hour. On a dry dirt road it is allowed to drive at a speed of no more than 50 km / h. In the aft part of the armored hull of the vehicle there are two water cannons, with the help of which it is possible to cross water obstacles by swimming at a speed of up to 10 km / h. Cruising on fuel when driving on the highway is equal to 500 km. In addition, the armored personnel vehicle fuel tanks are capable of providing navigation for up to seven hours.

In the undercarriage of an armored personnel carrier BTR-MDM used some components and assemblies borrowed from combat vehicles BMP-3M and BMD-4M. Due to this, in particular, an armored vehicle with five support rollers on each side can change its ground clearance in the range from 100 to 500 millimeters. Individual hydropneumatic suspension provides smooth movement on any type of surface.

The BTR-MDM armored personnel carrier is equipped with two PKT machine guns. One of them is installed on the turret above the commander's hatch on the roof of the armored vehicle. Its ammunition consists of 8 boxes, each of which fits on 250 cartridges in the tape. In front of the armored hull, at the starboard side, a PKT exchange gun is mounted. His ammunition - 2000 cartridges in two boxes. Embrasures in the boards for firing from personal weapons no landing.

In the existing dimensions of the armored vehicle, as in the case of the previous vehicle BTR-MD, it was possible to fit the troop compartment for the 13 fighters with weapons. Two of them are located on the seats on the sides of the mechanic driver in front of the armored wheelhouse. Behind them in three rows are placed 12 seats, between which there is a passage. The landing and landing of the assault force are made through hatches in the roof and a large hatch at the rear of the troop compartment.

The design of the BTR-MDM armored hull is designed in such a way that, at its base, with minimal changes, equipment of any necessary class can be created, for example, a command-staff or ambulance vehicle.

According to reports, a promising armored personnel carrier BTR-MDM has already been demonstrated to representatives of the Ministry of Defense and the command of the airborne troops. Probably, in the near future, the agenda of the military department will be the question of adopting a new machine for the Airborne Forces. Next year, the Kurgan Machine-Building Plant, where it is supposed that the BTR-MDM will be mass-produced, must hand over to the Ministry of Defense several dozen BTR-MD "Shell" armored personnel carriers. It is quite possible that soon after the fulfillment of this order, the company will receive a new contract, in accordance with which the construction of new armored personnel carriers BTR-MDM will be conducted. The beginning of the production of promising armored vehicles can begin only in a few years, but the prototype of the BTR-MDM will be shown to the general public just a few days ago.


On the materials of the sites:
http://itar-tass.com/
http://arms-expo.ru/
http://skbm.ru/
http://tplants.com/
http://otvaga2004.ru/
Author:
31 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Civil
    Civil 24 September 2013 08: 04
    +8
    From the front, something M 113 resembles
    1. Landwarrior
      Landwarrior 24 September 2013 08: 27
      +4
      I thought the same thing. hi
      1. klimpopov
        klimpopov 24 September 2013 11: 48
        +1
        Well, remotely in my opinion, and judging by the angle of inclination, then all M 113s resemble.
        1. bask
          bask 24 September 2013 18: 09
          +4
          at the RAE-2013 exhibition the BTR-MDM armored personnel carrier will be shown for the first time to the general public

          New BTR MDM, almost a copy, BTR-50,50-years of development and release.
          The BTR-50P differs from the PT-76 amphibious tank in the absence of a turret with cannon armament, the construction of the surface part of the hull and the equipment of the inhabited compartments.

