Military Review

"Boomerang": where did the best armored personnel carrier in the world go?

201
"Boomerang": where did the best armored personnel carrier in the world go?



The APC-7829 BTR based on the Boomerang medium wheeled platform became one of the 2015 world sensations of the year. For the first time in more than 55 years, we have created a fundamentally new wheeled armored vehicle for motorized infantry units, which has nothing in common with the BTR-60 / BTR-70 / BTR-80 / BTR-82 and BTR-90 family.

The year began for “Boomerang” very alarmingly. At the end of 2014, it was not clear from whose submission, information appeared in the media that these armored personnel carriers are not ready and therefore will not be able to take part in the May 9 Parade.

The Herald of Mordovia was one of the few publications that told the truth: Boomerang will still take part in the ceremonial passage through Red Square.

We then referred to the materials that were posted on the website zakupki.gov.ru, where the documentation was submitted on the electronic auction for the purchase of works on the technical supervision of Boomerang armored personnel carriers for the needs of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation in 2015.

As expected, 12 machines were supposed to take part in the jubilee events.

However, there was no certainty that we would see VPK-7829. A peculiar informational "oil to fire" was the publication in the bmpd blog respected by all who are interested in military topics: "The Boomerang program becomes a victim of sanctions." In addition to everything else, it was reported that "all three Boomerang prototypes built were stuck in Ireland, and their future prospects, like the entire contract, are unknown." This material has caused a great resonance in various publications, especially Ukrainian. In total, several dozens of materials appeared: from relatively neutral in form of supply - to joyous-stinging ones, where frank joy was not hidden due to the "total failure of this Russian program."

True, for some reason, no one who was delighted wanted to draw attention to the fact that the bmpd blog posted information ... April 1. For the most dull-witted, a message appeared that "this material, of course, is an April Fools' rally." But the majority of publications that took everything seriously did not give any refutations. They even missed, as they say, past the eyes and ears of the message, which appeared on April 3: VPK-7829, also known as Boomerang, despite all the negative predictions, takes part in rehearsals of the military parade, which take place in Alabino near Moscow. "Messenger of Mordovia" and wrote about it among the very first.



True, everyone then noticed that 4 machines took part in the rehearsals (three closed the passage of technology, one in reserve). Moreover, of all the new models involved, this BTR was the most “disguised” - only undercarriage elements were visible from under the tarpaulin.

Initially participating in rehearsals in Alabino "Boomerangs" were equipped with a combat module, armed with a machine gun caliber 12,7 mm. By the way, the illustration that appeared later on the website of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation showed the “Boomerang” precisely in the “machine-gun version”. But closer to the Parade, all 4 machines urgently received modules with 30-mm guns and the Kornet ATGM.

According to military experts, this re-equipment of the military-industrial complex-7829 indicates the modularity of the design and the high potential of this platform.



Gradually, during rehearsals, the military removed the covers of secrecy, and more and more construction details could be seen. Experts admired the modular booking, the presence of a well-designed stern ramp, a protected bottom.

It is worth noting that before the Boomerang appeared in the Moscow region, many of the amateur and professional artists tried to recreate the look of a promising machine, but they, as a rule, produced samples that were very similar to their Western counterparts. But the real "Boomerang" outwardly very different from foreign cars, and, for the better.

At the anniversary Parade with "Boomerangs" there were no problems. They were given the honorable duty to complete the passage of the mechanized column.

However, after the May premiere, the armored personnel carriers seemed to have disappeared. About them there was almost no open information on the forums and exhibitions of weapons. Only the corporate edition of OAO Plant of Corpuses (Vyksa, Nizhny Novgorod Region), the newspaper Bronya Otechestva, revealed some details of the creation of this combat vehicle.



It turns out that the development of the Boomerang production at this plant began in the 2013 year, and in July the first building was manufactured 2013.

At the beginning of 2014, Military Engineering Center LLC applied for an experimental industrial batch. As noted in the publication, the deadlines were tight - the last building had to be delivered in December 2014.

In early April, began preparations for the manufacture of "Boomerangs". To this end, a lot of work was carried out on the modernization and procurement of new equipment, including unique belt grinding and laser systems of increased power.

For the manufacture of an experimental industrial batch the most qualified specialists were involved. In the course of work on the product, many design issues arose, for the solution of which workers from the Military Engineering Center were invited.

As a result, the first building was manufactured in July, and the last - in October 2014, that is, the work was completed ahead of the prescribed time, with the required quality.



According to reports, work on this armored personnel carrier continues, and this year we will be able to get acquainted with this vehicle in more detail.
Author:
Originator:
http://vestnik-rm.ru/news-4-14803.htm
201 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. izya top
    izya top 24 January 2016 07: 09
    14
    all the best to our army team
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. remy
      remy 24 January 2016 10: 56
      -21 qualifying.
      by dream ....
      photo below - some sort of Amer’s selection of assault exoskeleton with local booking
      in our version "Ratnik" 6A + such a system is obtained "Explosive mixture"
      1. Stas57
        Stas57 24 January 2016 11: 57
        21
        if only we dream, at the same time google Project Stratum by Bjorn Hurri
        I would like more content on this resource than fantastic drawings with cyber dogs and busty youngsters.
        1. remy
          remy 24 January 2016 17: 27
          +8
          I just posted a photo without any advertising.
          but the warrior with exoskeleton elements will soon become a reality
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. Pilat2009
            Pilat2009 24 January 2016 20: 59
            +3
            Quote: remy
            but the warrior with exoskeleton elements will soon become a reality

            What batteries will you use?
            Until a portable nuclear reactor is developed, this is not feasible.
            1. Alexey1
              Alexey1 24 January 2016 23: 13
              +9
              At the first stage, an exoskeleton does not need batteries; it is necessary to maintain all that is hung on a person. Try to run, at least an hour, with 35 kg, this is still a little weight, or stand still, oh ... shit, back and not only this will start to buzz. There would be a skeleton, weighing no more than 5-7 kg maximum, on which all this would be supported, and the energy is you yourself, it would be much easier to move around. The whole problem of the exoskeleton is in ergonomics, so that it does not interfere with the movement in materials.
              1. Ivan Burygin
                Ivan Burygin 25 January 2016 20: 53
                +1
                What nonsense !!! Excuse me, but you yourself contradict yourself: you write about a skeleton of 5-7 kg, which drags a load of ~ 35 kg, and you see, it’s hard for you to drag them yourself. Great! But then explain who will drag ~ 40-42kg, taking into account the skeleton ??? You claim that you - but you also need to drag 35? Do not look at cheap action movies and fiction, you will be smarter ...
                PS And what you are discussing with such a smart mind is an unloading vest, not an exoskeleton. Here, yes, I completely agree, with the mathematical calculation of your physique + the latest materials - it will be easier.
                1. Alexey1
                  Alexey1 26 January 2016 19: 03
                  0
                  Have you tried to drag all this, even with unloading?
                  On guard, when you are standing only in a pea jacket, you are taking your shoulders. This is what I say from personal experience, and you’re fiction, science fiction. Try it yourself then we'll talk.
                  1. Ivan Burygin
                    Ivan Burygin 26 January 2016 21: 50
                    +2
                    And what? I tried it (only not 35kg), grinned my teeth, but alive. You somehow cleverly jumped off the topic. The conversation was about an exoskeleton without power, on muscular traction (yours). I explained to you on my fingers: look less cheap science fiction and action films, well, there are no such exoskeletons. You would at least get into the wiki before proving nonsense with foam at the mouth. There was one development, K2, it was even assembled 1 copy on the basis of a steel or titanium "ridge", carbon fiber reinforced plastic, dural bearings and nylon belts. Loading capacity is 50kg. The cost of manufacturing as an airplane is done individually! for each person. Now think - is it easier for the state to rivet unloading or take a measure from each soldier for K2? Therefore, they made it - like amer's muzzle stick in the mud, in the 1st copy. And in conclusion: any self-respecting warrior (not a conscript) ALWAYS his own uniform "for himself" jew's harp. And it doesn't matter: the standard remakes it to order or orders it somewhere (I'm on the topic: unloading with mat. Calculation for your figure and measuring the effort, or K2 for the price of 2 planes). And your thoughts "an exoskeleton on a muscular traction for every soldier" I repeat - nonsense. I hope you don’t have to chew that if you create an exoskeleton for food, it will be akin to armor and unloading - standardized?
            2. Nick
              Nick 21 May 2017 11: 35
              0
              Quote: Pilat2009
              What batteries will you use?

