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
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 »

Pratyush wrote: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.
I guess that would have already happened if BMP-3 has not failed the flotation test as warranted by IA - source: d_berwal in one of the pages of current discussion on FICV. However, given the fact that BMP-3 is amphibious on the lines of BMP-2, what exactly IA wants in terms of flotation is not exactly clear.

- As for releasing the GSQR - the RFP has been released with technical specifications to the industry. And based on the same the industry intends to put forward their candidates for the FICV competition.

- More than the Army, I'm worried about DPSU angle in the whole procurement process. There are enough people in MOD and on the outside who would love to do a TATRA again. A tweaked BMP-3 by OFB in "JV" with Russians would be quite appealing to powers that be and keep the gravy train going.
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 »

sarabpal.s wrote: singha ji that long gone in GF1/2

where M1 takes shot well behind 4km against Iraqi T72.just goggle it
That was possible because there was 4 km of clear area to take the shot - try finding clear that much clear area without obstruction in India.
sarabpal.s
BRFite
Posts: 348
Joined: 13 Sep 2008 22:04

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by sarabpal.s »

rohitvats wrote:
sarabpal.s wrote: singha ji that long gone in GF1/2

where M1 takes shot well behind 4km against Iraqi T72.just goggle it
That was possible because there was 4 km of clear area to take the shot - try finding clear that much clear area without obstruction in India.
it is more about sensor and laser how effective you work as team
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 »

sarabpal.s wrote: it is more about sensor and laser how effective you work as team
Do you pause to read and think before you attack your keyboard to post one liners like above?

How will the sensor on your tank and team work allow you to hit a target using the main tank gun when your tank projectile (HEAT/APFSDS) does not have clear space to travel 4 kms - think of battlefield in Punjab or Rajasthan and then ask youself, will you get a clear shot at 4 km w/o vegetation/built-up area/sand dunes in between?
sarabpal.s
BRFite
Posts: 348
Joined: 13 Sep 2008 22:04

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by sarabpal.s »

rohitvats wrote:
sarabpal.s wrote: it is more about sensor and laser how effective you work as team
Do you pause to read and think before you attack your keyboard to post one liners like above?

How will the sensor on your tank and team work allow you to hit a target using the main tank gun when your tank projectile (HEAT/APFSDS) does not have clear space to travel 4 kms - think of battlefield in Punjab or Rajasthan and then ask youself, will you get a clear shot at 4 km w/o vegetation/built-up area/sand dunes in between?
I am not trigger happy and you are not a god of war Punjab has more cultivated area than the 60/70 hence more space.Punjab is place where we farm till zero line
James B
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2249
Joined: 08 Nov 2008 21:23
Location: Samjhautha Express with an IED

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by James B »

Some intense discussion on Arjun's armour protection. A long reading but interesting nevertheless.

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indi ... post643900
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12195
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Pratyush »

Rohit, am surprised about the news that the BMP 3 cant swim. googleing it throws many pictures of the vehicle swimming.

The live leak feed of the vehicle swimming.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4ba_1348 ... comments=1
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 »

Pratyush wrote:Rohit, am surprised about the news that the BMP 3 cant swim. googleing it throws many pictures of the vehicle swimming.

The live leak feed of the vehicle swimming.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4ba_1348 ... comments=1
I know...that is why I said that if BMP-3 failed flotation test(s) as per our very own d_berwal, then it seems that IA has pretty interesting spec requirement in so much as what constitutes as flotation test.
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21233
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Prem »

I was watching military Channel and on top 10 Indistructible Countdown they ranked T90 at number 2, just below the top notch . How come ?
Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Vipul »

Was it Combat Countdown or Indestructible Countdown? I have seen many episodes of combat countdown and am not aware of the other countdown.
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21233
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Prem »

Under Combat Countdown Series , they have this 10 Indu.. programme segament.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by SaiK »

Wow.. now I feel so good about Arjun
arijitkm
BRFite
Posts: 139
Joined: 12 Oct 2009 23:23

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by arijitkm »

Russia pushing India to buy BMP-3
Russia has been aggressively pushing India to buy its infantry combat vehicles BMP-3 and shelve its own analogous project that has got stalled, The FICV project was approved four years ago and has seen practically no progress since that. It envisages the production of 2,600 vehicles to replace the older BMP-2 combat vehicles. The project costs about ten billion dollars, while the government will fund 80 percent of development costs.