          Why do you need old stuff for a new one ????
  2. vladsolo56
    vladsolo56 24 September 2013 08: 17
    +4
    it seems that he is half a meter higher than the BMD, although I could be wrong. But the fact that the above is clear. Somehow, compared to BMD, it does not look credible.
    1. Rus86
      Rus86 24 September 2013 08: 21
      +6
      she is not for fighting. support machine at the forefront. like BTR-d. (if memory serves)
  3. Su-9
    Su-9 24 September 2013 08: 21
    +8
    I wonder why this thing is better than small wheeled vehicles like the Tiger, etc. when landing and when transporting cargo / fighters and how is it better than the existing BMP-3 / BMD-4 in battle?
    I understand that with armor-mine protection is also not very good.
    In my amateurish opinion - nothing and then - another spray of funds. It’s spraying, I didn’t cut it - I respect the Kurgan people with great respect.
    What is her concept?
    1. Per se.
      Per se. 24 September 2013 10: 05
      +7
      Quote: Su-9
      What is her concept?
      "This machine is designed to solve various transport tasks facing the airborne forces. First of all, it is the transportation of personnel, but it is possible to transport the necessary cargo. In addition, the design of the BTR-MDM allows it to be used as a base platform for vehicles of other purposes." It is not entirely correct to compare the BTR-MDM with the wheeled "Tiger", it is a tracked, amphibious vehicle that can be parachuted. It is not better or worse than BMD, it is simply for other tasks. The machine is necessary, this is not a scattering of funds, but an expansion of the capabilities of our airborne forces.
    2. avt
      avt 24 September 2013 10: 30
      +5
      Quote: Su-9
      I wonder why this thing is better than small wheeled vehicles like the Tiger, etc. when landing and when transporting cargo / fighters and how is it better than the existing BMP-3 / BMD-4 in battle?

      Well, you give a pancake! And try on mud, well, as in the "plasticine country" not on caterpillars but on wheels and immediately on the Tiger to cross the river not to ford. Regarding BMD, it's quite simple - the difference is exactly the same as that of combined arms BMPs and armored personnel carriers.
      1. bairat
        bairat 24 September 2013 12: 15
        +4
        Crossing the river by swimming is more likely a specialization of reconnaissance vehicles, it is sad that for the sake of this skill they donate armored vehicles.
  4. ivshubarin
    ivshubarin 24 September 2013 11: 20
    +5
    It will be very difficult to get into an amphibious assault landing in full equipment, as in BMD
  5. Eksgayster
    Eksgayster 24 September 2013 11: 25
    +8
    It gives the impression of what haste, ill-conceived design, the maximum possible cost reduction at the expense of functionality. Elongation by at least one roller, as on the old BTR-D, created on the basis of the BMD-1, and the fighters will be more free. In addition, there is no possibility of a full-fledged transportation of goods and weapons in the stern of the vehicle, although a removable flooring can probably be installed. In general, in my opinion, it is not a very successful variation on the BTR-50pb theme, to which this "miracle" of domestic armored vehicles is so similar, except for the muzzle.
  6. ramsi
    ramsi 24 September 2013 12: 09
    +1
    it has already been written that for the engine-transmission compartment of an airborne transport vehicle there is only
    two places: in front, or immediately behind the control compartment
  7. bairat
    bairat 24 September 2013 12: 13
    +5
    I would turn the layout forward with the engine, the engine itself will provide additional protection in the frontal projection, well, from the back, respectively, make a normal door for entry / exit.
    1. ka5280
      ka5280 24 September 2013 13: 08
      +2
      I think that the lineup depends on the center of mass. She also needs to jump and swim with a parachute!
    2. Vorkot cat
      Vorkot cat 24 September 2013 13: 42
      +1
      It was like that, but the muzzle will be heavy, without loading the compartment the infantry will sink immediately recourse
  8. Vorkot cat
    Vorkot cat 24 September 2013 13: 40
    +2
    Quote: Civil
    From the front, something M 113 resembles



    It reminds of course, the large volume in the nutra for the infantry, they are all somewhat similar, as they are intended for the same purpose.
  9. Rex
    Rex 24 September 2013 13: 58
    +2
    Quote: Per se.
    Quote: Su-9
    What is her concept?
    "This is a tracked, amphibious vehicle that can be parachuted. It is no better or worse than the BMD, it is simply for other tasks. The vehicle is needed, this is not a spraying of funds, but an expansion of the capabilities of our airborne forces.


