Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Post Reply
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by NRao »

and do you know that the clam-shell doors are actually meant to hold fuel?
:rotfl:

USSR for you.

Read one article where they said in combat they filled it with sand !!!!!!!!!!!!! Instead of fuel.

Wondered how they got the sand out after the combat situation and preped it for fuel again.
well, does army has any other option? BMP-2 was the only game in the town after BMP-1
They retained the BMP-1 engine for the BMP-2 - to cut costs.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by rohitvats »

Austin wrote:Most of FICV involving private sector like Mahindra or TATA with Foreign firms will simply involve building CKD stuff of a foreign brand in India since all these Indian companies have zero experience in building any thing remote called FICV .... all they would do is over the period of time import or build under lic one of the selected foreign FICV and sell it at higher price year after year as bottom line is what matters to them.

Well, as the case of BHEL And TATRA as shown, the DPSU are themselves not above this game of bottom line...add to it, they use their clout with MOD to browbeat services into accepting third rate products - and all in the name of country and indigenous production. The Polish ARV is a case in point. So, I will take a private sector with more transparent set-up over the DPSU or OFB.

Also, you're assuming things here - the bulk order for FICV to be produced will be given in advance with commercial terms and conditions sorted out in advance. It is for the MOD and PNC to ensure that they lock the prices well in advance. As for screw-driver work with CKD - well, they have to start somewhere...HAL started with screw-drivergiri with Su-30MKI...private players can learn in due course of time.


OFB might be the incompetent with any thing other then screw driver technology but they still have some experience with building FICV via BMP route or developing some modification via DRDO developed stuff derived from BMP over period of many years.

Last thing that we need is to "WISH" for things to happen...there is no concrete proof of OFB having done anything of this sort and if their track record is anything to go by, they have been incompetent to translate a design into a proper product which can meet the QC requirement.

The best bet is to let OFB modify the existing BMP design via some foreign firm or DRDO and build a new FICV with indigenous turret gun , EO , modern FCS and modular armour with better safety and comfort built in.

Your batting for Russian stuff is quite astonishing...the least you can do is wish well for the troops of your own country. BMP-2 design modifications as FICV? Have you ever been inside a BMP-2 in a field area? Try being in one and you'll realize the dangers of being in that stuff.

As for modifications - well, if I need such a deep modification in so much as to change the very existence of the existing design, why not go with something new which has been designed from ground-up keeping in mind the latest developments in electronics and weapon systems?


It is not a rocket since to get all this in to modified BMP design and let OFB then sell it to MOD at a lower profit
Well, if it was not rocket science, Russians would not have come up with the contraption called BMP-3
member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by member_22539 »

+1. The resident rondina lovers are at it again. Anything can be said and done to bury indigenous projects. This kind of slavish worship of everything foreign is beyond nauseating. Either it is the self-hating bellyaching preacher or its the salivating fanboy, and both types find excuses to tar and feather homegrown solutions. Ah well, looking forward to more amazing contortions of logic in the effort to justify obsolete stuff like the BMP.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Indranil »

Plus if the recent trend is anything to go by, the private sector seems to be absorbing tech at a much faster rate. Tata for aero structures, or the artillery guns. Even the new trucks from Mahindra, Tata and Ashok Leyland are all TOT and they are adopting the base models wonderfully for all kind of products. It is really impressive.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by rohitvats »

indranilroy wrote:Plus if the recent trend is anything to go by, the private sector seems to be absorbing tech at a much faster rate. Tata for aero structures, or the artillery guns. Even the new trucks from Mahindra, Tata and Ashok Leyland are all TOT and they are adopting the base models wonderfully for all kind of products. It is really impressive.
True.

You need to give some sort of assurances to the private sector...private aerospace companies in west or others in MIC did not become majors in their field for the love of their motherland...they became what they did because their government was willing to give them an opportunity. The RFP for FICV already states that 50% components have to be domestic (I don't know whether by value or otherwise). With such a giant order, everything about the FICV can be produced in the country and costs brought down. The western companies will fall head over heals for something like this. We were lamenting about large order (actually lack of) for Arjun and associated higher per unit price..well, here we have an order bigger than the requirement, I daresay, than entire western Europe.

Someone like TATA or Ashok Leyland can absorb the tech about engines and EO sensors and communication equipment that much faster....I'm sure they would like to use this as a chance to develop new products (for Services) and also offer products for export.


The privilege given to the DPSU and connivance of MOD/some officers in Services/Politicians/DPSU management is at the core of the screwdriver attitude of these companies - they want everything on platter with having to bother about competition.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Indranil »

1. I feel the DPSUs will also perform better with the competition at their heels.
2. Plus there is nothing wrong in loving Russian stuff, BMP3 can enter the competition, win it, and take it all, fair and square.
Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1769
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Khalsa »

Singha wrote:since we do not have the equivalent of a general dynamics or KMW internally , we will take longer than the US/germany to cobble together a working soln and make it production ready. so imo there needs to be commonality

- engine - use the same vendor but perhaps the tracked vehicle will need a somewhat more powerful version of same engine
- driver compartment and control system - common
- transmission - different being wheeled and tracked
- sensors on turret - common
- NBC overpressure system - common
- passenger compartment in the back - common
- suspension - different
- turret - common, with a range of choices like 30mm cannon, 40mm cannon, co ax HMG, AGL, high angle remotely operated HMG for commander, 4 x ATGMs clipped beside the turret
- fuel - diesel
- special versions like commanders tank, ambulance, ATGM shooter raiding tank to have common interiors

the production can be farmed among oFB and two pvt bidders regardless of who won to speed up production rate and give everyone a slice of pie
BRILLIANT!!!! Singha.
You have quoted the bread and butter stuff that will cut billions no matter how long the road is within the R&D phase.
You have pretty much got a master list up there and I agree with everything you got in there.

