Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17003
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby Rahul M » 11 Jan 2009 23:21

in relation to the discussion we were having on IA's requirement for light tanks.

I could not locate the article I had in memory, probably because the website doesn't archive but found a similar one :
http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... ono=326299
Ajai Shukla: Finding the right bullies
BROADSWORD
Ajai Shukla / New Delhi June 17, 2008, 4:47 IST

China is flexing its muscles over the so-called Finger Area in North Sikkim, an ideal deployment area for a detachment of Indian light tanks. But the long-standing proposal for acquiring a brigade (three regiments) of light tanks for northeast India is still in the seminar rooms of the army; it has not yet been sent on to the Ministry of Defence (MoD).

When asked why, the army's Director General of Mechanised Forces (DGMF), Lt Gen D Bhardwaj, responded with a terse written statement: "The current fleet of tanks in Mech(anised) Forces (sic) is well equipped to execute operations efficiently in all types of terrain i.e. deserts, canal and riverine terrain. We are studying the proposal for a lighter weight tank for other terrains, specifically in the NE (northeast). This of course is a futuristic requirement."

satya
BRFite
Posts: 717
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 03:09

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby satya » 11 Jan 2009 23:30

Quoting a quote from Rahul's post :

Quote:
China is flexing its muscles over the so-called Finger Area in North Sikkim, an ideal deployment area for a detachment of Indian light tanks. But the long-standing proposal for acquiring a brigade (three regiments) of light tanks for northeast India is still in the seminar rooms of the army; it has not yet been sent on to the Ministry of Defence (MoD).


Can someone pls clarify 3 regiments = 135 (45 x3 ) , means somewhere 9 armored coys (14 per coy + HQ ) does that means there will be 4 Combined Armed Battalions / Armored Battalions ( 2 armored coys per battalion with 2 mechanized infantry coys ) ? Or is there some other combination for armored with non-mechanized infantry ? Also isn't 4 battalions an overkill for a brigade size force ? and underpowered for a div. level force ?

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17003
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby Rahul M » 11 Jan 2009 23:59

I think the quoted part means acquisition of a brigade equivalent of tanks, not necessarily all of those will be part of a single brigade sized formation.
I'm also not aware of any combined arms battalion level unit in IA.

if inducted, a likely holding would probably see the some of mountain divisions with a regiment each.
p.s. you might be interested in this :
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORC ... -Armd.html

sunilUpa
BRFite
Posts: 1795
Joined: 25 Sep 2006 04:16

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby sunilUpa » 13 Jan 2009 20:08

Bids received for towed, light howitzers; trials in February

New Delhi, Jan 13 (IANS) In a development that would push the Indian Army’s decade-old modernization plan of its artillery, overseas vendors have submitted bids for 180 155mm/52 caliber towed and light howitzers and the trials are expected to commence in February or March, a senior official said Tuesday.The defence ministry had issued the request for proposals (RFPs) for three variants of the howitzers - light, wheeled and self-propelled - a year ago.

“The procurement process for the towed and light howitzer is proceeding as planned. Bids have been received from all the vendors and trials of the guns are planned in February or March,” the senior army official told IANS.

The bids for the 120 self-propelled howitzers are due in February. The entire deal is valued at $2 billion.

“The trials for self-propelled howitzers are planned in May-June,” the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The eventual contract is to include transfer of technology to build the howitzers in India.

The army is seeking to purchase some 400 pieces of the 155mm/52 calibre howitzer to ramp up depleting stocks of a similar number of guns it had bought from Swedish manufacturer Bofors in the mid-1980s.

“Of these, 140 will be light howitzers that will be spread over seven regiments. Because of advances in metallurgy, this version, as its name implies will be lighter while performing the same as the other two versions,” another officer explained.

The remaining guns will be of the towed and self-propelled variants.



