Armored car KAMAZ-63968 "Typhoon"

97 264 39
On the 2015 year, state tests of the new KamAZ-63968 armored car are scheduled. This machine was developed under the program "Typhoon" and is intended for the army, internal troops and other structures in need of modern secure equipment. The technical solutions used in the project help to protect the crew of the vehicle and the fighters carried as bullets. weapons, and from various types of explosive devices.

Armored car KAMAZ-63968 "Typhoon"


The creation of the KAMAZ-63968 project began a long time ago. Back in October 2010, the leadership of the country was shown a model of a promising armored car. Further development of the project continued. To date, the production of new machines, which are already being delivered to the troops, has been established. Until the fall of 2015, state tests are planned.

The KAMAZ-63968 armored car is built on the basis of the original chassis with the 6 x6 wheel formula. On the chassis are mounted all the necessary units, primarily the cabin and the module for the transport of troops. In addition, the possibility of using a cargo body or an open platform. Thus, on the basis of a single chassis, various machines with the highest possible degree of unification were initially developed.

The base chassis is equipped with a KAMAZ 740.354-450 diesel engine with 450 horsepower. with the possibility of forcing to 550 HP In order to increase the survivability of the machine in the event of a mine exploding, the engine and some transmission units are located in a separate secure compartment located between the cab and the cargo body. The engine transmits torque to a six-speed automatic transmission, a two-stage transfer case and planetary gears drive axles.

Used placement of the power plant in conjunction with the requirements for the protection of the crew and units affected the distribution of weight along the axes. Because of this, the second pair of wheels is significantly shifted forward. The front two axles are made manageable. The machine is equipped with independent hydropneumatic suspension with the ability to change ground clearance.


Hybrid III dummy in the cab


The KAMAZ-63968 armored car was developed according to a modular scheme, which determined the layout of the units. An armored cab is installed at the front of the chassis, the engine casing is located behind it, and the middle and stern of the chassis are dedicated to installing a module for transporting people or goods. According to reports, during the design, some elements of the modules received a new design. Thus, some prototypes of the machine had a fully separated cockpit and amphibious compartment, while others had a passage to move between the modules.

The armored hull of the KamAZ-63968 machine is made of metal and ceramic elements and initially conforms to the 4 level of protection according to the STANAG 4569 standard. Protection from bullets caliber 14,5 mm was provided. The machine is equipped with bulletproof glass with a thickness of 128 mm, capable of withstanding two shots with such bullets at distances between points of contact of at least 300 mm. Later it was decided to abandon such a powerful protection in order to facilitate the machine. Late version of the project involves the use of armor 3 level according to NATO standard, which protects against armor-piercing incendiary rifle bullets of caliber 7,62 mm.



Also, the armored car protects the crew from fragments of artillery shells. It is known that during recent tests 152-mm high-explosive fragmentation projectiles were exploded at various distances from the prototype. The machine successfully coped with fragments flying from a distance of 25 m. Later, several more explosions were carried out at a shorter distance. At the same time, even at a distance of 2 m, the fragments, damaging the ceramic elements of the reservation, could not damage the landing party, which was imitated by special dummies.

Special mounted mats have been developed to protect the armored car from reactive anti-tank grenades. These products are proposed to be hung on the armored case with the help of special belts or overlay elements with textile fasteners (“stickies”). Due to their design, mats interfere with the correct formation of a cumulative jet, due to which the probability of hitting the machine is significantly reduced.

The KamAZ-63968 armored car is equipped with a special V-shaped "anti-mine" chassis designed to divert the blast wave to the side of the habitable volume. During the tests last year, the Typhoon armored car was tested by undermining 6 kg of TNT under the front and rear wheels, as well as under the hull bottom. In all cases, the car was damaged, but did not allow an explosive device to damage the "crew" in the form of dummies. An important feature of the used mine is the fact that the crew members who are in the front cabin, despite the bonded layout, remain intact.





In the cockpit there are three places for the crew (on some prototypes - two, due to the presence of a passage in the landing compartment). All the middle and aft hulls in the basic configuration are given for the placement of the module with seats for the landing. Along the sides of the troop compartment are installed 16 seats, absorbing part of the energy of the explosion under the wheel or bottom. On the sides there are two armored glass, there are communication systems with the cabin.

Boarding and disembarking from the cabin is carried out through two side doors. There is an additional sunroof. The landing module is equipped with a large aft ramp, lowered and lifted by means of hydraulics. On the lowering of the ramp requires about 8 with, on the rise - 20 with. If necessary, the landing can use a swing door with mechanical locks mounted in the ramp panel. In the roof of the landing compartment there are hatches.

At the request of the customer, the KAMAZ-63968 armored car can be equipped with a combat module. The capabilities of the machine allow you to mount and use systems with machine guns of various models. It is envisaged that the Typhoon armored car will be equipped with a remote-controlled combat module that allows the operator to monitor and attack targets while being protected by the hull.

To facilitate the control of the machine in the project "Typhoon" provides for the use of combat information and control system (BIUS) "Gals-D1M." This system collects information about the mode of operation of the engine, the condition of the track and the parameters of the machine, and also controls the operation of various units. In order to provide the best possible overview, the KAMAZ-63968 armored car is equipped with a set of video cameras, the signal from which is transmitted to the dashboard monitors.


Armored cars "Typhoon" in the assembly shop


The curb weight of the KAMAZ-63968 armored car exceeds 18,5 t. The gross weight is at least 22,5 t. The total length of the vehicle is 8,2 m, width is 2,52 m, height is 2,93 m. On the highway, the car can reach speeds up to 105 km / h. Cruising range - 630 km. Thanks to two controlled axes, the turning radius does not exceed 10 m.

