Military Review

Overview of armored transporters and infantry fighting vehicles (Part of 2)

21

In the newest versions, only the name of the original machine - CV90; new BMP technologically gone far ahead of the machines entered service in the 90-s



European tracks for European contracts

Two European countries, Denmark and Poland, are going to replace a significant part of their fleet of armored vehicles. The first wants to replace their M113 armored personnel carriers. The Danish defense procurement organization FMT (Forsvarets Materieltjeneste) has already compiled a list of bidders, leaving it with tracked and wheeled solutions. The volume of the order can be from 206 to 450 cars in six versions. In turn, Poland wants to replace along with tanks T-72 and P-91 are Russian-made BMPs. The requirements define a universal tracked platform Universal Tracked Platform (UTP) with an expected combat weight of over 25 tons, which will serve as a base for approximately 1000 infantry fighting vehicles and 500 light tanks.

The Danish list includes three tracked solutions: Armadillo from BAE Systems, G5 Protected Mission Module Carrier (PMMC) from German FFG Flensburger and Ascod 2 from General Dynamics European Land Systems. As for the schedules for the implementation of these programs, the Polish project will go somewhat later than the Danish one, but it clearly defines that the production will be conducted at the plant of the local company Polish Defense Holding (formerly Bumar Group) and the first deliveries will begin no later than 2018 of the year. The decision on national development does not seem to be quite viable, and therefore Polish machines, created with the support of foreign partners and mostly based on already existing products, seem to be the more likely solution. Completion of the program is scheduled for 2022 year.

As already mentioned in the series “Protection of armored vehicles” (http://topwar.ru/40619-zaschita-bronirovannyh-mashin-chast-1-dlya-vadima-budet-pyat-chastey.html), CV90 is basically a new car compared to the original model, supplied by the Swedish army 20 years ago. Over 1200 machines are currently in service with five countries: Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland. Together with Sweden, they are part of the so-called System Development Council (in other words, the “CV90 Users' Club”), which collects the experience of operating this machine from the troops.

Improvements in mobility include semi-active suspension, which guarantees significantly better stabilization of the platform (reduction of acceleration in the longitudinal plane on 30 - 40%) and rubber tracks. The first increases the accuracy of weapons to the level of the MBT, and the second reduces the acoustic signature, and thereby limits the effectiveness of acoustic seismic sensors. In Afghanistan, these tracks produced by Soucy, a Canadian company, not only reduced the noise of cars by 10 dB, but their use also had a positive effect on fuel consumption and the safety of local roads, an important factor during stabilization measures. In addition, the newest machines surpassed the Bradley BMP in shallow snow thanks to a raised drive wheel and a better track angle, as well as in overcoming steps higher than 1,2 meters. The engine on the CV90 is installed the same as on Scania trucks, only in the military version. Its power increased from 370 kW in early prototypes to 600 kW in the newest version of the MkIII. Combat weight increased from 20 to more than 35 tons, mainly due to the constant increase in the level of armor protection, for example, new versions have a level of mine protection much higher than Stanag 4A / B. The increased power and suspension upgrades allow the 90-mm smoothbore gun to be mounted on the CV120.

Based on the requirements of Switzerland, the newest versions of the CV90 are fully digital. In this case, training time for service personnel is reduced from 15 to 5 months, and these requirements also contributed to the installation of digital systems for monitoring the condition and use of systems. Electronic architecture is also one of the major improvements in the newest version of the CV90. It simplifies the integration of new sensors, local situational awareness systems, reactive armor, and on-board simulation systems, which allows not only increasing crew productivity at the deployment stage, but also reducing crew response times.

Further upgrades are also proposed, for example, installation of a hybrid electric power plant from BAE Systems, which promises a reduction in fuel consumption by 25-30%; this figure may increase to 45% when driving on rubber tracks.

CV90 developed not only in the MkIII, but ultimately in Armadillo, a variant without a tower with a large internal volume and a carrying capacity of six tons, designed to perform various tasks, such as an armored personnel carrier.

Continuous modernization of the CV90 gave its results: after 18 years of production, two Swedish plants where the machine was manufactured continue to work. The recent lull in production was used by BAE Systems to optimize its production scheme: combining the entire production at the Örnsköldsvik plant and simultaneously modernizing it in order to increase production. This plant currently produces all tracked vehicles, including the CV90, which again began to roll off the assembly line after signing a contract in 2012 with Norway for the sum of 590 million euros. It includes upgrading the current fleet of 103 machines, and buying another 41 new car and a few additional chassis. The Norwegian army should receive 74 BMP, 21 reconnaissance, 15 commander, 16 engineering, two driver training and 16 multi-purpose vehicles, the latter for various tasks, such as a mortar installation or logistics. New machines will include most of the improvements in the areas of protection, survivability, situational awareness, information gathering and interaction developed at this time. Production will be conducted in Sweden, and in Norway an industrial group led by Kongsberg is responsible for assembly and integration.