The MoD is pursuing this project under the “Make” procedure of the Defence Procurement Procedure of 2008 (DPP-2008), under which Indian vendors develop major defence platforms. The MoD funds 80% of the cost of developing a prototype that must be at least 30% indigenous; the Indian DAs pays the remaining 20%.

Russia has offered to transfer BMP-3 combat vehicle technology to India if India cancels its project, an Indian Defense Ministry source said. This has more sense for India, as its homemade Futuristic Infantry Combat Vehicle (FICV) can be commissioned no earlier than in ten years’ time.

.....
Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7807
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Anujan »

Earlier article says
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....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.
So a proper EOI has not been issued yet :roll: The article above says
The FICV project was approved four years ago and has seen practically no progress since that.
This is how articles like
FICV project was started in 1947, but no progress has been made so far. Army asked for a 50 ton ICV, CVDRE produced a 49.5 ton vehicle but it was deemed to be too heavy. On the other hand BMP-3 has logistics commonality with BMP-2 and weighs only 20 tons, and bridges and railway bogies can easily transport it.
Get written by lifafas, propagated as gospel truth. Natashas added to the mix, comparative trials nixed and arms are bought from abroad. Then we will have a smoothbore vs rifled bore discussion here and argue if FSAPDS rounds can be fired from rifled guns.
vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2394
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by vivek_ahuja »

Am I the only one seeing the writing on the wall regarding the FICV?

I for one have already started reading up on the BMP-3, our future replacement for the BMP-2.

I realize that this BRF dhaga will groan and moan for years on the FICV but natashas will woo the armored corps and we will have the BMP-3. Just accept it and save yourself the misery.

Unless of course you have some real way in which to help rid the Indian armored fetish with natashas, then I am all ears and willing to help.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Austin »

^^^ I doubt the BMP-3 news is true considering only the US based "Defence News" has carried that news and all others are just rehash of the same news like you see from idrw ....if this news were true some russian based news like Arms-Tass would have carried the same news.

But coming back to FICV the current Western based FICV lacks amphibious capability these western countries dont need those for the policing task they do in turd world countries but has more comfort and safety to its credit with fine firepower to deal with low intensity conflict.

That leaves either build one which has all you want with amphibious capability or go for some thing that is available which leaves only BMP-3 .....to its credibility the BMP-3 is operated by many countries and UAE has modified to its own need in BMP-3M ... on the minus its still a Cold War era design focusing more on Fire Power , Ambhibious capability ( upto sea state 3 ) and relatively better Frontal protection and less on Crew Comfort/Safety though its far better than the current BMP-2
vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2394
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by vivek_ahuja »

Austin wrote:That leaves either build one which has all you want with amphibious capability or go for some thing that is available which leaves only BMP-3
And guess which option the MOD + Armored Corps people will take here. :mrgreen:

Plus the added benefit is that the "something that is available" option is also Natasha endorsed.

As they say: its a done deal!
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Surya »

do we know whats the defn of the army's amphibious reqmt??

Also has any of the BMP 3 operators ever used in combat,

If BMP 2s were being cut to pieces and exploding fuel doors were burning its inhabitants, the poor troopers exiting the BMP 3 would have their heads blown off even as they try to get the blood running in their cramped legs

The 2 alongside the driver - no chance

If this is ever selected than I will have to agree with all the folks in the past who have said our Generals treat our men like cannon fodder
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Austin »

All things are possible after all OFB has tied up with Roboronexport in its bid for FICV :mrgreen:

If BMP-3 come in it would likely be some modified model of its last modernised variant BMP-3M with improvement on protection and crew comfort as today more modern and lighter modular armour is available and you can always put in shiny power saving LED tied to Reliance 3G service for faster downloads and to make Singha happy a rack with loads of iPad and iPhone 5 connected to Army Netcentric service and ofcourse AC :)
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Austin »

Surya wrote:If this is ever selected than I will have to agree with all the folks in the past who have said our Generals treat our men like cannon fodder
Oh I thought you already lost all faith in our Generals after they bought the T-90 :wink:
vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2394
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by vivek_ahuja »

Austin wrote:a rack with loads of iPad and iPhone 5 connected to Army Netcentric service and ofcourse AC :)
:rotfl:
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Surya »

not all Generals - mostly the armor ones !!