From 2010 to the present, KamAZ has been testing several prototypes of advanced technology. According to the results of test runs at the test sites, some shortcomings of the earlier versions of the project were corrected. In the fall of 2014, tests of applied ballistic and mine protection began. For the first time in domestic practice, special mannequins equipped with a sensor system were used to assess damage to the car and damage to the crew. During tests on the prototype was made more than 200 shots from different angles. At the same time, the loads and effects on mechanical “testers” remained within the normal range, without threatening the health and life of the crew.




At the end of December last year, the troops of the Southern Military District were transferred 30 armored vehicles "Typhoon". This technique was built for the purpose of conducting trial operation in the line units. In mid-January, 2015 of the Southern Military District received another two dozen new armored vehicles. Thus, the 50 armored vehicles of the new model were put into trial operation. The reason for the separation of the ordered machines into two batches was some improvements that had to be carried out after the next test phase.

The beginning of state tests of the KAMAZ-63968 armored car is scheduled for this January. In accordance with the current plans, new machines must pass the entire test cycle by September, confirming the declared characteristics and customer compliance. If the machine passes the test without any complaints, then full-scale production and supply of serial equipment may begin as early as next year.


On the materials of the sites:
http://itar-tass.com/
http://vz.ru/
http://русская-сила.рф/
http://twower.livejournal.com/
http://bmpd.livejournal.com/
Tests KAMAZ-63968



39 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +12
    2 February 2015 06: 40
    For transportation is much better than tarpaulins. It is interesting how many cars they plan to buy for the aircraft and the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
    1. +4
      2 February 2015 07: 49
      It will still be better than the homemade armor that was used in Chechnya when armor sheets were welded onto the body of a Ural from damaged vehicles.
      1. +3
        2 February 2015 11: 26
        A good base for any special equipment: communications, electronic warfare, engineers, chemists, doctors, etc. for any unit that may be subjected to art strike.
        1. +1
          3 February 2015 01: 06
          A good base for this technique
          http://www.vitalykuzmin.net/?q=node/316
          But Typhoon, if not cool, the machine is narrowly targeted, it does not belong in the linear parts.
          1. +1
            5 February 2015 01: 27
            A little Wolf for linear parts, do not you think?
    2. +1
      2 February 2015 16: 20
      Igor39
      For transportation is much better than tarpaulins. It is interesting how many cars they plan to buy for the aircraft and the Ministry of Internal Affairs.


      Nothing for the Ministry of Internal Affairs, for the army an installation party of 30 units (some have already been seen at the victory parade)
  2. +6
    2 February 2015 07: 08
    Only ALL accessories should be OWN!
    No import, enough that Typhoon
    It became known that the armored car, called the Typhoon, will not be adopted by the Russian army. This is a military vehicle created on the basis of the KamAZ-53949 car. The reason that the Ministry of Defense decided to abandon the Typhoon is due to the fact that a large number of foreign components are needed to assemble this type of equipment. Anti-Russian sanctions do not allow the purchase of such components from Western companies.
    http://topwar.ru/65770-antirossiyskie-sankcii-vskryli-slabye-mesta-tayfunenka.ht
    ml # comment-id-3844719
    1. +1
      2 February 2015 13: 05
      Well, firstly, everything is murky regarding the Typhoon, according to assurances from a plant worker in an interview - different structures still want it, but each demands that it be tailored to their own conditions. Secondly, all Typhoons have foreign components, more or less the same, and within 2-3 years they will switch to their own (regarding the bulletproof wheels, they even managed to resolve all the issues with which).
  3. -13
    2 February 2015 07: 58
    Car for pure police functions! That is, not for war, but for restoring order and forcing peace !!! In light of the recent renaming, there is something to ponder!
    1. +7
      2 February 2015 09: 45
      with such logic, all armored personnel carriers "for purely police functions"
    2. +3
      2 February 2015 13: 33
      There are a lot of minuses, but not very counterarguments
      Quote: fktrcfylhn61
      Car for pure police functions

      We have long been honored with this

      The armored water-jet special vehicle "Avalanche-Uragan (Ural-532362)" is a technical means of supporting special police units and is designed to restore order during mass illegal actions.

      In vain, they did not use the brain drain from South Africa at one time, they have huge experience in this direction
      was
      1. +1
        2 February 2015 19: 50
        Quote: Denis
        In vain, they did not use the brain drain from South Africa at one time, they have huge experience in this direction
        was

        but Anglo-Saxons bought not only specialists, but also entire corporations (BAE Systems Land Systems South Africa))
        but, it's never too late...to start a close partnership with independent companies from South Africa and Namibia...there will definitely be no embargo on their part!!!
  4. -13
    2 February 2015 08: 00
    Not an unambiguous car.
    For example, what will happen to the glass after the turn from the machine. Bullets will not break through, but the transparency will be lost. By the cameras, steering is also not known as dust, dirt. Again, landing on the ramp is good, but back on fast it looks like. The doors could be made on different sides That would be a car pokryryvatsya.Mesta in the "cabin" is not a lot if you take a landing with a load it will be cramped. In the cockpit, the suicide bombers are still sitting because they have to get out of the car through the doors under fire. Again, there are no weapons, such as the module will be installed at a height of 3 meters (the module is on top), it may turn out to be more than 4 meters, not all railway crossings will pass. The loss of one wheel and no one is going anywhere, the armored personnel carrier can move without one wheel.
    This is so offhand, and if you also dig around.
    Interestingly, did such tests with armored personnel carriers be carried out?
    1. +14
      2 February 2015 08: 59
      The machine is precisely designed better than its predecessors, as a replacement for the Ural and Kamaz trucks, or for their joint use. No one says that Typhoon is a replacement tank !!! Do not drive the snowstorm.
      1. +1
        2 February 2015 10: 07
        Quote: exiv200gt
        The machine is precisely designed better than its predecessors, as a replacement for the Ural and Kamaz trucks, or for their joint use. No one says that Typhoon is a replacement tank !!! Do not drive the snowstorm.