In the future, more markets may open up for the Swedish car. In addition to Armadillo, chosen by Denmark, CV90-based solutions also “try on” the Canadian program for the Close Combat Vehicle (CCV) melee machine, which includes 108 machines plus an option for 30 units. This program was approved after attempts by some military circles to close it. The CV90 was also tested for the US GCV ground combat program.

At the end of May 2013, BAE Systems Hägglunds announced an agreement with Polish Defense Holding (PDH) targeting the Polish UTP program and in September at the MSPO in Kielce, the two companies showed the concept of the PL-01 direct fire support machine. It mainly uses the CV90 experience, and it will become the first member of the UTP-based family.

Tracked platform, which can be equipped with rubberized or fully rubber tracks, has a compact powerful engine, which occupies a relatively small volume in the hull, accommodating three crew members. The hull is protected from mines and roadside bombs, the armor is based on a multi-layer composite material of ceramics-aramid fibers, while the active protection complex enhances the survivability of the crew in combination with other passive solutions, such as new energy-absorbing seats. There is an uninhabited turret installed on the PL-01, which can be armed with an 105 or 120-mm cannon, both of which can fire with standard ammunition or anti-tank guided missiles. A lighter remote-controlled combat module at the top of the turret will be armed with an 7,62-mm or 12,7-mm machine gun or 40-mm automatic grenade launcher; The twin 7,62-mm machine gun complements the weapon system. The number of crew members is determined by the presence of the automatic loader installed in the turret tournaments.

Modern optoelectronics provides an overview and situational awareness; the commander has a panoramic sight to perform search and percussion tasks. Navigation and the "friend or foe" system will also be included in the set of the vetroniki. The modular design will allow the car of direct fire support to adapt for the most different tasks. The first prototype, manufactured by PDH in Gliwice, should be made by 2016 year. First deliveries are expected in the 2018 year, and their completion by the 2022 year.

The second tracked challenger for the Danish program is the Protected Mission Module Carrier G5 (PMMC G5) armored personnel carrier developed by the German company Flensburger Fahrzeugbau Gesellschaft (FFG), which has extensive experience in the development and modernization of military tracked vehicles, including M113 and Polish Opal. The weight of the machine is 26,5 tons with further growth potential, G5 has six track rollers and a front guide wheel. Engine power 560 HP The MTU 6V199 TE21 is mounted in front on the right, the driver is sitting on the left with access to the aft landing. Thus, he can take his seat either through the upper hatch or through the troop compartment. To ensure a good view, it has a raised flashlight with 180 ° windows, which provide a good forward and left view and a slightly worse view to the right. Armored windows are protected by steel bars. This allows the driver to remain protected while maintaining a driving position similar to the driving position of an M-113 BTR with his head stuck out of the hatch.

Also in front of the installed day / night camera. The engine is connected to an automatic transmission ZF LSG 1000, which rotates rubber tracks from the company Soucy. The G5 BTR has a very large internal volume 14,5 m3, its payload is 6,5 tons. It can carry up to 12 people, four paratroopers from each side sit facing each other in energy absorbing seats. The driver, the commander of the vehicle and the commander of the assault force are sitting in front, they have displays of the combat control system, also showing the image from the camera, and eventually from other sensors (when installing the combat module on the roof).

As already mentioned, the PMMC G5 was designed on the basis of a modular concept. The base of the car is made up of a standard mini-chassis, power unit, transmission, suspension, air conditioning and heating, driver and commander and interfaces. Various functional modules attached to the bottom of the chassis can be installed on the machine to meet various tasks performed, for example, the personnel conveyor, command post, sanitary, medical evacuation, cargo, although mortar installations, patrol and other options were also considered. Replacing the module takes several hours. This allows you to minimize the amount of logistics. The modules are transported and stored inside standard ISO containers, which reduces the cost and simplifies their transport processing. According to FFG, the PMMC G5 armored personnel carrier was designed to minimize life cycle costs. FFG manufactured three G5 prototypes, which are optimized variants of the first prototype and which today have hit a total of about 20000 km. The G5 BTR is currently undergoing field trials in Denmark, and according to the FFG, contracts have been concluded with various interested parties from several countries. In 2011, the FFG and Krauss-Maffei Wegmann companies announced an agreement to modernize the BTR fleet of Brazil's M113.

Overview of armored transporters and infantry fighting vehicles (Part of 2)

At the Polish MSPO 2013, Poland, BAE Systems and Polish Defense Holding showed the concept of a PL-01 fire support vehicle based on the universal UTP tracked platform



Protected Mission Module Carrier G5, developed by FFG Flensburger, is one of five vehicles selected by Denmark for the M113 BTR replacement program.




