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.
Not being particularly military, it would be nice to have the acronym “AFV” defined.
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.
I believe that should be “Medium Tank” rather than “Middle Tank”. Interesting they didn’t develop a new heavy tank.