IFV questions

[ROCK45]

Greece is buying 415 Russian BMP-3 Infantry Fighting Vehicles for $4 million each. These are apparently the BMP-3M model, which has been upgraded with a new turret and engines. The electronics include an automatic fire control system, a gunner's sight with a thermal imager and laser illuminator. The commander's periscope has a laser infrared illuminator. There is a new ammunition loading system. The 100mm gun fires laser-guided projectiles, high explosive/fragmentation rounds, 30mm APSDS (Armor Piercing Discarding Sabot) rounds and two other ammo types.

Full story
http://xpatathens.com/news/17231

I have some general questions to ask about the BMP-3 and this weapons purchase. To begin with I didn’t know that the BMP-3 is lighter and smaller then the US made Bradley. I always thought the two was in the size weight and size class which leads to my next question. I don’t know prices on these types of vehicles but if Greece were to buy western types IFV what would have been some of there options for the same amount of money spent? I think the above deal is a package deal involving anti-aircraft systems and anti-tank missiles which may affect the price so rough prices are fine. Are these the main countries that produce IFV?
USA
Russia
Germany
England
France
South Korea (new player more or less)
Does Brazil make a modern IFV?

Am I right to assume since the BMP-3 is lighter that in combat it has less armor not only against small arms + anti-tank missiles but also for IEDs?

I know this is a difficult question but if you had to rate or pick which three IFV would you chose for:
On open mainly flat terrain to directly support and work with main battle tanks plus other mechanized equipment where you’re covering 200/300 mile distances in clips?
Seconds – Urban cities like in Iraq and dealing with ambushes, IEDs, close in fighting, quick reaction missions, medical pull out’s, planned assault on selected areas, and for protecting supply convoys insides cities?

Thanks

[kato]

Greece is buying 415 Russian BMP-3 Infantry Fighting Vehicles for $4 million each. [...] I don’t know prices on these types of vehicles but if Greece were to buy western types IFV what would have been some of there options for the same amount of money spent?
In a package deal with other stuff? Not much, really, if they want new stuff. The German refurbished Marder deal would always have been an option, probably even cheaper.


Are these the main countries that produce IFV?
[...]

Countries with IFVs in production or active development?
Add... oh, Sweden, Italy, UK, Ukraine, Japan, China, Austria/Spain, Argentina, India, Turkey, Finland, Romania... and a couple others.

[Waylander]

Jup, the Marders would have been an option.
But they are by no means as capable as the BMP-3s with added new Thermals and other electronic stuff.

For the same price I doubt that one can get something equal.

[swerve]

In a package deal with other stuff? Not much, really, if they want new stuff. The German refurbished Marder deal would always have been an option, probably even cheaper.


Countries with IFVs in production or active development?
Add... oh, Sweden, Italy, UK, Ukraine, Japan, China, Austria/Spain, Argentina, India, Turkey, Finland, Romania... and a couple others.

And Singapore.

But not Brazil, AFAIK.

UK doesn't have one in production (Warrior production line is closed), & development is at the level of examination of technologies for future AFVs.

[Waylander]

Does any body here has the prices for the Bionix or K-21 at hand?

You are defenitely not getting a new CV9030 Mk.III, Puma or Ulan/Pizarro for this prize but I am not sure about the two asian candidates.

Ok, the K-21 is not available as fast as the BMPs. What about the Bionix? Are there production capabilities available or does Singapore needs them for their own orders?

[evripide]

According to several news articles in Korea, price of K-21 will be around $3.5m, can be up to $4m. The budget for about 500-600 vehicles were approved in the last year, though the army needed 1600. So you may see the mass product ones quite soon.

Because the Korean army already have BMP-3s, you can predict K-21's capability.

[Waylander]

Did they modificate the BMPs in any way? (New thermals, etc.)

I suspect these 3,5-4 million$ are without spare parts, support, etc.?
Would make it still more expensive than the BMP-3s.

And going for an indigenous product is as much a decision of jobs, politics, money spent in country, pride and independence.

[eckherl]

Did they modificate the BMPs in any way? (New thermals, etc.)