Below is a view of the PMMC driver's seat from the inside. It features a wide windshield that provides good situational awareness. Top view of the separation of troops


ASCOD program

General Dynamics UK in March 2010 was selected as the preferred applicant. Her proposal for the program of the British army on the SV Scout car in July was awarded a contract for a demonstration stage, which included the manufacture of seven prototype Ascod tracked vehicles equipped with a Lockheed Martin turret with a CTAI 40-mm cannon. By the way, it should be noted that the tower itself is based on the Lance tower from the company Rheinmetall.

The final step was the completion of the testing of the mobile test system at low temperatures, which followed the testing of the cooling system under full load at extreme temperatures. Thus, the performance of the systems was tested in the operating temperature range 80 ° C. The tests were conducted in a cold climate chamber in Spain. The mobile test facility has passed a series of severe tests, including running tests over 10000 km. A critical evaluation of the project is expected to be completed at the end of 2013, while production decisions can be made in 2014-15.

The Ascod 2 was also selected as one of the contenders to replace the M113 armored personnel carrier in the Danish army.


A brief video review of the project status on the family of armored combat vehicles ASCOD

Puma BMP is close to supply

Over 350 BMPs Puma were ordered by Germany from Projeckt System & Management (PSM), a joint venture between Krauss-Maffei Wegmann and Rheinmetall Landsysteme specially created for this project. Nine machines have been manufactured and are currently undergoing extensive qualification tests.

The Bundeswehr originally ordered Puma's 405 vehicles, but after the reorganization process, the German military and PSM agreed in July to reduce the order to 2012 vehicles (350 BMP and 342 driving instruction machines) and extend the qualification testing period to the end of September 8.


The German Puma BMP, developed by the joint venture KMW and Rheinmetall, by PSM, has undergone some refinement and is currently close to production


Compared to early prototypes, the production cars have a new undercarriage with six track rollers instead of five. Also, the first Puma cars had a greater distance between the third and fourth and between the fourth and fifth rinks, whereas now the distance between all the rinks is the same, which increases stability and improves driving performance on rough terrain. Additional space was also found in the onboard chassis modules in order to increase the fuel volume from 800 to 900 liters. Another major change can be seen on an uninhabited turret, which is currently characterized by a pyramidal vented gun cover, which ends near the muzzle. According to PSM, this further improves the accuracy of the fully stabilized 30-mm MK30-2 / ABM automatic cannon. The machine is equipped with the Muss active protection complex, its launchers are now made rotating. Four IR / laser sensors mounted around the tower perimeter provide 360 ° circular coverage; The data is transmitted to the central electronic system, which ensures optimal orientation of the infrared silencer and launcher before launch, ensuring maximum protection against the attacking missile. For the German army, a launcher with two anti-tank missiles will be installed, and the integration of the Spike-LR missile system is currently being developed.

BMP Puma has already passed an advanced qualification and verification program. Numerous individual tests and tests were carried out and completed: running, operational, ergonomic, and the functionality of the SLA, turret systems, and weapons was tested. Also at the beginning of 2012, the Arctic Circle in Norway in parallel passed successful three-month low-temperature tests. In addition, by the end of 2013, comprehensive qualification testing of the systems will take place, with numerous activities planned.

As for the logistical qualification tests, starting from May 2013 of the year, the German military from the Land Systems Technical School perform tests for the maintenance and repair of the Puma BMP. They cover the verification of the main elements of the curriculum, including a comprehensive theoretical and practical understanding of the maintenance process, testing of special tools as described in the interactive electronic technical documentation, as well as carrying out practical maintenance of the 2 and 3 levels.

Tactical qualification trials began in May 2013 of the year and ended in the middle of August 2013 of the year. The tests were carried out in the Armored School of the German Army in Münster on one machine, as well as at the platoon level of four cars. They included operations with dismounted or motorized infantry, combat maneuvering, shooting at large angles of vertical guidance in urban environments, platoon level exercises and general military exercises in conjunction with the main battle tanks. By the time these lines are read, the Puma BMP should complete two or three-month trials in the hot climate of the United Arab Emirates.

Immediately after receiving a user certificate based on the results of all tests carried out, in 2014, the production of Puma machines will increase to about 50 units per year and will continue until the final delivery in 2020. The transfer of the first BMP Puma of the German army is scheduled for 2014 year. Puma is also moving to overseas markets, for PSM Canada and Australia are currently priority areas.