              Armor is the battery. Two in one, as an option.
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 25 January 2016 18: 15
          +3
          Quote: Stas57
          than fantastic drawings with cyber dogs and busty youngsters.

          Zagchim Vi tgavite oneme? laughing
      2. NordUral
        NordUral 25 January 2016 11: 05
        +2
        Great! I just don’t see a truck with a diesel power station nearby or a trolley with batteries. And so - the brilliance ...
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. Civil
      Civil 24 January 2016 19: 37
      -1
      No money ... that’s gone
      1. GRAY
        GRAY 24 January 2016 21: 00
        +6
        Quote: Civil
        No money ... that’s gone

        And the "Armata" disappeared ... and the T-16 BREM did not even take part in the parade ...
        Zrada, Zrada, Zrada crying tongue
    5. goblin xnumx
      goblin xnumx 26 January 2016 13: 23
      +2
      the question for the army team is such a whopper in real army combat how will it show itself, or is it still closer to police equipment?
      1. cast iron
        cast iron 26 January 2016 18: 57
        +2
        If she won’t try to replace the mines, then she’ll show herself very well.
  2. kugelblitz
    kugelblitz 24 January 2016 07: 32
    -70 qualifying.
    The VBCI Frenchman was obviously at the core, which is honestly very good, since he is many times better than Stryker and other Pirates with a heavy Boxer (they can’t swim). Even the Frenchman initially has MRAP elements in the design, as a plus. wassat

    But the main plus of our Boomerang is buoyancy!

    1. Professor
      Professor 24 January 2016 07: 58
      13
      Quote: kugelblitz
      The VBCI Frenchman was obviously at the core, which is honestly very good, since he is many times better than Stryker and other Pirates with a heavy Boxer (they can’t swim).

      What are you talking about? Piranha swims.
      1. kugelblitz
        kugelblitz 24 January 2016 08: 18
        -1
        Not all modifications are floating wassat
        1. Professor
          Professor 24 January 2016 08: 26
          +3
          Quote: kugelblitz
          Not all modifications are floating wassat

          And someone said that Piranha is not able to swim. wink
          1. kugelblitz
            kugelblitz 24 January 2016 08: 40
            -11 qualifying.
            I didn’t speak for everyone. This version can’t (and don’t say that it is Stryker) lol

            1. Bayonet
              Bayonet 24 January 2016 10: 04
              12
              Quote: kugelblitz
              (and don’t say it is Stryker)

              ?? Stryker to get upgrades Media The United States Army
              1. kugelblitz
                kugelblitz 24 January 2016 10: 07
                -8
                They are one of Piranha III

            2. Vlad.by
              Vlad.by 19 November 2016 15: 14
              0
              This one seems to be traveling on land with great difficulty
            3. yehat
              yehat 14 March 2017 10: 32
              0
              It seems that this version can ride with great difficulty
        2. Bayonet
          Bayonet 24 January 2016 10: 00
          17
          Quote: kugelblitz
          Not all modifications are floating

          Shaw, have some already drowned? wink
          1. kugelblitz
            kugelblitz 24 January 2016 10: 05
            +5
            Under the weight of fences and trophy Iraqi lace shorts. laughing
      2. max702
        max702 24 January 2016 11: 57
        32
        That is why the bourgeois always drive their equipment on the ads on asphalt and very combed off-road? And you will never see in real conditions, and then once again they come to bear democracy and it starts, there are no roads, it’s cold, and so on .. I’d like to look at Piranka and others in real off-road conditions .. I’m putting a video of our BTR-80 in the swamp he was stuck on the very sides BUT though he got out for a long time himself! What surprised me a lot ..
        1. shasherin.pavel
          shasherin.pavel 24 January 2016 15: 00
          20
          Well, firstly: he didn’t sit on the very sides, but sat on the bottom, several different situations, which you can get into only by youth and stupidity, and secondly, when all the bridges are leading, you need to unscrew the wheels of the first pair and cling to the edges of the track, lift the bottom from the ground. It is necessary to move back and forth with small rolls and in no case should the wheels be allowed to turn, then the wheel crushes the soil under itself, and does not throw it from front to back.
        2. yehat
          yehat April 10 2017 10: 04
          0
          and in what proportion is patency a merit of technology and mechanical drive?
    2. Sibbars
      Sibbars 24 January 2016 08: 01
      12

      No there is not what kind of French basis, you are mistaken.
      1. kugelblitz
        kugelblitz 24 January 2016 08: 24
        -2
        I’m not saying what exactly they took and measured with a ruler, but there are ideas.

        1. Bayonet
          Bayonet 24 January 2016 10: 10
          37
          Quote: kugelblitz
          I’m not saying what exactly they took and measured with a ruler, but there are ideas.

          When designing any machine, designers familiarize themselves with samples of similar equipment from other developers in order to take into account operating experience, take the best ideas and not repeat the identified errors and shortcomings. This is normal. hi
          1. kugelblitz
            kugelblitz 24 January 2016 10: 13
            16
            So here I am trying to convey to people about this lol
      2. Per se.
        Per se. 24 January 2016 20: 29
        +9
        Quote: SibBars
        No there is not what kind of French basis, you are mistaken.
        Where does the "Boomerang" have "ears" sticking out, this is how you look, despite the fact that the information is modest, but there were statements in the press.
        The French will help create an armored personnel carrier with an exit "through the back"
        Mass purchases of foreign military equipment for the needs of the Russian army are not planned, representatives of the Ministry of Defense said at the end of last week. But the joint development of new defense industry products seems to be outlined.
        Deputy Director General of Rosoboronexport Igor Sevastyanov said at the forum that a new infantry fighting vehicle is being developed jointly with France. And also the French offered to design a new Russian-French armored personnel carrier. What base the Russian-French BMP will have, which they promise to show in finished form in a couple of years, is not yet entirely clear. Perhaps it will look like a French wheeled armored vehicle VBCI, "Rossiyskaya Gazeta" writes.
        At the "Oboronexpo-2012" exhibition, which took place within the framework of the forum - another exhibition program was "Mashpromexpo-2012", the French showed the VBCI model. The characteristics of the armored vehicle are as follows: ballistic protection thanks to a body made of aluminum alloy with interconnected modular armor or Hard Kill type; protection against mines, land mines and homing missiles; "Invisible" function provided by special coatings; airmobility, maneuverability.
        Absolutely all Russian infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, especially deeply modernized ones, are built according to exactly the same principles, notes RG and expresses doubt that the French vehicle would have overcome the domestic model during comparative tests. However, the BTR-90 was rejected - for one simple reason: it has a rear engine compartment, which seems to contradict the world practice of designing combat vehicles for infantry, the newspaper writes. It is noteworthy that, according to experts, even a non-aimed automatic fire into the huge rear opening of the open ramp is guaranteed to destroy the entire landing - with direct hits and ricochets. But getting into the side doors of the BTR-80 or BTR-90 is almost impossible. But the decision has been made, and Russian designers are now designing new armored personnel carriers with an exit through the back, sums up "RG".
        publication time: July 2 2012

        http://www.newsru.com/russia/02jul2012/forum.html#3
        The entire appearance of the "Boomerang" is closer to the western models of armored personnel carriers than the Soviet armored school. How much better this monster is than the BTR-90 is a big question.
        1. aba
          aba 24 January 2016 23: 44
          +6
          The whole appearance of the "Boomerang" is closer to the western models of armored personnel carriers than the Soviet armored school.

          Yes, he is huge as a tank ?!
          1. shasherin.pavel
            shasherin.pavel 25 January 2016 09: 15
            +4
            Quote: aba
            like a tank ?!

