For comparison - BTR-90 with Bakcha cost ~ 1.300.000 $$Poll:
4) The price of a BTR-80 is given by the MoD at ~244 000 $
For comparison - BTR-90 with Bakcha cost ~ 1.300.000 $$Poll:
4) The price of a BTR-80 is given by the MoD at ~244 000 $
1) Yes.Poll:
1) Do you speak Russian or not, and if you do please respond to my previous post
2) Do you have a source for your production information or not, and if you do please cite it
3) I'm working on the assumption that the main production variant of the BTR-90 will be the one fitted with Bakhcha-U, given the recent trend of adapting it to BMD needs, it would seem natural
4) The price of a BTR-80 is given by the MoD at ~244 000 $
For comparison - a cost of one tank of T-90 in 2004 was 35 000 000 roubles, that on an of that time course - approximately those 1 300 000 $.For comparison - BTR-90 with Bakcha cost ~ 1.300.000 $$
Probably, untaxed and stripped down version for russian army. I.e. without Catherine TI, ERA, and Shtora . All these are not produced by UVZ and can be installed and purchased separately.For comparison - a cost of one tank of T-90 in 2004 was 35 000 000 roubles, that on an of that time course - approximately those 1 300 000 $.
Для сравнения - цена одного танка Т-90 в 2004 году была 35 000 000 рублей, то есть по тогдашнему курсу - примерно те же 1 300 000 $.
There is no plans to "pull the trigger" for own use. BTR-90 cost about as much as BMP-3M and BMD-4. All these vehicles (including tanks and BMP-T) are procured in very marginal numbers. However, there is little doubt what should any contract come - any of these vehicles could be build in hundreds every year.Hmm very interesting comments:
The BTR - 90 is in small scale production with the Russians ready to pull the trigger for full scale, if they havent already.
Hmm, can you give a link for 190 BTR-90 in service? As much as i know they numbers should be several times less.As of 2006 Russia had approximentely 190 in service that we know of, I cannot see them keeping the BTR -80A or S version in long term service when they can have a vehicle that is better armored, offers more inside vehicle mass and offers better mobility, yes - they have placed additional armor on the BTR-80 A/S but it still isn`t better armored over the new kid on the block, BTR-90.
Yes, not the best design. Too much sacrificed for amphibian ability and general balance.Plus let me add that the BTR-90 compares quite well to the likes of U.S Stryker or German Boxer. Now - only if they would do away with the bloody side access doors.
Anything with stabilized weapon already could be considered IFV. So early BTR-90 with BMP-2 turret is also IFV. Ofc, russians still try to name it as APC to comply various treaties.To you Chrom:
Standard 30mm equipped BTR-90 is called a APC, so where is the IFV designation coming from, the Bimp 3 turret configuration version.
BTR-90 8x8 armoured personnel carrier rolls into productionThere is no plans to "pull the trigger" for own use. BTR-90 cost about as much as BMP-3M and BMD-4. All these vehicles (including tanks and BMP-T) are procured in very marginal numbers. However, there is little doubt what should any contract come - any of these vehicles could be build in hundreds every year.
Hmm, can you give a link for 190 BTR-90 in service? As much as i know they numbers should be several times less.
http://idr.janes.com/
BTR-80A will be produced for Russian army at least for several years. There are no plans to fully replace BTR-80A with BTR-90 - it is unnecessary expensive in many cases.
Yes, not the best design. Too much sacrificed for amphibian ability and general balance.
Anything with stabilized weapon already could be considered IFV. So early BTR-90 with BMP-2 turret is also IFV. Ofc, russians still try to name it as APC to comply various treaties.
Are you sure that it is a good swimmer, in what configuration. If Russia wants to call it a IFV, mini tank destroyer or a bloody APC who cares, my concern is that the U.S Army knows of it`s capabilities so that we can effectively engage and destroy it if faced on the battlefield, as it stands right now the U.S and NATO has given it a APC designation.The BTR-90 can swim faster then the BTR-80. Anyways we aready determined that the BTR-90 is a wheeled IFV, being an APC only in name.
Feanor:Apparently 11km/h, vs 9km/hr on the BTR-80.
Если БТР-80 развивал скорость на воде 9 км/ч, то БТР-90 - 11 км/ч.
Everyone playing these games. Besides, treaties were withdrawn only last year, and there is good chance something will be made at they place in future.So the Russians are playing sneaky with the vehicle designations, why - they have already stated that treaties with NATO are thrown out the window so to speak due to security concerns.
Never underestimate the formal stupidity of bureaucrat who give designations..Are you sure that it is a good swimmer, in what configuration. If Russia wants to call it a IFV, mini tank destroyer or a bloody APC who cares, my concern is that the U.S Army knows of it`s capabilities so that we can effectively engage and destroy it if faced on the battlefield, as it stands right now the U.S and NATO has given it a APC designation.
No, there is promotional video.Feanor:
I know that the 30mm turret configured one will swim, but what about with a BMP 3 turret configured BTR-90. Also I was informed that it has the same swim speed as a BTR-80.
Thank you for the information, I will do some more digging around in-regards to vehicle swim speed. Do you have a link to this video.No, there is promotional video.
BTR-90 with 100mm gun swim 11km/h, can fire all weapons while swimming, have target auto-tracker, can fire from move against moving targets. Max missile range 5500, max 100mm gun range is 7km.
It really doesn`t concern me, Russia is in a process of modernization and why not have your best vehicles included, they can afford to get a little leaner but in that part of the world they still need a substantual military force.Everyone playing these games. Besides, treaties were withdrawn only last year, and there is good chance something will be made at they place in future.