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
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 »

M113 interior is roomy and boxy
http://www.smithconsultinggroup.net/ima ... _large.jpg

BMP1/2 interior is actually two compartments with no movement possible between them.
http://director.io/tanquesyblindados/ar ... .co.uk.jpg

suppose you want to manhandle a couple of injured troops into the vehicle and evac, I dunno how that happens on BMP2 maybe only special ambulance versions without the middle wall can do it. but any M113 can do it
http://www.military-quotes.com/media/da ... behind.JPG

you can also drag in heavy bags and boxes into the m113
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:M113 interior is roomy and boxy
http://www.smithconsultinggroup.net/ima ... _large.jpg

BMP1/2 interior is actually two compartments with no movement possible between them.
http://director.io/tanquesyblindados/ar ... .co.uk.jpg

suppose you want to manhandle a couple of injured troops into the vehicle and evac, I dunno how that happens on BMP2 maybe only special ambulance versions without the middle wall can do it. but any M113 can do it
http://www.military-quotes.com/media/da ... behind.JPG

you can also drag in heavy bags and boxes into the m113
Dekho dear If Indian can make wider inner space in BMP2 for ambulance and for mortar carrier than they can make space for infantry it is depend on what army really want from them.
It is prudent that OFB making lots of variant of BMP2 and we don't need other.
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 »

PUMA

Cannot find if it can go across rivers, but other than that this seems to be a good alternative.

And the US derivative: GCV

I recall one being developed by the Brits too. Came across it about a year ago.
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 »

Well, gentlemen, what we need is a durable and cost effective solution which can be deployed enmasse. The vehicle should be able to provide a fair bit of protection to the crews along with it having floating capabilities.

M113 is an old design compromised by lack of protection - it is a battle taxi in true sense. Plus point is the cost - it can be manufactured in thousands...the main APC of our western neighbor.

As for numbers required, well, we have 6 x RAPID with each of them having ~6 vanilla infantry battalions. Now, consider a strength of 65 APC/battalion, you're looking at a figure of 3,340 units...w/o accounting for training and reserves. If you wish like, add another 27 infantry battalions in 3 x infantry divisions with Strike Corps (@1 per SC).
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 »

I think there are two things that are crucial for a IFV: a V shaped hull and a modern self protection system similar to the Trophy. V-shaped to deal with mines/IDEs.

Am not too sure that any of the older designs will suffice.
Bishwa
BRFite
Posts: 314
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Bishwa »

> As for numbers required, well, we have 6 x RAPID

Rohitvats,

Can you comment on this 6 number further? Which formations are they attached to? Available literature talks about 4 (2 with X Corps and 2 with the Strikes). Where are the extra two and which divisions are these?
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 »

with a net total of only around 2000 ? BMP2 made in 20 yrs so far by ofb, I dont think there is any way 3500 more can be made in my lifetime.

we definitely need something simpler, cheaper and that can made by pvt sector as well across multiple production lines.

there is no rule which says everything has to be made in OFB, its time our automotive sector got used.
sarabpal.s
BRFite
Posts: 348
Joined: 13 Sep 2008 22:04

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by sarabpal.s »

NRao wrote:I think there are two things that are crucial for a IFV: a V shaped hull and a modern self protection system similar to the Trophy. V-shaped to deal with mines/IDEs.

Am not too sure that any of the older designs will suffice.
V shape hull is by product insurgency. it will increase the height of vehicle a easy target for tank or anti tank missile , trophy is luxurious product as far as India's concern
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 »

Not too much. Height of BMP-2 is 2.45, the GCV 3.0 (V-shaped hull) and the PUMA 3.05 Meters (extra layered protection, increasing weight to 40+ Tons). V-shaped hulls are also good for mines, not just IDEs.

However, point taken.