Warrior & Co

In the UK, Lockheed Martin continues to work on the Warrior WCSP (Warrior Capability Sustainment Program) BMP life extension program. In November 2012, a new mobile test set was manufactured to test the stabilization of the turret, servo drives of the turret, evaluation of ergonomic characteristics, training and testing of general parameters. It can hold up to 8 tons of ballast to simulate typical dynamic loading conditions. Lockheed Martin UK’s WCSP offerings are based on the refinement of the Warrior turret, which received the CTAI 40 gun. Also in the modernization kit includes improvements in mobility, protection and control systems. In 2013, the project capabilities were successfully evaluated, and in 2014, a critical evaluation of the project is expected, which will complete the demonstration phase. Production should begin in 2016 with the first deliveries to the troops in 2018.



Lockheed Martin UK is set to begin production on the BMI Warrior life extension program in 2016; A critical project evaluation is scheduled for 2014 year.


Meanwhile, Lockheed Martin UK is also awaiting the selection of a contractor for the Kuwaiti Desert Warrior Machines Modernization Program, which was to occur at the end of 2013. Although other turrets and a cannon can be selected for these machines (it is quite possible that the 25-mm M242 ATK with double feed will be selected), Lockheed Martin UK will have an advantage over its rivals - a team of Raytheon Network Centric Systems, BAE Systems and General Dynamics Canada - thanks to the experience gained through the WCSP program.


Overview of the program for extending the life of the BMP Warrior with Russian subtitles

New player

The Republic of Georgia was the last country to join the club of tracked vehicle manufacturers. At the end of February 2012, she showed her BTR with a combat module. The machine, named Lazika, is armed with an 23-mm 2A14 cannon and a 7,62-mm machine gun, its combat weight is 14 tons. Frontal and side protection - 4 Level, from the stern - 2 Level. An additional reservation is available, increasing the level of protection to 5, while the level of mine protection is 4a / b. The car housed three crew members and up to seven infantrymen, parachuting through the stern ramp. The machine was created by the military-scientific technical center Delta, and is manufactured by the Tbilisi company Aircraft Manufacturing. Engine power 300 HP it is mounted ahead on the right and allows the Lazika BTR to develop a maximum speed of 70 km / h, and a torsion bar provides a large stroke of the five support rollers.



Georgia has become one of the last countries to enter the armored vehicles market. The Lazika armored personnel carrier weighing 14 tons can carry up to seven paratroopers and three crew members


Armor on wheels

The AMPV program of the US Army is quite possible to stop on the tracked variant, while the market for tracked vehicles in the coming years will be much more focused on the United States compared to the market for wheeled infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers. The main program for the development and acquisition of the wheeled vehicle in the coming years will be the MPC (Marines Personnel Carrier) armored personnel carrier for the US Marine Corps.

In the framework of the Canadian program for a close combat vehicle (Close Combat Vehicle), the number of applicants was reduced to Nexter VBCI with the 25 mm tower and GDLS Piranha 5.

Interestingly, Denmark is considering these same cars for the “wheel option” under the M113 fleet replacement program (see above). But the largest program in Europe is the Spanish Army program, which plans to transform its eight brigades into multitasking brigades (Brigada Polivalente) based on the 8 × 8 platform in several versions: combat, reconnaissance and command, followed by a mortar, anti-tank, evacuation sanitary and engineering options. However, the current financial situation in the country has strongly postponed for the distant future all these plans for modernization, the replacement of existing weapons has been postponed to 2020 - 2040 years.

In Turkey, the requirements for the 6 × 6 machine have been voiced, although the configuration of the 8 × 8 seems to be still far away. In the Middle East, the UAE has a need for some 700 8 × 8 machines, and neighboring countries are also interested in such platforms. In the Far East and Latin America, they also look at wheeled infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers.

Brazil is also considering 8 × 8, armed with an 105-mm cannon, as a replacement for the EE-9 Cascavel and Sk105 light tank, a request for information was sent to the manufacturers of the towers. Four companies responded to this request, Oto Melara with Hitfact 105, the Brazilian Ares Aerospacial e Defesa division of Elbit Systems with its MT 105BR, CMI Defense with the CT-CV 105HP tower and Tarobá Engenharia with an unnamed offer. The request for proposals was to be published at the end of 2013, when it was expected to sign a contract between the Brazilian army and Iveco Latin America to create a version of the Guarani 6 × 6 machine in the 8 × 8 configuration.