However just looking at these examples below. Can you tell if both are amphibious without any special preparation.
Because thats whats they need to be (just like the BMP2) capable of assaults over the canal at a time of their choosing.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-SqGCl2jRv8M/T ... C01697.JPG
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-T6zKC6KLWyM/T ... C01695.JPG
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Austin »

rohitvats wrote:Well, as the case of BHEL And TATRA as shown, the DPSU are themselves not above this game of bottom line...add to it, they use their clout with MOD to browbeat services into accepting third rate products - and all in the name of country and indigenous production. The Polish ARV is a case in point. So, I will take a private sector with more transparent set-up over the DPSU or OFB.
Surely DPSU is not above corruption , if DPSU can use their clout so can the private sector .atleast with DPSU its under MOD with Pvt sector MOD cant control any stuff and as shown with global experience Pvt sector can deliver but with higher cost year after year , atleast with DPSU if you leave individual corruption aside which can affect any sector the money revolves within government.

Its better to reform the DPSU if required part sale to Pvt sector , rather then just leave it jump to Pvt sector as solution to all problems , if MOD cant control what it has it would never be able to control what it does not own.

Also, you're assuming things here - the bulk order for FICV to be produced will be given in advance with commercial terms and conditions sorted out in advance. It is for the MOD and PNC to ensure that they lock the prices well in advance. As for screw-driver work with CKD - well, they have to start somewhere...HAL started with screw-drivergiri with Su-30MKI...private players can learn in due course of time.
If Pvt sector increases prices mid way MOD cant do any thing but will be forced to accept what Pvt Sec has to say because they wont have a choice ...fixed prices can always be negotiation and terms agreed even with DPSU ..I think this is more of management issue with DPSU that needs to be solved.

IMO right now OFB will do a better task with FICV over any Pvt sector out there because of its experience , there is no harm in letting OFB do it while subcontracting key system to big private player rather then letting Pvt sector handle it all for which they have no experience and are unprepared ..its more of a choice between two evil , its better to choose the lesser one which ATM looks OFB
Last thing that we need is to "WISH" for things to happen...there is no concrete proof of OFB having done anything of this sort and if their track record is anything to go by, they have been incompetent to translate a design into a proper product which can meet the QC requirement.
AFAIK DRDO designed Ambulance version of BMP and even launchers for various missile based on BMP ...likely they were made in OFB ...they might not be best but thats what we have now. QC issue needs to be solved it cant be wished away.

Your batting for Russian stuff is quite astonishing...the least you can do is wish well for the troops of your own country. BMP-2 design modifications as FICV? Have you ever been inside a BMP-2 in a field area? Try being in one and you'll realize the dangers of being in that stuff.
Atleast with the competencies that DRDO and OFB have they can do a decent job with BMP , Its not me batting for BMP but thats the hard reality for now.

I am sure BMP-2 is not the best FICV out there as they have been developed in 60's but looking at the upgrade path that army has for BMP-2 it will be a while that it would be in service.

Building new FICV around BMP is not a bad idea if they ( DRDO + OFB ) can build it better with improved comfort , firepower and modular protection besides latest gen Electronics ....in the end you will have much great logistics commonness and lower operating cost.

All the modern western FICV might be cool but you can get 80 % of what they have even with modified BMP design for the rest 20 % you end up paying a bomb and end up with two different system which might have little in common if at all not to mention you end up paying huge lic cost , TOT cost and import cost which ends up being higher unit cost and operating cost.

If they still think its worth paying that much then its fine too. At the least they should let OFB manufacture it and let critical component subcontract to pvt player instead of Pvt player solely manning the game.
Well, if it was not rocket science, Russians would not have come up with the contraption called BMP-3
BMP-3 was built during cold war where Higher Stand off fire power ,NBC, amphibious capability with good frontal protection was of higher importance over sustained crew comfort and protection that we see with modern design , every one thought then that they would be fighting with Nuclear weapons as backdrop , which made the choices good for its type.

Todays design has less of emphasis of fire power but with moderate firepower , greater crew comfort and protection and modern electronics and modular armour is what is needed today to invade and sustain operation. Both design are good for what it was designed for its time.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Singha »

I have read none of the western icv are as readily ambhibious as the bmp series, so some special mods will be needed for swifter canal and river crossings if we adopt a western designs.

Taking advantage of the room inside the m113 i think the pakis made useful anti tank brigades out of them using bakhtar shikan missiles.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by NRao »

The FICV will be a tracked, lightly armoured, off-road vehicle that can zoom over sand dunes or across a river. Operated by a three-man crew --- a commander, a driver and a gunner --- it will also carry seven fully equipped infantrymen into battle protecting them while they are aboard from bullets and shrapnel. The FICV’s strike power --- an anti-tank missile; a rapid-fire cannon; a 7.62 mm machine gun; and a grenade launcher --- will enable it to destroy enemy tanks, ICVs, missile carriers, attack helicopters and infantry.

“The FICV will be a 22-24 tonne vehicle with the strike power of a 45 tonne main battle tank (MBT),” predicts Brigadier (Retd) Khutab Hai, who heads the defence business of the Mahindra Group.
The proposal is to use any PSU with bandwidth in production.

And it is an underestimation that none of the pvt companies have experience with ICVs. What they lack they have backup in their foreign partners. L&T/Tata/Mahindras have invested at least three years on this project. Cross trained people in native lands.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by NRao »

Singha wrote:I have read none of the western icv are as readily ambhibious as the bmp series, so some special mods will be needed for swifter canal and river crossings if we adopt a western designs.
The US Marines use vehicles that are modified for amphibious purposes, so you will need to search for things like Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV). The GCV and Bradley has Marine counterparts that are amphibious, while the rest are not.

The IA requirement I think pertains to Pakistan. And perhaps BD - even there they used helos the last time around did they not?

