BMP-2 - do most have thermal sights?

[Richard Young]

In general, are BMP-2 IFVs fitted with a thermal sight?

[lucklucky]

No. They had a IR searchlight which means active IR.

Maybe that changed afterwards but i am not seeing Russia putting money to buy thermals to most of them.

[Stefan Kotsch]

The BMP-2 is equipped with GPS BPK-2-42 (day-channel and passiv infrared-channel).

[istvan47]

GPS BPK-2-42

 

Atleast one thing the Soviet had right for sure: regardless the efficiency, their products always looked cool, even in the naming of the model (go figure, US had 'TTS', 'TIS', sob).

[Sami Jumppanen]

The BMP-2 is equipped with GPS BPK-2-42 (day-channel and passiv infrared-channel).

 

Just quessing that despite the fact that the word "infrared" is mentioned it is still just a image intensifier. Why do i think so: http://www.meopta.com/en/bpk-3-1404042308.html

 

"BPK-3 Combined Day/Night Gunner’s System for BMP-2 (BMP-1)

 

BPK-3 is an innovated combined day/night gunner’s system used for surveillance and aiming. This version of previous BPK-2-42 has a brand new night channel including electronics. It has superior effective range, resolution, and makes possible effective shooting up to 2000 m. It is passive and it does not need use of IR searchlights during most nights. BPK-3 is equipped with electro-heating. Outer dimensions were not changed which makes replacement of previous versions easy as there is no need to make modifications on a vehicle."

 

 

That is ofcource a whole new sight, but i take that they wouldn't downgrade from a FLIR to regular NVG?

[Guest JamesG123]

There is a difference between a "thermal imager" which sees deep into the infrared and an infrared sight and image intensifier that only sees into the near visible IR. Mostly in sensitivity and resolution ability. A true TI is much harder/complicated/expensive to build. Effective range of only 1000m implies its an intensifier not a thermal imager. If the BPK-3 were a "FLIR" I think the promotional literature wouldn't neglect to mention it.

[Mr King]

There is a difference between a "thermal imager" which sees deep into the infrared and an infrared sight and image intensifier that only sees into the near visible IR. Mostly in sensitivity and resolution ability. A true TI is much harder/complicated/expensive to build. Effective range of only 1000m implies its an intensifier not a thermal imager. If the BPK-3 were a "FLIR" I think the promotional literature wouldn't neglect to mention it.

 

A little off topic but something I have always wondered - is a thermal sight like those on a M1 in the same category of sights as say a FLIR on a helicopter? Do they operate on the same principle?

[Guest JamesG123]

Yep.

[Sami Jumppanen]

If the BPK-3 were a "FLIR" I think the promotional literature wouldn't neglect to mention it.

 

It certainly wouldn't talk about thermal searchlights...

[dejawolf]

you can usually tell whether a sight is thermal or not, based on the size of it. thermal sights generally tend to be larger, because they need a large cooling device to cool down the sensor.

[Stefan Kotsch]

BPK-2 or BPK-3, all BPK type sights equipped in the night channel with a infrared image amplifier (passive or optional active).

 

BPK-1 active 800 m, passive 400 m

BPK-2 active 900 m, passive 650 m

BPK-3 active 1300 m, passive 800 m

Edited November 23, 2011 by Stefan Kotsch

[lucklucky]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMP-2

 

This explains what configuration BMP-2 had at start.

[Guest JamesG123]

you can usually tell whether a sight is thermal or not, based on the size of it. thermal sights generally tend to be larger, because they need a large cooling device to cool down the sensor.

 

Not really. Or not any more anyway.

 

 

AN-PAS-13

[demosthenes]

...

Edited November 23, 2011 by demosthenes

[demosthenes]

...

[Richard Young]

Is the gunner'ssight only used to aim the turret? How is the AT-5 aimed at night?

[Stefan Kotsch]

The 9M113 KONKURS (AT-5) can be fired only by day. Or with lighting with visible light.

Edited November 27, 2011 by Stefan Kotsch

[Wobbly Head]

A little off topic but something I have always wondered - is a thermal sight like those on a M1 in the same category of sights as say a FLIR on a helicopter? Do they operate on the same principle?

 

Same principle different materials and wavelengths depending on military or civilian construction. The size of thermal equipment has decreased significantly over the last twenty years but the power consumption is still a major constraint thermal still uses vastly more power than II tubes. The main reason some missles can't be used with II is some of them have a IR flare to guide the missle which would cause the II to flare out.

Edited November 28, 2011 by Wobbly Head