        Replacement for what? Kamaz and the Urals have a lot of targeted cars. And you can put trucks and tugs, landing, and a zsu. But we drove 50 snouts in the Urals, but there are 20 without cargo. We have to compare it with an armored personnel carrier, not a truck.
        1. +4
          2 February 2015 12: 12
          Those. in your opinion it is better to bring 50 soldiers in the Urals with a tarpaulin awning to the firing line than 2 armored typhoons? How many in a real mess will they reach and where will the guys stay more intimately ???
          1. 0
            2 February 2015 13: 56
            And will you go eat potatoes to the warehouse on it? And attach a gun to it? And cross the river on it. And will you transfer all the material assets of your unit to the typhoon?
            Typhoon is basically an ordinary truck. It will not replace the usual equipment, it will not replace the armored personnel carrier. Just another toy for the big headstock.
            The BTR Rostock, for example, has a V-shaped bottom, a clearance of 51 cm and 7 tons more armor than the BTR-80, inside the BTR there is an anti-fragment coating. This is a landing version of the BTR Rostock. I think it is not bad at all. And plus to everything else it is armed.
            Why he was buried is another question.
            1. +4
              2 February 2015 19: 18
              Quote: Alexey M
              Why he was buried is another question.

              not ergonomic input-output ...

              the photo you provided...it's not a BTR-90...but an IVECO SUPER AV 4 x 4 MPV with mine-resistant seats



              https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=285537
            2. 0
              27 August 2021 15: 28
              It's been 6 years since this nonsense was written, but I can't resist.

              Man, where did you get the idea that the Typhoon was supposed to replace all the types of equipment you listed ??? Where did you get that on the Typhoon were to carry potatoes to the unit ??? Where did you get that on the Typhoon to swim on the rivers ???

              This is a MRAP, not an on-board truck, not an armored personnel carrier, not an infantry fighting vehicle, not a BMD, not a boat, not a tank, not an ACS, not an airplane, not a helicopter, not a spaceship, not a starship, THIS IS a MRAP!
        2. +1
          2 February 2015 12: 36
          20 pax with BC, but intact to the point delivered. The column is with a combat cover.
    2. recruit6666
      -14
      2 February 2015 09: 08
      Smiled about the glass. It is cheaper to replace conscripts than armored glass.
    3. +6
      2 February 2015 09: 46
      Quote: Alexey M
      There is not a lot of space in the "cabin" if you take a landing with a load, it will be cramped