            T-34 41 years 2.46 m in height, that is, it is not higher than the roof of the Boomer hull.
            1. cast iron
              cast iron 26 January 2016 19: 12
              +2
              The T-34 did not need to carry the compartment of soldiers inside, have positive buoyancy and protection from mines and IEDs of the MRAP level.
            2. yehat
              yehat 14 March 2017 10: 37
              0
              yes, but with the t3485 there’s just not a weakly armored tower at the top, and with the boomerang the whole hull is very high and the target size is really big
          2. cast iron
            cast iron 26 January 2016 19: 11
            +1
            In size, like a bus, well, or like a truck. I don’t see anything super huge.
        2. goblin xnumx
          goblin xnumx 25 January 2016 15: 14
          +1
          looking at the photo, for some reason a film about "delirium" came to mind - and the height and armor and a tower with a mallet and missiles - of course missiles to destroy enemy tanks :) - showed friends - the same motives evoke :) - capitalism is in Russia capitalism
          1. cast iron
            cast iron 26 January 2016 19: 13
            +2
            I do not defend the bourgeoisie, but the products of Soviet designers were VERY inconvenient for transporting soldiers. Something like this.
    3. Shadowcat
      Shadowcat 24 January 2016 08: 06
      29
      Sir, let's not say who took what from anyone. For that matter, the French VBCI is very similar to the BTR-90 ... etc. etc. You can carry on for a long time.
      "Externally, the car must be beautiful" (c) But it is important what is crammed inside and how it is made, as well as how the armor is made.
      1. kugelblitz
        kugelblitz 24 January 2016 08: 35
        -10 qualifying.
        I won’t be surprised if the aluminum case is welded at Boomerang. wassat

        And in general, if here people think, they say scolding developers for this, then just the opposite! They did everything right, figured the scheme the best foreign armored personnel carrier, creatively reworked (MTO scheme, mine defense, simple but very effective form of the hull), partially used BTR-90 units and got a prodigy at the output, and not huge, heavy freaks! lol
        1. Awaz
          Awaz 24 January 2016 09: 27
          +3
          duck seems to have initially officially recognized what is being done along with the paddling pools. Then they twitched and faded, but the construction remained.
          1. Bayonet
            Bayonet 24 January 2016 10: 16
            +1
            Quote: AwaZ
            duck seems to have initially officially recognized what is being done along with the paddling pools.

            The union of "quilted jackets" and "frogs" gave birth to the formidable "Boomerang" (and the name is closer to Australia) - it's cool! wassatJoke!
            1. kugelblitz
              kugelblitz 24 January 2016 10: 23
              +2
              Well, then the paddlers have always been able to do wheeled vehicles, although VBCI behaves ambiguously ...



              1. ZaRif
                ZaRif 26 January 2016 23: 43
                -1
                Some kind of "ugly" truck ...
            2. Bayonet
              Bayonet 25 January 2016 05: 41
              +3
              Quote: Bayonet
              The union of "quilted jackets" and "frogs" gave birth to the formidable "Boomerang"

              The reaction of the public to this phrase is completely incomprehensible! So many minuses, but for what ??? For "quilted jackets", "paddies", for their joint work at the beginning of the project, or even for the weapons of the aborigines - a boomerang ??? And mind you, I was not the one who introduced these idiotic nicknames on VO - "quilted jackets" (some even proudly called themselves that!), "Paddies", "macaroni", "mattresses". Is it from a great mind, high culture, or a bursting sense of false patriotism? request
              1. shasherin.pavel
                shasherin.pavel 25 January 2016 09: 19
                +2
                Quote: Bayonet
                "quilted jackets" (some even proudly called themselves that!),

                The padded jacket was copied for themselves by the peoples of many camps where it is cold in winter, since it is much cheaper and more affordable than fur coats or felt gowns in the desert.
              2. kugelblitz
                kugelblitz 25 January 2016 17: 52
                0
                C'mon, I set a record - 67 torn bunch @ new wassat This is not bmpd with its hardcore! laughing
                1. Bayonet
                  Bayonet 25 January 2016 21: 26
                  0
                  Quote: kugelblitz
                  C'mon, I set a record - 67 torn bunch @ new

                  I had more! Especially sausages dummies on the new moon! laughing
      2. Forest
        Forest 24 January 2016 13: 35
        +3
        The Frenchman from the BTR-90 is very different. See their layout.
        1. shasherin.pavel
          shasherin.pavel 24 January 2016 15: 06
          +4
          The T-34 is also strong from the T-V "Panther", but even the Germans did not hide that it was a copy of the T-34. And they licked the side clutches from our T-28.
          1. Forest
            Forest 24 January 2016 16: 02
            +9
            The Germans did not copy the Panther with the T-34, made decisions on the slopes of the armor and some on the MTO. So the general layout is taken from earlier German tanks. The second competitor for the Panther role was almost a copy of the T-34. MAN from PzIII and IV danced.
            1. shasherin.pavel
              shasherin.pavel 25 January 2016 09: 29
              +1
              Only the optimal angles of inclination of armor were developed by the Institute of Armor Alloys and long-term shelling of armor, delivered at various angles. Initially, the requirements for the new tank were: a V-2 diesel engine, Anti-cannon armor (also developed by the Institute of Armor) with tilt angles for the frontal and side sections, a 76 mm cannon with 30 calibers. The Germans took tilt angles without any institutes and experienced firing. If it's not copying, then what? Yes, the layout is different, but only because of the transmission in the frontal part of the tank, they paid for the height of the car. The panther could compete in height with the "Boomer", and surpassed all the fighting tanks up to 44 years old, except for the T-35.
              1. Forest
                Forest 25 January 2016 17: 17
                -1
                The Germans took the armor tilt from the calculation of protection against any 76-mm and 85-mm anti-aircraft guns. And they carried out shelling of different types of defense. Transmission in the frontal part does not affect the height of the tank - see other tanks.
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 25 January 2016 18: 23
                  +1
                  Quote: Forest
                  Transmission in the frontal part does not affect the height of the tank - see other tanks.
                  Affects:
                  The main drawback of such an arrangement, which is characteristic, of course, of the Panther, was to increase the overall height of the machine. The height of the floor of the fighting compartment above the bottom (at the Panther - 500 mm) was limited by the driveshaft, which passed at the level of the engine crankshaft.

                  Another factor affecting the height of the German tanks was the "forest" of torsion bars:
                  An increase in the height of the tank was also promoted by an unsuccessful solution to the suspension elements, in which the torsion bars located above the bottom occupied 213 mm of the hull height. Placing 32 torsion bars above the bottom precluded the possibility of useful use of the volume between them.

                  If the Germans hadn't been chasing the notorious "smoothness" and "ease of control", they would have received a tank with heavy armor (90 mm forehead, 75 mm side) and with a mass of 31-32 tons. What kind of tank are we talking about, PMSM, you understood. wink
                  1. cast iron
                    cast iron 26 January 2016 19: 18
                    0
                    90mm forehead and 75mm side with 32 tones - fantastic. Look at HF ​​and IP
                    1. Birdtalker
                      Birdtalker 13 February 2016 09: 57
                      0
                      I think it's about the T-54/55. Forehead 100, side 60-80. Weight 35 tons.
    4. Alekseev
      Alekseev 24 January 2016 09: 35
      15
      Quote: kugelblitz
      Clearly at the core was the VBCI Frenchman

      Amusing ...
      Is this a conclusion based on photos from magazines? laughing
      If you are already so informed about the "basics", please tell us which components and assemblies, technological processes are identical, or at least similar?
      So, chatter, sir ...
      And Boomerang, of course, will be brought to the service of the army and put into production.
      Firstly, because there are simply no other prototypes of wheeled armored personnel carriers (not to be confused with armored vehicles such as MRAP Typhoon-K and -U and other "tigers").
      Secondly, an armored personnel carrier, even an advanced one, is not PAK, and not Satan,
      and not even Armata. All technologies are available. yes
      1. kugelblitz
        kugelblitz 24 January 2016 09: 51
        +1
        On the basis of breaking information, as well as the layout demonstrated in Nizhny Tagil.

        1. GHOST29RUS
          GHOST29RUS 24 January 2016 17: 45
          11
          Quote: kugelblitz
          On the basis of breaking information, as well as the layout demonstrated in Nizhny Tagil.


          On your photo BMP "Atom", it has nothing to do with "Boomerang"
          1. yehat
            yehat April 10 2017 10: 07
            +1
            judging by the size, this is not an atom, but an organic molecule after the polymerization reaction
            some kind of fat
    5. dmi.pris
      dmi.pris 24 January 2016 09: 55
      +2
      Many armored personnel carriers in the world are similar to each other, but this does not mean that any design is taken as a basis .. It's like the "Schmeisser 1944 assault rifle" is a prototype of the AK47 - only the principle of operation of the automation is the same ..
      Quote: kugelblitz
      The VBCI Frenchman was obviously at the core, which is honestly very good, since he is many times better than Stryker and other Pirates with a heavy Boxer (they can’t swim). Even the Frenchman initially has MRAP elements in the design, as a plus. wassat

      But the main plus of our Boomerang is buoyancy!

      1. kugelblitz
        kugelblitz 24 January 2016 09: 58
        -1
        I will answer with a quote wassat

        Here is one more "nail of the salon" - a joint concept with the French of a heavy wheeled infantry fighting vehicle with a 57-mm machine gun produced by the Nizhny Novgorod Central Research Institute "Burevestnik". It's still a little far away from the real BMP, and the declared characteristics of the vehicle are vague, although not without interest. The car does not seem to have a name yet, but literally already in the course of the salon they put a plate with a name, but with the abbreviation ATOM.

