Ukraine Missing a vehicle!?!

[Noltyboy]

Ive noticed that the ukraine is missing this vehicle in its 2017 line up.

 

http://www.janes.com/article/47949/ukraine-restarting-t-64-based-ifv-development

 

Ukraine restarting T-64-based IFV development

Nicholas de Larrinaga, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly

15 January 2015

 

Ukraine is restarting the development of a heavy infantry fighting vehicle based on the T-64 MBT chassis. Ukroboronprom hopes to be ready to begin serial production of the IFV, if ordered by Ukraine, this year. Source: Ukroboronprom

Ukraine has renewed development of heavy infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs) based on the T-64 main battle tank (MBT), Ukroboronprom has announced.

The Kharkov Morozov Machine Building Design Bureau had previously created prototypes of a new IFV based on the T-64 but work is understood to have ceased some years ago.

Now the firm has resumed development of the heavy IFV in order to ready the designs for serial production. According to Ukroboronprom, this work could be completed in time to allow for mass production to begin before the end of the year.

The heavy IFV is based on a heavily modified T-64 chassis and hull with its turret removed and the upper portion of the hull significantly raised in order to increase its internal volume and allow for the relocation of the engine forward. These changes allow the IFV, known variously as the BMP-64, BMT-64 and BMPT-64, to accommodate 10-12 dismounts in the rear of the vehicle as well as a crew of three.

Instead of the 125 mm armed main turret of the T-64, a new IFV turret has been added to the vehicle. Boasting an impressive amount of firepower, the original prototype features a turret armed with a ZTM-1 30 mm automatic cannon and a 7.62 mm machine gun. Two anti-tank missiles are mounted on the left-hand side of the turret, while two banks of three grenade launchers are attached to the front of the turret. In addition, the commander's hatch on the roof of the turret features a cupola armed with a twin GSh-23 mm cannon and a 30 mm automatic grenade launcher.

The T-64 IFVs armour protection has also been increased with the incorporation of Nozh ('Knife') advanced dynamic protection system (explosive reactive armour - ERA), although a defensive aid suite (DAS) was not known to have been installed on the original prototype.

According to Ukroboronprom part of the resumption of development of the vehicle will include efforts with specialists from the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence (MoD) to improve the design of the T-64 IFV. This will include improvements to the vehicle's weapon systems and the installation of "more modern dynamic protection". The latter possibly refers to the Zaslon hard-kill active protection system, which has previously been installed on some T-64BM Bulat MBTs.

ANALYSIS

The Ukraine crisis has created an unprecedented demand for armoured vehicles to equip the Ukrainian military.

While the resumption of work on the T-64 IFV appears to be a company effort, as it was previously, it is being done with a clear eye on a future order from the Ukrainian military. Whether or not the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence chooses to order the vehicles remains to be seen, however, a heavily armoured and well-armed IFV could prove useful in the ongoing fighting in east Ukraine.

To some extent, Ukraine may simply be keen to recapitalise its armoured inventories as quickly as possible - so may be interested in ordering any armoured vehicles ready for production. With Ukraine possessing a large inventory of mothballed/retired T-64 hulls, and with Ukrainian firms not known for building tracked IFVs, converting T-64s to heavy IFVs would potentially be a relatively quick way of bringing more tracked IFVs into service.

Ukraine has suffered massive losses among its armoured vehicle inventories. While exact numbers are hard to pin down, it has likely lost at least 150 MBTs and a further 350 IFVs of various types during the conflict.

The Ukrainian military's principal IFV is the ageing BMP-2, which offers protection only against small arms fire - and can be easily penetrated by shaped-charges, cannon fire, or even armour-piercing heavy machine gun fire. As a result Ukrainian BMP-2s are understood to have been lost in numbers greater than any other vehicle type in Ukrainian service. While Ukrainian T-64 MBTs have also suffered a high loss rate, the additional armoured protection that a heavy IFV could offer would no doubt be welcomed by Ukrainian infantry and National Guardsmen.

The T-64-based IFV is understood to weigh in at around 34.5 tonnes, making it well over double the weight of the 14.3 tonne BMP-2 and more akin to the 32.7 tonne weight of the US Army's Bradley M2A3 IFV.

Converting MBT hulls into IFVs is not a new concept, with Israel in particular well known for converting first Centurion tank hulls, and now Merkava tank hulls into heavy IFVs - due to their utility in urban warfare, where speed is less relevant and all-round protection is key. The Ukrainian T-64 IFV is, however, dwarfed by the Merkava-derived Namer IFV, which weighs 62 tonnes.

Edited January 21, 2015 by Noltyboy

[ikalugin]

How many were produced? How many were ordered? Are there any funds allocated to order it?

Edited January 21, 2015 by ikalugin

[Stagler]

HAFV concept is something that I have watched with interest. The israelis sure do have some unique and interesting designs on the table also - although no country has really put its money where its mouth is and invested in the HAFV concept.