BTW, Rafael and Mahendra have signed a MOU for the Trophy. That was a year ago. I think India has shown some interest in it if I am not mistaken.
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 »

Bishwa wrote:> As for numbers required, well, we have 6 x RAPID

Rohitvats, Can you comment on this 6 number further? Which formations are they attached to? Available literature talks about 4 (2 with X Corps and 2 with the Strikes). Where are the extra two and which divisions are these?
- 14 RAPID - 2 Corps
- 18 RAPID and 24 RAPID - 10 Corps
- 36 RAPID - 21 Corps
- 12 RAPID - 12 Corps - 5th conversion
- 4 RAPID - 1 Corps - latest conversion - IIRC, it was initiated in 2009-10 time frame.

There is a strong rumor about 7th RAPID having been planned and guess-estimate is that it could form under 11 Corps with 7 ID being prime candidate. BTW, the number of R&S battalions is more than the number of RAPID in the IA. Some vanilla infantry divisions also have them. Here, check the pic in the link: http://www.pib.nic.in/photo/2006/Jan/s200601267170.jpg
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 »

other than Khan with their 1000s of bradleys, and the old soviet union with their various zoo of tracked types, I dont think anyone on earth can even contemplate something like 5000 high quality IFVs whether wheeled or tracked.

we are between rock and hard place and some kind of armoured stallion truck(the 6 wheeled model) and 2000 M113 with bolted on armour package is perhaps the only thing that will give us numbers. the Euro/LAV/Stryker stuff will cost arm and leg because vendors will extract pound of flesh for their special suspensions, tires, gearboxes and engines for sure...even if we make the body and chassis. same for the BMP2 too much meat and complexity for the taxi role.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Austin »

With the planned upgrade of BMP-2 to 2M standard I suspect we would have the BMP-2M in service for a long time atleast 15 years or may be 20.

The indian tender i recollect even mentioned of an engine upgrade to 350 hp meaning the upgrade will be a deep one and planned for long term operation.

Here is a video of BMP-2M upgrade http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLmQKQ2uMwM

Any new FICV should aspire to have logistics commonality with BMP-2M with further improvement in Crew Comfort and Safety , Modularity in crew seating , firepower and operating cost ...doesnt matter if its a new design or an existing foreign type.

We cannot afford to ignore logistics with operating new FICV as it would end up with higher operating cost in longer run not to mention higher purchase cost too ... commonality in Engine , Firepower , Modular Armour could be some thing to start with even 40 % commonness would be great advantage.
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 »

1) From literature out there the IA seems to be seeking a total of 2600 units, over 20 years at a cost of $10 Billion (that is with a B ) for the FICV effort. That seems to be doable
2) There were four/4 players, perhaps one (Tata) is out due to their partner in Germany being banned
3) I have not followed the BMP-2 upgrade effort, but I just do not see any connection between the BMP-2 and the FICV - so far. Commanality is nice, but the FICV does not SEEM to make any effort to tie the two
4) IF it is true that the President of Russia's office wanted to talk about BMP-3 vs. FICV then it has to be a huge project. At $10 billion I can see why
5) The US and some European countries will field a brand new ICV/IFV around 2017ish. I would like to think that those efforts will have some influence over the IA.
6) IMVVHO, carrying troops into battle is better served by a new vehicle - the threats have changed over time and the old design (IMHO) will not serve the purpose. The older machines could/should be left to performing some functions like mortar/ambulances/etc

????????
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 »

One of the features that captured my attention - while puttering around looking at alternatives - is that the newer IFV have brand new technologies, one of them being electric motors to drive the IFVs (more and quicker power, great gas millage, etc). I cannot say if the IA is interested or even has confidence in such technologies, but it is out there and certainly will attract some attention.
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 »

compare the extra room and height inside the M3 bradley (2-3 troops + addl TOW reloads) and the M2 bradley (6-7 troops) vs the cramped Pinjra which is the BMP2.

http://data.primeportal.net/apc/russ/M2/23270027.jpg
http://aclark79.smugmug.com/photos/4482 ... pNuL-O.jpg

IA has already played with Stryker in the exercise in Belgaum.

I dont see any way in hell they will adopt the BMP2/soviet designs anymore....they will demand and get all the latest concepts and comfort factors in the FICV .