        To put it mildly, there is not much new in the car. The base is the well-known French VBCI BMP. Only new is the domestic module with a 57-mm cannon, but how it will be brought to the declared characteristics, and how it will still take root on this chassis from the point of view of combat use, is clearly not the year 2013, but the subsequent ones.

        And so it’s quite a "africa tank" for export to third countries, especially if you think over a complex of weapons and make a whole family of machines on this base. But - clearly not news of the front pages. Although it turned out to create a sensation on the eve of the salon: the Internet, seeing a photograph of a mega-BMP brought to Nizhny Tagil, was alarmed, deciding that this was the notorious "Boomerang" - a promising wheeled platform for combat vehicles of the Russian army.


        Link http://vpk.name/news/97732_russia_arms_expo_2013_otgorodilas_sensaciyami_ot_novi
        nok.html
        1. Alf
          Alf 24 January 2016 10: 07
          0
          Quote: kugelblitz
          I will answer with a quote

          Here is one more "nail of the salon" - a concept of a heavy wheeled BMP joint with the French

          Actually, the Boomerang is an armored personnel carrier, but not an armored personnel carrier, but apparently you don't care.
          What did ours take from the Frenchman, tell me bluntly?
          1. kugelblitz
            kugelblitz 24 January 2016 10: 12
            +5
            Duc, Boomerang has two modifications, BTR and ... BMP wassat



            1. Ironax
              Ironax 24 January 2016 10: 32
              +5
              Admit already that is not the topic.
              1. kugelblitz
                kugelblitz 24 January 2016 10: 45
                +2
                Oha) just like that and "napeysal" - assembled from car sets wassat

                VBCI is a good car, with large reserves of modernization and enhanced protection, excellent geometric cross-country ability, low security. It’s not a sin to use experience, but of course already on their units. At least of the foreign ones, it is the best, even the German Boxer was not impressed because of the huge mass and monstrous overhangs.

                1. Shadowcat
                  Shadowcat 24 January 2016 16: 55
                  +1
                  Yes Yes. Tomorrow drive up to the office we will buy. There, look for an office with the sign Minister of Defense Serdyukov.
                2. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 25 January 2016 18: 47
                  +2
                  Quote: kugelblitz
                  It’s not a sin to use experience, but of course already on their units. At least of the foreign ones, it is the best, even the German Boxer was not impressed because of the huge mass and monstrous overhangs.

                  Ah, the grapes are green ...
                  Actually, most of all our people wanted to buy or study the "boxer". But the oaths of the sausages didn't let us do it. smile
          2. yehat
            yehat 14 March 2017 10: 50
            +1
            what's the point of arguing about terms? Is not a boomerang combat, not a car, and not for infantry?
            let's call it an armored bus for students from difficult regions, what will change from this? Or an amphibious armored boat.
      2. Olfred
        Olfred 24 January 2016 13: 03
        +3
        I agree ... for some reason it was the armored personnel carrier that confused him, and not the ships and planes tanks, because they are all the same too wassat
      3. shasherin.pavel
        shasherin.pavel 24 January 2016 15: 11
        +1
        Quote: dmi.pris
        only the principle of automation is the same ..

        What is it like? this is something new, if you count on the principle of removal of powder gases, then Hugo Schmeisser copied AWT and CBT. And everything else, these are completely different models.
    6. GRAY
      GRAY 24 January 2016 21: 20
      +2
      Quote: kugelblitz
      Clearly at the core was the VBCI Frenchman,

      If you look at any similar taratayka - so they are all the same.
      1. GRAY
        GRAY 24 January 2016 21: 23
        +7
        Here is the progenitor of ALL:
        laughing
        1. cast iron
          cast iron 26 January 2016 19: 25
          +1
          The progenitor of what? 8x8 transmissions? So, GAZ assembled 8x8 experimental trucks back in the 30s. The progenitor of the body? Sorry in the photo, the fig is not an armored personnel carrier and there was no more space in it than the average tank of that time.
    7. Red_Hamer
      Red_Hamer 25 January 2016 06: 45
      +1
      Unreasonable nonsense, my friend! The similarity of silhouettes and EVERYTHING! And even that is relative. This is the same as comparing, well, you guess.
  3. 33 Watcher
    33 Watcher 24 January 2016 07: 34
    35
    Let's hope that everything will be fine with Boomerang. The looks are really impressive.
    I’m only confused by our defense industry at one point, maybe I'm worried of course in vain, but still ... Some kind of endless auctions, contests, pre-orders, re-orders, the impression of some kind of throwing. And often I start to worry, but will the next project be buried under a pile of financial papers ..? However, for one design engineer, 10 accountants and 20 lawyers account for ... And this scares, sometimes makes one doubt the success ...
    We would have to transfer 999 out of 1000 managers into early workers, I think things would go faster ..? But that's me, I grumble.
    Let's hope, believe!
    1. Shadowcat
      Shadowcat 24 January 2016 08: 07
      +6
      And this is the trick of the General Staff. While the CIA understands the order papers, managers and accountants bribe Russian engineers rivet tanks.
      We will hope

      ;)
    2. dmi.pris
      dmi.pris 24 January 2016 14: 21
      +2
      Transferring managers to general laborers is not an option, they will ruin this business as well .. In unemployed, yes ..
  4. Michael67
    Michael67 24 January 2016 07: 36
    11
    "Obviously, it was based on the French ...". It was based on Russian engineering thought.
  5. Ros 56
    Ros 56 24 January 2016 07: 39
    +1
    Machine builders need to move faster, there is no time to open their mouths, these gundos are already jumping from all sides like a flock of jackals, it is time to transfer new equipment to the troops. Moreover, such as "Boomerang" has not yet existed.
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. shasherin.pavel
        shasherin.pavel 24 January 2016 15: 27
        +1
        Less for rudeness! If someone does not agree with your opinion, then this is not a reason for "M", but a reason to think about the majority opinion. It is necessary to argue, not "M"!
    2. shasherin.pavel
      shasherin.pavel 24 January 2016 15: 24
      -3
      Do you agree to a new increase in gasoline and food prices? Probably you need to issue bonds, buy bonds, money for the defense fund for the construction of new equipment ... Personally, I will not buy such a bond, and not because I do not like the army, but because we are already ahead of the rest of the planet in terms of armament speed. Special ships are being built for cruise missiles, and we are firing them from torpedo tubes. New does not mean good, only on the Su-27 only 30% of the parts from the produced machines were used, usually only 25-30% of the innovation is already a new model. There are already "Typhoons" based on the Urals and Kamaz, and new BTR-72, BTR-80, BMP-4. Why is Boomerang better than them?
  6. alex-cn
    alex-cn 24 January 2016 07: 52
    +5
    I think that a certain hype just passed and the usual series of state tests, modifications, and a deal with subcontractors and so on went on. In a year or two, the car will go into wax without noise and din ... I hope.
    1. shasherin.pavel
      shasherin.pavel 24 January 2016 15: 34
      +1
      Quote: alex-cn
      I hope so.
      keyword in the post. Built - well, there is nothing to compare. Can you tell me how many tank models were built during the 4 of WWII? Do you think the T-34 and T-44 models are taken from the ceiling? This means that only ten medium tanks of different models were built, and the T-34 -40 g. 41 g. T-34 Since 42 g. -43 g. T-34-85. From T-60 to T-80 - twenty models and several modifications to the T-60, and T-70.
  7. avg-mgn
    avg-mgn 24 January 2016 07: 55
    10
    mastering the production of "Boomerang" at this enterprise began in 2013, and in July 2013 the first building was manufactured.
    2 years of childhood, a car on a fine-tuning. Judging even by scarce information, the platform is extremely successful, the BMP was the last to be integrated into the lineup.
    Wait.
  8. Ded_Mazay
    Ded_Mazay 24 January 2016 08: 06
    0
    Does one MTO confuse me?
    1. guzik007
      guzik007 24 January 2016 12: 53
      +2
      but the name also bothers me. As you hint, do not have time to leave the factory gate, so back for repairs and alterations?
  9. The comment was deleted.
  10. Hammer
    Hammer 24 January 2016 08: 16
    14
    Look at the height
    BTR-80

    Strike

    Boomerang

    Mine defense should be the best on the idea
    1. Ded_Mazay
      Ded_Mazay 24 January 2016 08: 28
      +6
      I agree, only it’s easier to get into such a carcass. But apparently the designers believe that mine protection is more important.
      1. yehat
        yehat 24 January 2016 17: 48
        +1
        star out of what?
        Dushman from 30 meters that in armored personnel carrier, that in a boomerang will not miss from an RPG or a barrel weapon
        tank? during the design, it can be assumed that they are not there, or the commanders are just dumb, if they suddenly are.
        not so important height is obtained for survivability during shelling
      2. Manul
        Manul 26 January 2016 16: 22
        0
        Quote: Ded_Mazay
        I agree, only it’s easier to get into such a carcass. But apparently the designers believe that mine protection is more important.