      In the APC it seems to me cramped.
      1. 0
        2 February 2015 10: 36
        And in terms of dimensions they figured out? Moreover, the BTR is a full-fledged combat unit, and not an overgrowth truck. So where to use this car? In the armed forces to transport personnel to and from the shooting range or in combat operations?
        We need a new full-fledged armored car which we have not had for 30 years. And all MRAPs are specific cars.
        Let's take and design a normal armored car with modern achievements, and then compare it.
        1. +3
          2 February 2015 13: 09
          To begin with, an armored personnel carrier is an armored personnel carrier, and MPAP is an MPAP, different niches, different opportunities, if you start gluing MPAP from an APC, it will turn out a) either as healthy or extremely ineffective. b) dear. Or is it better to continue to drive through all sorts of Afghans and Chechnya to the Tigers with protection from 200g of explosives under the bottom, and armored personnel carriers, which even without armor breaks, undermine the IEDs, maim personnel?
          1. -3
            2 February 2015 13: 36
            The possibilities are different, the purpose is the same. Why are MRIs needed? Transportation of personnel, patrols. Why do I need armored personnel carriers, probably for the same.
            And do not compare the Tiger with Mrap, compare with Hamer.
            And RPG is like punching that typhoon, that armored personnel carrier, that tank.
            But you won’t make a full-fledged combat unit from a truck. Here you need an armored cockpit on army trucks, modular armored kungs of all kinds, like medical, communications, etc. are needed. But why make an armored car out of a truck?
            1. +5
              2 February 2015 13: 53
              1.MRAP is the transportation of personnel in low-intensity conflicts, when there is no front line as such, an armored personnel carrier is a transport of personnel to this very front line in the classical war on the English Channel, so it comes?
              2. There is no comparison between the Tiger and the MRAP; there is a fact that the Tigers and the Urals are engaged in transporting personnel in Chechnya and Dagestan, although Scorpions and Typhoons are needed.
              3. You probably have no idea what RPG is.
              4. No one from MRAP makes a tank, it has everything that is required by the technical specifications. And your kungs from the first landmine will fly together with the crew to conquer the nearest expanses with an obvious result, not to mention the driver's protection.
              1. 0
                2 February 2015 14: 29
                1. Dear ourselves, it’s contradictory. The main function of the MRAPs and armored personnel carriers is the transportation of personnel in the combat zone. And what intensity they are no longer important. And yes, we will be on the shores of Lamanche and load OUR BANNER on the Trimphal Arch.
                2. A tiger is just a copy of a hamera, almost a copy. With the same diseases.
                3.And what RPG disdain Typhoon?
                4. No one spoke about the tank, but a turret with a machine gun and an automatic grenade launcher would not be bad. And then you get a full-fledged combat unit, not an armored bus. In the meantime, you have to harness an armored trooper with super duper typhoons. And about booking Kunga again contradict yourself, then give you the armored KamAZ, then you deny the elementary bulletproof protection. Why? Yes, it may not save you from a landmine, but it may save you from a subsequent shelling, because there are more than one car in the convoy.
                1. +3
                  2 February 2015 15: 17
                  1. Just a facepalm, just explained the differences between the assignments of MRAPs and armored personnel carriers and again they threw everything in a heap. If the lives of soldiers are not important to you, this is your problem, but thank God they are slowly being removed from the Ministry of Defense. Afghan, Chechnya and Iraq have already shown how "the intensity of the conflict is not important."
                  2. Are you listening to me or are you talking to yourself? MRIs are needed in Chechnya and Dagestan for transporting personnel, and instead of them there are all kinds of Tigers, and the Urals with Motovozov, in which even from 2 kg of IEDs the personnel of the neck turn around and break their legs.
                  3. Once again - you do not understand what an RPG is. a) Hitting a target moving at 50 km/h is not the easiest task even for a trained fighter, not to mention our bearded friends, whose entire experience is in "shooting at targets in the woods". Not to mention arming the charge, which the bearded men often forget about, which ultimately results in "charges that crash into the armor and do not work". b) An RPG does not provide 100% behind-the-armor damage, even tanks sometimes left under their own power after 3 penetrations and went back into battle after field repairs, and tanks have a much higher layout density. c) Special anti-cumulative mats are installed on Typhoons especially for such smart guys.
                  4. The combat module goes separately at the request of the Moscow Region, disputes are ongoing, the Moscow Region did not register a module in the TTZ and they want Typhoons with BM for the same price, but the plant doesn’t want to. Most likely BM will be assigned to single-volume Typhoons, respectively, with an increase in the price of the car.
                  5. Do you even understand what you are comparing? Mrap and some Ural / KAMAZ / Uralaz with kung! They are simply in different weight categories! Your Urals with a kung have insufficient driver protection, no mine protection, no WMD protection, a combat module cannot be delivered, and I haven’t touched upon ergonomics, which is simply incomparable.
                  1. -1
                    2 February 2015 16: 34
                    1. Specifically, what you are not comfortable with the BTR Rostock. A ready-made unified chassis, with all the protection and weapons. And you don’t need to sculpt anything. And the plant is there and the staff. And everything went through tests. And you don’t have to write about people. We are on the technical side with you we consider mraps and armored personnel carriers. And we compare what is better about the lobbying Typhoon or armored personnel carriers.
                    2. The purpose of armored personnel carriers and mrap are the same, the execution is different. If you put in the troops a new good armored personnel carrier with anti-mine protection and other stray. Armored personnel carriers will definitely be better than mrap.
                    3. We demolish the first car and the last one on your mine. The hosh from the grenade launcher, the hosh from the cord there is no difference. The typhoon has 6 wheels losing one and the car doesn’t go alone and the door is behind. That is, you climb out under enemy fire in any the situation, even with the right, even with the left. Continue to write? Hoping that someone will not cock something is not smart.
                    4. The typhoon’s height is 3 meters. We’ll install the module. On the roof, it means plus another meter or more. It will lie down. The height of the vehicle is 4 m. It will be removed. And if it is removed, how will it be inside?
                    5. I do not compare KAMAZ and Urals with mrap. I indicate that it would not be bad to book cabins and kungs where people can be located. This will save at least from small caliber and fragments.
                    1. +2
                      2 February 2015 17: 13
                      1. a) From a floating armored personnel carrier, horseradish MPAP, this is an axiom, there protection is not more than 2 kg under the bottom. b) an uncomfortable exit c) The Rostock has never a unified chassis, it's just an armored personnel carrier. d) once again go upstairs and read what MRAPS are for, and why APCs.
                      2. A different purpose, if it has not yet reached you. Well, again, look at the first paragraph.
                      3. Should I explain to you for the third time? MRAP is not for crawling through the mountains as part of motorized infantry and tank brigades, it is for transporting infantry from point A to point B when conducting a mine war ala Iraq. And yet, yes, your armored personnel carrier after 6-8kg of trinitrotoluene will not go anywhere, not to mention the dead crew. Typhoon 3 doors (one-volume variant for personnel transportation), plus hatches on the roof and on the sides of the loophole. A single-volume Typhoon will not take a cord. And most importantly, the MRAP was created not for integrity after the detonation, but to save the life of the personnel of the vehicle, which in armored personnel carriers and even more so BMP-shkah is too easily sent to feed the worms when detonated on an IED. And there is no need to come up with initially hopeless situations ala "and he, and he is making his way with a tank BOPS!" In order to show that MRAPs are not needed. They are needed, believe the person whose father Afgan passed.
                      4. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/Kamaz_Typhoon.jpg the module is removed during transportation, plus an adjustable clearance. As I said, low MCI is a bad MCI, this is an axiom of what to do, each type of machine has its disadvantages.
                      5. No, you are exactly comparing, indicating that instead of MRAPs it is better to put armored kungs in the Urals, but this is not an option and I have already indicated why.
                      1. +1
                        2 February 2015 18: 14
                        Let's start from the end.
                        Re-read paragraph 5.
                        Do you need to remove the module while driving on the railway crossing?
                        I want to explain to you that we are not so rich to introduce such a variety of techniques. Better a good combat unit with weapons than an armored bus. And how can you explain the mine protection on a sprout, for example, worse than on a typhoon. If it doesn’t swim after the blast, well, the crew is safe But after the bombing under the driver’s cab, a kilogram mine of 8-10 is not yet known what will happen. As if the engine and the crew had not left. Why do you compare the typhoon with what it was 30 years ago. You don’t take into account modern developments.
                        A photo by the way about not unifying the sprout.
                      2. 0
                        2 February 2015 18: 23
                        The argument of the Knower, with a player in the World of Tanks ... what can I prove if a virtual hero tells a tale about the inability to get from an RPG by car at a speed of 50 km ...
                        A person does not understand what he is writing about ..
                      3. +2
                        2 February 2015 19: 42
                        You can immediately see the one who knew that the weapon was not in the hands. Have you tried to get at least a hundred meters from the VSS into a moving object, not even 50km / h, but simply not standing still? And now increase your lead time by three times, and your persistence by 5 times, get an RPG. Or do we again not understand the difference and confuse the ATGMs and the RPGs?
                      4. 0
                        2 February 2015 20: 33
                        Son, I’m in my life from small arms, armed with the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, except that I didn’t shoot with a maxim ..
                        And if in your brains the use of weapons is like in Counter-Strike, you'd better be silent ..
                      5. +1
                        2 February 2015 20: 45
                        Your bravado about shooting with RPGs says absolutely the opposite.
                      6. +1
                        2 February 2015 19: 03
                        Unfortunately, the "Rostok" retained the 80k joint - a cramped troop compartment with an inconvenient exit ...
                      7. +3
                        2 February 2015 19: 40
                        a) Remove the module during transportation, imagine this is practiced with many types of equipment, the same Tigers (not the ones that SPM-2) had special transport tracks. If you do not have the opportunity to remove the BM before installing the machine on the railway platform, then you simply have nothing to install it on this platform.
                        b) The worst mine protection is explained very banal, less V-shaped bottom and lower ground clearance, this is indiscriminately poor protection of the bottom of the BTR-90 and the same miserable mine protection seats, although it is good that they are in the BTR.
                        c) The vehicle won't go anywhere after an explosion, let alone "float", you apparently don't understand what you're talking about, the same Typhoonenok in the version that is being considered for the Marines, according to the most optimistic forecasts of the factory workers themselves, has the maximum possible anti-mine protection - 2 kg under the bottom.
                        d) The typhoon calmly holds 8kg under the wheel in a single-volume version https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/15599/94845085.ff/0_11bd37_df92571e_XL.jpg this photo is after undermining, your armored personnel carrier from this bookmark will pierce to the roof, and there can be no talk of a whole crew. And especially for you, I inform you that the engine in Typhoon-K is located behind the cabin, between the landing module and the driver’s cabin. Although your armored carrier even where the engine is located, nothing will help.
                        e) I compare with what you yourself want. Although in any case, from a floating low-clearance armored personnel carrier, you will never do a normal MCI. And what about unification, replacing a combat module is not modularity. The tower of even the T-72 is changing.
                      8. +1
                        2 February 2015 18: 59
                        I'll add a little bit. Experience shows: if you put a cannon and put it on direct fire, be so kind as to cover it with armor so that at least the frontal projection of the RPG would hold .... Again, experience shows - you put the gun down - you take up space. The larger the gun, the less space for the landing ... And for the armor ... So it turns out that the modern armored personnel carrier is not able to carry people, not really support them in battle. To correct this, they came up with "Typhoon"
                      9. +1
                        2 February 2015 19: 11
                        Who told you that an APC should be within the reach of an RPG ???
                        Well, at least BUSV part 3 read, so as not to carry this nonsense ..
                      10. 0
                        2 February 2015 19: 46
                        You are so funny when you refer to all sorts of regulations. When was the last time the enemy fought according to the rules? According to the regulations? According to the norms that high-ranking officials came up with while sitting in their offices? I have already seen those who "shouldn't have", but no, they didn't have time to pack up their positions in 2 minutes and got two burnt-out MLRS along with their crews on the way out.
                      11. 0
                        2 February 2015 20: 24
                        Son ... I’m in sorrow .. you definitely messed up the reality of life and goblins from the compigre, which is exactly out of the charter, with a crowd of green idiots, rushing under your swords, of course the best, armored knights of Arkudain ..