Namer interior.
http://www.palba.cz/forumfoto/albums/us ... merIFV.jpg
Brando
BRFite
Posts: 675
Joined: 26 Feb 2008 06:18

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Brando »

One of the other factors to take into consideration is numbers:

Does the Indian Army really need 3000+ FICVs in the 21st century ? Would fewer more capable platforms find more utility and use than 2500+ BMP style soldier-buggies ? What existing platforms like the T55, T72 can be converted/adapted to serve APC/IFV roles to complement the FICV numbers ?

These questions have not been answered satisfactorily by the Indian Army planners to make any educated assumptions about what will and what won't be acceptable to future Indian FICV needs.

IMO, the Cold War Soviet doctrine of the use of APCs and IFVs no longer applies, especially when you take into consideration the nature of urban combat situations which will form an important part of future conflicts. Plus, the growing requirement of fueling an immense fleet of highly fuel inefficient vehicles in difficult operational theaters is going to be something planners will also have to take into account as wars become increasingly cost prohibitive.
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:compare the extra room and height inside the M3 bradley (2-3 troops + addl TOW reloads) and the M2 bradley (6-7 troops) vs the cramped Pinjra which is the BMP2.

http://data.primeportal.net/apc/russ/M2/23270027.jpg
http://aclark79.smugmug.com/photos/4482 ... pNuL-O.jpg

IA has already played with Stryker in the exercise in Belgaum.

I dont see any way in hell they will adopt the BMP2/soviet designs anymore....they will demand and get all the latest concepts and comfort factors in the FICV .

Namer interior.
http://www.palba.cz/forumfoto/albums/us ... merIFV.jpg
BRADLEY NOW, let the Bradley sleep in peace it is no better than the M113.
you. really want to import but I dont think government going to do that.

if they had to than very long they'd it.

my point is BMP2 is as you say is cramped (just cramped) what else you dont like in it please let us know
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 MoD has sanctioned BOTH the upgrade of the BMP-2/K AND the FICV. So, where is the need to discuss this vs. that?

The BMP-2 will be upgraded (with a 380 HP engine and better targeting instruments). (At what cost I do not know - have not come across that info.)

And MoD has sanctioned $10 Billion for 2600 FICVs (recall that Putin wanted to take this fund to Russia on this trip).

Now, IF the IA and MoD considered the BMP-2 to be good enough they would not have found a need for a FICV, so they do feel that the BMP-2 is not good enough for the long haul.

From what I can see, IA should have - if everything works out well - 1500 upgraded BMP-2s and 2600 FICV over the next 25 years.
Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7807
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Anujan »

Brando wrote: IMO, the Cold War Soviet doctrine of the use of APCs and IFVs no longer applies, especially when you take into consideration the nature of urban combat situations which will form an important part of future conflicts.
One of the most important scenarios is the ability to fight under limited nuclear exchanges. Pakis are seriously pursuing tactical nukes. Though the Indian doctrine is counter value attacks even for a tactical first strike, it is important that we retain the ability to fight under a nuclear overhang. IA has been practicing for this. IFVs with proper filtration systems are an important component to this.
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 »

Some of the Indian BMP-2 are NBC capable.

I am not too sure, but, all of the FICVs could be NBC capable.
Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Vipul »

Indian Army plans to equip 1,600 T-72 tanks with advanced night- fighting capabilities.

The Army, having long suffered from deficiencies in night fighting electro-optical equipment, is set to make up critical deficiencies.

Following footsteps of paramilitary forces and the National Security Guard (NSG), who have gone in for accelerated purchase of night vision devices after the 26/11 terrorist attack in Mumbai, the armed forces are now taking steps to improve their night fighting capabilities, according to Frontier India News Network.

Army chief Gen Deepak Kapoor, had said in 2010 that “Indian Army’s tanks have a night vision capability of 20 percent while Pakistani’s have 80 percent and China has 100 percent”. The armed forces will review their doctrine, capabilities and shortcomings and also identify latest trends and technologies at a two-day seminar “Night Vision India 2013 on 16-17 January.