    In my opinion, far from the general staffs and military theorists. view, the "concept" of the airborne forces throughout the world is generally "blurred." There is no unambiguous understanding of the use of this particular type of troops, and, accordingly, the weapons they need. They develop and buy whatever comes to mind.
    By and large, apart from the notorious "airmobility" and "local conflicts", the fantasy of the military of the whole world does not go.
    Those. we assume that well-trained units of a "developed" country will fight "irregular" formations without a clear front line and in the absence of significant countermeasures by the enemy's air defense.
    Whether BTR-MDM (and not something else) is needed precisely for such actions is a moot point ...
    1. Per se.
      Per se. 24 September 2013 18: 30
      +5
      Here I would answer you like that, just to the extent of my understanding, in principle, there is no and cannot be a single world concept. Why, for example, the Swiss Airborne Forces? How many and why may the paratrooper units be required for the Israeli army? The United States has the largest marine corps in the world, however, during the war in Iraq, the need arose to use airborne units, and landing was only possible by parachute. Russia has a vast territory, often an operational troop transfer can only be possible with transport aircraft, for us the Airborne Forces are an urgent need, as well as a variety of equipment for this. Modern warfare is becoming more and more maneuverable, the concepts of front and rear are being blurred. Discussions about the enemy’s air defense should not preclude its weakening or complete suppression of the enemy’s air defense; finally, the units will use helicopters or ground transportation, airborne landing or parachuting, the main thing is that the troops have all these capabilities, unlike conventional ground forces. This is the strength of the airborne forces, as well as the fact that our army has not only the most trained units, with high morale, traditions, excellent training, but also the best equipment for parachute troops, far ahead of other countries here. The assaults on the Airborne Forces, of which we have about 35 thousand in all, in my opinion, are either from a sincere misunderstanding of the importance of these troops for Russia, or from the ideological sabotage of our enemies who want to destroy what really hinders them and is traditionally very strong with us.
      1. bask
        bask 24 September 2013 18: 59
        +7
        A new APC for the Airborne Forces is needed. But really, a new design.
        1. MTO in the nose, aft entrance exit.
        2.Modular design.
        3. Mine protection and protection against monoblock RPGs.
        In 2012, the German company FFG Flensburger Fahrzeugbau introduced the new G-5 tracked armored personnel carrier.
        Tracked armored personnel carrier G-5 was developed as a machine protected from land mines and mines, at the MRAP level.
        Weight-25 tons. Useful body volume of 14,5 cubic meters.
        For the Airborne Forces is tezhelovat, but the concept itself is correct.
      2. Rex
        Rex 24 September 2013 19: 58
        +3
        My post actually concerned only an article about armored personnel carriers.
        By "" the concept of "airborne forces around the world" was meant in those countries where this branch of the military took place. And even a simple comparison of the organizational structure and the composition of weapons indicates a different understanding of the peculiarities of the use of this type of troops in different countries.
        Ideally, there should be strategic military analysts who could at least 25 years (preferably 50) to assess in detail the dangers for the state requiring the attraction of military force in response. In detail - i.e. to determine the areas of aggression, the number of possible adversaries and the composition of their weapons. Based on this, to determine the composition of the armed forces, their strength, the composition of their weapons and the deployment of units in the country.
        With our "piece" purchases, proactive developments and attempts to "screw up" the army at least something, "pulling the blanket" by competing factories ...
        We can’t decide on an army pistol for decades, let alone talk about heavy equipment ...
      3. Mechanismoid
        Mechanismoid 24 September 2013 21: 23
        +2
        quote: / "for parachute troops" - with all my Respect, there are no such troops in the Russian Federation ... There are Airborne Troops! He himself was not lucky enough to serve there, but! each time, when interacting with them, on duty, I was a little "surprised" by the order and coherence of mechanisms within the Airborne Forces, unlike other types of troops, which does not diminish their importance for our Motherland .. and so, by the way .. when to all our combined arms "carelessness", the landing is one of the most combat-ready and well-coordinated units of our Armed Forces ...
        1. Per se.
          Per se. 25 September 2013 07: 22
          +1
          Quote: Mechanoid
          / "for the parachute troops" - with all my Respect, there are no such troops in the Russian Federation ...
          We have parachute regiments, the Americans have 101 paratroopers. You are right, we have the Airborne Troops, although in my context "for the parachute troops" there was a generalization, nevertheless, thanks for the mistake noticed.
  10. msv
    msv 24 September 2013 18: 43
    +7
    the eternal dispute about heavy and light BM, about wheeled and tracked. Many newly minted theorists want to either put everyone on wheels, or everyone on "tanks". Although it is a no-brainer that each theater has its own priorities. And an important requirement for a subdivision in technology, in my opinion, is mobility. So that the units do not stand by the stream or the mud and do not wait for the bridge to be built.
    As for the Airborne Forces in general and BTR-MDM in particular, there are also quite a lot of diverse points of view on the role of the Airborne Forces and their tasks. Some people think that they are not needed in the army with equipment, well, in extreme cases, transfer them to scorpions and tigers . Throwing equipment behind enemy lines is nonsense, as has already sounded because of today's air defense capabilities.
    But in my opinion, taking into account the geography of our country, possible theater of operations, it is necessary to preserve the old concept of the development of the airborne forces. That is, the armament should have a single complex of BMP support vehicles - fire support vehicles that are as unified as possible across platforms, and certainly on a caterpillar track.
    having 4-5 airborne divisions with equipment, you can very quickly increase the grouping by air in any part of the country. In modern warfare, advancement in deployment plays an important role.
    Regarding security (fending off possible objections): today you won’t be saved by thick armor. ATGMs pierce armor more than a meter. In combined arms combat, the tank and the light infantry fighting vehicle are equally likely to be struck. Therefore, a heavy vehicle is not a panacea. Heavy vehicles have the advantages of manual anti-tank weapons.
    As for the wheels and tracks: I exploited the BTR-80, Tanks (T55,62, T80B), BMP1,2, MTLB. Of all this, it’s easiest to plant a BTR-80 in the mud, then a tank (harder, faster digs in and sits on the belly even of the T80 despite 1100 mounts), and an infantry fighting vehicle (MTLB is even better) passed everywhere and always. Given the possible theater of operations in the country without floating and tracked vehicles in any way.
    Therefore, BTR-MDM is another necessary element of the technical complex of the Airborne Forces.
    1. bask
      bask 24 September 2013 19: 16
      +2
      Quote: msv
      the eternal dispute about heavy and light BM, about wheeled and tracked. Many newly minted theorists want to either put everyone on wheels, or everyone on "tanks". Although it is a no-brainer that each theater has its own priorities. And an important requirement for a subdivision in technology, in my opinion, is mobility