Besides I am sure that the three Indian vendors have designed for this feature for the FICV, else their proposals will not be considered.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Austin »

Looking at BMP-2 design and comparing with M113 , If they remove the 30 mm Turret Gun replace it with .50 Cal like M113 and remove the partition in middle then they will get one single more space which can be converted to dedicated troop carrier.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Singha »

thats what I was suggesting too, to fill up the cheap troop carrier taxi role. but height need to be increased to permit people to stand upright inside and fight from behind cover, staff a ATGM launcher (preferably a Kornet launcher with 6 reloads).
that will make it look like a bigger M113 :mrgreen:
Hobbes
BRFite
Posts: 219
Joined: 14 Mar 2011 02:59

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Hobbes »

Arun Menon wrote:+1. The resident rondina lovers are at it again. Anything can be said and done to bury indigenous projects. This kind of slavish worship of everything foreign is beyond nauseating. Either it is the self-hating bellyaching preacher or its the salivating fanboy, and both types find excuses to tar and feather homegrown solutions. Ah well, looking forward to more amazing contortions of logic in the effort to justify obsolete stuff like the BMP.
Maybe it's time for them to do a bit of samokritika. :D
srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2509
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by srin »

rohitvats wrote:1. The FICV is a reality and whether people like it or not, IA has already given its verdict on the requirement. If one goes through the chain of procurement as per latest DPP, the first step in the entire process is Acceptance of Necessity (AON) - that is, IA feels the need to have a FUTURE Infantry Combat Vehicle. The proposals from various vendors is based on the the technical requirements of the IA - if IA only wanted an updated BMP-2 as FICV, it would have asked for it. The fact that all the proposals submitted are inline with international development in the field of ICV development clearly means that IA is looking for vehicles with new features.

2. MOD has earmarked the project in Make and Buy category and IA has already given the lead time to MOD/Private parties to develop and come up with appropriate proposals. In the meanwhile, production and up-gradation of BMP-2 continues apace. FICV is good 5-6 years away from entering the IA inventory and by that time, IA would have stabilized the requirements for Mechanized Infantry with upgraded BMP-2.

3. As FICV will be produced by private companies and even considering production rate of 200 vehicles per company, IA will take at least 7-8 years to completely induct the new FICV. So, we will see the new FICV and latest BMP-2K serving alongside in the Mechanized formations.

4. Everything said and done, BMP-2 is product of a bygone era and was produced by USSR to suit its needs. I am surprised that while defending the BMP-2, Sarabpal.S says the European new generation ICV are made for their requirement...what was BMP-2 (like T-90) made for? Indian requirement? Have you ever been inside the a BMP-2? If not, please try being in one especially when the doors are closed...and do you know that the clam-shell doors are actually meant to hold fuel? Now imagine yourself inside the BMP-2 with fuel filled in those doors in a battle scenario with bullets flying all around? As for space - well, I don't know how many know this but Mechanized Infantry had a shortened and automatic version of SLR for use because the original one was too big to carried inside the BMP-2 cabin.

5. As for army being happy with it...well, does army has any other option? BMP-2 was the only game in the town after BMP-1 and army made do with whatever it could lay its hands on. When it got the chance, it asked for FICV. We need an ICV which can be wired for networking with new C4ISR grid that IA is putting in place, have better protection and comfort for the crew and is more ergonomically designed. And something which carries newer and more potent weapon system - like a fire and forget ATGM with superior sensors and EO suite. To achieve all this, a FICV needs to be designed from ground-up keeping in mind the developments in last 20 years in the field of electronics and weapon systems.

But as I said before, for at least next 12-15 years, BMP-2 in upgraded form will continue to serve in the IA alongside the FICV.

6. There is another very big requirement for having a new FICV - we need a common platform for various other support vehicles like Command and Control vehicles, mortar carriers, ATGM carries, ambulances, Recce and Surveillance platforms, a tank killer platform etc. While the FICV requirement for Mechanized Infantry may be around 2,600 vehicles, the overall requirement considering the support vehicles will be much larger.
The FICV project was in trouble last I read on Ajay Shukla's blog - something about procedures not being followed etc. That would be a huge turnoff for the private sector because they really can't invest capital if the process and outcome are uncertain.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Austin »

Singha wrote:thats what I was suggesting too, to fill up the cheap troop carrier taxi role. but height need to be increased to permit people to stand upright inside and fight from behind cover, staff a ATGM launcher (preferably a Kornet launcher with 6 reloads).
that will make it look like a bigger M113 :mrgreen:
Increase height would mean that it is also vulnerable to early detection and vulnerability of being attacked , The Akash Carrier based on BMP-2 is a good example of increased height where perhaps a person can stand inside the cabin

http://www.army-guide.com/images/akash2_weuyriu3.jpg

I feel IA focuses more on fire power per ton over says comfort , the BMP-2 upgrade proposal is a good example of it where adding Kornet and keeping the 30 mm gun is considered important enough along with latest EO and stuff , They could have easily said no to 30 mm gen minus Kornet and tried to add more comfort to crew , AC , modular armour protection afforded by higher HP engine.

Dont think we would be in game for Urban warfare but would focus on taking out enemy/ATGM squad/Bunkers at the longest distance possible without exposing BMP to counter fire in any indo-pak limited conflict.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Austin »

The FICV must also have “adequate amphibious capability for crossing of water obstacles like canals, rivers and stretches of sea”; and be “air portable” (i.e. in a transport aircraft’s cargo hold, or slung under a helicopter with chains). Its firepower must include a “fire-and-forget” third generation missile, a cannon and machine guns, which are operated through a “digital fully integrated fire control system with state of the art sensors and all weather surveillance devices.”
This would allow the FICV to destroy enemy tanks more than 4 kilometres away, well before the tank can engage the FICV with its main gun. The EoI also demands the capability to destroy “attack helicopters and low flying fixed wing aircraft.”
Did they miss any Best of Brochure requirement for FICV ...how about attacking Alien Aircraft with Laser.