                        If you, son, well, at least occasionally, thought, then you would not have carried the nonsense here that comes from you again and again ..

                        The MLRS battery that DOES NOT FULFILL THE REGULATION prescribed in the Battle Charter is the fault of the battery commander that he didn’t teach anything, but sat at lectures and picked his nose or shot goblins in an iPhone ..

                        At least when you write something, you understand what you write about, so as not to look so pale ..
                        http://compancommand.3dn.ru/literatura/Ognevaja/KPA_93.pdf
                        Learn when you study, write.
                      12. +2
                        2 February 2015 20: 30
                        Apparently you never got it, "shouldn't" and "won't" are different things. Those two cars, too, "should not" get hit by fire, but they got hit because of their own sluggishness, which I did not deny, if you do not understand. But armored personnel carriers, too, should not come under fire from RPGs, ATGMs or even autocannons, but they do and do get in with enviable regularity.
                      13. 0
                        2 February 2015 20: 37
                        ONCE AGAIN and spelling, if the situation dictates, you will fight and contrary to the norms of the CHARTER, because every pro in his business knows, the CHARTER is not a DOGMA, but a guide to action.

                        BUT any intentional violation of the Battle or other Charter, which occurred due to complete ignorance of the above, is already called otherwise, CRIME and entails the death of people, damage to equipment.