I suspect these 3,5-4 million$ are without spare parts, support, etc.?
Would make it still more expensive than the BMP-3s.

And going for an indigenous product is as much a decision of jobs, politics, money spent in country, pride and independence.

No modifications for ROK BMP 3, used along DMZ and as a OPFOR vehicle with less that a battalion in service with no future of purchasing additional vehicles.

[evripide]

I dont think they modified BMPs except rubber pads on the caterpillars and the communcation instruments. The soldiers of bmps say there are two different variences not because of the modification but because of the different times of importing from Russia.

BMP-3 is clearly a good AFV. Good guns and nice mobility. I had a really good impression for these characters around 10 years ago. (At the moment, I was trained as a M48 driver. Compared to the M48, BMPs, T80Us, and K-1s were striking.)

Well, one important disadvantage of the BMP's is its armour may not be that safe and it is even agreed by the soldiers of bmps. Also the space for the infantries is limited and uncomfortable. Personally, I think safety and space were the major concerning of the army.

[Waylander]

Thanks for your replies. :)

[ROCK45]

Thanks everybody for your replies to begin with. Now trying to breakdown the influx of useful information because I have more questions.

Hi evripide - I'll start with you because of your comment "BMP-3 is clearly a good AFV. Good guns and nice mobility" Not being in the field as one might say this kind of comment means more to me coming from somebody who done this for real. In fact I the up most respect for all of you who serve and that have done this and much more for real.

Now since the BMP-3 is light compared to the American Bradly can I assume there isn't much difference between the armor in a BMP-3 and BTR-90? I would like to think the armor in a tracked vehicle is a little heavier then a wheeled vehicle? But it seem like Russia's thinking is lighter means faster on the battle field thus giving up crew protection? Am I on track a little?

I will try and get to everybody and thanks

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/images/icons/icon7.gif
Smile

[eckherl]

Please keep in mind that the BMP 3s sold to Greece will come with a Russian reactive armor package, thus giving it considerable more protection against shape charges, this is a new kit which is actually darn near half the weight and size as the one currently fielded by Russian and UAE vehicles. I think Russian BMP3s are also lined up for the new package also along with other upgrades.

[evripide]

This is a url of a clip of K-21 on youtube. But I am a new comer so I can't post the url directly. Simply add this after the youtube address.

/watch?v=4se_9WrWyPw

[Rythm]

I know this is a difficult question but if you had to rate or pick which three IFV would you chose for:
On open mainly flat terrain to directly support and work with main battle tanks plus other mechanized equipment where you’re covering 200/300 mile distances in clips?
Seconds – Urban cities like in Iraq and dealing with ambushes, IEDs, close in fighting, quick reaction missions, medical pull out’s, planned assault on selected areas, and for protecting supply convoys insides cities?

An impossible question to answer, but i´ll give it an academic shot.
For both scenarios i´d go for the following two, in no particular order:

CV9035NL
Puma

[ROCK45]

Thanks Rythm I realize it is a rather difficult question. I look up both vehicles and both look impressive and will read up them to learn them better.

eckherl - It seem Russia has a good product here? Are BTR-80/90 good vehicles too? Another question you mention South Korea using BMP-3s for me it's like countries using the two fighters I like. Like for example Greece using F-16 vs Mirage 2000-5. I know with aircraft its difficult to get information on mock training between the two but do our Bradly or what ever South Korea uses train against each other? What a great source of information? Like the Greece's use the Mirage 2000-5 in the fighter role, even know f16net says Vipers are better. Being on the outside I think Greece knows or sees something in the Mirage 2000-5 that they like it a little better as a fighter. They have both and train against each all the time so one would think they would know, right? Do the South Koreans see them first line gear or second?

A off the wall question to all without too much air power involved and not buying a large number of heavy tanks and jumping to South America. What would a country like Peru and say Argentina buy mechanized wise to counter a deep strike into either country against Chile's Leo I and IIs plus AFV, etc? Say Chile had a reason to do such a thing would BMP-3 be a choice? If you had to build either country over a three period to counter Chile's I think 400+ tanks now, how would you do it? One battle cutting into southern Peru and the other I assume cutting through mountain passes. I'm just trying to add a little detail I guess there might be flat places along the Chilean-Argentinean border, on the map it does look like all mountains?