Seems like FICV could go the Bofors way and Indian pvt Industry will leave in frustration that would leave OFB happily producing BMP-2 and dolling out cheques to Anthony EOY :mrgreen:
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sanku »

Philip wrote:Please read Sandeep Unnithan's article in the latest India Today,on the rot and waste in the defence establishment,how it takes twice as long and twice as expensive to make an ICV in India by our PSUs,plus other examples of waste in the thousands of crores each year.
Could you please share a link. It should be online as well. Since you know what you are looking for it will be easy to find.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Austin »

Sanku wrote:Could you please share a link. It should be online as well. Since you know what you are looking for it will be easy to find.
Possibly Philip Sir means this

The MoD is not a holy cow
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/amit ... 39828.html

Ministry of Waste

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/sand ... 39831.html
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by rohitvats »

Austin wrote:Surely DPSU is not above corruption , if DPSU can use their clout so can the private sector .At least with DPSU its under MOD with Pvt sector MOD cant control any stuff and as shown with global experience Pvt sector can deliver but with higher cost year after year , at least with DPSU if you leave individual corruption aside which can affect any sector the money revolves within government.


You are starting from a premise that private sector will perforce do something detrimental to the interest of the MOD/GOI/Services - well, if that is the argument, than everything should be produced by the government controlled companies. Right? Wrong. That is why there is competitive bidding and terms & conditions.

As it is, a DPSU itself cannot produce the whole FICV w/o external inputs like engines, EO Sensors and design. The very same DPSU will also be dependent on external factors of production and economics...Also, what control are we referring to here and why? As it is, GOI has all the power in the world to makes rules and regulations to control and regulate the sector. These are nothing but bogies put up to stymie the development of private sector and let the DPSU continue with their monopoly.
Its better to reform the DPSU if required part sale to Pvt sector , rather then just leave it jump to Pvt sector as solution to all problems , if MOD cant control what it has it would never be able to control what it does not own.
Please, let us stop these irrelevant arguments here...MOD has (and had) all the time in the world to reform the DPSU and OFB. The problem is that screw-drivergiri in DPSU suits vested interests in MOD pretty well and they will stonewall any changes. Last thing one needs is to wish for Godot and derail the procurement cycle of the Service(s).
If Pvt sector increases prices mid way MOD cant do any thing but will be forced to accept what Pvt Sec has to say because they wont have a choice ...fixed prices can always be negotiation and terms agreed even with DPSU ..I think this is more of management issue with DPSU that needs to be solved.
Oh! well....the pigs can fly, it will be discovered that moon is made of green cheese and pakis will start behaving like human beings...Please re-read what I wrote earlier. It is to prevent these things that there are contracts which finalize terms & conditions in advance...and unlike our Russian friends, people actually honor these. You can do better than bring in such inane arguments.
IMO right now OFB will do a better task with FICV over any Pvt sector out there because of its experience , there is no harm in letting OFB do it while subcontracting key system to big private player rather then letting Pvt sector handle it all for which they have no experience and are unprepared ..its more of a choice between two evil , its better to choose the lesser one which ATM looks OFB
You seem to forget that Indian private sector will partner with experienced foreign player - more experienced than OFB/DRDO combined - to produce the FICV. As it is, OFB is participating in JV with L&T...so, let them come forward with a competitive design and price quote and win the contract fare and square. Why this fervent appeal to protectionism?
AFAIK DRDO designed Ambulance version of BMP and even launchers for various missile based on BMP ...likely they were made in OFB ...they might not be best but thats what we have now. QC issue needs to be solved it cant be wished away.
BMP-2 has been produced in this country for donkey years and ambulance or C&C version of BMP-2 is nothing radical when compared to base BMP-2. These are hardly any shining examples of production and QC prowess of OFB.
At least with the competencies that DRDO and OFB have they can do a decent job with BMP , Its not me batting for BMP but thats the hard reality for now. I am sure BMP-2 is not the best FICV out there as they have been developed in 60's but looking at the upgrade path that army has for BMP-2 it will be a while that it would be in service.
Yes, BMP-2 will serve for quite some while in the IA - as T-72 will continue to serve. And that is why it is being upgraded - because the transition to newer FICV will take time. As is the case with T-90 and Arjun. But that does not make it ideal choice or base to serve as FICV platform.
Building new FICV around BMP is not a bad idea if they ( DRDO + OFB ) can build it better with improved comfort , firepower and modular protection besides latest gen Electronics ....in the end you will have much great logistics commonness and lower operating cost.
What logistic commonality are you talking about? With the kind of deep upgrade that you mention - nothing in old BMP-2 will be worth retaining...you need new engines, new EO Sensors, newer gun and ATGM and FCS.....what is left common with the BMP-2 in service to warrant this commonality logic? Unless the idea is to perpetrate a fraud like T-90 on IA, there is nothing in common between a 60's design and a FICV designed and build from ground up for today's battlefield.
All the modern western FICV might be cool but you can get 80 % of what they have even with modified BMP design for the rest 20 % you end up paying a bomb and end up with two different system which might have little in common if at all not to mention you end up paying huge lic cost , TOT cost and import cost which ends up being higher unit cost and operating cost.
You can spare these hand wave kind o irrelevant arguments. What 80% things or features are you referring about? Care to point them out? And what kind of deep upgrade to design is then required to accommodate these 80% features?

Fact of the matter is that BMP-2 design is an evolutionary dead-end. Like T-90 is. If you try and add too much lipstick and mascara to this outdated design, you will end with similar problems like T-90.

And there is no bigger indication of the same than the Abhay IFV developed by DRDO - it has nothing in common with BMP-2 and borrows heavily from recent advances around the globe in 'COOL' western IFVs
If they still think its worth paying that much then its fine too. At the least they should let OFB manufacture it and let critical component subcontract to pvt player instead of Pvt player solely manning the game.
Do you realize the contradiction in your own argument here?

