Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 22 Sep 2014 02:54

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 4346 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55 ... 109  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 05 Jan 2013 00:26 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Posts: 7374
Rao Saab, you missed the Arjun reference in Anujan's post.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Jan 2013 00:28 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Posts: 12472
Location: In a sad place
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?
:(


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Jan 2013 00:32 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Posts: 12472
Location: In a sad place
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Jan 2013 00:44 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31
Posts: 4614
Quote:
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 !!! )


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Jan 2013 01:20 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58
Posts: 1970
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Jan 2013 01:22 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58
Posts: 1970
Surya wrote:
Quote:
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! :!:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Jan 2013 03:12 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 10880
Location: Illini Nation
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Jan 2013 09:35 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31
Posts: 11314
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Jan 2013 09:47 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31
Posts: 11314
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Jan 2013 10:32 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Posts: 1880
Location: Lone Star State
^^^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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Jan 2013 10:57 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13
Posts: 5727
Guys, it was propose at the time of launchig FICV that ,the winner of the compitition could use the production facility per existing at OFB Medak. Instead of building a brand new production line. So regardless of what brfites want the OFB will get a large slice of the pie. The only choice that was real was that we would have build up the indian design and development capability. With the BMP 3, we will have lost the opportunity to do so as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Jan 2013 11:17 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31
Posts: 11314
Shrinivasan wrote:
^^^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.


There are vested interest every where even in Pvt Sector , havent you seen how Pvt Players RIP off Pentagon year after year with exotic money paid to them.

Not reforming OFB is shying away from problem , Closing your eyes and pretending the problem will go away.

What about other programs or projects that OFB handles what about FMBT program , eventually the problem still remains even if you hand Pvt players some project it wont reform OFB.

Mahindra and TATA would start doing exactly what other good private players eventually do start ripping MOD and show year on year profit for their investors ...its not a crime but thats the way Pvt players work.

I believe Public Sector in Defence has huge potential which are grossly underutilised and underestimated and reforming it is the only way forward , Much like GOI has reformed other public sectors they can do the same with OFB even if it takes a decade it better to reform them rather then pretend involving private players will solve all problem with OFB , not that i am against Pvt players but its best utilised for specific programs.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Jan 2013 15:31 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Posts: 12472
Location: In a sad place
Austin wrote:
Shrinivasan wrote:
^^^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.


There are vested interest every where even in Pvt Sector , havent you seen how Pvt Players RIP off Pentagon year after year with exotic money paid to them.
.


Austin-ji; I fully agree that Pvt players are not a silver bullet, and reforming OFBs is a critical need which is not going to go away -- in fact I am sure you have heard me say the same multiple times.

But at least for FICV, I hope that OFBs dont get it, why? OFBs need to have the fear of god put into them, and pvt industry making a foothold will be one sure fire way. It worked for BSNL etc substantially.

Also we want capacity addition in every way, both through OFB improvement AND pvt sector, this is not either or condition, FICV is one of the easiest way to get the Pvt industry to cut its teeth in the Mil space.

Not to mention of course that the overall confidence that M&M will have timely quality delivery meeting the needs is much higher as things stand now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Jan 2013 21:39 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 08 Nov 2008 21:23
Posts: 2138
Location: Samjhautha Express with an IED
Schematic of Arjun's seat arrangement as per Dejawolf

Image

More discussion on this and Arjun armour here

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/defe ... post651242


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Jan 2013 05:37 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 10880
Location: Illini Nation
Here you have it, the final word:

FMBT to focus on weight reduction of battle tanks, says DRDO chief

Quote:
MK-II variant of Main Battle Tank (MBT) Arjun has entered into the user trial phase and DRDO is looking at the Futuristic Main Battle Tank (FMBT) project aimed at reducing the weight of the battle tanks, said DRDO chief V K Saraswat, who was in the city to attend the valedictory function of Post Induction Training School (POINTS) - 17 at the Defence Institute of Advanced Technology (DIAT) at Girinagar in Khadakwasla.