The Centre for Land Warfare Studies, a think tank of the Indian Army is organising the seminar at the Air Force Auditorium here in collaboration with IMR Media, a publishing and event organising company.Delegates from the three Services will discuss tactics, techniques, and procedures that maximize our night-fighting technological advantages while countering the enemy’s night capabilities.

The Army’s objective is to equip over 1,600 T-72 tanks which form the backbone of the country’s armoured forces, with advanced night fighting capabilities. The Army’s case for acquiring 700 TISAS (thermal imaging stand alone systems) and 418 TIFACS (thermal fire control systems) for its T-72 fleet at a cost of around $230 million is in various stages of the procurement process. 300 Israeli TISAS were imported, followed by 3,860 image intensifier-based night-vision devices. A huge requirement persists. 310 T-90S main-battle tanks (MBTs) were imported from Russia and fitted with French Catherine TI cameras.

According to Major General RK Arora, ediotr of Indian Military Review magazine, Army also requires hand held thermal imaging (HHTI) sights (with laser range finder) for infantry, armoured, air defence, artillery and engineer regiments. The infantry is also looking for TI sights for medium machine guns and sniper rifles. RFIs for night sights for AK-47 assault rifles and other small arms have also been issued.

Senior officers of the armed forces will address the delgates. Among them are Lt Gen Narendra Singh, Deputy chief of the army staff, Lt Gen Philip Campose, director general of perspective planning, Lt Gen JS Bajwa, director general Infantry and Lt Gen Vijay Sharma, engineer- in-cheif among others.

Bharat Electronics Ltd (BEL) is the biggest supplier of night vision equipment to the armed forces. Anil Kumar, chairman & managing director of BEL is expected to give an overview of BEL’s current and future plans.BEL recently supplied 30,600 passive night sights for rifles, rocket launchers and light machine guns, passive night vision binoculars and passive night vision goggles to the Army but the forces remain woefully short and are looking for the latest 3rd generation technology to reduce weight and extend the life of NVDs.

The Indian Air Force has felt the need for helmet-mounted night vision goggle (NVG) for a long time. Unfortunately, these had serious drawbacks in the past. Originally designed for surface forces and subsequently modified for airlift and helicopters, they were very cumbersome and limited both the field of view and visual acuity and thus totally incompatible with fighter aircraft. Further, they were not stressed for high-G loading and were not safe to wear in an ejection.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by shiv »

What is the meaning of "Future Infantry Combat Vehicle" as opposed to currently used ICVs?

I am not certain that it's a matter of comfort or space. I suspect it has more to do with sensors, communication, networking and new materials that allow better armor in some places while making it lighter in other places.

Old ICVs had a lot of metal armor against bullets but were ill protected against IEDs, Bottom protection is needs, but the side/front armor cannot go. So if seats and other eqpt can be made lighter extra weight and better design can go into protection. A lighter engine/gearbox may be an additional feature.
abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3090
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by abhik »

Brando wrote: IMO, the Cold War Soviet doctrine of the use of APCs and IFVs no longer applies, especially when you take into consideration the nature of urban combat situations which will form an important part of future conflicts.
How important is urban combat capability in the Indian context?
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Austin »

Russia to Commission BMD-4M Airborne Vehicles in 2013
MOSCOW, December 27 (RIA Novosti) – The Russian Airborne Troops will receive the first BMD-4M airborne combat vehicles and BTR-MD Rakushka multirole transport vehicles by the end of 2013, Defense Ministry spokesman Col. Alexander Kucherenko said on Thursday.

“Paratroopers are planning to receive 10 modernized BMD-4M airborne infantry fighting vehicles and 10 tracked Rakushka armored personnel carriers by mid-2013 for final testing and commissioning by the end of 2013,” Kucherenko said.

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.

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

The Russian military is expected to acquire at least 1,000 BMD-4Ms under the current rearmament program until 2020.
Video BMD-4M http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzkQbUHONtY
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:Russia to Commission BMD-4M Airborne Vehicles in 2013

The Russian military is expected to acquire at least 1,000 BMD-4Ms under the current rearmament program until 2020.
Video BMD-4M http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzkQbUHONtY
:roll:

Putin !!!!!