                        Play less compigers ..
                      14. 0
                        2 February 2015 20: 49
                        Only now, these "crimes" occur too often due to oversight, sloppiness, lack of technology or the peculiarities of the theater itself, so that your "armored personnel carrier should not come into contact with RPGs according to the charter" do not roll. Although, of course, the person who demands the protection of the APC from the RPG is clearly not himself. But the "bylaws shouldn't" argument in such a dispute has little support.
                      15. +1
                        3 February 2015 22: 26
                        Dear you corresponded all night?
                      16. +1
                        2 February 2015 21: 36
                        Quote: vladkavkaz
                        Who told you that an APC should be within the reach of an RPG ???
                        Well, at least BUSV part 3 read, so as not to carry this nonsense ..
                        It shouldn't be there, but if it has a heavy machine gun, it will definitely be there... Because if the mountain doesn't come to Mohammed, then Mohammed will definitely come to the mountain. In other words, if the vehicle has a cannon, it will definitely be put on direct fire, and it will cause a lot of trouble for someone... and it will definitely be brought down, smashed and simply destroyed with all available means. And if it's a TRANSPORTER, does it need it? Maybe it's better to have 2 devices - one carries the infantry, and the other covers it with a cannon and supports it in every possible way?
                      17. 0
                        2 February 2015 22: 06
                        Given the mixed structure of SMEs, the BTR80 company, the BMP-2 company, with the double-armed structure attached to the TR, the 82 mm minbat and the 120 mm battery, is defending the fortified area, in the foothills, the task is to prevent the enemy from breaking through two roads passing miom two villages.
                        As a result of inactivity and violation of the order by the company commander on the BMP regarding the RPO engineering equipment, the BMP 2 was defeated by launching an ATGM with the calculation of bandit formation from a distance of 800 m. The defeat on the right side of the BMP was slightly lower than the exhaust device, the side was not broken due to the boxes hung from the sides under ammunition with the ground, but concave inward by five cm. One is killed, three soldiers are wounded.
                        The neighboring company, the launches of ATGMs, there were no injuries, the cars were covered in caponiers with masks excluding direct observation of equipment.
                        Do you think there is a direct violation here, A) of the requirements of BUSW
                        B) What is either the unreliability of BB and T, or is there a direct negligence of one company and the fulfillment of the requirements of the BUSW of the other?
                        The states of MCP do not provide for a truck; all the state-owned transportation equipment is in the platoon of SME support.

                        In total, if there is a KPVT installed on an APC, any commander decides to use the equipment in such a way that A) inflicts losses on the enemy, B) preserves his equipment without introducing it into the radius of destruction of light anti-tank weapons, see BUSV, p3 and 2, everything is spelled out and chewed there, and if it is used as often happens, an armored personnel carrier as a tank, then we have burnt vehicles that, under different conditions, would provide fire support to the infantry, inflicting losses on the enemy.
                        TACTICS must be taught, not verbiage dealt with.
                    2. +2
                      2 February 2015 18: 50
                      What have you done with your armored personnel carrier? Typhoon from the family of armored vehicles is intended for transportation of personnel, as well as for the installation of various target equipment or weapons systems. On its basis, you can create communication vehicles, mobile artillery systems, truck cranes, transport and launch vehicles of unmanned aerial vehicles, tow trucks, excavators and other modifications. The family will serve as a single unified platform for the "light" brigades of the Ground Forces.
                      And if you need an armored personnel carrier, then KAMAZ-63969 is on the same base.
                      An armored personnel carrier with a 6x6 wheel arrangement and a remotely controlled cannon is designed to accommodate 2 crew members and 10 paratroopers.

                      All cars of the family are unified by engines (YaMZ-536), information management system, mine protection and suspension. On all vehicles for the transportation of personnel, the installation of a remotely controlled machine gun module is possible. Combined armor protection (ceramics and steel), as well as bulletproof glass, provide circular protection according to the fourth level of the STANAG 4569 standard (14,5 mm B-32 armor-piercing bullets). Mine protection of vehicles is provided by a V-shaped bottom that absorbs the energy of explosion by the seats and corresponds to level 3b in accordance with STANAG 4569 (explosive device up to 8 kg in TNT equivalent). Roofs of cars have hatches for emergency evacuation of personnel in the event of a rollover. Video cameras are installed around the perimeter of the armored vehicles, which allows you to monitor the situation without leaving the transport module, as well as control the armored vehicle if it is impossible to use the windshield. The inhabited space on all machines is hermetically sealed, with artificially maintained overpressure, the filtration of the incoming air is ensured by the installation of the FVU-100. All machines of the family can be performed in three-axis or four-axis versions.
                    3. +2
                      2 February 2015 18: 57
                      No one disputes that Rostock is a good machine, but they refused it because of the first thousand armored personnel carriers of 80 standing in service and secondly, the army now needs unified platforms, for infantry vehicles, armored personnel carriers and so on is Typhoon, for heavier and more powerful types of weapons it is Armata. What is not clear?
                      Maintaining and producing vehicles on the same nodes and platforms is much more profitable and faster than recruiting a ton of different vehicles into the troops.
                      1. 0
                        2 February 2015 19: 30
                        Let me disagree.
                        BTR-80, this is a middle class car, BTR-90, a heavy class car in the wheeled BTR family.
                        And what is a Typhoon? An armored car. What is its purpose? Transportation, infantry, specialists, to the place of use, without contact with the enemy, that's all, that's what its functions are exhausted.
                        Application for example of BTR80 in the mountains of Sevkavkaz showed that it is better to have two MTLB units, with towers from the BTR, than to lose the BTR in catastrophe accidents before the battle.
                        The same thing in comparison with BMP, against MTLB in the same place where MTLB goes, BMP2 does not go there, fact.
                        so there is no need to talk about the versatility of this Typhoon, an armored car and nothing more.
                        The difference between an armored car and an armored personnel carrier lies in its purpose. An armored personnel carrier is a car that is designed to transport infantry directly to the battlefield, where it was possible for the enemy to fire at the vehicle. An armored car, in turn, is an ideal vehicle for detecting and also defeating enemy troops with a fire attack from onboard weapons. Some armored vehicles do not have an airborne squad and cannot transport infantry, although modern vehicles are equipped with such squads and are partly armored personnel carriers and do not have a clear classification.
                      2. 0
                        2 February 2015 19: 35
                        It’s easier and more economical to have such an average war
                        http://army-news.ru/2014/05/predstavleny-novye-broneavtomobili-toros-i-kolun/
                        Than to spend a lot of resources, time and money on TYPHONES ... which place in the troops, highly specialized and not widespread.
                      3. 0
                        2 February 2015 20: 36
                        And why is Toros and Cleaver better and more economical?
                      4. 0
                        2 February 2015 20: 51
                        Apparently a wretched engine, the same wretched ergonomics and the lack of sane anti-mine and bulletproof protection. Cheap and angry, ala USSR.
                      5. -1
                        2 February 2015 21: 07
                        Your wretched opinion is not interesting to me, a computer strategist who doesn’t understand the realities of war.
                      6. -2
                        2 February 2015 21: 24
                        Of course, as well as arguments that you do not have at all.
                      7. +1
                        2 February 2015 21: 06
                        I’m not saying that they are better or more economical, I’m just saying that there is such an opinion, the troops need equipment that is repairable on the battlefield, providing protective properties according to the tasks, using units and assemblies massively mastered in our production, NOT REQUIRING the continued presence of factory teams for repair and maintenance.
                        And these machines are just a variant of such a vision of the situation, and one that, in the event of war, could be deployed en masse at any more or less acceptable plant.
                        Do you imagine the mass production of TYPHOONS under the massive bombing of industrial centers where Typhoons are made? Or do you think that they are not subject to defeat?
                        Typhoon is good for highly specialized tasks, but as a mass machine in the troops, not suitable, EXPENSIVE too.
                        If you had any connection with the service, what would you choose as a company commander, TWO BTR-80A or two Typhoons? Conditions of use, attacking a group of infantry in a small grove with a couple of adobe buildings, for example.
                      8. +1
                        2 February 2015 21: 27
                        Have you already had experience working with Kolun and Typhoon? Or are these just empty words based on your own conjectures? And the plant operating during wartime is a joy, you continue to live by the doctrine of the USSR. In what bunker are you going to hide the plant from some Minuteman-3?
                      9. +2
                        2 February 2015 21: 46
                        It’s good that at the head of the country we’re not some kind of shooter player, but a person who voluntarily had to come to understand that the cries of frantic talkers screaming, that the equipment in the Army is redundant, that mobility plants are not needed and other such nonsense is already does not find any understanding and support.