        It's not just about mine protection, but about the speed of landing and disembarking personnel with a full body kit. And in the Warrior in the BTR-80 (well, even 90) what will it be? Yes, and fit?
    2. glasha3032
      glasha3032 24 January 2016 08: 41
      +1
      And officially, the dimensions of the BTR-80 and the Boomerang are not very different, what's the catch?
      1. gjv
        gjv 24 January 2016 10: 18
        0
        Quote: glasha3032
        And officially, the dimensions of the BTR-80 and "Boomerang" are not very different

        Let me curiosity: - And where are the official specifications of the Boomerang published?
      2. shasherin.pavel
        shasherin.pavel 24 January 2016 15: 42
        0
        Quote: glasha3032
        BTR-80 and "Boomerang" not much

        Probably the Lilliputians were assigned to the "Boomerang". I single-handedly mount the rear wheel on the "Belarus" and have an idea of ​​the wheels of the armored personnel carrier and "Boomerang". Any truck driver will confirm my words.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 24 January 2016 11: 23
      0
      Can soldiers of different heights? In some regions of the world, growth is about 150 cm, in the Netherlands, for example, it is higher than 180 cm.
    5. King, just king
      King, just king 24 January 2016 11: 30
      +2
      Ground clearance is better - mine protection is better, because it stays lower and the silhouette is higher. The ideal, unfortunately, does not happen.
    6. would
      would 24 January 2016 13: 23
      +1
      It's better this way. I saw an even more gorgeous photo already from the parade where Boomerang and BTR-82 were photographed exactly in one place and almost exactly at the same angle. There it was clearly visible that the Boomerang is not much higher. It is a pity I could only find this one, but it is almost no worse.
      1. pimen
        pimen 24 January 2016 13: 40
        12
        cool collage: the length and wheels are the same, but the figures of the fighters are clearly different
        1. would
          would 24 January 2016 13: 43
          +3
          The Boomerang has slightly larger wheels, the figures of the fighters are certainly different due to the fact that they are different people and they sit differently. Gluing is certainly not ideal, which I wrote about, but alas, I did not find it better.
          1. pimen
            pimen 24 January 2016 13: 52
            +2
            but in my opinion, the boomerang is not only larger, but also noticeably further in the future
            1. would
              would 24 January 2016 14: 08
              +1
              It is possible, this is evidenced by the width of the human figure. But if you look closely at the ground, and in particular at the crack, then maybe not. Again, the comparison is not perfect.
              1. pimen
                pimen 24 January 2016 14: 11
                +2
                Quote: rait
                It is possible, this is evidenced by the width of the human figure. But if you look closely at the ground, and in particular at the crack, then maybe not. Again, the comparison is not perfect.

                the crack also works from a different perspective, on the right it is longer
                1. would
                  would 24 January 2016 14: 15
                  +2
                  Yes, but a little bit longer. Although I completely agree that this comparison cannot be taken as an axiom. Sorry I can not find those comparative pictures, it was generally wonderful there sad
              2. shasherin.pavel
                shasherin.pavel 24 January 2016 16: 09
                +2
                Quote: rait
                width of figure h

                German sniper sights had a range scale: if shoulders and belt buckle = 300 m were included in this scale, if the helmet and buckle were 400 m. If the knees and helmet were 500 m. If 600 was full-height m. If not a cripple in the scope.
                1. ZaRif
                  ZaRif 26 January 2016 23: 58
                  0
                  I didn’t know)))
        2. shasherin.pavel
          shasherin.pavel 24 January 2016 16: 04
          +1
          An armored personnel carrier has a wheel up to a soldier's waist, on a Boomerang up to his armpit, this is a 30 cm difference. In the photographs, the base of the armored personnel carrier is 44 mm, the base of the "B" is also 44, but the "B" wheel is 1.5 mm larger than the armored personnel carrier.
          At 10 mm in 1 mm height "B" on the body 2.3 m. With a tower near 3 m.
      2. 33 Watcher
        33 Watcher 24 January 2016 13: 56
        +2
        Well, it’s just right here that it is much larger, take the size of a human head as a guide, and estimate looking at the fighters.
        1. would
          would 24 January 2016 14: 42
          +2
          Just the opposite, it is clear that there is no significant talk. A maximum of about a meter may well be with a small, excluding the tower.

          You can look at this photo. The growth of the data of persons is somewhere 170-175. You can see how much they are up to and estimate how many meters are here.
          1. yehat
            yehat 24 January 2016 17: 50
            +2
            on the photo it turns out half a meter above the armored personnel carrier
      3. Professor
        Professor 24 January 2016 13: 57
        +4
        Quote: rait
        There it was clearly visible that the Boomerang is not much higher.

        Here the main corner is a good one to find. wink
        1. would
          would 24 January 2016 14: 06
          +2
          I completely agree with you, but I could not find it better. I repeat: I saw gorgeous pictures where both of these machines were shot in one place and at the same angle, and then combined. But I don’t find it ...
      4. Zefr
        Zefr 25 January 2016 08: 55
        +2
        Taken with a short-focus lens - a figure with a flag on an armored personnel carrier is only a meter and a half further, but it looks noticeably smaller.
        If the crack on the asphalt is the same, and the photographer’s growth has not changed, then you can see from the edge of the sidewalk at the junction of the photographs that the right scale is slightly smaller and the car itself is farther from the photographer.
        And then, what kind of car is it in the right photo? This is not a boomerang.
        1. would
          would 26 January 2016 13: 19
          0
          This is just the same boomerang, but, covered from above.

          a figure with a flag on an armored personnel carrier is only a meter and a half further,


          And here you are by the way absolutely guessed, respect. This is a frame from the rehearsal video of the Victory Parade where the distance between the cars was something like this.
    7. shasherin.pavel
      shasherin.pavel 24 January 2016 15: 38
      +1
      How life flies: once the BTR -60 seemed like a monster among wheeled vehicles, especially in length.
      1. cast iron
        cast iron 26 January 2016 19: 35
        0
        By the way, BTR60 is noticeably higher than BTR70 / 80. In Kubinka personally convinced.
    8. Zefr
      Zefr 25 January 2016 08: 43
      +2
      The wheels are completely different, not like on the BTR-80. in the background is a kung on low pressure tires, so the tires are very similar.
  11. Gray 43
    Gray 43 24 January 2016 08: 27
    +2
    I read that "Boomerang" was originally developed as a joint project with the French, it was at the time of ordering the "Mistrals", now as if in another life, then it was about the supply of thermal imaging sights for equipment, they even talked about replacing the legendary AK with something imported scary to think if they succeeded
    1. kugelblitz
      kugelblitz 24 January 2016 08: 55
      +1
      I also think that there was a joint work with the French. In principle, there is nothing wrong with that, remember the same T-34 that had Christie's suspension. Or the first production jet engines, although there was a TR-1 Cradle. Sooner or later, we’ll still find out the details, but for now, we’ll only get the minus for the opinion. lol
      1. Alf
        Alf 24 January 2016 10: 09
        +6
        Quote: kugelblitz
        I also think that there was a joint work with the French. In principle, there is nothing wrong with that, remember the same T-34 that had Christie's suspension.

        T-34 was developed only by ours.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 25 January 2016 18: 56
          +1
          Quote: Alf
          T-34 was developed only by ours.

          On the basis of BT-7A mastered in Kharkov, which is the essence of "improved Christie". smile
          You remember the genealogy of T-34: A-20 - A-32 - A-34. By the method of successive approximations from a light tank, we got an average ... from here, by the way, many problems of the T-34 "grow" - from a spring suspension and a 4-speed gearbox to a turret ring and observation devices found above the cannon breech.
          1. yehat
            yehat 14 March 2017 11: 02
            0
            T34 is a hybrid, both from a snake and a hedgehog, from 2 tanks - a Christie tank and its development and FCM36 (reservation scheme). Many do not know, but the FCM was the impetus for the development of inclined reservations - it was seen by our delegation in France, and by chance - it broke again and repaired on the road where they passed.
    2. gjv
      gjv 24 January 2016 09: 22
      +1
      Quote: Gray 43
      I read that Boomerang was originally developed as a joint project with the French

      Quote: kugelblitz
      I also think that there was a joint work with the French. In principle, there is nothing wrong with that.