[Kieme(ITA)]

In any case there are many "missing" vehicles, it's a matter of choices, also considering that modules will come.

[MikeyD]

Ha! The Beta guys were just talking about that vehicle the other day.    It looks like a possible candidate for a module, except currently we know zero about the final vehicle. The picture above was the initial design. I hear the production vehicle's supposed to get the remote turret of the BTR-4... maybe. Its said to hold 15(?) but the T64 chassis is freakin' petite! They must pack 'em in like sardines. 

[kuri]

I imagine it is missing because it is a direct result of the ongoing Donbass conflict, which never happened in CMBS.

[Noltyboy]

I would like to point out I wasnt being serious about it being missing.

[ikalugin]

HAFV concept is something that I have watched with interest. The israelis sure do have some unique and interesting designs on the table also - although no country has really put its money where its mouth is and invested in the HAFV concept.

Armata has a heavy IFV version, it would be shown on parade with the tnk version (12 units of each).

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Honestly starting to wonder if the Armata field kitchen, and Armata armored administrative vehicles will live up to expectations.

[MikeyD]

BFC has a similar issue with the CMSF game. Trying to model modern war means you're aiming at a moving target. I think it was just (very) recently Ukraine began license production of an Israeli bullpup design assault rifle. What was its name? 'Fort-221'. Well... that ain't gonna make it into the initial release either! Besides, it'll be years and years (if ever) before the AK-74 gets phased out and replaced by Fort-221.

[ikalugin]

Honestly starting to wonder if the Armata field kitchen, and Armata armored administrative vehicles will live up to expectations.

Is that intended to be inflamotory? 

 

Armata series is essentially common chassis for:

- tank.

- heavy IFV.

- heavy artillery piece.

- engeniering/evac vehicles.

 

Of the first two variants 12 vehicles of each type were already manufactured and would be shown on parade. Currently the low rate production is ongoing, the full rate production would start some time this year. Future of the later two types is unclear, as Army essentially placed those oh hold in favour of using legacy chassis.

The existence of the parade batch (ie that atleast 24 Armatas exist at this point in time) is confirmed by:

- maintenance contracts (awarded, being executed).

 

Interesting note - 2A82 gun has ~20 percent muzle advantage over the L55, Grifel series KE round has length of 890-940mm and the mass procurement of those rounds began last year to build up the new ammo stocks of those new rounds.

Edited January 21, 2015 by ikalugin

[Stagler]

Honestly starting to wonder if the Armata field kitchen, and Armata armored administrative vehicles will live up to expectations.

 

Id like to see the Armata this parade so I can begin working on how to blow it into pieces.

[ikalugin]

Id like to see the Armata this parade so I can begin working on how to blow it into pieces.

You can't have my seat though

[BTR]

Hmmm, Armata field kitchen. I'm sure if that it would be a good idea. Heavily armed mobile kitchen on tracks that can get anywhere? Don't say that you wouldn't like that. I know that whoever served thinks it's a good idea.

[dan/california]

Hmmm, Armata field kitchen. I'm sure if that it would be a good idea. Heavily armed mobile kitchen on tracks that can get anywhere? Don't say that you wouldn't like that. I know that whoever served thinks it's a good idea.

Would be serving Army food?  That would strongly influence my opinion of how good an idea it was.

[MikeyD]

Think of the field kitchen as a 'power-up'. Exhausted troops visit the field kitchen and come away refreshed and reenergized. Sounds like something CM should have. Like an 'ammo dump' of nothing but snickers bars.   

[dan/california]

Would you take a huge morale hit if the kitchen bought it and the grunts knew they eating MREs for a month?

Edited January 21, 2015 by dan/california

[Stagler]

Russian MRE best MRE studies suggest. They are actually quite nice looking and extensive, although not very practical as there is lots of tins and refuse.

[DreDay]

I imagine it is missing because it is a direct result of the ongoing Donbass conflict, which never happened in CMBS.

 

Just fyi - that vehicle has been in development for many years now... long before there was any trouble in Donbass

[Macisle]

Russian MRE best MRE studies suggest. They are actually quite nice looking and extensive, although not very practical as there is lots of tins and refuse.

 

I remember reading somewhere that in the first Gulf War, US troops liked to trade for the British MRE, as they considered them to be better.

 

My personal recommendation is that everyone should just have their food provided by Japanese 7-11.

[John Kettler]

Noltyboy,

 

Thanks for sharing this with us. Had not crossed paths with this one, but I like the idea. A 30 mm, two 23 mm guns (GSh-23 is a twin barrel design, found, inter alia, on the MiG-23/FLOGGER B and D) and a 7.62 mm coax + ATGM?! Wow! Good thing it isn't a scout vehicle. Why? The scouts might get the wrong idea and fight!