The BMP 3 is many magnitudes worse than T 90

The saving grace for the T 90 is that we are against an equivalent on the other side (for now)
srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2509
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by srin »

arijitkm wrote:Russia pushing India to buy BMP-3
Russia has been aggressively pushing India to buy its infantry combat vehicles BMP-3 and shelve its own analogous project that has got stalled, The FICV project was approved four years ago and has seen practically no progress since that. It envisages the production of 2,600 vehicles to replace the older BMP-2 combat vehicles. The project costs about ten billion dollars, while the government will fund 80 percent of development costs.

The MoD is pursuing this project under the “Make” procedure of the Defence Procurement Procedure of 2008 (DPP-2008), under which Indian vendors develop major defence platforms. The MoD funds 80% of the cost of developing a prototype that must be at least 30% indigenous; the Indian DAs pays the remaining 20%.

Russia has offered to transfer BMP-3 combat vehicle technology to India if India cancels its project, an Indian Defense Ministry source said. This has more sense for India, as its homemade Futuristic Infantry Combat Vehicle (FICV) can be commissioned no earlier than in ten years’ time.

.....
It's funny how foreign manufacturers suddenly offer ToT, when a homebrewed desi alternative is well within reach.
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:<SNIP>But coming back to FICV the current Western based FICV lacks amphibious capability these western countries dont need those for the policing task they do in turd world countries but has more comfort and safety to its credit with fine firepower to deal with low intensity conflict
Fire-power to deal with low-intensity conflict? :rotfl:
Western countries modifying their IFVs to deal with Low-Intensity conflict does not mean them are lacking anything in terms of fire-power and protection as a true blue IFV.
CV-90 looks like equipped for low-intensity conflict? It will rip apart your favorite BMP-3 to pieces in a matter of minutes...
That leaves either build one which has all you want with amphibious capability or go for some thing that is available which leaves only BMP-3 .....
There we go again with the pushing of Russian crap... :roll: :roll: :roll:
to its credibility the BMP-3 is operated by many countries and UAE has modified to its own need in BMP-3M ... on the minus its still a Cold War era design focusing more on Fire Power , Amphibious capability ( up to sea state 3 ) and relatively better Frontal protection and less on Crew Comfort/Safety though its far better than the current BMP-2.
Since when has purchase of weapon systems by Arab countries become a barometer of capability of a particular system? Guess,when it comes to pushing Russian crap, every last bit of marketing material counts.

As for focusing on more firepower - well, when you convert the basic design for a light tank (meant to replace PT-76) into a ICV, you get a compromise like BMP-3 - which is neither here nor there. That is why engine is in the rear and you have a stupid situation of two infantrymen sitting on either side of the driver. And men in the rear exist from top of the vehicle by exposing their full silhouette. No wonder, it has 'LESS' focus on crew comfort and safety.

And in case you forgot, this is 2013 and FICV is most likely to enter service in 2017-18 time frame. So, last this country needs is another fraud of the T-90 kind...it needs a solution designed for 21st century battlefield and not some compromised fvcked up design.
vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2394
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by vivek_ahuja »

rohitvats wrote:And in case you forgot, this is 2013 and FICV is most likely to enter service in 2017-18 time frame. So, last this country needs is another fraud of the T-90 kind...it needs a solution designed for 21st century battlefield and not some compromised fvcked up design.
I admire your boundless enthusiasm on the future of Indian armored forces. :)

All I have to you when you try to throw facts and numbers in my face is one thing and one thing only: Bah! Go away! And send the Natasha in on your way out! :rotfl:

I mean seriously, Rohit saar, do you honestly expect the army to do an about-face on the issue? Why will the IA Armored Corps people change what has become an issue of tradition inside their forces regarding apathy and scorn for the home-grown solutions?

Again, me happy to be proven wrong in due course. But me still putting my money on the BMP-3 or some other Russian solution for the FICV.
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 »

vivek_ahuja wrote: <SNIP>I mean seriously, Rohit saar, do you honestly expect the army to do an about-face on the issue of FICV when it comes to home-grown options? Why will the IA Armored Corps people change what has become an issue of tradition inside their forces regarding apathy and scorn for the home-grown solutions?