      A number of media outlets reported at the time: the Irish company Timoney Technology began commissioning the Boomerang platform at the request of the Russian side. But even if this is true, today international cooperation is interrupted due to the sanctions regime against Russia, and the Boomerangs will be finalized exclusively by Russian specialists.
      https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/CM-32_Yunpao_APC_Display_in_
      Chengkungling_20111009.jpg

      [img] CM-32 Yunpao (“Yunbao” - “Smoky Leopard”) is produced in the Republic of China (Taiwan), developed by Timoney Technology[/ Img]
      1. kugelblitz
        kugelblitz 24 January 2016 09: 38
        +1
        And there the Italians are not involved in the case? Somewhere I just came across such an opinion ...



        1. yehat
          yehat 24 January 2016 17: 52
          +4
          Yes, no, it's still the Germans)))
          1. kugelblitz
            kugelblitz 24 January 2016 20: 53
            +3
            No, no, the Austrians!

          2. shasherin.pavel
            shasherin.pavel 25 January 2016 09: 44
            +1
            Quote: yehat
            yes no, it's still Germans

            And I would also remember the YAG-12 four-axle. Probably no one knows: but one book, it seems, "Tankers in the Defense of Leningrad" describes the moment when they were looking for a way to ferry KV tanks across the ice of Lake Ladoga from Leningrad to the "Main Land". The towers (7 tons each) were removed from the tanks and lightened to a minimum, the tank itself without a tower could move on the ice, but how to transport the towers? And then they found in one of the courtyards "huge" four-axle Yag-12. The car transported one tower in the back, two on sleds, which were towed by cables to spread the weight over a large area of ​​ice. So we also had four-axle vehicles, though not so massive.
            1. Alf
              Alf 25 January 2016 18: 37
              +2
              Quote: shasherin.pavel
              And I would recall the YAG-12 four-axle.
      2. gjv
        gjv 24 January 2016 10: 16
        +2
        Sorry, the error came out, the picture is not visible. That's how I wanted to write.
        A number of media outlets reported at the time: the Irish company Timoney Technology began commissioning the Boomerang platform at the request of the Russian side. But even if this is true, today international cooperation is interrupted due to the sanctions regime against Russia, and the Boomerangs will be finalized exclusively by Russian specialists.

        CM-32 Yunpao (“Yunbao” - “Smoky Leopard”) is produced in the Republic of China (Taiwan), developed by Timoney Technology
        1. Blackgrifon
          Blackgrifon 24 January 2016 18: 57
          +2
          Quote: gjv
          A number of media outlets reported at the time: the Irish company Timoney Technology began commissioning the Boomerang platform at the request of the Russian side.

          The source of this news was a blog. And the news itself appeared on it on April 1.
  12. yuriy55
    yuriy55 24 January 2016 08: 34
    +4
    I did not find anything that would portend the deplorable fate of "Boomerang" ... even, on the contrary:
    1. Tektor
      Tektor 24 January 2016 11: 38
      0
      Boomerang, kmk, strongly conflicts with the KAMAZ Typhoon. The boomerang is lower, which makes it more protected, but does not allow the landing to be fired off, although the military compartment at Bumerag is much more powerful, which more than compensates for the drawback, especially in light of the built-in network-centric system. Mine protection is probably the same. The main question is in cost, permeability in the desert and Arctic conditions, comfort for military personnel. KMK, Boomerang, nevertheless, is better suited for warfare than Typhoon. But you need to compare in the same conditions.
      1. Tektor
        Tektor 24 January 2016 12: 05
        0
        KMK, Boomerang will be optimally suited to transport command with headquarters. And the mobile headquarters itself can be equipped on the basis of the more spacious Typhoon-U or -K.
      2. cast iron
        cast iron 26 January 2016 19: 40
        +2
        Nifiga he does not conflict. Kamazovsky Typhoon is not able to and will not learn. Dot. Floating armored personnel carriers are designed specifically for transporting personnel following tanks and armored personnel carriers in the same terrain as tanks and armored personnel carriers. No Typhoon truck has such capabilities. Armored trucks are designed to transport soldiers and goods mainly on the roads. Typhoons will not be able to participate in a multi-kilometer tank attack in depth in the style of WWII, but armored personnel carriers will.
    2. shasherin.pavel
      shasherin.pavel 24 January 2016 16: 30
      0
      On 2: 15: if the soldier is 180 cm, then the height along the hull, as I wrote 2.4 m. In general, the width of all vehicles is limited by the width of the railway platform. The BMX-3 tracks partially go beyond the dimensions of the platform.
  13. zoknyay82
    zoknyay82 24 January 2016 08: 39
    +5
    I hope that everything will be fine with Boomerang. Well, and the "non-brothers": "... to the joyfully sarcastic ones, where there was no hidden joy in connection with the" complete failure of this Russian program "..." Well, what are you mean! :-)
  14. Give the light
    Give the light 24 January 2016 08: 58
    -15 qualifying.
    I hope this coffin will not be released ... maybe you should build another 2-floor armored personnel carrier ...
    1. Grim Reaper
      Grim Reaper 24 January 2016 23: 54
      +2
      Count it, the tank is above the figure eight, even tuned and tinted trash ... ☺☺☺
  15. pimen
    pimen 24 January 2016 09: 06
    +1
    yes, whatever one may say, but returning to an open top and lowered wheeled vehicle with fenced off landing sites seems logical
    1. Chtononibrator
      Chtononibrator 24 January 2016 13: 28
      +2
      Like it or not, everyone after the WWII refused open armored vehicles.
      1. pimen
        pimen 24 January 2016 13: 48
        +1
        Well, it’s impossible to make a well-protected wheeled vehicle, no way. The enclosed volume, as I understand it, was dictated by the desire to maintain combat readiness during the development of the offensive after a tactical nuclear strike. In practice, this was never needed. But in minus the closed volume of a lightly armored vehicle - probably the whole practice of their use
      2. shasherin.pavel
        shasherin.pavel 24 January 2016 16: 34
        +2
        Quote: Chtononibrator
        open armored vehicles refused

        after the Prague uprising, when our armored personnel carriers poured gasoline from the roofs. And then the roof became protection against radiation.
        1. pimen
          pimen 24 January 2016 17: 33
          +1
          well, you can throw a grenade on top - let's compete in absurdity.
          Much more serious is the close rupture of a fragmentation shell, and there will be little chance of surviving a thermobaric shell. But a wheeled armored personnel carrier is, first of all, an infantry vehicle; it’s not even cavalry. And it’s very good if it provides at least circular protection from a heavy machine gun, with the main convenience of dismounting
    2. cast iron
      cast iron 26 January 2016 19: 43
      0
      There is no logic here. Given the widespread distribution of thermobaric ammunition, landmines of various types, making an armored personnel carrier without a roof is a spit on the life and health of the landing party. The shock wave has the ability to fly through the open hatches of the tanks inside the shell of all of the shell up to death. What can we say about thermobaric power supply and an open roof?
  16. tchoni
    tchoni 24 January 2016 09: 52
    +3
    I am afraid that the military, as in the case of the BMD-4, is still in dumka “is this device needed?” Because in the field a Kurgan and T-15 on gksyanki is clearly better, on the road a typhoon based on a commercial car is economically and from the point of view of operation it is more profitable, and I am afraid that it will be faster ...
    1. The comment was deleted.
  17. AlNikolaich
    AlNikolaich 24 January 2016 11: 22
    +1
    The main question is, is it necessary? The BTR90 turned out to be a slop machine that did not crawl out of the repair, and was very dimensional ... The boomerang is also simply huge ... Where is its niche? As an infantry fighting vehicle and armored personnel carrier Kurganets will be. Not so overall, on a tracked chassis, and with normal armor ... The BTR82 and Nonna-K are normal as a mb. A new machine is being created for the Marines.
    And why and who needs this boomerang? There are also Typhoons and Feds ...
    We have tested Centaurus and Freshia, unsuccessfully ... Why make a car with a similar concept?
    1. cast iron
      cast iron 26 January 2016 20: 03
      0
      I am waiting for your video reports on how the "typhoon" armored trucks force a water barrier to melt or try to keep up with tanks on the same rough terrain)))
  18. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 24 January 2016 11: 29
    0
    Need wheeled infantry fighting vehicles, their resource is higher than that of tracked ones and the price is cheaper. Plus there are fewer problems with logistics. For countries with hard ground you can do entirely wheeled vehicles. MPAP and BMP-machines for different needs. Fighting and police operations are two different things. MCI, ideally, is the replacement of military trucks and 4x4 vehicles to eliminate losses. BMP for fire.
    1. shasherin.pavel
      shasherin.pavel 24 January 2016 17: 14
      0
      Quote: Zaurbek
      their resource is higher than that of tracked

      Here are photos of the upgraded T-72B delivered to the Amur Region. So I noticed that the tracks on them were "modernized" ... with the broken ridges on the tracks, that is, the fingers were changed, but the old tracks themselves were left, because there was no need to change. You measure the caterpillar resources by the old scale.
      1. Blackgrifon
        Blackgrifon 24 January 2016 19: 02
        +1
        Quote: shasherin.pavel
        Here are photos of the modernized T-72B

        On the Bulletin of Mordovia (Technology) there is news that the Ministry of Defense ordered a T-72B3 with a reflex DZ and grilles on the engine compartment, so there is a chance that the B3 will still be brought to mind.
        1. Sukhoi
          Sukhoi 24 January 2016 22: 34
          0
          On the Bulletin of Mordovia (Technology) there is news that the Ministry of Defense ordered a T-72B3 with a reflex DZ and grilles on the engine compartment, so there is a chance that the B3 will still be brought to mind.