Talking to the reporters Saraswat said, “The trials of MK-II variant MBT Arjun are expected to be complete within a year after which we will be in a position to produce 300 to 400 units for the Army.” On being asked about FMBT he said, “The idea is to reduce the weight of the tank. Developed nations such as the United States of America and Israel have been working on reducing the weights of battle tanks. Heavy weights of tanks affect their maneuverability. We are therefore looking to reduce the weight of FMBT to 50 tonnes each.”

Commenting on the Indian Operating System (OS), Saraswat said that Indian OS is relevant in the time of cyber warfare and the DRDO has set a time-frame of three years for the project to materialise. About 250 outstanding senior faculty members from important Institutions such as IITs, IISc, NITs, DIAT and other institutes of national importance along with scientist faculties from various DRDO labs/establishments and Armed Forces have delivered customised lectures during this POINTS - 17 programme, a press release issued by Press Information Bureau said.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Jan 2013 08:56 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 24952
Location: NowHere
Perhaps DRDO can take a look at:
http://www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/detail/372906


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Jan 2013 09:03 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31
Posts: 1005
DRDO needs to get a private player to "market" tanks to army. We must understand that we are corrupt onlee!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Jan 2013 10:38 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 24952
Location: NowHere
mmm.. while many are contemplating on removing this evil, you want to make it as the core principle. thalia!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Jan 2013 11:08 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58
Posts: 1970
SaiK wrote:
mmm.. while many are contemplating on removing this evil, you want to make it as the core principle. thalia!


Exactly. Go the other way. Nobody will even know what hit them! :mrgreen: :rotfl:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Jan 2013 11:53 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 32934
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
there is a version called CV-90-120 that perhaps qualifies as a light tank of around 35-40t. the polish Anders might have such a ver as well. but I doubt these can mount the new gen higher pressure L55 cannons. no doubt they will provide firepower and mobility, but in protection , unless I am mistaken nobody has found a way to give a 40t tank mounting a 120mm gun sized turret the same protection level as a 65t tank mounting the same.
http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/dat ... _120-T.JPG

it can at best be used in the areas where bigger tanks cannot operate and as light "raider tanks" in concert with recce vehicles (fennec) and IFVs (the base cv90, puma types)...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Jan 2013 21:05 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00
Posts: 2415
The FMBT project of USA was cancelled after spending US$ 20 Billion. Indian Army is pushing DRDO towards same unrealistic Goals. USA is now looking at GCV which is supposed to 65-75 tons


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Jan 2013 21:50 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31
Posts: 1005
SaiK wrote:
mmm.. while many are contemplating on removing this evil, you want to make it as the core principle. thalia!

Contemplate all you want - we are deeply corrupt. So not taking this factor into a design strategy and then crying foul is hypocritical. We must acknowledge our ills and either have a national way forward on corruption or swim in it.

If DRDO had a Russian marketing front, they could have sold a 1000 Arjuns to IA.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Jan 2013 22:30 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31
Posts: 4614
Basically DRDO succumbed to the pressure and is now going on a wild goose chase and squander public money over this 50 ton FMBT nonsense. If there was the mildest courage - DRDO should have washed its hands off, closed down the armor research and let the guys go - saving them heartburn. In fact i hope there is a wholesale exodus - too long they have wasted their time on this nonsense

let the army come up with its huffy version of the FMBT


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2013 01:03 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58
Posts: 1970
Let's cut through the charade involving the DRDO FMBT project and what not.

So which Natasha-endorsed FMBT is Russia working on that will become our mainstay in the coming decades? :mrgreen:

I would like to go ahead and get started reading up about it.

:)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2013 01:17 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31
Posts: 1005
Jai Roosi-deshi!!!Forget Swadeshi - IA ishtyle!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2013 07:22 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 32934
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_ ... tform_T-99

rus is working on kurganets-25 to replace bmp, boomerang to replace BTR and armata-type99 to replace tanks and also form a heavy ICV.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2013 15:59 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 2105
Location: NullPointerException
vivek_ahuja wrote:
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.