The numbers and types mentioned in the report are confusing. How many light howitzers are being bought? 140-180 light, 120 self propelled, 'rest' towed?

ajay_ijn
BRFite
Posts: 318
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 20:43

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby ajay_ijn » 13 Jan 2009 20:33

No. of ultra light guns is 140. but no. of Towed & SP Guns are not exactly known.

trials of three towed guns (denel, bofors, soltam) began in 2001 and ended in 2006. So will Army again test these guns for 6 years?

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10031
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby sum » 14 Jan 2009 11:03

In a development that would push the Indian Army’s decade-old modernization plan of its artillery, overseas vendors have submitted bids for 180 155mm/52 caliber towed and light howitzers and the trials are expected to commence in February or March, a senior official said Tuesday.

:rotfl:
Expect to read this same sentence in 2013-14 when the current tests end with "no winner"...

This entire thing has been turned into a farce.

sunilUpa
BRFite
Posts: 1795
Joined: 25 Sep 2006 04:16

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby sunilUpa » 14 Jan 2009 17:14

A last bid to save the Arjun main battle tank project

New Delhi, Jan 14 (IANS) The Indian Army will conduct head-to-head “comparative trials” of the indigenous Arjun main battle tank (MBT), under development for over three decades, and the Russian-built T-90 tanks in June.


It's time to move on.

Yusuf
BRFite
Posts: 164
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 10:03

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby Yusuf » 14 Jan 2009 18:07

The Arjun is a good tank. Perhaps better than the T-90s. But for other reasons it has not seen the light at the end of the tunnel.

ajay_ijn
BRFite
Posts: 318
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 20:43

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby ajay_ijn » 14 Jan 2009 20:37

i was simply wondering what is IA going to do T-72/T-90 tanks, if they face hezbollah type enemy. an impressive force like israel, which fights using tanks once in every 2-3 years was facing problems with state-sponsored terror militia like hezbollah.

aditp
BRFite
Posts: 443
Joined: 15 Jul 2008 07:25
Location: Autoland

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby aditp » 15 Jan 2009 00:32

ajay_ijn wrote:i was simply wondering what is IA going to do T-72/T-90 tanks, if they face hezbollah type enemy. an impressive force like israel, which fights using tanks once in every 2-3 years was facing problems with state-sponsored terror militia like hezbollah.


scramble and buy the Merkava IV :wink:

ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 903
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby ParGha » 15 Jan 2009 05:14

ajay_ijn wrote:i was simply wondering what is IA going to do T-72/T-90 tanks, if they face hezbollah type enemy. an impressive force like israel, which fights using tanks once in every 2-3 years was facing problems with state-sponsored terror militia like hezbollah.


Send out the infantry and the engineers first - as any basic manual will tell you to do. Technicals are no new threat for tanks... been there since the first tanks deployed; ignorance and hubris just gives them a novelty every few wars or so.

ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 903
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby ParGha » 15 Jan 2009 05:23

Rahul M wrote:if inducted, a likely holding would probably see the some of mountain divisions with a regiment each.


Based on the specs described in the article it seems more like a heavier armored car or an IFV gun-carrier than a true tank. They can be of use anywhere that your doctrine sees fit- not just mountains. Generally speaking T-72s and T-90s - the backbone of Indian Armoured Corps - are pretty "light tanks" as far as tanks go.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20711
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby Philip » 15 Jan 2009 16:56

IDR in an issue last year,had a nice pic of a reworked Leopard with an intergrated ERA in panels,even for the top of the tank,specs given of what munitions can be stopped,including tandem warheads.IEVs,etc.The design shows up the antiquity of the shaping of the Arjun's turret,which was patterned on the original Leopard design.An interesting aside is that the Leopards are now adopting the Russian practice of suspending the driver's seat to give him a better ride,with no "feedback" from the ground.Unlike the Russian tanks,all western tanks have seats fixed to the chassis,less conmfortable.Arjun's cost is also reported to be 25% more than that of a T-90.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10031
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby sum » 15 Jan 2009 19:38

The design shows up the antiquity of the shaping of the Arjun's turret,which was patterned on the original Leopard design.

And the T-90 turret is cutting edge stuff?

vipu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 14
Joined: 31 Dec 2008 08:06

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby vipu » 15 Jan 2009 20:49

Not to flame anyone.. but... the conventional Tank-On-Tank fighting - in the Western/Desert theater and in Mountains -would be augumented over by Namica/Dhruv-WSI. There would be need for Armour but what is needed is survivability... now that we have NLOS/Hellfire armed Predator's with 24X7 support.

The only practical answer is to have light, silent and survivable platforms - back to Lean and Mean. A question then on what are the field weapons(excluding Arty and IED) that a mobile platform would face in the future?.

Is Armour without Situational Awareness relevent, as in a slugging match with Northern Neighbour?. Is there a platform that is light enough and survivable that IA does not utilize as of now?.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2309
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby Vivek K » 15 Jan 2009 20:53

Phillip keeps posting crap after crap, :evil: ranting against Indian efforts in arms production and indigenization. We can buy tons of Russian crap but he can find nothing wrong with that. It is exactly the mindset that has prevented us from being a serious player in the world.

Anabhaya
BRFite
Posts: 271
Joined: 20 Sep 2005 12:36

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby Anabhaya » 15 Jan 2009 22:58

.Arjun's cost is also reported to be 25% more than that of a T-90.


A merc does not cost the same as an 800. Merc is costly. Merc is :((

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby RayC » 16 Jan 2009 07:31

In constricted areas, like towns, the infantry usually leads.

In open terrain, the Combat Command will have components of armour, mechanised infantry, SP Arty etc so grouped that it has inherent security and at the same time, be able to accomplish the mission assigned.

On the issue of Light tanks, I wonder how it will be used in the mountains. It will be road bound and without manoeuvre space, it would have shed its element of flexibility!

The Light tank's armour would obviously be thin. Thus, it cannot be used against Pakistan. It's role is limited in most places against China since after the mountains are crossed, one emerges onto the Tibetan Plateau! Against Bangladesh, it would be a riverine operation and so amphibious tanks like the PT 76 would be required.

Has someone got any links to the Doctrine envisaged for the employment of the Light tank in the Indian context?

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3421
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby Aditya G » 16 Jan 2009 09:39

RayC wrote:In constricted areas, like towns, the infantry usually leads.

In open terrain, the Combat Command will have components of armour, mechanised infantry, SP Arty etc so grouped that it has inherent security and at the same time, be able to accomplish the mission assigned.

On the issue of Light tanks, I wonder how it will be used in the mountains. It will be road bound and without manoeuvre space, it would have shed its element of flexibility!

The Light tank's armour would obviously be thin. Thus, it cannot be used against Pakistan. It's role is limited in most places against China since after the mountains are crossed, one emerges onto the Tibetan Plateau! Against Bangladesh, it would be a riverine operation and so amphibious tanks like the PT 76 would be required.

Has someone got any links to the Doctrine envisaged for the employment of the Light tank in the Indian context?


IMHO light tanks will replace BMP-2s that are deployed facing China. We had AMX-13s in 1962 and T-72 later on.

The basic need for light tank comes from the need the deploy armour by aircraft or even air drop them. This is what has driven the US Army to deploy strykers.

aditp
BRFite
Posts: 443
Joined: 15 Jul 2008 07:25
Location: Autoland

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby aditp » 16 Jan 2009 12:29

Aditya G wrote:
RayC wrote:In constricted areas, like towns, the infantry usually leads.

In open terrain, the Combat Command will have components of armour, mechanised infantry, SP Arty etc so grouped that it has inherent security and at the same time, be able to accomplish the mission assigned.

On the issue of Light tanks, I wonder how it will be used in the mountains. It will be road bound and without manoeuvre space, it would have shed its element of flexibility!

The Light tank's armour would obviously be thin. Thus, it cannot be used against Pakistan. It's role is limited in most places against China since after the mountains are crossed, one emerges onto the Tibetan Plateau! Against Bangladesh, it would be a riverine operation and so amphibious tanks like the PT 76 would be required.

Has someone got any links to the Doctrine envisaged for the employment of the Light tank in the Indian context?


IMHO light tanks will replace BMP-2s that are deployed facing China. We had AMX-13s in 1962 and T-72 later on.

The basic need for light tank comes from the need the deploy armour by aircraft or even air drop them. This is what has driven the US Army to deploy strykers.


IIRC T-72s were airlifted to lkaddakh in the late 80s at enormous cost, and later abondened there to rust following an agreement with the chinks for not using armour in the laddakh sector. Gawd knows if any other defence establishment can be as stupid as ours at the political & bureaucratic levels. And now, we are again talking of deploying light tanks in Laddakh and North east against the chinks.

So why do we need special light tanks? If the T-72 was air transportable and deployable in Laddakh in the 1980s, so will the T-90 be in 2009.

PS : WHy not set up a small assembly shed with heavy overhead cranes at Leh, transport Arjun chassis and turret separately, reassemble and deploy the Arjun Tank in Laddakh. We will have superior armour in the sector, since the chinese border is less likely to turn hot, the army can keep the arjun deployed at a less controversial place, and the arjun tank's engine will also perform without overheating as it is designed for colder climes. :idea:

vasu_ray
BRFite
Posts: 550
Joined: 30 Nov 2008 01:06

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby vasu_ray » 16 Jan 2009 12:37

not sure if this has been discussed before,

bridges with composite patches to strengthen them
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_q ... _n21357218

read about research at RRL, Bhopal to create locomotive gear cases with fiber reinforced plastic, if these efforts take shape, maybe there is light at the end of tunnel for Arjun or whatever that know how morphs into in the future :roll:

on a tangent, if a 1400hp IC engine in the form factor of a tank can be created, we could create higher hp (> 6000) diesel locomotives? Even if Gen. Kapoor doesn't need Arjuns, Laloo needs lots of locos :mrgreen:

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20711
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby Philip » 16 Jan 2009 14:22

Vivek,talk sense not crap,with your personal remarks.If you are ignorant about the Leopard 2A6 upgrade with its new arrowhead profiled turret armour,please be silent.Debate the points raised instead of indulging in petty personal attacks.The proof of the product is when it finally arrives and is inducted in service.There was no mention about the T-90 which the IArmy has preferred to the T-90 and is buying it 1000+ for reasons best known to it.Arjun,without disrespect to its designers and advocates is yesterday's technology.The Leopard which arrived 30 years has been repeatedly upgraded and the latest upgrade to counter current anti-tank munitions is what I've posted.There is a significant redesign of the turret armour with an "arrowhead" shape.Arjun's turret shaping (similar to early Leopards) has been one criticism from the IA.Canada is buying 100 Leopards,including the new 2A6 version.

Here are some excerpts from Janes' and links to excellent pics of various Leopard's sent to Afghanistan.

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/land/ ... _1_n.shtml
Changing its spots brings expanded roles and users for Leopard 2 MBT

"Traditionally the three key elements of MBT design have been armour, mobility and firepower, but to these can now be added C4I (command, control, communications, computers and intelligence), which is one of the largest investments for many armies.

The first major armour improvement took shape with the Leopard 2A5, which added an enhanced passive protection package over the frontal arc, giving the turret a distinctive arrowhead shape. Armour protection was also increased on the nose and glacis plate.

A higher level of roof protection has also been fitted to many of the more recent new-production versions of the Leopard 2, to defend against top-attack weapons. Explosive-reactive armour has not been fitted so far, as new types of armour can provide protection against both kinetic-energy and chemical-energy attack.