          Don’t share the link?
          1. Blackgrifon
            Blackgrifon 25 January 2016 00: 08
            +1
            http://vestnik-rm.ru/articles-modernizirovanniy-tank-t-72b3-poluchit-ne-probivae
            muyu-zashchitu-relikt.htm
  19. Pvi1206
    Pvi1206 24 January 2016 11: 51
    0
    Judging by the name-Boomerang, this military system destroys all who decide to open fire on it.
    As for the lack of information in the media, not all of Russia's existing weapons should be openly demonstrated. Let our "partners" be afraid.
    1. KBR109
      KBR109 24 January 2016 12: 14
      +3
      Those who shoot at the silhouette of such a huge barn will be especially afraid. You’ll miss it - the comrades will then be ridiculed by mockery of the light. laughing
      1. would
        would 24 January 2016 12: 36
        +5
        I sincerely wish you, in full combat and heavy equipment, in winter, under enemy fire, get out of the armored personnel carrier which is "not a barn" and which will be burned a little later.
        1. KBR109
          KBR109 24 January 2016 12: 53
          0
          Do not make yourself the only one serving in the army on this site. bully
          1. would
            would 24 January 2016 14: 00
            10
            And there was no thought. It just seems to me (I hope that it’s false) that those who write about the shed never jumped out of an armored personnel carrier in equipment, never sat in it and sincerely believe that: The fighters are all 150 cm long, our climate is warm and tropical they don’t wear clothes, in heavy bulletproof vests, helmets, with heavy equipment and cargo over their shoulders, they don’t jump out of the BTRA and generally they only have one AK, one helmet, and a cloth uniform with them. Well, there’s a big difference between a normal ATGM and a target between 2.5 meters high and 3 meters high. Well, and also that they will not run into APC mines.

            After reading messages like yours, I sincerely want to take everyone who thinks so, dress like a normal fighter, and force them to jump out of the BTR-80 under fire, kicking the loin if they do it too slowly. After this, everyone participating with great pleasure will climb into Boomerang, sing odes of increased silhouette, normal height, ramps and write a collective letter to the Ministry of Defense in support of the procurement of this wonderful technique. And I'm still kind, no bombings on mines and many hours of trips in full uniforms.
            1. KBR109
              KBR109 24 January 2016 14: 37
              +3
              Take me to start. He served on the BTR - 60.70.80 and on the BMP-1.2 and just a little 3. MTLB is the same. Small wars -3. Conveyor that BUMERANG that ZIL-131. But the first is incomparably more expensive. If you carry in luxury buses, then the normal fighters will be even more grateful to you. Improved durability on mines is the only thing that can inspire - if it's not a fake. A large range of equipment will not bother you?
              1. would
                would 24 January 2016 14: 52
                +7
                Conveyor that BUMERANG that ZIL-131. But the first is incomparably more expensive


                And the second one is stitched from any small arms and is wonderfully undermined. If we proceed from "women give birth to new", then indeed the first is significantly more expensive. And if all this is to remember that a fighter still needs to be trained and for a very long time, then in fact the second will be more expensive. The life of a trained soldier in modern wars is generally expensive.

                If you carry in luxury buses, then the normal fighters will be even more grateful to you.


                We also have smart buses in the form of various Typhoons, they will also carry fighters in them, but they have a different application. And this is for you the gratitude of the fighter for something to joke about, but for me this is a clear criterion. Now I remember one of the versions of the Tiger armored car that doesn’t have a back step ... but why is it needed at all? Climbing up and so wonderful. But they forgot to ask heavily loaded fighters and they are forced to climb into the car from behind helping each other, supporting and pushing. They would put a bandwagon on all versions and the fighter would be grateful, he would quickly and easily climb into an armored car, which in some situations is critically important.
                1. Lekov L
                  Lekov L 25 January 2016 01: 12
                  +3
                  The carrier and the head of the auto service will have a boot on the tailbone and in 15 minutes there will be a wonderful footboard made from a piece of pipe and cable.
                  Even painted in the color of the device.
                  And then the commander of these fighters, or no eyes or mind.
                  Respectfully..
                  1. would
                    would 25 January 2016 06: 36
                    +3
                    There is no doubt that you can make a footboard artisanally and not at all from a pipe and cable, but of a very factory quality. It would be a desire and permission to upgrade the car. The latter may not be, and this is due to a bunch of things. The question is that such things should be put from the factory, and not finished on the spot.
                  2. activator
                    activator 25 January 2016 13: 49
                    +2
                    Quote: Lekov L
                    The carrier and the head of the auto service will have a boot on the tailbone and in 15 minutes there will be a wonderful footboard made from a piece of pipe and cable.
                    Even painted in the color of the device.
                    And then the commander of these fighters, or no eyes or mind.
                    Respectfully..

                    The trouble is that everything has to be finished, finished, but it is necessary to do it right away at our enterprises that they do not pay attention to trifles, unlike the bourgeoisie. Trifles, but unpleasant.
                    1. Lekov L
                      Lekov L 25 January 2016 17: 11
                      +2
                      You will laugh - I am almost sure that it was provided in the factory configuration.
                      At one time, I found this in my spare parts box.
                      Colleagues were given diva - and they rummaged and they have.
                      Maybe they forgot to screw here.
                      Respectfully.. soldier
            2. activator
              activator 24 January 2016 14: 46
              +3
              Quote: rait
              I just get the feeling (I hope it’s false) that those who write about the shed never jumped out of an armored personnel carrier in equipment, never sat in it and sincerely believe that:

              I will support you when you sit in the armored car and bang your head against the ceiling with a height of 187 cm, for some reason I absolutely did not feel any sense of security from a low silhouette, but I wondered how many chances there would be to quickly get out of it. good for me these pokatushki were purely entertaining in nature.
              1. KBR109
                KBR109 24 January 2016 14: 55
                0
                You would have to get into a modern tank - you will stay in triple shock. Especially with your size. So it turns out that Boomerang is another military bus. No one is confused by the greatly expanded range of equipment, spare parts and maintenance?
                1. activator
                  activator 24 January 2016 15: 21
                  0
                  Quote: KBR109
                  You would have to get into a modern tank - you will stay in triple shock. Especially with your size. So it turns out that

                  Do you have different tasks for your tank and armored combat vehicles? and the protection of the tank is much higher than the brt and my dimensions are not unique and there are more, so your example is about nothing.
                  Quote: KBR109
                  Boomerang is another military bus. No one is confused by the greatly expanded range of equipment, spare parts and maintenance?

                  Are you going to BTR 80 for another 100 years to ride? And if you think so, then you don’t need to update the equipment at all, and why the hell is the armata? How many new spare parts are needed.
                2. tchoni
                  tchoni 25 January 2016 09: 08
                  0
                  That's about it and speech. I don’t need him now. Typhoons, typhoons and other tigers with feds will perfectly solve the transportation problems on the roads. And off the road - aroma, kurgan. And if need arises, you can add melon on the chassis of the same typhoon, somewhat reducing the landing squad. Such a dumbbell will be - the igilovites from starting to die
                  1. would
                    would 25 January 2016 09: 45
                    0
                    The main word here is "transportation". Boomerang is a typical wheeled infantry fighting vehicle, which, in addition to transportation, is intended for direct participation in combat and support for infantry. The Typhoons and the Federal do not have a combat module with a 30mm cannon, but, for example, they have a windshield that is wonderfully disabled and must be replaced. Should we talk about less security? I hope no. Typhoon and Federal are just trucks that are designed exclusively for transporting not only personnel, but also cargo. IMHO all these MRAPs are a development of the idea of ​​a classic armored personnel carrier which has absolutely identical tasks.