At the exhibition Russian Expo Arms Uralvagonzavod and Renault Trucks Defense announced a new BTR Atom 8x8, intended for the Russian market



BAE Systems has teamed up with Iveco DV to respond to the demands of the new BTR for the Marine Personnel Marine Carrier; The car in the photo is an option Iveco SuperAV




Under the Marines Personnel Carrier program, Lockheed Martin merged with the Finnish Patria and offered the option of an armored modular armored vehicle. Troop compartment (bottom)


Marine Personnel Carrier Program

In the light of budget cuts in the US, the fate of the MPC program is still not entirely clear. The commander of the US Marine Corps, General James Amos, clearly identified the Amphibious Combat Vehicle combat vehicle of the highest priority for the corps. Thus, Marine Personnel Carrier could become a “nice to have” type machine. In September, 2013, the amphibious, ballistic and explosive tests ended and the companies participating in the competition expect a detailed report on them in November. What happens next remains a mystery. Will MPC replace the ACV project if there is too much time shift? Will it be a backup solution if the ACV project fails?

Will the ACV be successful in the military in case of sufficient funding? After all, there were rumors about a possible series of sea trials in 2014, followed by a request for prices at the beginning of 2015, and the issuance of a contract to two applicants for final development and implementation in production.

Two of the four proposals are widely publicized, namely Havoc (based on AMV from Lockheed Martin and Patria, also Armatec Survivability Corporation participates here) and SuperAV from the BAE Systems team - Iveco DV. Two other projects are less open to the public: ST Kinetics' Terrex 8 × 8 seems quite standard machine adopted by Singapore. As for the proposal of GDLS, here, against the background of the lack of official information, the Youtube resource has published a video of what the modified Piranha 3C looks like with 12-inch wheels and increased height (to obtain sufficient buoyancy).

Materials used:
Armada Compendium to 5 / 2013
www.ffg-flensburg.de
www.generaldynamics.uk.com
www.lockheedmartin.com
Author:
Articles from this series:
Overview of armored transporters and infantry fighting vehicles (Part of 1)
Overview of armored transporters and infantry fighting vehicles (Part of 2)
Overview of armored transporters and infantry fighting vehicles (Part of 3)
Overview of armored transporters and infantry fighting vehicles (Part of 4)
21 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. erased
    erased April 15 2014 09: 04
    +5
    BMPs are approaching with might and main another BMP (combat support vehicle). Where the reservation is tank, the armament is lighter, and there are 6-8 seats in the landing. It is a logical step. But where is Kurganets?
  2. sv68
    sv68 April 15 2014 11: 28
    +1
    a simple question, like normal cars stuffed with electronics inside look good, but how do they behave in battle, not in landfills, but in real conditions? What is the real level of protection even from prg.
  3. qwert
    qwert April 15 2014 11: 36
    +7
    BTR with a mass of 68t. It's cool, of course. You can generally make a non-knocked infantry fighting vehicle weighing 120 tons And let yourself be carrying troops across the battlefield. Only what for is it needed ??? Maybe, after all, the task of the motorized riflemen is participation in a combined-arms operation "on foot"? But then it makes sense to place them actually inside the tank, which for the sake of this has to abandon the main armament. Let's define, motorized riflemen are fighters or tourists who should watch the battle from under thick armor like in a movie? And if there are fighters, then the vehicles should be appropriate, protecting from the fire of standard armament of BMPs and armored personnel carriers, equal to them, and not a utopia of 68 tons, carefully rolling on contemplators. And in general, is there a place for BMP on the battlefield during a combat contact of tank armies?
    1. PAM
      PAM April 15 2014 12: 57
      +1
      I agree with an armored personnel carrier with a mass of 60 tons. -utopia, but an infantry fighting vehicle (with remotely controlled twin (9mm machine gun + automatic grenade launcher) 6 pieces on each infantry fighting vehicle, + landing) with the same mass to support tanks looks good (especially in urban battles).
    2. Val_y
      Val_y April 15 2014 14: 06
      0
      And yes and no, what's the point in the fighters if they were not taken to the landing point. Therefore, in my opinion, it is stupid to confuse amphibious assault amphibious assault vehicles for landing marines and infantry fighting vehicles for motorized riflemen, however, such an ubermegabtr is also stupid, imagine its operating costs (remember a "merkava" every 150-200 km per capital laughing ) (a kind of cut in the American way) laughing
      1. qwert
        qwert April 15 2014 14: 58
        +1
        That's what I’m talking about, with a reservation providing protection against regular weapons of the BMP. From the sub-caliber Bushmeister, and of course, taking into account the development prospects.
    3. SVA
      SVA April 15 2014 20: 24
      +3
      NATO caps have little double bass everywhere, here they are like TTs and heavy. I don’t understand why your human life is valued in a mass of kg of money spent per armored vehicle, whence this stupid notion that 60 tons is utopia if they can do engines and transmission under a heavy car, why you can’t give your guys armor or always soldiers should ride on an armored personnel carrier on top of the armor, like a living target, to you that there are few losses in Chechnya. Because of this approach, you are now behind the world market, you are accustomed to the same riveting of an unpromising g that does not have time to come out and is already morally obsolete.
      1. free
        free April 15 2014 20: 58
        0
        Quote: SVA
        NATO caps have little double bass everywhere, here they are like TTs and heavy. I don’t understand why your human life is valued in a mass of kg of money spent per armored vehicle, whence this stupid notion that 60 tons is utopia if they can do engines and transmission under a heavy car, why you can’t give your guys armor or always soldiers should ride on an armored personnel carrier on top of the armor, like a living target, to you that there are few losses in Chechnya. Because of this approach, you are now behind the world market, you are accustomed to the same riveting of an unpromising g that does not have time to come out and is already morally obsolete.