      BTR, must be on a wheeled and GSH chassis. Mass up to 18 tons.
    2. ramsi
      ramsi 24 September 2013 19: 34
      +1
      regarding patency: in order not to sit on the belly there is only one means - two (like railway), but driven tracked carts with wide (up to 2 meters) tracks, but since 2 meter tracks are unlikely, the central box is on the bottom each trolley with a single drive (electric motor) on two tracks. Turning can be carried out both by the mutual arrangement of the bogies (up to 180 degrees), and by the method traditional for caterpillar equipment (though theoretically). The height of the equipment will hardly increase - the central box, about half a meter wide, can be lowered to the ground. At least in terms of mine protection, an extra 60-70cm of tracked mover will appear
    3. Rex
      Rex 24 September 2013 20: 07
      +1
      I support this opinion almost completely.
      With minor reservations, but the topic is so serious and global that it is not for the discussion of forums.
  11. sak1969
    sak1969 24 September 2013 20: 58
    +1
    Quote: Civil
    From the front, something M 113 resembles

    Yes reminds. It also reminds a mass grave.
  12. slacker
    slacker 24 September 2013 22: 37
    0
    The illegitimate son of M-113!
  13. bublic82009
    bublic82009 24 September 2013 23: 31
    +1
    similar to another American armored personnel carrier. good grave for 15 paratroopers. not practical exit through the engine compartment. God forbid that the personnel will not leave the car.
  14. Radchuk
    Radchuk 26 September 2013 12: 16
    -1
    it would be better to do normal tractors ....
  15. The comment was deleted.