In recent years, however, advanced anti-tank mine threats have proliferated and KMW - with the assistance of the BWB and four other user nations - has developed a new mine-protection package that adds about two tonnes to the overall weight. This has so far been installed on 70 German Army Leopard 2A6 variants, becoming Leopard 2A6M; and the Swedish Army has fitted it to 11 of its Strv 122 MBTs, designating them Strv 122B. "

Image: A German Army Leopard 2A6, with additional turret armour and a Rheinmetall 120 mm L/55 smoothbore gun. (Krauss-Maffei Wegmann)

http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php? ... 5930.0;all

KiranM
BRFite
Posts: 575
Joined: 17 Dec 2006 16:48
Location: Bangalore

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby KiranM » 16 Jan 2009 16:24

Philip wrote:Arjun,without disrespect to its designers and advocates is yesterday's technology.


On what basis are you saying it is outdated?

IMHO people shouldnt jump to cast aspersions on T-90 or IA's preference of T-90. But in the same way, one shouldnt jump on the other end of spectrum as well.

Across many threads we have seen your posts highly critical of India's homegrown efforts, be Arjun, LCA or Naval shipbuilding. (Broadly covering all aspects of land, air and sea :lol: ) From your posts atleast I do not see any unbiased study/ analysis by you. If you did, atleast one positive point would have been forthcoming from you (forget being jingoistic).
I find it hard to believe, of all the criticisms you have levelled against Indian efforts, there is no good out of all the research, money, time and efforts that have gone into. Similarly, from your posts, seems like all Russian platforms are picture perfect.

My 2 cents. No personal animosity. Just saying what I observed from your posts over the last 2 years.

Regards,
Kiran

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20711
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby Philip » 16 Jan 2009 19:25

Dear Kiran,if we do not look at our own faults at home,analyse why things went wrong and accept healthy criticism,we will end up like the Pakis with their delusions of superiority.More informed members of the armed forces,especially the top brass immediately after their retirement,lament how the indigenisation programmes are suffering.In service they find that they cannot speak out for obvious reasons,but once outside,have their say.Have we not had every CNS talk about warship and sub delays and delays in decision making and procurement by the GOI/MOD for critical items? Why are we buying 126-200 MMRCA aircraft instead of producing them in India? We have the CAG report about the perilous state of our sub fleet.10 years to build a frigate at Garden Reach,that too when it was commissioned,came without a SAM system.10 years to refit a sub at HSL too-hopefully? Even the U-209 subs assembled in India at MD took a couple of years extra.Arjun and the LCA have taken decades to get to their current stage of development.Talk to those on the inside who are knowledgable and you will find that the picture is far from rosy.This is not to say that we have not also had successes,as our missile programmes show.There are many items where we have successfully with foreign JVs developed radars,Brahmos,etc. Our record has been patchy and the parliamentary report on the DRDO is there for all to see.How are the services going to carry out their tasks if deliveries are not on time? Equipment has to be replaced at regular intervals to keep up fighting capability.Secondly,how reliable are the locally produced eqpt. and components? We've had a decade plus of controversy earlier about MIG-21 engines made locally ,dsign faults and the quality of spares bought from diverse sources after the collapse of the SU.

The key fact is that in several cases with key projects,and these are generally big ticket items like aircraft,helos,tanks,warships and subs,where there are several systems to be integrated for the product to function as a whole,the DRDO and the services do not work together right from the start in establishing parameters,leading to delays and the end user eventually refusing to use the DRDO's product becomes the enemy instead! Sometimes the services draw up cutting edge "brochure" performance requirements (available or touted with imported eqpt.) that is impossible for the DRDO to produce in a short timeframe,but ibecause it nevertheless wants the work makes claims that can't be met.The lack of a "stakeholder" mentality of the GOI/MOD to manage and monitor the project is what ails our indigenisation efforts which govt. figures say are only 30-40%,instead of the 70% wanted.I did say in my posts that we should make a list of all the key projects/items listing those that have succeded and those that have failed and try and determine why some succeeded and why some failed.

Now getting back to this thread ,please look at what I've posted in full,how the Leopard has been significantly improved to meet contemporary threats.Compare this with Arjun Mk1 which is closest in concept to it.After all 60% of Arjun is reportedly foreign.The T-90 has a totally different philosophy with its continued development of Russian tanks,three-man crew,etc.Being smaller it comes cheaper also,which is probably why in the final analysis the IA preferred it,a development of the T-72 the mainstay of the armoured corps, as it could have more numbers with better spares support available as the tank is being made in the thousands.Media reports also say that despite a definite NO from the IA,Tank-X is still being developed (for poss. export potential) at high cost.How we will be able to export a tank that the army does not want is a big Q.Instead,if the DRDO is confident about the performance of Arjun the MK2 version with upgrades like the way in whcih the Leopard is being upgraded to keep it comtemporary,should be similarly done.We must keep focussed on the key priorities,with maximum effort on areas where development is lagging,so that one or two key systems do not delay the entire project (like Kaveri).

One suggestion is that the GOI/MOD constitute a high level permanent team of scientists,former service officers and analysts/strategists who can draw up a perspective plan of the futuristic technologies required for the services in the future.With the experience of the end users,one can plan to avoid pitfalls earlier experienced.The CAG has said that the DRDO should not become amanufacturer but instead be an R&D entity which dvelops the technologies required for current and future use,which when developed are farmed out to manufacturers.Ramanna once said that wes hould follow this system that exists in the US.This team along with the current users and manufacturers/PSUs should chart out together and the emphasis is together,the key technologies ,production techniques,etc.,that have to be mastered in order that the indigenous designs drawn up to meet the users requirements can be met within acceptable timeframes and the neccessary funding and human resources provided to achieve these goals.

I posted the Leopard upgrades because if you look at the pics carefully,you will see a lot of sophisticated redesigning to counter current threats.We have to compare and evaluate different designs and concepts with our own to see how improvements can be made and human effort is constantly trying to improve what we have produced earlier.

PS:70% of our eqpt. is of Russian origin.Much of it has been improved only because of the Indian armed froces' feedback.Russian eqpt. traditionally ws sturdy,less sophisticated than western eqpt.,but as many menbers have pointed out,in certain key areas,they have caught up with the west and have also surpassed them.They ahve also come cheaper and this affordability factor is why the Indian armed forces have so far been buying more Russian eqpt. than from other sources.We now have with the aftermath of the SU's breakup and problems faced,new suppliers like Israel,where JVs have been established.Brahmos and the SU-30MKI are just two successful Russian JV items.This does not mean that all Russian eqpt. is superior,that they do not have manufacturing defects and that no delays are experienced! Here is where penalty clauses should be enforced.There are also delays with the Scorpenes,the Trenton tragedy-one can find examples plentiful.However,a foreign supplier has to make good defects and rectify them within a specified timeframe.They are accountable.If we do not make our PSUs also accountable,then the task of successful indigensiation becomes problematic and continual.

Here is a report on Russia's still booming naval sales to illustrate the case.

http://www.upi.com/Security_Industry/20 ... 2030933/2/

Russia's naval exports boom, especially in Asia
By MARTIN SIEFF |

WASHINGTON, Jan. 15 (UPI) -- The world may be in recession, but the Russian naval shipbuilding industry is still booming.

RIA Novosti reported Tuesday that naval shipbuilding last year accounted for $7 billion of Russia's record $8.5 billion in arms sales around the world funneled through the state-owned Rosoboronexport arms export corporation.

"This sum relates to the Rosoboronexport portfolio of orders. This is the maritime share of the portfolio of orders," Rostekhnologii First Deputy General Director Alexei Alyoshin told the news agency.

RIA Novosti said Russian arms exports soared in 2008 to $8.5 billion -- double the figure of nine years ago. That allowed Russia to shoot ahead of Britain to become the world's second-largest arms exporter after the United States. Rosoboronexport currently has on its books arms exports worth $33 billion, the report said.

Russia currently sells weapons to no less than 80 nations around the world, RIA Novosti said. While sales are slowly growing in Africa and the Middle East, the main success stories are with the major nations of Asia: India, China, Vietnam and Indonesia all are buying large quantities of Russian-built warships and submarines.

RIA Novosti noted that India and China have continued to buy Russian submarines, frigates and destroyers. Vietnam has signed a contract for new Svetlyak-class fast attack boats and frigates, and Indonesia has ordered corvettes from Russia to be built with the help of Spanish shipbuilding companies.

As we have monitored in these columns, India's much-touted strategic relationship with the United States during the eight years of the Bush administration never translated into any significant conventional arms purchases from American companies. This was especially the case with the Indian navy, which showed no interest in receiving the old U.S. aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk in return for agreeing to buy Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet combat aircraft to operate from it.

Instead, the Indians patiently renegotiated their troubled contract with Russia to refurbish the old Soviet-era aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov for the Indian navy, even though Russia's Sevmash shipyard was hundreds of millions of dollars and years behind schedule on the project.

Russia remains reluctant to sell state-of-the-art ground forces weaponry, transportation systems and tactical close air support weapons to China, a reluctance that has put a serious strain on Sino-Russian relations in recent years. However, this reluctance has not translated into not selling to Beijing warships, Kilo-class diesel submarines and lethal Mach 2.8 state-of-the-art sea-hugging anti-ship cruise missiles that could devastate U.S. nuclear-powered aircraft carriers.

Meanwhile, Rosoboronexport officials remain optimistic about their sales prospects, even in the current troubled global economic climate. They project their foreign weapons exports to soar by no less than 8 percent to 10 percent per year over the next three to four years, RIA Novosti said.

Russia's arms export successes certainly have not been limited to naval surface warships and submarines. RIA Novosti also noted that Sukhoi and Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG combat aircraft, air defense systems, helicopters, battle tanks, armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles have all proved popular, highly successful export items.

ajay_ijn
BRFite
Posts: 318
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 20:43

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby ajay_ijn » 16 Jan 2009 20:12

i read few T-72s and even a T-90 were destroyed in Georgian conflict, any info on what ATGM georgia used and what were the mistakes of Russian Army.

Anabhaya
BRFite
Posts: 271
Joined: 20 Sep 2005 12:36

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby Anabhaya » 16 Jan 2009 20:15

Philip. Why is Arjun outdated?

I see you've written paragraph after paragraph about Arjun, Tank-Ex and everything else, but how about if you answer the question. Why is Arjun outdated?

ajay_ijn
BRFite
Posts: 318
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 20:43

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby ajay_ijn » 16 Jan 2009 20:21

Anabhaya wrote:Philip. Why is Arjun outdated?

I see you've written paragraph after paragraph about Arjun, Tank-Ex and everything else, but how about if you answer the question. Why is Arjun outdated?

i think what he means is, Germans modernized leopard many times to make it more survivable but Arjun (based on older leopard) is still the same.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2309
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby Vivek K » 16 Jan 2009 20:29

Philip wrote:Vivek,talk sense not crap,with your personal remarks.If you are ignorant about the Leopard 2A6 upgrade with its new arrowhead profiled turret armour,please be silent.Debate the points raised instead of indulging in petty personal attacks.The proof of the product is when it finally arrives and is inducted in service.

Phillip, the post is pure and simple BS! Apologize for the language. You are a smart man however, you are choosing to dwell on the sympton without looking at the cause. Why is the Arjun not accepted yet? The frist prototypes were available in 1995 during PVN's time. The Army refused to take delivery of even the first 5 "production tanks" claiming poor workmanship while it took delivery of hundreds of T-72s and T-90s that did not work as promised. The Arjun has been put through trials that none of the T-90s or the T-72s were ever put through. Why were the T-90s purchased- just because 90 > 80? And that too in large numbers? Did you not see a flaw there?