        and you know why they drive on the armor and not inside, in case of explosion (anti-tank) they drop it from the armor and have a chance, but not inside! It won’t kill that shell-shock and they’ll finish the shell-shocked people like that!
        1. SVA
          SVA April 15 2014 22: 20
          +4
          But there’s nothing that under the cone the armor below is made and the wheels on the axle are closer to each other and everything is against a landmine, or do you think that after an explosion of a powerful landmine, a soldier can just fly off to meet, pick up an assault rifle and fight can only be lucky, in general, such guys, after an explosion and a severe concussion and damage to internal organs, are bluntly cut out without wasting cartridges. Here is an example of an Italian aiveco blew it up and inside with sensors and found that soldiers after an explosion are more likely to survive than in a vaunted tiger, though the tiger is undeniably super, the front and side armor, but the bottom of the car is rash. All of their developments, something new and they are likely to be adopted not only, but only a few, but that’s what their main trick is, there is plenty to choose from, and we don’t. There is no competition, but in the end there is imitation, and at best, cooperation is like with France. Our troops need a proportional response, and not the eternal refinement of the existing, after the combat use of technology.
        2. Bayonet
          Bayonet April 16 2014 04: 03
          0
          And put inside and on the armor. Then it’s easier just to drive trucks, it’s cheaper at least and you don’t have to break your head.
      2. kplayer
        kplayer April 15 2014 22: 53
        +4
        Quote: SVA
        NATO caps have little double bass everywhere, here they are like TTs and heavy. I don’t understand why your human life is valued in a mass of kg of money spent per armored vehicle, whence this stupid notion that 60 tons is utopia if they can do engines and transmission under a heavy car, why you can’t give your guys armor or always soldiers should ride on an armored personnel carrier on top of the armor, like a living target, to you that there are few losses in Chechnya. Because of this approach, you are now behind the world market, you are accustomed to the same riveting of an unpromising g that does not have time to come out and is already morally obsolete.

        I agree, they will write a billiberd in the style of a supposedly "infantryman's confession" (like let me fight, I want sweat, blood and killed comrades!), Let 60 "kids" carry live people, not a load of 200. During the Second World War "during the combat contact of tank armies"TA was regularly staffed with rifle subunits, because without the infantry and its victims, losses in tanks would have been greater, and there would have been less successful operations. 100% air strike capabilities and fire weapons of defeat, artillery and mortars), and armored vehicles are self-sufficient, they would even introduce cretery (so far without formulation) for modern infantry fighting vehicles / armored personnel carriers, the less often infantry dismounts on the battlefield, or even more so leaves a disabled BM (in both cases, the infantry can incur unjustified losses), which means that the BM Infantry is close to combat perfection. ”It is clear that in the conditions of the city and mountain-wooded terrain, the infantry will not remain without work.

        Such heavy tracked BMs were created EXACTLY for conducting intensive databases aimed at destroying enemy groupings, and not for post-military "police" operations of low (medium) intensity, patrolling, escorting and guarding motor transport convoys, etc., when there is a guerrilla high-explosive mine war, a nightmare for any army, the priority here is for wheeled ARVs / armored personnel carriers.
        Quote: free
        and you know why they drive on the armor and not inside, in case of explosion (anti-tank) they drop it from the armor and have a chance, but not inside! It won’t kill that shell-shock and they’ll finish the shell-shocked people like that!

        With a cumulative PT-mine it’s understandable, and a land mine of many tens of kg. I don’t care on the armor, or inside the car.
      3. The comment was deleted.
  4. inkass_98
    inkass_98 April 15 2014 11: 58
    +2
    Thanks so much for the review. The only moment that ATOM seems to have ordered a long life in the light of recent events.
    The tendency to increase the size of promising APCs is noteworthy. It is clear that a large armored volume is good for the crew, and the height allows you to compensate for the mine threat. But the visibility of such a technique is increasing, and since it still does not reach the MBT in terms of booking, it becomes a contender for the role of target No. 1 on the battlefield. And another question - it is clear what to do with the rubber-metal caterpillar: after its damage, you can replace the links / tracks with whole ones, since there is a supply. And if the caterpillar is completely rubber? You can’t replace it quickly, and carrying a whole caterpillar with you is not rational. And what is its survivability on a rocky surface? After all, such tracks were used in Afghanistan, what are the conclusions?
    1. Bayonet
      Bayonet April 16 2014 04: 08
      +1
      For modern ammunition hitting a car from above, the height of the target is generally never the same.
  5. kplayer
    kplayer April 15 2014 15: 28
    +1
    Quote: Val_Y
    ... remember the "merkava" every 150-200 km to the capital ...

