Posted on 05/05/2015 1:44:21 AM PDT by Freelance Warrior
It's a photo gallery at the link. Click on the photos to enlarge. Inscriptions to the photos:
1. IFV 'Armata'. Intended for mobile warfare against any foe as a member of tank or motorised infantry units. A multi-purpose combat tool for use when nuclear or other mass destruction weapons may be used.
2. Middle tank 'Armata'. Intended for mobile warfare against any foe as a member of tank or motorised infantry units. A multi-purpose combat tool for use when nuclear or other mass destruction weapons may be used.
3. APC 'Boomerang'. Intended to transport infantry, for its fire support in combat, destroying enemy's personnel, anti-tank weapons and lightly-armoured vehicles.
4. Self-propelled artillery vehicle 'Koalitsia-SV'. Intended for destroying tactical nuclear weapon, artillery and mortar units, tanks and other armoured vehicles, fortifications.
5. IFV 'Kurganets-25'. Intended for mobile warfare against any foe as a member of tank or motorised infantry units.
6. APC 'Kurganets-25'. Intended to transport infantry, to particpate in combat, and for fire-support of the troops on foot.
7. Mobile anti-tank rocket launcher 'Kornet-D1'. For destroying tanks and other armoured vehicles, including those using reactive armour.
It sounds like the Russians have stolen the naming conventions right from the Ikea catalog.
Well, the names are in Russian and are percepted differently in that language, at least the ## 5-6 which mean 'dweller of Kurgan" (a city), so 'a Kurganer'.
Not being particularly military, it would be nice to have the acronym “AFV” defined.
This stands for Armoured fighting vehicle
Actually, I’ve made a mistake in the thread title - the pictures aren’t of the AFVs solely, but also of a tank, mobiler artillery, armoured personnel carriers, and a wheeled rocket launcher.
APC= 'armoured personnel carrier'
The difference between them is that AFVs take part in combat, APC just transport infantry to a combat field, where the troops dismount and fight on foot. So APCs have lighter armour and weapons.
We too would have an entire new generation of Future Combat Systems if Congress hadn’t made it a welfare program and laden it with every enviro-nut agenda. Instead we spent more than enough to develop all new vehicles and didn’t get even one. But plenty of individuals walked away richer for the experience.
Very well-designed and efficient looking systems. I note that the IFVs are amphibious and many have antitank missile defense systems and the IFBs have remotely operated machine gun turrets.
So much for fast typing in the morning. “IFBs”=IFVs
I have to point out that the Army did itself no favors in that program either with ever-increasing lists of requirements. According to a 2014 USD(AT&L) report, the Army leads the other services in the number of acquisition programs that have been killed due to cost overruns.
“I have to point out that the Army did itself no favors in that program either with ever-increasing lists of requirements.”
That’s not the half of it. They didn’t make critical design decisions (Engine front or rear. Tracks or wheels.) until two weeks before the Preliminary Design Review. By that time so much money had been spent there was no possibility of a recovery.
Thanks...very informative.
Business as usual.
Tank’s turret is remotely operated too.
Wow! Quite impressive... Definitely not the thin, easily destroyed BMP-1s, M-113s, LVTP-5s, and BTR-60s of the old days.
I believe that should be “Medium Tank” rather than “Middle Tank”. Interesting they didn’t develop a new heavy tank.
I did a study once of what degrees all hundred of our Marine Corps General Officers had and you would be unsurprised to see that Phys Ed, Poly Sci, and History were the big winners with exactly one Civil Engineer. No wonder they get fleeced so easily into amphibious armored assault vehicles designed to "plane on the surface of the water" by using a vehicle whose body is almost completely filled by a 2,500 horsepower turbine and all the fuel that it needed to do that trick.
Nothing works together, nobody stops capabilities creep, nobody has learned that "better is the enemy of good enough" and the vendors have all of our political leaders in their pockets.
Just wonderful.
I don’t think there was any Russian heavy tank since WWII.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.