[chakos]

Rock... All the BMP series vehicles were designed for offensive operations at heart and would have a very limited utility in defensive operations. This would go for most if not all IFV. In defence mobility is the lest important of the mobility/armor/firepower triad. You need entrenched infantry equipped with modern ATGM, air support, minefields (either pre deployed or able to be deployed through artillery and air power) and a defence in depth. Entrenched tanks would also be effective as they have the ability to absorb damage and most importantly artillery and keep fighting.

The major use for IFV in such a situation would be as a reserve armored force that could be used in counterattack. Possibly as a battalion or brigade sized battlefield reserve so when the enemy has bloodied their nose on your entrenched infantry you then use the mechanised forces to hit them from the flank, roll them up and possibly use the gap you just created to go on a general attack.

To cut a long story short, in a defensive situation i would prefer to have a platoon of 4 kornet or metis launchers disperesed amongst a company of infantry than a platoon of BMP3's that can be targetted and neutralised in the opening minutes of the battle. And this is coming from the opinion of someone who is a great fan of the BMP3

[eckherl]

Thanks Rythm I realize it is a rather difficult question. I look up both vehicles and both look impressive and will read up them to learn them better.

eckherl - It seem Russia has a good product here? Are BTR-80/90 good vehicles too? Another question you mention South Korea using BMP-3s for me it's like countries using the two fighters I like. Like for example Greece using F-16 vs Mirage 2000-5. I know with aircraft its difficult to get information on mock training between the two but do our Bradly or what ever South Korea uses train against each other? What a great source of information? Like the Greece's use the Mirage 2000-5 in the fighter role, even know f16net says Vipers are better. Being on the outside I think Greece knows or sees something in the Mirage 2000-5 that they like it a little better as a fighter. They have both and train against each all the time so one would think they would know, right? Do the South Koreans see them first line gear or second?

A off the wall question to all without too much air power involved and not buying a large number of heavy tanks and jumping to South America. What would a country like Peru and say Argentina buy mechanized wise to counter a deep strike into either country against Chile's Leo I and IIs plus AFV, etc? Say Chile had a reason to do such a thing would BMP-3 be a choice? If you had to build either country over a three period to counter Chile's I think 400+ tanks now, how would you do it? One battle cutting into southern Peru and the other I assume cutting through mountain passes. I'm just trying to add a little detail I guess there might be flat places along the Chilean-Argentinean border, on the map it does look like all mountains?

BMP 3 is a good vehicle, is it good enough for the ROK to implement some of design features into the K-21, the answer is no. I have been on a ROK BMP3 and a T-80U and I walked away with the impression that both are very capable vehicles in the hands of a well trained crew. Does the U.S train with ROK units the answer is yes on occasion, which units actually train together is rather sensitive information that I cannot go into detail on, but their big annual exercise is called Team Spirit and that is pretty much public record.

BTR 90 is also a good vehicle with advantages over a BTR80 in the following areas:

1. Better armor protection
2. Better armament
3. Better electronics

Both vehicles do have one big major design flaw though, the engine is at the rear of both vehicles thus forcing the ground pounders thru a side vehicle access point thus exposing them to enemy fire, after the amount of casualties that the Russians suffered during the Chechen wars using the BTR 80 one would think that they would fix this issue.

[ROCK45]

So all the BTR series have a flaw so if Peru were to purchase new equipment BMP-3 would be a good choice but look else where for wheeled vehicles. So now I hunt around for wheeled vehicles.

Thanks chakos

Thanks evripide
The K-21 looks good but would Peru need US approval to purchase arms from South Korea? Could South Korea sell the K-21 to Algeria?

[Waylander]

The only one who limits arms purchases from South Korea is SK itself. :)

So everybody is free to buy weapons from them if SK wants to sell these weapons.