    In my opinion, not the entire fleet of cars, but no wonder they walk on such rocky soils, smashing boulders to smithereens, and the ruins of city buildings, any suspension of kirdyk, taking into account 70 tons. combat weight, plus "combat injuries" to patch.
  6. wanderer_032
    wanderer_032 April 15 2014 15: 43
    0
    It’s better to see once than hear a hundred times, I propose to see and compare:







    Iveco Super AV on the go.
    1. wanderer_032
      wanderer_032 April 15 2014 15: 45
      0


      Armored Modular Vehicle on the go
      1. wanderer_032
        wanderer_032 April 15 2014 15: 51
        +1


        BMP Puma on the go.



        Baz Lazika on the go.
        1. wanderer_032
          wanderer_032 April 15 2014 16: 02
          +1


          Btr-80, GAZ-5903 on the go.



          BTR-90 on the go.
          1. wanderer_032
            wanderer_032 April 15 2014 16: 14
            0


            BMP-3 on the go.



            BMD-4 on the go.
            1. wanderer_032
              wanderer_032 April 15 2014 16: 16
              +2
              Which is better, evaluate and decide for you.
  7. ramsi
    ramsi April 15 2014 16: 55
    +2
    As for weapons, there is no better "melon", according to the BMD - it does not matter, these troops do not make the weather, according to the armored personnel carrier - we have an unimportant cart
    1. wanderer_032
      wanderer_032 April 15 2014 17: 05
      0
      Quote: ramsi
      BTR - we have an unimportant truck

      And why are our armored personnel carriers worse in driving performance than western models?
      1. ramsi
        ramsi April 15 2014 17: 21
        +3
        firstly, for the convenience of landing, it is more important than the convenience of kimarnat on the march; secondly, on armor protection - the heavy machine gun BTR is obliged to keep in a circle; thirdly, the chassis - here you can just more rational
        1. wanderer_032
          wanderer_032 April 15 2014 17: 42
          +1
          Actually, I asked about the driving performance of cars.
          The main objective of the BTR is the delivery of motorized rifles to the database zone. It is this task that the armored personnel carrier must perform in any road and weather conditions.
          In terms of these indicators, our armored personnel carriers in skilled hands are an order of magnitude superior to similar foreign technology.
          Armor protection can always be strengthened and there are such developments for our armored personnel carriers, and there are a lot of them, why they are not in the army, you need to ask the GABTU of the RF Ministry of Defense.

          Quote: ramsi
          Chassis - here you can just rational


          What specifically?

          Quote: ramsi
          for ease of landing


          This is a big flaw. It is expressed primarily in the fact that our armored personnel carriers are of little use for equipment under an ambulance for evacuating the wounded.
          A folding ramp is preferable here. I agree completely here.
          1. ramsi
            ramsi April 15 2014 18: 06
            0
            It seems to me that it would be reasonable if the BMP and BTR control skills are similar: permanent all-wheel drive on all wheels without distributing and locking differentials, as well as steering steering wheels would be a blessing
            1. wanderer_032
              wanderer_032 April 15 2014 18: 58
              +3
              Quote: ramsi
              permanent all-wheel drive without razdatok and differential locks, as well as steering wheels - would be a blessing


              For wheeled vehicles, such design decisions are unacceptable. Because it will cause increased wear of the tire treads of the wheels. Permanent full non-disconnectable all-wheel drive will result in increased fuel consumption when driving on the highway. It also heavily loads the transmission of wheeled vehicles, entails increased heating of the transmission parts and their increased wear.
              Another thing is to put more advanced drive axles and wheel gears.
              You can also put on automatic wheeled armored personnel carriers automatic transmission (GMP) with normal RK.
              Or even abandon the mechanical transmission, in favor of the hydraulic or electric (hybrid).
              1. ramsi
                ramsi April 15 2014 19: 05
                0
                But why?!. Even with the current "unsuitable" base, two engines, two GMFs, the simplest blocking in case of damage to one engine (with separate braking)
                1. Bayonet
                  Bayonet April 16 2014 04: 46
                  +3
                  2 engines, 2 boxes - it was on an armored personnel carrier 60 and they refused it.
                  1. wanderer_032
                    wanderer_032 April 16 2014 06: 58
                    +3
                    Quote: Bayonet
                    2 engines, 2 boxes - it was on an armored personnel carrier 60 and this was abandoned

                    Not only on the 60s, but also on the 70s.
                    Such a power plant provided a separate drive axles.
                    The left engine propelled the 1st and 3rd axles, and the right 2nd and 4th.
                    Plus, a winch and a water cannon were driven from the RK.
                    This is a completely different scheme than the one offered by ramsi.
                2. wanderer_032
                  wanderer_032 April 16 2014 06: 52
                  0
                  Quote: ramsi
                  But why?!

