KURGAN (the Urals), March 21 (RIA Novosti) - Russia could start producing modernized BMD-4M airborne infantry fighting vehicles (AIFV) in 2009, the vehicle's manufacturer said on Friday.

The BMD-4M is the latest modification of an armored combat vehicle that can be para-dropped to provide firepower and support for airborne troops. It features a new chassis, a digital fire control system and a set of high-precision weaponry, including a 100-mm gun.

"Following the final test results a decision will be made when the production of the vehicle [BMD-4M] will begin," Mikhail Bolotin, the president of Concern Tractor Plants (KTZ) said.

He said that in line with the state arms procurement program, the Russian Airborne Troops will receive several hundred BMD-4Ms until 2015.

The 13-ton vehicle has a crew of two and can carry six paratroopers.

"The capacity of our plants allows us to assemble up to 3,000 vehicles per year," Bolotin said, adding that the company had received about 1,000 unconfirmed export orders.

The Airborne Troops are considered the most capable mobile assault forces in Russia. Various estimates put the current personnel at about 48,000 troops deployed in four divisions and a brigade.

According to Russia's military reform plans, the Airborne Troops will be fully manned with professional soldiers by 2011.

Source: http://www.en.rian.ru/russia/20080321/101903920.html

do you have any idea on how many of those APCs they will be exporting or if they will be exporting them to any questionable nations?

By 2015 Russia will have 18-25,000 of these units produced, though it's not a major threat, it's a threat to opposing ground forces. Why? Because they will be able to pierce most armour out there, it's a big beneficial support for ground units.

Exports, will be discussed when they are made and tested by other countries, if I were to give you an estimate of such thing as of this, I would be lying to you.

hmmm sounds like a real bad thing for the troops to go up agenst.

no not really if they have any kind of sting or anti air you can destroy a plane and a acp. It would be bad for some 3 world country to go against. Seems like a good tool to invade with. A bad thing maybe but not a really bad thing.

You have no clue to what you're implying do you.

Russia is on pretty good terms with us i don't care if them use them in Chechnya or any X Russian . the army has m3s and M1s for a reason

"Russia is on pretty good terms with use"
-Russia is on pretty horrible terms with the United States, where did you obtain that information from, examples:
-European Defence Shield.
-Kosovo.

"the army has m3s"
-M3 "grease gun"?
-M3 Half-Track?
-M3 Stuart Light Tank?

"M1s for a reason"
-And the Russians with their T-80u & T-90s, and some time soon with a new tank thats being in "development".







To let you know, you don't put up an APC vs a Tank, though the crew it's carrying has a RPG-29's.

m3 recoilless rocket m1 is still better any any current Russian tank it shots the silver bullet KE round it is truly the best tank out of the two. uses a jet engine. du armor.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/07/wo.../07shield.html
http://www.miamiherald.com/692/story/459470.html

"m3 recoilless rocket"
-Oh you do mean the Carl-Gustaf M3, which was designed by Sweden.

"m1 is still better any any current Russian tank"
-Have have any proof there? Russians use the 125mm Smooth bore cannons, the United States uses the 120mm Smooth bore cannon.

-Though it is not arguable who's armour is better (American), due to it's size and the need for the armour.

-Russian tanks are quicker, more reliable, more powerful, and smaller/lower. Quite hard to hit a small fast moving target.

-American M1 tank engines (Turbine) have been known to suck in sand, snow, and other debris causing it to a dead stop.

-The M1 tank is active in 3 countries, Russian T-90 is active in more then 10 countries, not including their 55-80U models.

Information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-90
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/t90/

Your sources you posted nothing but proof to what I had said, their current status is horrible, though the United States are trying to do better, though you're not on any good terms.