Ukraine Skif

[Infanteer]

Ukraine's version of the Armoured Combat Support Vehicle - an updated M113.

Ukraine’s M113-Inspired Armored Personnel Carrier In Testing

Ukraine is working to provide its own APC solution after years of war have eroded its donated and original fleets. With its M113-inspired Skif, Ukraine is doubling down on tracked armored vehicles despite heavy battlefield losses.

www.twz.com

 

[KevinB]

Interesting, the only really significant external change is the front glacis plate geometry.

I guess forgoing the amphibious ability and easy access to the engine for additional armor and potentially better obstacle climbing.

 

[FJAG]

I see a number of improvements which make it an interesting vehicle.

First and foremost is that it has tracks due to combat experience with the conditions of Ukraine. Rural Germany and I expect much of Wester Europe is the same. I'm still a fan of tracks. Using proven technology and existing manufacturing greatly increases the reliability and ability to bring system to the units. Same for the ramp and door system which looks identical.

I like the driver, commander, gunner stations - putting the commander directly behind the driver increases control in time of comms difficulties and having the weapon station to the side probably makes more space available for dismounts and cleanly separates the fighting module from the dismount module. 8 is a decent number for dismounts in a vehicle as small and low as the M113.

I like the RWS station. While they talk GPMG and 12.7mm it looks to me like a wide variety of systems could be incorporated here. It would be interesting to know how strengthened that part of the roof is for heavier weapons like 25 or even 30mm.

I like the two crew hatches on the back. They look a bit more secure and useful than our large hatch which you wouldn't want to open or close while moving..

I find the track shrouds interesting. We always dumped all ours. OTOH, I wonder how much they could add to creating some standoff for UAV or even RPG strikes

Shows what wartime innovation can bring about. We got a half a century of service out of our fleet. There's a lot of solid engineering in the design that can be built on.

 

[markppcli]

We should offer to build them at GDLS and we'll keep ten percent. Id be happy with around 1000 of those with a 30 mm system that can dual feed.

 

[FJAG]

We should offer to build them at GDLS and we'll keep ten percent. Id be happy with around 1000 of those with a 30 mm system that can dual feed.

The M113 was an FMC, now BAE, product. I'm not so sure they would give GDLS licence to build them or their components with BAE now building the AMPV as the M113 replacement. The steel AMPV weighs over twice what the aluminum skif comes in at.

 

[KevinB]

The M113 was an FMC, now BAE, product. I'm not so sure they would give GDLS licence to build them or their components with BAE now building the AMPV as the M113 replacement. The steel AMPV weighs over twice what the aluminum skif comes in at.

Steel also burns at a much higher temp than aluminum…
I’ll take the steel for most applications.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Steel also burns at a much higher temp than aluminum…
I’ll take the steel for most applications.

If your steel armour is on fire, you have bigger problems. Like, most likely being unalived.

 

[KevinB]

As steel is a much harder denser material inch for inch it is a vastly superior ballistic material than aluminum.

Opt for wider tracks if necessary to keep ground pressure low to offset the weight.

 

[FJAG]

As steel is a much harder denser material inch for inch it is a vastly superior ballistic material than aluminum.

Opt for wider tracks if necessary to keep ground pressure low to offset the weight.

Not every vehicle needs superior ballistic protection. The aluminum-based M113 was designed as a battlefield taxi with a need to protect against 122mm and 152mm slinters and small arms fire. Same with the M109. Tanks, and subsequently Bradleys, OTOH . . .

The trick is to find balance commensurate with the risk. One obviously wouldn't want to use these in an armoured assault role but they'll do mighty fine in transporting troops, under armour, across difficult terrain. They'll certainly serve against conventional threats but will need decent air cover. But then even steel vehicles haven't done too well against the drone or ATGM that gets through.

I see it as a relatively inexpensive 80-90% solution.