                  Because if it were rational, then everyone would already do that.
                  The two-engine scheme of all wheeled vehicles of the Soviet period was a necessary measure, because in the 60s-70s there was a known shortage of automotive diesel engines.
              2. Bayonet
                Bayonet April 16 2014 04: 42
                +2
                Refusal of swivel wheels, just absurd! These are basic things that any specialist wheeled machine knows.
          2. Bayonet
            Bayonet April 16 2014 04: 37
            +1
            This - "they exist, but they are not in the troops" just kills!
            1. wanderer_032
              wanderer_032 April 16 2014 07: 06
              0
              Quote: Bayonet
              This - "they exist, but they are not in the troops" just kills!

              Sasha, why be surprised, do not forget which country we live in.
  8. tchoni
    tchoni April 16 2014 05: 56
    0
    Well. Again, a break between lovers of a domestic cardboard manufacturer and fans of a monstrous protected device. question to the first: ask at your leisure how many hits from the good old RPG the BTR-80 withstands. a question for the second - remember how the Gennosses Germans drowned in our shit with their tigers and other panzers. and we make a simple conclusion: as long as the armored personnel carrier (bmp) lives and fights next to the tank, then the level of protection it must have is equivalent to the tank otherwise — complete nonsense turns out. the second is to do devices heavier than 50 tons - not kosher - because mother Russia did not bother and the equipment should not be transferred to it at 200km but at 10000 (in the limit) (Jews, he can’t sell to anyone through this, because not every bridge holds and more than one railway gauge does not fit.)
  9. tchoni
    tchoni April 16 2014 06: 38
    0
    Well. Again, a break between lovers of a domestic cardboard manufacturer and fans of a monstrous protected device. question to the first: ask at your leisure how many hits from the good old RPG the BTR-80 withstands. a question for the second - remember how the Gennosses Germans drowned in our shit with their tigers and other panzers. and we make a simple conclusion: as long as the armored personnel carrier (bmp) lives and fights next to the tank, then the level of protection it should have is equivalent to the tank otherwise — complete nonsense turns out. the second is to do devices heavier than 50 tons - not kosher - because mother Russia did not bother and the equipment should not be transferred to it at 200km but at 10000 (in the limit) (Jews, he can’t sell to anyone through this, because not every bridge holds and the size does not fit in more than one train.) in light of this, it seems logical to adopt the entire range of devices based on Almaty for the armament with the departure of the Kurgan from the competition as well as not particularly protected and not too airborne
  10. Tishka
    Tishka 10 October 2014 17: 07
    0
    Of course, I wildly apologize. but in my opinion, any. even super expensive and heavy equipment can be replaced, no matter how expensive it is, by and large. it is a piece of iron that can always be made. But with a human life, it’s a little more complicated, you have to give birth to it, raise it, train it, and only then throw it into battle. Accordingly, this takes about 20 years! So, even if an infantry car weighs at least 50 tons, but if it provides protection for a fighter from all possible defeats, this is already good, ideally, the less often he leaves it, the better! Fire, it is always better to lead under the protection of armor, less loss of manpower! Of course, it’s possible as in a war, with drafts on tanks, but you must admit, this is not productive. Accordingly, you need good protection, good mobility and cross. No one offers to arrange a hotel on wheels from the landing machine, where you can sleep and relax, you need to provide only one thing, that in case of defeat, the crew and arrows. must leave the wrecked car as quickly and conveniently as possible! Not for nothing, the landing party prefers to ride on the armor, and not to defend it, for the simple reason that in the event of an attack, it is easier as a partridge to get off it than to get out through not always convenient hatches, where the probability of defeat is greater! And with protection, against bullets, you do not always feel confident, because you can get under a large-caliber machine gun! And while you will be moving through the bodies of those killed, in cramped conditions, they will not kill you either! Ideally, the infantryman should be dressed in his armor, but so far no exoskeleton has been developed, you can only dream about it! So, I am for the fact that the armor provides protection for the landing, and allows it to conduct adequate fire, hiding behind the armor, and how much it will cost and weigh, this is not so important!