 

I do find myself thinking about the IDF's Merkava, "chariot" in Hebrew, so named because the horses, so to speak, are in front. This engine relocation for the T-64 heavy IFV should help enormously in crew survivability if hit, as is the known case for the Merkava. At least vs RPG. Many moons ago, during the Cold War, the Germans were looking at regunning the Marder IFV with a 57 mm gun (had a 20 mm) to deal with the pretty tough BMP-2 and whatever else was coming. Take a look at what a modern 57 mm can do, firing a round with no less than six operating modes.

 

vs a boat

 

vs numerous targets, including an antiship missile, but the real attention-getter is what even target practice ammo can do to 30 mm armor plate!

 

 

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited January 22, 2015 by John Kettler

[ikalugin]

The issue with frontal engine placement is that:

- it disbalances the tank, makes it front heavy (and thus leads either to suspension issues or reduction in the mass of the frontal armour array).

- it makes the required length of the high end side armour array greater, as to provide the same level of protection for crew and ammo in the safe angles in manuever.

Basically frontal engine placement is not a good idea for the modern tanks which is why only Israel uses it.

[John Kettler]

ikalugin,

 

Though I've read only two pages so far of the 14 in the thread, I feel safe in suggesting you'll find this worthy of some reading time on your end. Even includes info supplied by a former IDF tanker!  Quite the discussion, at levels ranging from first principles to the BTDT crowd.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

[BTR]

Russian MRE best MRE studies suggest. They are actually quite nice looking and extensive, although not very practical as there is lots of tins and refuse.

They are daily rations rather than meal rations though IIRC. 

[John Kettler]

ikalugin,

 

This is most interesting, because it speaks to much more recent conclusions from combat analyses of where tanks now get hit, as opposed to the earlier azimuthal distribution, which was cardioid. Note particualrly that hull hits are now rare.Taken from page 7 of the referenced thread.

 

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?130651-MBT-design-question-front-engine-vs-rear-engine/page7

 

Fair Use.

 

One other finding the IDF made, was that Whittakers direction probability variation (DPV) was becoming increasingly less relevant. Whittakers DPV is the rule of thumb where historically the expectation is that the front 60 degree elliptical arc was the part of a tank most likely to be hit. One other, important statistic was that since WWII, a tanks hull was increasingly less likely to be hit and its turret much more so. Although the IDF's findings are obviously classified, Dr Manfred Held, with whom the IDF cooperated with when developing ERA, was given access. Held produced a fascinating article, "Warhead Hit distribution On Main Battle Tanks In The Gulf War", this appeared in the Journal of Battlefield Technology Vol.3, No1, March 2000. Held concludes both from US and IDF data that Whittakers DPV is no longer strictly applicable and backs up the Israeli findings about the turret and flanks of a tank being more likely to be hit than its hull front.

 

 Here is the complete post, dated January 1, 2014, his #91.

 

"Hi,

When the IDF analysed its database post Yom Kippur war it made some surprising findings. The initial assumption was that infantry anti-tank weapons were the main threat, in particular ATGMs. In fact data analysis showed that high velocity KE rounds remained the main tank killer. Also, as far as infantry weapons were concerned, the humble RPG, used at close range en-masse, was the main infantry borne threat, not heavy ATGMs. Thus, although the IDF did pioneer ERA against HEAT warheads, KE was perceived as the main future threat and the Merkava was designed to reflect this.

Israeli experience showed that while it was possible to rapidly repair and return damaged tanks to service, trained crews were irreplaceable. Thus all components of the Merkava were designed to ensure crew survivability. The engine and transmission, the battery pack compartment etc are designed to be sacrificed in slowing down and attenuating the effect of enemy projectiles. the objective is to turn what on other tanks would be a catastrophic kill to a mobility kill. Take a close look at the turret basket. See the bars which it is made up? They are not simple welded steel rods. They are heavy ballistic steel. Look at the heavy duty springs and other components of the suspension. They are again manufactured to a standard where they are contributing to survivability..

One other finding the IDF made, was that Whittakers direction probability variation (DPV) was becoming increasingly less relevant. Whittakers DPV is the rule of thumb where historically the expectation is that the front 60 degree elliptical arc was the part of a tank most likely to be hit. One other, important statistic was that since WWII, a tanks hull was increasingly less likely to be hit and its turret much more so. Although the IDF's findings are obviously classified, Dr Manfred Held, with whom the IDF cooperated with when developing ERA, was given access. Held produced a fascinating article, "Warhead Hit distribution On Main Battle Tanks In The Gulf War", this appeared in the Journal of Battlefield Technology Vol.3, No1, March 2000. Held concludes both from US and IDF data that Whittakers DPV is no longer strictly applicable and backs up the Israeli findings about the turret and flanks of a tank being more likely to be hit than its hull front. 

The Merkava reflects these findings, the tank pays increasing attention to all round protection including flanks and turret roof

Hope this is of interest.

cheers
Marsh"

 

Note: I don't know my way around the BB controls, put in the quote bars and couldn't figure out how to get rid of them!

 

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler