Well, he got these pictures from forum of supporters of the "Great Ichkeria".
No wonder they collected only pics they want to see. And describe them as they see fit.
It will be operating with tanks so presumably will find itself in situations where enemy tanks are present. The Kornet can also be used against low and slow flying aircraft in addition to vehicles.1) It's an APC, but not IFV or tank killer vehicle. Each type for each job. It's so stupid to waste money on vehicle, that must be produced thousands of units and was created to "carry", not to "kill".
Equally when it has delivered its troops its normal role is to fall back a little and provide fire support. In that role a 5.5km range guided missile is useful.
If it is going to be carrying missiles with explosive warheads it makes more sense to have them outside and ready to fire than inside adding to an internal fire.2) I'm not against the Kornet, i'm just against the 4*ATGM's on any APC.
Mobility is more use than small size. If the terrain is used properly then the target will have little idea of what hit it, whether it was a team of 3 men or a 20 ton wheeled vehicle.3) Do not confuse well hidden ATGM team, with 20-tonnes vehicle, that will be forced to stop each time to fire ATGM, due to lack of stabilizer and automatic target tracking device.
Its main role is to move infantry around with tanks. When it is not performing that role then it might be used for fire support. In the latter role firepower is very useful. In full scale wars it is no more or less vulnerable than the western APC. In a small scale war its firepower and mobility would be very useful.4) In the fullscale war, with many MBT's and IFV's on the battlefield, at the distances =>1km it will be suicide for BTR-90 crew, because of big difference in ATGM's and APFSDS's velocities, high density of weapons of calibers >.50cal(12,7mm) and portable AT-weapons. 10-20 seconds on preparations and ATGM's flight to the target - it's too much for modern combat.
More armour would cost more in terms of mobility and fuel consumption and overall would not save you any money at all.I prefer to see less weapon, more armor + may be FLIR or passive NV + distance controlled turret.
Yes, the stabilised sight on the BMP-2 is actually good and this upgrade it is improved even further. The Kornet is laser beam riding and has no trailing wires that could be caught and broken if the launch vehicle is moving... it can fire on the move and continue to manouver during guidance.BMP2-Turret as employed by BTR-90 has a stabilisator. ATGM fire is surely possible up to 30 km/h speed (as given for soviet bore-launched tank ATGMs which have the same laser beamriding guidance as the Kornet)
As far as I know they have already upgraded a few and are upgrading more every 18 months or so.Nobody knows?
Payload increased to 45 tons, new radar and avionics. The engines are already pretty damn impressive with regard to performance... they put some in an old Tu-144 and it supercruised like the concord did.No improvement on the engines (power/consumption) is planned?
No improvement on IR reduction or RAM paint?
Bradley was a copy of the BMP. In fact in the early Bradley prototypes it even had a one man turret like the BMP. It changed when the BMP-2 was revealed. The BTR was an amphibious armoured truck to get all Soviet troops motorised at a time when NATO still used trucks for many units.Bradley was a response to the BMP. BTR and BMP have a different purpose,no?
I would expect the magnified optics and thermal imagers of that particular upgrade would offer the BTR-90 a better chance of pulling off a 5km range shot at an enemy tank than a crew in a jeep.No, just an idiotic conception, that is completely inapplicable to the real life.
Thanks for the pics of the RGN... does anyone know how widespread they are in Russian service? I find it unusual that they are not more common as a hand grenade that explodes on impact and can't therefore be thrown back would be a popular thing.