                        Well, the full-time employee of the advertising department of the KAMAZ plant, which used to be supported during the time of the furniturefuhrer due to some business connections, is of little interest to me, learn it.
                      10. -2
                        2 February 2015 22: 38
                        Indeed, it’s good that literate people in the Moscow Region understand what is required to save the lives of soldiers, and do not blindly follow the path of preparation for TMV alone, clogging up all other types of conflicts.
                      11. 0
                        2 February 2015 22: 44
                        Who is literate ?? Is Sashka or Shevchenko? Ali his runner teryuhov?
                        Sit already ... connoisseur ...
                      12. 0
                        2 February 2015 23: 35
                        It does not matter, the main thing is that it is much more difficult to find such amateurs of personnel exchange, simply because it is "acceptable losses", like you.
                      13. 0
                        3 February 2015 01: 03
                        Introduce ardent, with a hot gaze, incoherent speech and lack of understanding of the issue of what it is about, shut up already ..
                        Play tin soldiers, this is your destination.
                      14. 0
                        3 February 2015 13: 32
                        More pathos, more, so your hollow bravado look even funnier.
                      15. 0
                        3 February 2015 23: 34
                        More stupidity, laughing is good for your health. Continue to go through the stages of conquering Arkudain in battles with goblins and armored trolls.
                      16. 0
                        3 February 2015 22: 31
                        To abandon the developed machine for the sake of what? What would then be more will develop? And not at the core enterprise.
            2. Vlad.by
              0
              3 February 2015 00: 14
              Excuse me, is a truck with an armored cab and a kung not an armored car? So it’s better to have Typhoon with integrated armor than the self-armored Ural.
              Of course, Typhoon is not for everyday exploitation in peacetime. Patrol cars for hot spots, along with the Tigers. BTR from the same opera, they would have to increase mine resistance - generally there would be no price.
      2. +2
        2 February 2015 18: 50
        Quote: Karabanov
        In the APC it seems to me cramped.

        and where are the belts, mounts for weapons ...

        80's South African MRAP Casspir MKII
        клик
    4. The comment was deleted.
  5. +1
    2 February 2015 09: 33
    who have problems understanding the purpose of such machines, then I advise you to read the series of articles "MRAP in Russian"
    http://topru.org/6243/mrap-po-russki-chast-3/
  6. 0
    2 February 2015 12: 19
    something like KAMAZ, which are preparing for the Dakar race good
    1. +1
      2 February 2015 12: 55
      apparently the experience of these races was also useful in the design and construction of this machine
  7. 0
    2 February 2015 12: 39
    It looks harsh!
  8. +2
    2 February 2015 13: 03
    The only jamb of "Typhoon", I'm afraid the price will be .... And without saturation of the troops - the effect of its use will not be the same. Therefore, my heart senses, "Typhoon" will go to the elite units, and the usual "solarium" will be dissected by "Feds". But this is IMHO. And God forbid, it would be the other way around.
    Well, I can not help but insert a malicious remark feel , about "only" 6 kg under the wheel .... I would like 12 ... hi .
    1. +3
      2 February 2015 15: 46
      And it was necessary to test 30 kg of TNT for an explosion - just the road mines are now such, but the fact that Typhoon’s armor no longer protects against 14,5 mm cartridges is regrettable.
      1. +1
        2 February 2015 19: 01
        30 kilos is an exit to near-earth orbit .... wink Let at least 12 provide ... Although if it grows together with 30 coy I will be extremely happy .... feel
  9. 0
    2 February 2015 15: 05
    What is this vehicle for? Transporting people in more or less protected conditions. Replacing an infantry fighting vehicle or an armored personnel carrier? I personally don't like our armored personnel carriers very much, but this is not the best option. If this were a vehicle with a load-bearing armored hull... But the frame design means increased weight, decreased stability, decreased armor, and increased cost. I wonder why they said that despite the cabover design, the crew remains alive after a mine detonation. But the layout, the cabin above the engine, in itself is a good protection for the crew from mines. After all, fragments need to pass through the front axle and through an engine weighing more than 1 ton. The only advantage of this KamAZ is the exit of soldiers from the rear. In general, the bonnet layout is more preferable, and still an armored truck is needed so that the military driver is protected when transporting goods.
    1. +3
      2 February 2015 16: 43
      Quote: Free Wind
      And why this car?