You want OFB and DPSU to retain the monopoly in screw-drivergiri...again, everything worthwhile comes from private sector but ASSEMBLY rests with OFB. Time OFB and DPSU are given a kick in the nuts and made to compete with private sectors. And whether you like it or not, it is already happening in case of FICV.
BMP-3 was built during cold war where Higher Stand off fire power ,NBC, amphibious capability with good frontal protection was of higher importance over sustained crew comfort and protection that we see with modern design , every one thought then that they would be fighting with Nuclear weapons as backdrop , which made the choices good for its type.
You are joking, right? Higher protection? They removed the engine from the front to rear - which means that unlike earlier BMP-2, where the engine offered some protection, in this case, the crew for sure is toast - from mission kill, the design went to catastrophic kill.
Todays design has less of emphasis of fire power but with moderate firepower , greater crew comfort and protection and modern electronics and modular armour is what is needed today to invade and sustain operation. Both design are good for what it was designed for its time.
Less emphasis on firepower? Just because Russians equipped BMP-3 with a mix and match of 30 mm and 100 mm gun...does not mean others are less equipped in terms of firepower. BMP-3 was symptomatic of Russian design philosophy which has no relevance outside of Russia.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sanku »

Austin wrote:
Sanku wrote:Could you please share a link. It should be online as well. Since you know what you are looking for it will be easy to find.
Possibly Philip Sir means this

The MoD is not a holy cow
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/amit ... 39828.html

Ministry of Waste

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/sand ... 39831.html
Many thanks Austin-ji
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Austin »

Writing Long Post is not my forte so I will keep to the point :)
rohitvats wrote:You are starting from a premise that private sector will perforce do something detrimental to the interest of the MOD/GOI/Services - well, if that is the argument, than everything should be produced by the government controlled companies. Right? Wrong. That is why there is competitive bidding and terms & conditions.


The only reason why private sector exisit is they want to generate profit and every year they want to generate more from previous year , it might be good business to do that for them but in specifically in our Defence context it might be detrimental , MOD will end up paying more and more to them each year with the similar work that any DPSU can do plus or minus.

Any way I feel FICV is too critical to be left to pvt sector , it is better which ever design wins EOD its lead by DPSU with pvt player getting subcontracted in what ever they are good at and if it turns out to be cheaper to do that over outright imported system
As it is, a DPSU itself cannot produce the whole FICV w/o external inputs like engines, EO Sensors and design. The very same DPSU will also be dependent on external factors of production and economics...Also, what control are we referring to here and why? As it is, GOI has all the power in the world to makes rules and regulations to control and regulate the sector. These are nothing but bogies put up to stymie the development of private sector and let the DPSU continue with their monopoly.
DPSU should lead is my point as they have experience in building ICV and the necessary infra and trained manpower , where they lack is good management skills that needs to be improved.

Pvt player lacks infra . trained manpower and experience for such critical project they might be good at managing big projects again they have never done such things before so its just assumption but what they have is not good enough.

Pvt players eventually also bribe as we have seen in many scams ....they are as corrupt or may be more as DPSU but they are sophisticated in that compared to DPSU
Please, let us stop these irrelevant arguments here...MOD has (and had) all the time in the world to reform the DPSU and OFB. The problem is that screw-drivergiri in DPSU suits vested interests in MOD pretty well and they will stonewall any changes. Last thing one needs is to wish for Godot and derail the procurement cycle of the Service(s).
Screw Driver Tech suits every body but Pvt Players will end up making huge profits for their Investors while DPSU willl end up making huge or lesser profit but will go to the GOI.
Oh! well....the pigs can fly, it will be discovered that moon is made of green cheese and pakis will start behaving like human beings...Please re-read what I wrote earlier. It is to prevent these things that there are contracts which finalize terms & conditions in advance...and unlike our Russian friends, people actually honor these. You can do better than bring in such inane arguments.
Well check the Scorpene deal or Hawk Deal there are problems in all these deal and its not limited to specific country
You seem to forget that Indian private sector will partner with experienced foreign player - more experienced than OFB/DRDO combined - to produce the FICV. As it is, OFB is participating in JV with L&T...so, let them come forward with a competitive design and price quote and win the contract fare and square. Why this fervent appeal to protectionism?
Just because Pvt players have some foreign brand with them wont make them any more competent , They have zero experience in leading such big projects and no foreign brand can give them that.

Even if a specific design is chosen its better OFB or some other Designated DPSU with relevant experience leads it , that would also help MOD better control and monitor its progress through out its life cycle and keep cost under check.
BMP-2 has been produced in this country for donkey years and ambulance or C&C version of BMP-2 is nothing radical when compared to base BMP-2. These are hardly any shining examples of production and QC prowess of OFB.
Far better than any Pvt Player atm.

What logistic commonality are you talking about? With the kind of deep upgrade that you mention - nothing in old BMP-2 will be worth retaining...you need new engines, new EO Sensors, newer gun and ATGM and FCS.....what is left common with the BMP-2 in service to warrant this commonality logic? Unless the idea is to perpetrate a fraud like T-90 on IA, there is nothing in common between a 60's design and a FICV designed and build from ground up for today's battlefield.
BMP-2 Upgrade and FICV can share Engine , EO ,Gun Turret , Modular Armour , Communications/C3 and ATGM ....thats good enough even if they achieve 40-50 % common in both design its worth every penny.

Fact of the matter is that BMP-2 design is an evolutionary dead-end. Like T-90 is. If you try and add too much lipstick and mascara to this outdated design, you will end with similar problems like T-90.
BMP-2 has upgrade potential so it is being upgraded if it was evolutionary dead end we wouldnt have seen any need by IA to upgrade it , Army would have outright purchased some foreign design and lic manuf it here.

T-90 is an excellent tank with excellent qualities and the fact they one could upgrade it to MS standard shows its potential to keep up with the best around but if you wont believe your own Army Chief why would you believe me :)

Do you realize the contradiction in your own argument here?
No contradiction saar , just let some experience hand lead it and let them subcontract to many private players if it turns out to be cost effective.
You want OFB and DPSU to retain the monopoly in screw-drivergiri...again, everything worthwhile comes from private sector but ASSEMBLY rests with OFB. Time OFB and DPSU are given a kick in the nuts and made to compete with private sectors. And whether you like it or not, it is already happening in case of FICV.
I want them to lead in FICV project its too critical to be left alone to private player ..if OFB and DPSU has scope to improve which it does have let them reform them and make it better.

Handling FICV to private player will IMO only make it worse.
Less emphasis on firepower? Just because Russians equipped BMP-3 with a mix and match of 30 mm and 100 mm gun...does not mean others are less equipped in terms of firepower. BMP-3 was symptomatic of Russian design philosophy which has no relevance outside of Russia.
Well then you know so little about BMP-3 design philosophy time to read and get updated :)
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by NRao »

Austin,

I am very surprised at your posts.

1) The FICV requirements came out in 2007 or so. So, your post about aliens, etc is very surprising and actually out of wack
2) The FICV is meant for a battlefield of 2025+, where a BMP-2 or even a -3 will not do. They cannot do
3) IF (as Singha also puts it) a "taxi" is all that is needed, then yes, a BMP-2 (why even upgrade it then?) will do. But with IA itself deploying mini-UAVs, AT Missiles that are Fire-and-forget, with a range of 4 Kms, etc I am sure that a ICV/IFV will need to be a lot more "sophisticated" than what the BMP series offers today
4) IF a "taxi" is all that is required, what is wrong with Indian lorries? They can truck a lot more troops to the front off load them at a safe distance and let the troops walk the rest of the distance
5) India currently has 1500 BMPs. Assuming that they all are meant for carrying troops, they can carry at most 1500*7=10Kinto a battle. Hardly makes a good "taxi". Even with the proposed increase of 2600 units it will not even dent a "taxi" capability. So the ICV is not meant to be a taxi
6) The requirement clearly states that the FICV is meant to accompany a Strike force. A BMP-2/3 cannot do that. You will need a greater fire power to do that
7) There is also a clear move towards making ICVs closer to tanks - irrespective of what anyone of us thinks

None of your posts make any sense.

Commonality: IA clearly - even in 2007 - did not think that was needed when they issued the FICV recs. Else they would have stated that
Life of the upgraded BMP-2: a) Is not more than 10 years b) FICVs are supposed to take over the BMP-2s
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Singha »

its the newer IFVs like CV90 and Puma with heavy armour add on packages that are tipping the scales towards the 35-40t mark where some serious MBT level protection can be added.
Rus upgrades of BMP continues to be as light as ever. and their favourite tactic of slapping on a few ERA bricks cannot be used here due to dangers to dismounted infantry. so either go with heavy composite armour panels or be nook nood.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Austin »

Good so 2007 they laid the requirement and 2012 we are no were even closer to selection and now the MOD has been told to cancel and re-tender since selection criteria was not laid.....So lets see if FICV would see the light of the day in this decade.
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Surya »

am sure there are lots of folks in MOD who are probably trying to preserve it for the DPSUs. The half hearted stop and start measures indicates a strong DPSU lobby stil fighting to keep churning out slipshod products inefficiently in turn allowing the excuse to go rodina.
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Manish_Sharma »

Austin wrote: The only reason why private sector exisit is they want to generate profit and every year they want to generate more from previous year , it might be good business to do that for them but in specifically in our Defence context it might be detrimental , MOD will end up paying more and more to them each year with the similar work that any DPSU can do plus or minus.
I agree just as those cheats russkies took the money , but refused ToT for T-90 gun barrel. But still we should continue to buy from them.

Our own private sector only exists to make a profit , which they must be denied after all this money would go back in desh. All this money should go to T-90 country which doesn't work for profit..........
suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4041
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by suryag »

Well we always knew that Austin and Philip batted for the ruskies where is the surprise here?... btw every govt entity that makes profit pays it back to the govt or to the public share holders unlike ruskies

Even if MoD makes a profit it is shifting money from right pocket to left pocket so there is nothing much to be worried about. Ofcourse MoD should force the DPSUs/OFBs to make things on their own rather than buying stuff from abroad and polishing it prior to sale to IA/IAF
Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 884
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Mihir »

rohitvats wrote:do you know that the clam-shell doors are actually meant to hold fuel? Now imagine yourself inside the BMP-2 with fuel filled in those doors in a battle scenario with bullets flying all around?
Hi Rohit, the fuel being held in the doors isn't as big an issue as some might think. For one, I believe they are supposed to be empty when the vehicle actually goes into combat. All they do is increase the range when transiting rear areas, which makes eminent sense. Also, diesel isn't all that easy to ignite, unless it's in the form of a fine mist and there's a raging fire around already.

Going by the kind of rounds an ICV is supposed to protect against, I don't think it's a big deal.
sarabpal.s
BRFite
Posts: 348
Joined: 13 Sep 2008 22:04

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by sarabpal.s »

What you all think but BMP2 is the part our army and will be till Decade or two.

Wheeled IFV/ICV should be the priority as of now.

We need more logistic trucks or taxis to keep the paces with strike corp. Imho Strike corp desert sector dire need of wheeled IFV/ICV.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by NRao »

Austin wrote:Good so 2007 they laid the requirement and 2012 we are no were even closer to selection and now the MOD has been told to cancel and re-tender since selection criteria was not laid.....So lets see if FICV would see the light of the day in this decade.
Where di you hear that MoD has been told to cancel?

That is news to me.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by NRao »

sarabpal.s wrote:What you all think but BMP2 is the part our army and will be till Decade or two.

Wheeled IFV/ICV should be the priority as of now.

We need more logistic trucks or taxis to keep the paces with strike corp. Imho Strike corp desert sector dire need of wheeled IFV/ICV.
That it is part of the Army is a given. That the Army has decided to upgrade them is testimony to its being there for some time. Decade. But the very same Army has issued a rec for a FICV to replace the upgraded BMP-2. And, we cannot disregard that either - the same way we are supposed to regard the upgrade.

The FICV specs defines what is required. Tracked seems to be the way forward. Although I have come across mention of half-tracked.

Taxis are a totally different ball game. They are meant to transport troops into a theater and not meant to stand and support the troops during a fist fight. FICV are NOT taxis. (Nor are the BMP-2/3.) Lorries can perform that function.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by NRao »

For the FICV I think the risk allocation is 80:20 80% gov and 20% Private participant.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by SaiK »

^Is that based on investment and shares?
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by NRao »

Aug, 2010 Article provides more details wrote:
Three Indian private companies with ambitions in the defence sector won a major battle when they were invited to compete, on level terms with the public sector, in developing a Future Infantry Combat Vehicle (FICV) for the Indian Army. In the FICV project, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has conceded almost everything that the private sector has demanded since it was allowed into defence production in 2001. The MoD will fund 80% of the development cost of the FICV. And, with the army looking to buy in quantity, economies of scale are guaranteed during production.

For those who did not read yesterday’s Business Standard, four Indian companies --- Tata Motors; the Mahindra Group; L&T; and the MoD-owned Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) --- will submit proposals on 25th August for designing and building 2600 new-generation FICVs. Two vendors with the best proposals will be invited to develop a prototype each, contributing just 20% of the expense. Then, after the army chooses the better design, the winner will build 65-70% of the army’s requirement of FICVs; the runner up will build the rest.

In this welcome decision the MoD has followed the American defence procurement model, in which the Pentagon funds a development competition between two or more private companies for each new weapons system. So far New Delhi has usually nominated the Defence R&D Organisation (DRDO) to develop such systems and the OFB to manufacture them.

But with big changes come high expectations. Having granted the private sector its wish list, the MoD and the Indian Army will carefully observe how the private vendors handle their first-ever development contract. Any shorfalls will reinforce long-held MoD prejudices. “We told you so!” will go the chorus in South Block, “Only the public sector has the skills and the commitment needed for defence production.”

The comparison may even be directly tested, since the OFB --- potentially in partnership with the DRDO --- is in contention to develop the FICV.

There are three pitfalls that the private sector must avoid. Firstly, the selected vendor(s) must not fall short of the army’s expectations, or in providing users with a development experience that contrasts tellingly with past experience with the DRDO and OFB. In this, a draw would be a loss; only an innings victory would suffice.

Secondly, the private sector must not front for foreign partners, who seek to bring in existing products by the back door. As the debutante private vendors step into the FICV arena, the spotlight will play unkindly on those clutching the arm of a muscular foreign partner.

Global arms majors have figured that a risk-free way of cracking India’s difficult procurement procedures is to partner an Indian company in a “Make” contract, and pass off existing products under the rubric of “joint development”. A top manager in one of the private companies vying for the FICV contract recounts, “I have received more partnership proposals for the FICV than I ever received for any other weapons platform.”

Reflecting this trend, private companies worry that the OFB is about to join hands with Russian export controller, Rosonboronexport, to “jointly develop” a variant of the tested BMP-3 ICV. To circumvent such a possibility, the private vendors must accept the developmental risk of proposing an FICV that is technologically beyond anything on the market today. They have been asked to develop a Futuristic-ICV. The specifications they submit on the 25th must go well beyond avant-garde.

Thirdly, when history is written, the FICV will be less about who built it or how much profit was made. This chapter will be more about whether India’s private sector used this heaven-sent, MoD-funded opportunity to build its technological capability. Private sector managers argue that each technology decision --- whether to develop or buy --- should be treated as a business case. But this irreproachable commercial logic misses the significance of this turning point. The private sector’s success in grabbing the moment will be measured in the currency of technologies that were developed along with the FICV.

Certain technologies that will go into the FICV are presently beyond the vendors, e.g. an indigenous engine, or transmission system. If a technological breakthrough seems impossible during the FICV’s development, a foreign partnership is a better option than holding the project hostage. But there are many achievable technologies and sub-systems --- e.g. in electronics, ballistic computation, night-vision devices, fire control systems, and gun control systems --- that can realistically be achieved by putting more money into R&D. If the MoD is unwilling to go beyond what was tendered, private vendors need to loosen their purse strings. At the end of the FICV project, the private vendors must be able to point out key technologies that they developed in-country.

The MoD’s “Make” procedure mandates that 50% of the FICV must be indigenously produced. This is easily achieved by producing low-and-mid-end systems and components like the armoured hull and turret, the suspension system, the electricals and the basic electronics. A more convincing measure of success for the private sector would be an ability to claim that it met that 50% requirement in components that were developed and refined during the course of the FICV project.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by NRao »

OK, found THE article:

Oct, 2012 :: Setback for private defence industry
The private sector’s much tom-tommed opening into defence production, via the Future Infantry Combat Vehicle (FICV), intended to replace the army’s 2,600 BMP-2s at an estimated cost of Rs 50,000 crore, faces an uncertain future. The defence ministry (MoD) is contemplating scrapping the current tender and restarting anew. This comes after sitting for two years on the FICV proposals from three private sector consortia and one public sector entity.

In early 2010, MoD invited Tata Motors, the Mahindra Group, Larsen & Toubro and the MoD-owned Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) to give proposals to develop an FICV, a lightly armoured vehicle that carries infantry into battle alongside tank columns. After evaluating the four proposals, MoD was to select two “development partners”, who would then compete to develop a prototype each. The better of the two would be selected for the army.

But the MoD’s acquisitions wing, which must make the shortlist, now complains the tender (called an Expression of Interest, or EoI) did not define the criteria by which the winners would be selected. It wants a fresh EoI to be issued, with the criteria specified.
:rotfl:

The wing cites the Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP) of 2008, where Para 22 of the “Make” category, covering the FICV project, says: “The EoI should also lay down the broad parameters of the evaluation process and acceptance criterion for the system under development.”

However, the MoD brass realises that cancelling the EoI (drawn up in the ministry) and going back to 2010 would involve a serious loss of credibility. Besides, the “Make” category itself outlines the acceptance criteria, specifying that, “the contribution of the Indian industry in the critical technology areas should be the key criterion in assessment of various proposals”.

The three private sector companies worry that restarting afresh would result in the loss of at least 18 months to two years as MoD prepares a new EoI and then goes through a fresh evaluation process. Meanwhile, the project teams the proposed vendors have set up for the project would continue to bleed money.

“We have already spent about Rs 28 crore on the FICV project. Now, we will have to evaluate our options to see how this programme is going to roll out. It has already been delayed by two years and we foresee at least another year’s delay,” says Brigadier (retired) Khutab Hai, who heads the Mahindra Group’s defence business.

The “Make” category of the DPP lays down the procedure for Indian industry to develop “high technology, complex systems”, to “ensure indigenous research, design, development and production of capabilities sought by the armed forces”. It also mandates that MoD will fund 80 per cent of the cost of developing each of the two FICV prototypes, while the shortlisted vendors will pay 20 per cent each. While the cost of developing and manufacturing 2,600 FICVs can only be roughly estimated, senior executives from two of the competing companies estimate the bill would add to about Rs 50,000 crore. This makes it India’s biggest-ever indigenous project.

According to the EoI, reviewed by Business Standard, FICV has been conceived as a multi-role platform that must perform three roles. First, it must be a battle-taxi providing “mobility in battle for infantry, so that it can keep pace with armour”. Second, it must “provide fire-support to the assaulting/dismounted infantry”, i.e. spray the enemy with machine gun and cannon fire as the dismounted infantrymen charge at them. Third, and most ambitious, FICV should hold its own on the mechanised battlefield, even against much more heavily armed tanks. The specifications say FICV should “destroy enemy tanks, infantry or fortifications in conjunction with armour or independently”.

The FICV must also have “adequate amphibious capability for crossing of water obstacles like canals, rivers and stretches of sea”; and be “air portable” (i.e. in a transport aircraft’s cargo hold, or slung under a helicopter with chains). Its firepower must include a “fire-and-forget” third-generation missile, a cannon and machine guns, operated through a “digital, fully integrated, fire control system, with state of the art sensors and all-weather surveillance devices”.

This would allow the FICV to destroy enemy tanks more than four km away, well before the tank can engage the FICV with its main gun. The EoI also demands the capability to destroy “attack helicopters and low-flying, fixed wing aircraft”.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12195
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Pratyush »

They will buy the BMP 3 and call it a day. If they were serious about what they wanted from the Indian industry. Then they would have released the QSR and asked the industry to deliver according to it. But they did not. So at best they will buy the BMP3. At worst they will create the arjun Vs T90 situation.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Singha »

I would not attribute to cunning what can be explained by mere incompetence.

some of the outrageous points like being able to take on a real MBT head on and win will ofviously need to see the light of harsh reality and be struck off the mandatory points.

Third, and most ambitious, FICV should hold its own on the mechanised battlefield, even against much more heavily armed tanks. The specifications say FICV should “destroy enemy tanks, infantry or fortifications in conjunction with armour or independently”.


yes in a imaginary world and perfect visibility, a FICV armed with long range ATGM might be able to engage and destroy a MBT from beyond the 3km range of its main gun, but in reality, most engagements will happen in the 1-2km band or sometimes even closer so the FICV better avoid the MBT and not take its mythical capabilities too literally.

and the FICV is not even needed for that. if IA invests properly in Namica and Nag, we can have this specialized vehicle raise its sensor-cum-firing mast and literally shower a bunch of F&F ATGMs on enemy tanks before moving behind cover. at most I have seen ICVs with 4 preloaded ATGM tubes clipped to the sides of turret or a internally reloaded single arm launcher like Konkurs on BMP.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by NRao »

Conducted a very rudimentary research on IFV from here. Looked at as many IFVs that were 2000+ year.

Here is what I (think?) found:

1) A vehicle that is lightly armored has big time fire power
2) Conversely a heavily armored vehicle has a very little arms (Boxer)
3) There were a handful with capability kill a tank (including the BMP-3 - @ 5/6000 meters nonetheless)
4) Very, very few vehicles out there are amphibious
5) In some cases, an "IFV" is a light tank

IMHO, the FICV is truly "Futuristic" and not out of line with what is out there.

The problem - as I see it right now - is babudom.
sarabpal.s
BRFite
Posts: 348
Joined: 13 Sep 2008 22:04

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by sarabpal.s »

Singha wrote:
but in reality, most engagements will happen in the 1-2km band or sometimes even closer so the FICV better avoid the MBT and not take its mythical capabilities too literally.

and the FICV is not even needed for that. if IA invests properly in Namica and Nag, we can have this specialized vehicle raise its sensor-cum-firing mast u literally shower a bunch of F&F ATGMs on enemy tanks before moving behind cover. at most I have seen ICVs with 4 preloaded ATGM tubes clipped to the sides of turret or a internally reloaded single arm launcher like Konkurs on BMP.
singha ji that long gone in GF1/2

where M1 takes shot well behind 4km against Iraqi T72.just goggle it
Post Reply