You are assuming that the pvt sector guys have a clue about how to go and build FICV. I'm not sure of that (even though my info is a few years old).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2013 16:16 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 10 Dec 2005 21:47
Posts: 62
Location: Mumbai
Pride Of India Expo in Kolkata has a very good picture of Arjun Mk II! Looks very neat than previous version.

Regards,
Khambat


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2013 16:54 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 32934
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
just saw that pic in a un named blog. if its anywhere other there, could it be linked from here by a kind soul?

they should add more spaced armour panels on the turret sides rather than just add "tool boxes" there. maybe a heavy composite armour panel on outside of the "tool box" , then a gap of few inches, then then internal turrent armour visible at present. if the turret is rotated to one side to engage a tank, the sides will be exposed from other side and a shell could hurt it bad there

it looks like a challenger tank now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2013 17:02 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 32934
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
if that pic is real its a lot smoother than the hacked up crude wedge arrangement shown to ajai shukla here
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-l5bCtNUVarc/U ... arjun1.jpg


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2013 17:20 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Posts: 12472
Location: In a sad place
Singha wrote:
if that pic is real its a lot smoother than the hacked up crude wedge arrangement shown to ajai shukla here
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-l5bCtNUVarc/U ... arjun1.jpg


Cant find that pic anywhere expect on that horrible place.

Maybe Khambat could comment, I assume he has seen the same at Kol?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2013 17:41 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 10 Dec 2005 21:47
Posts: 62
Location: Mumbai
Nope, I have only seen it on the blog that cannot be named! :cry:
I don't know why but that image looks familiar (old) and could belong to some early prototype :-?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2013 18:19 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 30 Aug 2004 08:09
Posts: 317
What happened to the talk of Army saying no to FMBT project?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2013 21:00 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58
Posts: 1970
merlin wrote:
vivek_ahuja wrote:
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.


You are assuming that the pvt sector guys have a clue about how to go and build FICV. I'm not sure of that (even though my info is a few years old).


I never said the pvt guys have a clue. All I said is we are going to buy a rooskie design and assemble it here in India.

As tradition demands.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2013 21:09 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58
Posts: 1970
Singha wrote:
just saw that pic in a un named blog. if its anywhere other there, could it be linked from here by a kind soul?

they should add more spaced armour panels on the turret sides rather than just add "tool boxes" there. maybe a heavy composite armour panel on outside of the "tool box" , then a gap of few inches, then then internal turrent armour visible at present. if the turret is rotated to one side to engage a tank, the sides will be exposed from other side and a shell could hurt it bad there

it looks like a challenger tank now.


Supposedly its not the Mk II? Its an early design variant from the 1980s?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2013 21:14 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 32934
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
So why was it displayed in a drdo exhib showing ammo and a sectional diagram as the next placards ?

Ie unless he who cannot be named inserted them into the sequence of images lol


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2013 21:17 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 17 Jun 2009 12:46
Posts: 180
Location: mahishooru
Singha wrote:
it looks like a challenger tank now.


singha saar joo are mistaking it for the MKII prototype but its just sdre MK-1 prototype onlee, ajay shukla's pic is the latest one :P


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2013 21:21 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 32934
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
I am mystified why they went from a better looking and better protected proto with higher gunner sight to the current one which lacks sloping fwd armour in mk1?

I am not disputing its a old pic...just trying to figure out the why of it...did we ever talk to the british for a chieftain mki as the starting basis of arjun. Iran shah regime was also doing some mbt stuff with the brits.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2013 22:12 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 13 Sep 2008 22:04
Posts: 313
Location: New Delhi
self delete it early post wrongly quote the picture.

i am Talking about Arjun Pic which exit on untamed blogger :-? .
that pic is early model Arjun under 50t and clerly remember that i read it on web it was drdo1985 model of Arjun with 105mm gun.

than army change the mind after learning that pak going for Abrams


Last edited by sarabpal.s on 07 Jan 2013 22:51, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Jan 2013 22:40 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jan 2011 11:24
Posts: 306
caption on pic says -> Early Arjun Mk1 Prototype!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 4346 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55 ... 109  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Feedfetcher, Yahoo [Bot] and 13 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group