Hmm, for somebody with a limited budget I think BMP-3 is a very good choice. The equipment is good enough for Peru's needs.
Put the money you saved into training. This will help you much more than fully using your budget on new equipment.

[swerve]

...
The K-21 looks good but would Peru need US approval to purchase arms from South Korea? Could South Korea sell the K-21 to Algeria?

Would only be restricted if the S. Korean arms contain US-supplied equipment which is covered by US arms transfer controls.

[Chrom]

So all the BTR series have a flaw so if Peru were to purchase new equipment BMP-3 would be a good choice but look else where for wheeled vehicles. So now I hunt around for wheeled vehicles.

Thanks chakos

Thanks evripide
The K-21 looks good but would Peru need US approval to purchase arms from South Korea? Could South Korea sell the K-21 to Algeria? The flaw is not as bad as many thinks, and in some cases is advantage. For example, if vehicle is ambushed by side, troops can exit throu the other side. The advantages of rear exit is somewhat overestimated anyway, due to usually quite wide arc of possible enemy fire, which couldnt be completely covered by front-aligned vehicle.

[eckherl]

Oh yes - this is the way I want to exit a vehicle while under fire in full combat dress squeezing thru a small opening with my vehicle fully flanked.;)

[ROCK45]

Chrom I don't know a lot about armor vehicles I'm learning but wouldn't a door or hatch not be as strong a solid wall? So in theory wouldn't the side of BTR-? be weaker or at least at the door/hatch? I guess if they come under attack the driver could turn to let out troops but wouldn't expose more of the vehicle to further attack? I thought giving an enemy less of a target in combat is better. Unless you can explain the benefits I would have to agree with the poster who mentioned this flaw. Watching the military channel the convoy in Iraq seem to get hit from the side more. I do see one good point you mention that of course is if your attacked from one the other having a way out the other side isn't a bad thing. But on the flip side if the driver turns toward the attack exposing a smaller target and assume a little thicker armor maybe it would provide cover for troops exiting out the back. I guess like the glass of water is half full or half empty.

Can I assume the 30mm auto cannon and other weapons used on a BMP-3 can be mounted on a BRT-90?

Does one vehicle (BTR-90/BMP-3)have more armor protection against mines then the other?

Thanks

[Chrom]

Chrom I don't know a lot about armor vehicles I'm learning but wouldn't a door or hatch not be as strong a solid wall? So in theory wouldn't the side of BTR-? be weaker or at least at the door/hatch? I guess if they come under attack the driver could turn to let out troops but wouldn't expose more of the vehicle to further attack? I thought giving an enemy less of a target in combat is better. Unless you can explain the benefits I would have to agree with the poster who mentioned this flaw. Watching the military channel the convoy in Iraq seem to get hit from the side more. I do see one good point you mention that of course is if your attacked from one the other having a way out the other side isn't a bad thing. But on the flip side if the driver turns toward the attack exposing a smaller target and assume a little thicker armor maybe it would provide cover for troops exiting out the back. I guess like the glass of water is half full or half empty.

Can I assume the 30mm auto cannon and other weapons used on a BMP-3 can be mounted on a BRT-90?

Does one vehicle (BTR-90/BMP-3)have more armor protection against mines then the other?

Thanks

BTR-90 carry 30mm cannon by default. In fact, BTR-90 carry BMP-2 turret and FCS. There is also BTR-90 version with BMP-3 turret and 100/30 mm cannons. As for sides... no, doors are not less armored than the rest. The sides of BTR-90 is not as thick as frontal tank armor - so there is no problem making doors exactly as protected as normal armor..

As for drivers turning towards attack - sometimes they can, sometimes they cant. Either way in the case of wider enemy distribution it is almost impossible to provide protection for troops exiting rear, while it is much easer in case of sides exit.

As i said, it is probably disadvantage in more cases than advantage - just not always disadvantage, and not nearly to some deree as sometimes portrayed.

Do not mistake BTR-90 and BTR-80. Despite they similar name and look, they are completely different vehicles. One is APC, other is true wheeled IFV.