One very big difference - THE MECHANIZED INFANTRY REGIMENT + THE BRIGADE OF GUARDS. The Mech Inf guys operate the IFV and from what I understand, it is they who will decide on the next FICV requirement. I have more faith in them.

And Vivek, if you honestly ask me, the affection for T-90 goes beyond natashas and gravy train of kick-backs. And this aspect is captured very nicely in couple of pages in autobiography of General Shankar Roy Chowdhury. And mind you, General SR Chowdhury was COAS when first batch of Arjun entered service with 43 Armored Regiment. The T-72 was in service and the (then) current crop of Armored Corps officers had been brought up on this tank. AR officers were questioning the requirement of western design heavy tank then itself. It just so happened that this attitude helped some 'enterprising' individuals to enrich themselves in the process.

<SNIP>
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Austin »

rohitvats wrote:And in case you forgot, this is 2013 and FICV is most likely to enter service in 2017-18 time frame.
Wake me up when two thing happen FICV gets green light in this decade and we manage to go even 2 Km inside Pakistan to get Hafeez Sayeed .....till then just relax n enjoy :)
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 »

As usual the discussion gets muddied pretty fast.

1) The approval of the FICV will happen when it will happen. It is a civilian issue and NOT a technical issue

2) The FICV has reached a stage where which ever two are approved, those two will be built as prototype. So, the argument that western companies do not build amphibious ICVs is moot. Irrespective of what the western companies do Tata/Mahindra/L&T/PSU will have to build a prototype that can swim to whatever extent they are expected to swim. The fact that at least two of the participants have proposed a "FICV" has to mean that they have viable solutions. So, a BMP-3 is NOT the only solution out there
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:
But coming back to FICV the current Western based FICV lacks amphibious capability these western countries dont need those for the policing task they do in turd world countries but has more comfort and safety to its credit with fine firepower to deal with low intensity conflict.
What rot!!!!

BAE has been selected (in 2012) for the latest effort for the USMC MPC !!!! AND, they have teamed up with an Italian company to produce: http://www.armyrecognition.com/italian_ ... _tech.html. A 8-wheeled AMPHIBIOUS carrier !!!

(BTW, what policing task by Western countries?)
That leaves either build one which has all you want with amphibious capability or go for some thing that is available which leaves only BMP-3 .....to its credibility the BMP-3 is operated by many countries and UAE has modified to its own need in BMP-3M ... on the minus its still a Cold War era design focusing more on Fire Power , Ambhibious capability ( upto sea state 3 ) and relatively better Frontal protection and less on Crew Comfort/Safety though its far better than the current BMP-2
No it does not.

The major difference is that the Russians have this feature in pretty much every ICV they have, while the Western counterparts are a lot more selective. So, while the USMC has it, the US Army does not, pretty much for the same product - give and take some.
Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7807
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Anujan »

BMP-3 has lower silhouette than FICV. We should buy and induct BMP-3 because FICV is likely to contain a lot of imported components.
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 »

Anujan wrote:BMP-3 has lower silhouette than FICV. We should buy and induct BMP-3 because FICV is likely to contain a lot of imported components.
1) BMP-3 is imported too !!!! Or is it Indian designed and built? ........................ BMP-3 production started in the 1980s !!!!!!!!

2) The height diff is not much - I had posted it - perhaps in the last page. The Mahindra option may be lower than the BMP-3 in fact.

3) Has anyone compared one to one the BMP-3 and what is required of the FICV? To propose the BMP-3?
Last edited by NRao on 05 Jan 2013 00:32, edited 1 time in total.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sanku »

vivek_ahuja wrote: I realize that this BRF dhaga will groan and moan for years on the FICV but natashas will woo the armored corps and we will have the BMP-3. Just accept it and save yourself the misery.

Unless of course you have some real way in which to help rid the Indian armored fetish with natashas, then I am all ears and willing to help.
Vivek-ji (and others); if you see the current FICV saga, what ever mess exists, exists at MoD level. Why are armored core officers being blamed? Especially considering that ICVs are a mech inf requirement AFAIK?