Offers India complete BMP-3 as in great three!!!!!

AND expects India to dissolve her FICV effort in the process???????

Strategic relationship.

OK, will India be able to absorb the BMP-3 technology without problems or will Russia withhold ToT for the gun again?

Het (Nye-ht)
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Austin »

You should known BMD and BMP are different type of vehical the former is for Airborne troops and latter for ground forces ....we use the latter and not the former.

Never mind OFB is in tie up with Russia for FiCV and there is iirc a british company with private sector for the same competition would be interesting to see how this shaped up.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sanku »

NRao wrote:The MoD has sanctioned BOTH the upgrade of the BMP-2/K AND the FICV. So, where is the need to discuss this vs. that?
Hmmmm. Indeed. This vs that has been the bane of this thread for some time.
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Manish_Sharma »

NRao wrote:One of the features that captured my attention - while puttering around looking at alternatives - is that the newer IFV have brand new technologies, one of them being electric motors to drive the IFVs (more and quicker power, great gas millage, etc). I cannot say if the IA is interested or even has confidence in such technologies, but it is out there and certainly will attract some attention.
This could be a major fuel bill saver for IA, would be great to have. Does Stryker/Boxer have it?
Last edited by Manish_Sharma on 28 Dec 2012 15:14, edited 1 time in total.
Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1769
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Khalsa »

abhik wrote:
Brando wrote: IMO, the Cold War Soviet doctrine of the use of APCs and IFVs no longer applies, especially when you take into consideration the nature of urban combat situations which will form an important part of future conflicts.
How important is urban combat capability in the Indian context?
What did our fathers and forefathers do in 71 ?
They got in
they sliced the jugular
and presented the body to Mukhti and got the hell out.
Advantage: no Baghdad; no kirkuk

If you are talking about a Urban Scenario in Lahore or Karachi. The answer is no.
We are too smart for it. We shall use our proxies in the MQM in Panjab League to rule by proxy when the dissolution days arrives for pakistan.
Otherwise we just besiege these cities and use them as leverage.
;-) I know I am being far fetched but then hey .. what are we here for but theorize so one day we might apply it.

if you are talking about Urban scenario in an occupied Amritsar or Srinagar or whatever.
Then still NO

We are gonna go in foot and recover and restore by street

Guys ... we need to remember Batticaloa. (IPKF)
While we had some tough and hard experiences, we overcame by the tactics similar to those implemented by Petraeus in Kirkuk.
Place a squad at each roundabout and you lock the charlie down until he is buying milk and eggs for his mom instead of fabricating suicide vests etc.

Another post coming up by me in conjunction with what Phillip said.
See you tomorrow.
vaibhav.n
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 575
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 21:47

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by vaibhav.n »

This mish-mash of Armoured and Lorry Brigade has always amazed me. I have always felt that if we completely mechanised the RAPIDS in the strike corps and take out the infantry div, it will give us a more balanced mechanised strike options paticularly when we are looking at mainly in Sukkur and Rahim Yar Khan axis or onwards to the more important Bawalpur-Multan belt. Additionally, the infantry divs can be used to bolster defences along the eastern borders or act as a command reserve. IIRC RYK, had an airport built by a saudi prince.

Our (Indep) Mech brigades are undermanned by a mechanised unit while the (Indep) Armoured brigades are overstaffed, because they are standalone formations within the Pivot Corps and have additional roles to start early break-in ops should the balloon go up.

Note:

1. For ease I have taken the classic armoured ORBAT level at the traditional 3:1 and vice versa. These give an insight into how difficult is the task of a complete mechanisation of the three strike corps and the potential numbers we are looking at.
2. I have not factored Mechanised Battalions with other RAPIDS, the sole purpose is to highlight the uphill task we face.