                    The issue of the need for wheeled infantry fighting vehicles in the current situation is really controversial and requires familiarization with classified information. What is the degree of protection of the Boomerang? What is firepower? How much does it cost per unit? And how much does a typhoon cost per unit? Etc. A boomerang can turn out to be both a very profitable acquisition and vice versa unprofitable.
                  2. activator
                    activator 25 January 2016 13: 04
                    +2
                    Quote: tchoni
                    That's about it and speech. I don’t need him now. Typhoons, typhoons and other tigers with feds will perfectly solve the transportation problems on the roads. And off the road - aroma, kurgan. And if need arises, you can add melon on the chassis of the same typhoon, somewhat reducing the landing squad. Such a dumbbell will be - the igilovites from starting to die

                    The strange theory of BTR 82 is needed and the boomerang is unnecessary. Typhoons in large volumes will not go to the troops too fancy and too expensive with low security and lack of serious weapons, and melon to the typhoon is really a crazy max just shot himself. better than a tarp, nafig electronics, no independent suspensions of such machines should be much and cheap. A boomerang is already a technique designed to perform certain combat missions, and not just to transport fighters.
            3. shasherin.pavel
              shasherin.pavel 24 January 2016 17: 28
              -1
              And still I insist! The best armor is a miss!
              1. yehat
                yehat 24 January 2016 17: 56
                +1
                then you need a helicopter
              2. cast iron
                cast iron 26 January 2016 20: 41
                0
                Make an invisible armored personnel carrier.
            4. tchoni
              tchoni 25 January 2016 09: 00
              -1
              Oh no need under fire. Just drive away for a while. Booted, unloaded.
              1. would
                would 25 January 2016 09: 37
                +1
                Too soft and not appropriate for the situation. Calmly loaded, unloaded this one, and on adrenaline when bullets hit the armor, when tears are heard, and so on. this is a completely different matter.
        2. shasherin.pavel
          shasherin.pavel 24 January 2016 17: 25
          0
          According to the charter, the armored personnel carrier must be abandoned before the start of the battle, and if it did not work out, then it is better not to stick out, you can get the RGD-1 into the open hatch. "Hey! Drove let's turn back until we catch a pig, if you don’t d ..., then drive full throttle until we are flattened soft-boiled!"
          1. would
            would 24 January 2016 22: 30
            +1
            So this is a bad charter (by the way, I don’t remember this) which stipulates clairvoyant fighters who should know in which particular section the battle will begin. Well, in the open hatch you can get RGDs only from those who are in close proximity to it, which is difficult to say the least. AND! Well and yes: there is still a boomerang in the BMP variant. How it will be adopted is certainly a question.
    2. shasherin.pavel
      shasherin.pavel 24 January 2016 17: 17
      0
      Boomerang it comes back, but what you think is more like a "reverse" ricochet.
  20. would
    would 24 January 2016 12: 35
    0
    Where did you disappear to? I have the first thought in my head in response to such a question about refinement, testing and other necessary measures for such a young platform. This is absolutely normal and the main thing is that the quality is at its best and the machine goes to the troops.
  21. Mikelanjelo
    Mikelanjelo 24 January 2016 13: 02
    13
    In my opinion, the Boomerang outwardly turned out to be beautiful, I hope they will bring it to mind.
    Slicing a video with a Boomerang (mounted by myself)

    1. KBR109
      KBR109 24 January 2016 13: 09
      +2
      laughing Beauty will save the world! That you just noticed laughing
      1. Banshee
        Banshee 24 January 2016 15: 23
        +1
        "Only beautiful planes fly well." Tupolev A.N.

        "For a plane to fight well, it must be beautiful." Marcel Dassault.

        This applies to everything. And to the tanks, and to the ships.
        1. yehat
          yehat 24 January 2016 18: 01
          0
          Armata somehow does not look beautiful
          on the other hand, well, it’s not with Swarovski crystals that adorned her laughing
    2. VIT101
      VIT101 25 January 2016 09: 45
      +1
      The video is great. Only one frame is embarrassing. Maybe it was not necessary MO in this form? Somehow jars ...
  22. Evgeniy667b
    Evgeniy667b 24 January 2016 15: 13
    +4
    And again, traditionally, "you are the best in the world, and no analogues." This is already fed up! Only advertising in the minds and nothing more. Time will tell, but in general you have to be more modest!
    1. KBR109
      KBR109 24 January 2016 15: 30
      +2
      This is as usual: our trains are the most train.
    2. Olem
      Olem 24 January 2016 21: 15
      +2
      The Romanian army and military-industrial complex are the best in the world. laughing
  23. serge siberian
    serge siberian 24 January 2016 16: 38
    0
    I myself served where the gas-66 was considered to be the military equipment for the transportation of l / s, so it’s not special, but the designers would not be bothered about the convenience for embarkation and disembarkation and the transportation itself, even if there was nothing in the order about this “Detalka” is not said.
    RS: I was able to watch only one video from a YouTube, asks to turn off safe mode, but there are a lot of videos with specific things on the site. Not solid somehow.
  24. TsUS-Air Force
    TsUS-Air Force 24 January 2016 20: 19
    0
    such a colossus would not be stuck in our swamps ...
  25. iouris
    iouris 24 January 2016 20: 25
    0
    In my opinion, Boomerang is an unfortunate name for a Russian project. We have an interesting approach to choosing the name of weapons, for example: "Buratino", "Zoo", "Hyacinth", "Carnation" ... We must follow the tradition.
    1. Bayonet
      Bayonet 24 January 2016 20: 34
      +1
      Quote: iouris
      In my opinion, Boomerang is an unfortunate name for a Russian project. We have an interesting approach to choosing the name of weapons, for example: "Buratino", "Zoo", "Hyacinth", "Carnation" ... We must follow the tradition.

      If there is "Buratino", you can call it "Karabas Barabas" smile
  26. gregor6549
    gregor6549 25 January 2016 14: 48
    +1
    The question of where this APC disappeared is certainly interesting, but who said that this APC is the best in the world when no one really saw it and in real battles did not experience it. Are we in a hurry to overestimate our domestic armaments and military equipment based solely on patriotic feelings? After all, it has already happened more than once when for such evaluations you had to pay hundreds of the lives of your soldiers and officers.
  27. CRASH
    CRASH 25 January 2016 18: 34
    +1
    Gone there, where BTR90 Rostock, in ...
  28. Vitail
    Vitail 26 January 2016 12: 47
    0
    If you put a Baikal module with a 57 mm fluff on the Boomerang, you’ll generally get a beast
  29. wanderer_032
    wanderer_032 26 January 2016 14: 34
    +1
    I don’t know who came forward from them, but it is clear that the design approach is very similar:



    http://topwar.ru/34012-korpus-morskoy-pehoty-ssha-poluchit-novyy-btr-havoc.html

  30. aba
    aba 26 January 2016 18: 56
    0
    Quote: Observer 33
    Some endless auctions, contests, pre-orders, re-orders, the impression of some kind of throwing.


    In such circumstances, it’s easier to cash in - we still have capitalism, socialism is long over. sad
  31. MaksoMelan
    MaksoMelan 26 December 2016 10: 59
    0
    I care about the empty space between the wheels and the side. As if if aiming, everything will fly there. I would try to hang protective shields covering the wheels to half. Either anti-cumulative or solid plates, or solid plates, which, if necessary, simply rise. (so that it is hinged to the bottom of the side) in the case of solid plates, they will also cover the wheels from unnecessary bullets 7,62.
  32. zibo1668
    zibo1668 18 May 2017 05: 08
    0
    The next stage of testing a promising armored personnel carrier built on the basis of the Boomerang unified wheeled platform has begun ...
  33. DiKoff
    DiKoff 4 June 2017 11: 54
    0
    ... yeah, like in a joke: a call to the location, the attendant picks up the phone: The commander of the tank corps, Sergeant Pupkin listens - the answer is: How? Yesterday, you only commanded a tank - duck, the tank broke down, only the hull remained ...
  34. pavel of frost
    pavel of frost 8 December 2017 14: 07
    0
    Today, they often whine in comments that there is no type of money, sanctions, the poor, they pay little, there is no work. You can easily kill a Z-3 thousand a day, accomplished without any experience, you just need to know a place.
    9391