      Special vehicles ...

      Let’s, for example, calculate the need for these machines for the regular reaction division of a motorized rifle brigade. By placing cars on the list as the level of need for a sharp increase in security.

      - 4pcs KShM, one for the chief of staff of the division and 3 for senior officers of the batteries
      - 18pcs BM MLRS
      - 18pcs (or better 36 pcs, two each for BM MLRS) TZM
      - 4 vehicles for communication platoon control units.
      Total 44 (62) cars
      It is necessary. Now it is desirable:
      Convoy
      -1 PC. KTL
      -1 PC. coiler
      -18 pcs. ammunition transportation vehicles.

      You can’t reserve the technical equipment and the economic separation machines.
      1. +2
        2 February 2015 18: 12
        Quote: Spade
        By placing machines on the list as the need for a sharp increase is protected

        you need a multi-purpose modular chassis, with the wheel formula 4X4,6X6 ... AND LOAD CAPACITY FROM 2,5..5 AND 10 THAT TON ...
        on a single chassis, with bridges and a single engine, automatic transmission ...
        MLRS 127mm FV2 Bateleur on the chassis - Samil 100 10-tonn Truck (Kwêvoël)


        MRAP "Rinkhals" on Samil 50 chassis medical vehicle..


        Quote: Spade
        You can’t reserve the technical equipment and the economic separation machines.

        it is not even discussed ...
        1. +2
          2 February 2015 18: 32
          cosmos111
          TP machines, not to be booked or discussed .. well, I’m looking straight at the classics of the genre, action movies are crazy, amateurs wave their sabers .. but as soon as the car breaks down, immediately screech, where is technical assistance, where is the tech ...

          Well, repair yourself on the front end of your carriage without techies, pull it to the rear, on the SPPM, wash it, service it and hand it in for repair - doesn't it suit you?

          Ammunition transport vehicles, well, what stupid nonsense is that they are superfluous ??
          The Belarusians, on the basis of the MTLBU "Mule", carry three sets of ammunition in armor, to the unit, what are they stupid, what are they doing?
          And with us, remove the combat vehicle from the OP company, because of the sluggishness of the rear, drive it to the point of battle, drag it back under fire, where the machine is already needed for its intended purpose

          In this case, it would be better to keep quiet, at the expense of technical support machines, which supposedly do not need protection.
          For what clever man in this case were invented BREM-1, BTS, BREM-Ch, BREM-K?
          1. 0
            2 February 2015 19: 58
            Quote: vladkavkaz
            Well, repair yourself on the front end of your carriage without techies, pull it to the rear, on the SPPM, wash it, service it and hand it in for repair - doesn't it suit you?

            I agree with you, an armored cabin with mine protection is needed !!! ((meaning outside the combat zone)))
            how many of our drivers died because of this in Afghanistan and Chechnya, due to the lack of an armored armored car, a thousand ......

            Samile 50 4x4 cargo option
            1. +1
              2 February 2015 21: 09
              cosmos111 (
              Yes, something like that for support units (supply of fuels and lubricants, Products, Ammunition, supply of roadblocks).
  10. +1
    2 February 2015 16: 44
    Chet, I did not catch up! Will there be no protection from 14,5 for a car?
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. The comment was deleted.
        2. +2
          2 February 2015 21: 31
          Quote: vladkavkaz
          And to buy, at a frantic price, a clunker with dubious fighting qualities, there’s NO mass sense.

          like BTR-MRAP infantry transport, YES it makes no sense, you need a cheap vehicle ((armor-piercing armor-piercing 7,62x39 and mine protection)), on the nodes of serial cars ...
          and Russia has already created such an armored vehicle "Federal M" ...


          PS: just for information ... "Caspir MK II" MTO replacement, in 40 minutes ...

          maneuvers of the army of South Africa 2008 year: ALL ARMORED APPLIANCES DEFENSE !!!



          http://www.army.mil.za/exercises/2008/seboka_08.htm
          1. +1
            2 February 2015 21: 40
            cosmos111
            Yes, I agree.
            Need a simple, strong and reliable machine, URAL "Federal" http://www.yaplakal.com/forum3/topic937841.html meets this requirement.
            Just like a mass machine, let’s say so, yesterday it is very necessary in large quantities in the troops.
            It is important to note that the use of the Ural-4320 off-road vehicle chassis as the base of Federal-M provides the vehicle with high operational reliability and maintainability, as well as ease of crew training. In operation, the armored car practically does not differ from the usual Ural, and is unified with it in units and assemblies. The engine compartment booking design provides quick access to major engine systems for maintenance.

            http://www.yaplakal.com/forum3/topic937841.html
  11. MaHrycT
    +1
    2 February 2015 19: 42
    Quote: NEXUS
    something like KAMAZ, which are preparing for the Dakar race good

    Correctly! Why good disappear)
  12. +1
    3 February 2015 18: 48
    Most of the photos from the workshop pleased. And stop arguing which is better. Super universal technology does not exist.
  13. Jonyman
    0
    26 February 2015 11: 21
    Quote: roma-belij
    Most of the photos from the workshop pleased. And stop arguing which is better. Super universal technology does not exist.


    I ran through the topic and realized that there was a dispute not about what is better, but what is most applicable and meets one or another application and criteria.
    The technique is universal, but then again, in its narrowly specialized and highly specialized segments.
    But about this instance, I agree with vladkavkaz that it, in fact, is not for mass use, but for certain areas of activity, certain types of troops and military units, a specialized sample.
  14. The comment was deleted.