02:42 GMT11 July 2020
Listen Live
    Military & Intelligence
    Get short URL
    Russia's Army-2016 Military Expo (47)
    0 235

    Russia' military industry has begun drafting technical specifications for a proposed new airborne infantry fighting vehicle design, the so-called BMD-5, a representative from the Volgograd Tractor Plant said on Friday.

    MOSCOW (Sputnik) — The latest tendency in NATO countries and in East Asia is to design front-wheel drive tracked combat vehicles with the crew space located in the armored section of the body, the representative of the heavy equipment factory said, speaking at a roundtable discussion at the ongoing Army-2016 international military and technical forum near Moscow.

    "Due to this, the design of a potential BMD [Combat Vehicle of the Airborne Troops] vehicle with a 100 plus 30 fighting compartment [a 30-milimeter cannon and a 100-milimeter gun/launcher] is proposed, which is currently being developed for the BMP-3 Dragoon [infantry fighting vehicle]," the representative said.

    The proposed layout places the crew in the chassis of the vehicle behind the engine transmission compartment, which provides additional protection, he added, noting that the designs also provided for additional interior space for the crew and an enlarged hatch for easier troop deployment.

    Russia's current newest infantry fighting vehicle is the BMD-4, which was designed in the 1990s and entered into service in 2004. Designed to transport Russian Airborne Forces, the vehicle has improved in firepower compared to its BMD-3 predecessor, but the crew positioning and ergonomics were left largely unchanged.

    Russia's Army-2016 Military Expo (47)


    Russia's T-14 Armata Battle Tank Tests to Conclude in 2017
    Russian Army Military Might on Show at 'Army 2016' Forum
    Ka-52, Ka-60 and Other Helicopters Contesting Superiority in Russian Navy
    Cutting-Edge MiG-35: Welcome to Russian Aerospace Forces!
    airborne troops, BMD-5, Russian Aerospace Forces, Russia
    Community standardsDiscussion