3. Strike Corps:
3 Armd Div - 9 Mechanised Batt
3 Mech Div - 27 Mechanised Batt

Pivot Corps & Future Raisings
10 (I) Armd Bde - 20 Mechanised Batt
2 (I) Mech Bde - 4 Mechanised Batt
10 Div RSTA Batt - 10 R&S Mech Batt

Total - 70 Batt x 58 BMP2 - 4060


I think if we are looking at the numbers we are, a deep-upgraded BMP-2 is the only option. Russians have a fairly upgraded and protected option that could be utilized. Even considering present and future threats in the east and west and the financial curbs, the BMP deep upgrade should do fine.

Link:
http://www.kurganmash.ru/en/machines/bmp2u/
http://www.kurganmash.ru/public/createi ... ds&lang=en
jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5727
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by jamwal »

Use of armoured vehicles in urban scenarios should not be overlooked. May be police in a normal Indian wouldn't need a vehicle like a BMP, but para-military personnel deployed in Maoist, terrorist infested areas as well as on sensitive installations can make good use of one. That silly looking BMP mod displayed in Def Expo 2012 was probably meant to fill this niche.

On a related note:
I spotted this contraption in Surajkund, Haryana. The company (Star Wire) manufactures various other bullet proof personal armour kind of stuff too.
http://jjamwal.in/blog/wp-content/uploa ... ando31.jpg
darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2937
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by darshhan »

jamwal wrote:Use of armoured vehicles in urban scenarios should not be overlooked. May be police in a normal Indian wouldn't need a vehicle like a BMP, but para-military personnel deployed in Maoist, terrorist infested areas as well as on sensitive installations can make good use of one. That silly looking BMP mod displayed in Def Expo 2012 was probably meant to fill this niche.

On a related note:
I spotted this contraption in Surajkund, Haryana. The company (Star Wire) manufactures various other bullet proof personal armour kind of stuff too.
http://jjamwal.in/blog/wp-content/uploa ... ando31.jpg
Jamwal ji, After seeing what Police did in Delhi recently, why support militarization of Police/paramilitary? It is only going to bite us back.

Don't think they will be limited to operating in Maoist areas only. A police state knows no limitations.
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 »

June 2012 :: DTI

Page 36: Hot Wheels (New IFVs are bidding to oust tanks ....)
Page 25: Regenerated Interest (GCV and hybrid drives)
Page 28: Puma Power
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 »

Puma looks good. but at 31-40t will need a C17 for airlift if that matters as it looks wider than T72 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 »

Until a few days ago I did not know how to spell IFV. But, today, I am convinced that the FICV/FIFV needs to be an Indian designed machine. "MKI"sed to the hilt. Import components and integrate them in India. But the design of it needs to be Indian.

Upgrade of the BMP can go ahead I guess, but, there will be a need for something more appropriate to the change that have taken place - technologically and politically. The -2 cannot suffice.
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 »

+1. the BMP2 is simply too outdated concept, just as the T90 no matter how you change it is outdated as a platform.
we are talking of a vehicle that needs to serve 2020 to 2050.
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:+1. the BMP2 is simply too outdated concept, just as the T90 no matter how you change it is outdated as a platform.
we are talking of a vehicle that needs to serve 2020 to 2050.
please explain why bmp is outdated not like your m series tin can
putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4665
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by putnanja »

Is it possible to convert some of the old T-55, T-72(I hear vijayanta is in storage too?) to ICVs? We should have around 1000-1500 such vehicles ready within couple of years, while the new FICVs won't see deployment within next 4-5 years at least, given our glacial decision making process(not to forget losing competitors trying their best to scuttle the process).
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 »

sarabpal.s wrote:
Singha wrote:+1. the BMP2 is simply too outdated concept, just as the T90 no matter how you change it is outdated as a platform.
we are talking of a vehicle that needs to serve 2020 to 2050.
please explain why bmp is outdated not like your m series tin can
:mrgreen: sir aap toh jasbaati ho gaye.
fear not, I am all in favour of a more gen-next vehicle if we can afford it and make it locally. he M113 I already mentioned is a rickshaw => rickshaw is faster and more efficient than walking if no other mode of transport is available. plus fare is cheap 8)
Post Reply