P.S. Believe me, USSR designers werent complete idiots, they last experience was Afganistan war. So there were a good reasons why they gone with sides exits, and there were a good reasons why army accepted that.

[ROCK45]

Chrom - Thanks interesting stuff do you know what a BTR-90 cost? Do you know why a country like Greece would buy 400 BMP-3 and not split part with BTR-90? It's safe to assume tracked vehicles cost more to operate and Greece is a old country that must have a lot of roads. I wonder why so many tracked vehicles if both carry the same or close to the same weapons, any ideas?

Anybody
Now I need to compared other wheeled vehicles to the BTR-90 just like I would fighter aircraft, any ideas?

Thanks

[Rythm]

If we talk about non-US vehicles for the mentioned scenario i would propose:

Finnish AMV or XA-200
Austrian Pandur II
second hand German Fuchs or French VAB
Italian Puma

if one would accept MRAV/Patrol vehicles then also:

Southafrican Casspir
Namibian Werewolf (most likely the cheapest you can get?)
German Dingo

And if wheeled support for these vehicles, then also:

Southafrican Rooikat with 105mm maingun
Finnish AMV with AMOS twin mortar system

[Waylander]

I would also add the Piranha III or IV.
One can buy them without all the fancy electronics some customers put into the chassis and one can also put whatever turret/weapons station onto it one wants. Shouldn't be that expensive and a good vehicle.

For wheeled support one could also go for the 105mm Puma (Isn't there also a 120mm available but not in active service?).

IIRC AMOS is also not a cheap system but it's versatility may make it also interesting for countries with smaller budgets.

[Chrom]

Chrom - Thanks interesting stuff do you know what a BTR-90 cost? Do you know why a country like Greece would buy 400 BMP-3 and not split part with BTR-90? It's safe to assume tracked vehicles cost more to operate and Greece is a old country that must have a lot of roads. I wonder why so many tracked vehicles if both carry the same or close to the same weapons, any ideas?

Anybody
Now I need to compared other wheeled vehicles to the BTR-90 just like I would fighter aircraft, any ideas?

Thanks

Hard to tell exact cost, as every year and every upgrade it rises. But several years ago BTR-80A cost was about 350k $$, and BTR-90 1.2 mil. Now it is probably close to 2 mil at least, with new BMP-3 turret, ERA, etc the price is probably comparable to BMP-3.

[swerve]

...
For wheeled support one could also go for the 105mm Puma (Isn't there also a 120mm available but not in active service?)...

What is this 105mm Puma?

Centauro exists in both 105mm (in service, operated in Iraq - reports that US convoys loved having it as an escort) & 120mm versions. The latter is fully developed, IIRC, but has not been bought by anyone.

[Waylander]

Naaah, shame on me. :o
Got confused with Centauro and Puma.

It is the Centauro I mean.

[ROCK45]

Everybody who posted different wheeled vehicles thanks, I tons of stuff to look up. I really had no ideas there were so many different types and makers too.

Does anybody have a idea why Greece wouldn't have split the order? What does Turkey or the countries to the north of Greece have to counter these 400+ BMP-3s? It just seems 400+ is such a large number I wonder does Greece use them in place of tanks? Anybody know?

Thanks

[DavidDCM]

What do you mean with splitting the orders? Like 200 BMP's and 200 Marders? The disadvantage is at hand: Increased costs for having two different logistics supply chains, two methods of training for the crews, very limited exchangebility of soldiers between the units (a marder gunner who would be shifted to a BMP bataillon to work as BMP gunner would have to be trained from scratch again, like a complete newbie).

Turkey's army is pretty comparable to the Greek in terms of land forces in my eyes. Leopard 1 & 2, M60T (Israeli Sabra), hundreds of IFV (mainly M113 stuff), AIFV, BTR-80 etc. Compared to them, 400 BMP-3 for Greece is not an overly big number.

Greece doesn't replace MBT's with their BMP's, they have Leopard 1's and 2's which they plan to use for many years to come (the Leo2's at least).

[ROCK45]

Thank you it makes perfect sense the way you explain it I see there's so much more I need to learn. http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/images/icons/icon12.gif
Wink