Bashing armored core officers for all ills of IAs acquisition, even for mistakes at MoD end, is not done after all?
:(
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sanku »

Marten wrote:Rao Saab, you missed the Arjun reference in Anujan's post.
Well clearly the reason for including private participation for FICV would have included the past learning with OFBs with Arjun, would it not.

So yes, references to Arjun while talking about FICV make sense, but it cuts both ways.

For the record, I would prefer a Pvt player tied up with a excellent tech partner, winning a true multi-vehicle competition.

I really dont want OFBs winning this, with BMP3 or with a western company.
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Surya »

I really dont want OFBs winning this, with BMP3 or with a western company.
Hallelujah something we can agree on - although I don't want BMP 3 under any condition!!! (and forgive my hallelujah :D !!! )
vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2394
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by vivek_ahuja »

Sanku wrote:
vivek_ahuja wrote: I realize that this BRF dhaga will groan and moan for years on the FICV but natashas will woo the armored corps and we will have the BMP-3. Just accept it and save yourself the misery.

Unless of course you have some real way in which to help rid the Indian armored fetish with natashas, then I am all ears and willing to help.
Vivek-ji (and others); if you see the current FICV saga, what ever mess exists, exists at MoD level. Why are armored core officers being blamed? Especially considering that ICVs are a mech inf requirement AFAIK?

Bashing armored core officers for all ills of IAs acquisition, even for mistakes at MoD end, is not done after all?
:(
Fair enough, Sanku. I was being overly generalized in saying so and as I said earlier, it may go the other way on the FICV and I will be happy to be proven wrong and laughed at.

Its true as Rohit pointed out that the Mech-Infantry will make the call on this one and not the armored corps guys. So I am willing to give these guys a fresh chance.

But after having been burnt far too many times by those in service regarding the need for home-grown products, I am quite frankly exhausted and have mentally given up all hope for the better.
vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2394
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by vivek_ahuja »

Surya wrote:
I really dont want OFBs winning this, with BMP3 or with a western company.
Hallelujah something we can agree on - although I don't want BMP 3 under any condition!!! (and forgive my hallelujah :D !!! )
I agree.

Whoever wins, whether BMP-3,FICV or a horse-driven chariot with composite armor plating around the horse: please for the love of god do not give to the OFB to produce! :!:
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 »

Well .................

1) OFB was one of four participants (Tata, Mahindra and L&T the other three)
2) Not come across any proposal on the part of the OFB, but there was concern that OFB may hook up with Russia and submit the BMP-3 - the concern was that the BMP-3 would have been already tested and therefore the most mature of the proposals
3) No matter who wins, OFB is an option to produce - a third line. A line that would be idle and therefore put to use
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Austin »

NRao wrote:BAE has been selected (in 2012) for the latest effort for the USMC MPC !!!! AND, they have teamed up with an Italian company to produce: http://www.armyrecognition.com/italian_ ... _tech.html. A 8-wheeled AMPHIBIOUS carrier !!!
SuperAV looks very promising for Wheeled APC carrier has the right firepower protection and comfort you can expect from modern design and its amphibious as well.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Austin »

vivek_ahuja wrote:Whoever wins, whether BMP-3,FICV or a horse-driven chariot with composite armor plating around the horse: please for the love of god do not give to the OFB to produce! :!:
That wont happen because OFB is the biggest lobby in GOI and FICV can guarantee them steady work for its workforce for the next 2-3 decades irrespective which design gets selected.

The Tatas , Mahindra can still make car bus and tractor and survive even if they loose FICV but for OFB it would be bread and butter and they would pull every string in the GOI to get this not to mention the GOI would itself be inclined to grant them the same.

The best option is to reform OFB as much as one wants to wish away by jumping into Pvt Sector for all ills that ails OFB this organisation is here to stay for long so if not today then some other day you will have to reform them. FICV might just be an opportunity to cut the extra flab and make them more efficient.
Shrinivasan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2196
Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Location: Gateway Arch
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Shrinivasan »

^^^Austin ji, reforming the OFB is the most difficult thing to do, enough vested interest all around to not let that happen.. Grantint FICV to a pvt player will be easier.. Incidentally OF Medak is one of the better run OFB... The one in UP and WB are the worst lot.
Post Reply