It will boil down to this

a) Do our neighbours possess tech/equipment (now or during the life of these tanks) that is superior to the Arjuns?
b) Can the Arjun outperform the T-90 in combat (wonder why the army has been shy of the comparative trials? JJ Singh scheduled and then cancelled them comparing the Arjun ot a BMW or a Merc and the T-90 to a Maruti or something)
c) Which Tank will be easier to upgrade - a homegrown one or a foreign one.
d) Which Tank offers the best chance for our crews to return alive from battle

You are now raising the issue of the new turret design. So is the GSQR being changed again or is it that the DRDO has to work with Army specs but beat the best in the world that may never see battle on our shores?

So please consider the facts. Recall the sabotage of the Renk transmission in the Arjun. I'm sure that a man with your experience knows about Renk transmissions. Why did the army feel the need to do such an act?

There is tons of data about the Arjun yet you ask me to please be silent because it is lacking on one aspect that is not on the IA specs. Talk about survivability, of crew comfort, battle management system etc. and the Arjun wins.

Devendra
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 35
Joined: 13 Mar 2007 21:06

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby Devendra » 17 Jan 2009 02:41

Phillip

With due respect I want to point out that you always takes a biased approcah towards the indeginuous/DRDO products. Some times you blame the things without giving proper arguments. In most of your posts, I find the that you post some development in xyz project of some zyz country, and then in between you will bash the indegenious one. Healthy criticsm is good, but what I have seen while you always say that the Arjun, LCA.. have these ... problems, but you never criticise the imported ones like T 90.. for there problems that had been mentioned in this forum by several members.

Yogi_G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2400
Joined: 21 Nov 2008 04:10
Location: Punya Bhoomi -- Jambu Dweepam

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby Yogi_G » 17 Jan 2009 04:30

IA's statement of foreseeing future requirements and looking forward to next gen tanks is I must say plain silly, that would be the same as saying that IAF should not buy MMRCA and LCA and concentrate purely on 5th gen aircraft (PAK-FA and MCA)

The simple question is that is T-55 better than the Arjun? or is the T-72 better than the Arjun? In both cases I would say that Arjun can hold its own and is much much better than the former. Why cant IA start procuring Arjuns and replace the 55s in the interim period wherein the DRDO can come out with the next version as per the IA's suggestions. IA has to realize that they have to deploy Arjun and slowly improve it phase by phase to come up with a good monster of a tank, same way the Israelis and the Germans did....

I think IA is drunk on Russian high-level tech that they pretty much turn a blind eye to the indigenous development....

vasu_ray
BRFite
Posts: 550
Joined: 30 Nov 2008 01:06

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby vasu_ray » 17 Jan 2009 10:57

At the risk of peddling brochures,

http://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/inde ... 3&fid=2177

the AHEAD concept could be useful in perimeter defense, for closer to ground targets different kind of munitions might be used.

sunilUpa
BRFite
Posts: 1795
Joined: 25 Sep 2006 04:16

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby sunilUpa » 17 Jan 2009 21:04

ndian Army to start artillery evaluation trials

This report has some useful details.

New Delhi: The Indian Army is all set to commence a test programme for artillery guns in various versions after receiving fresh bids from foreign companies. The eventual order for a variety of towed, self-propelled and ultra-light howitzers will be a massive Rs15,000 crore and is expected to complete the army's ambitious artillery modernisation plan.

The tenders are designed to plug in existing gaps in the services' mobile, long-range, high-volume firepower. The army is moving ahead with the intention of inducting the new guns from 2010-2011 onwards. With the submission of bids already over, the selection process is now expected to kick off in the coming days.

According to reports, field trials of 155mm/52-calibre towed guns are likely to commence first, sometime in February-March. The tender is expected to be worth Rs8,000-crore and may involve off-the-shelf purchase of 400 towed guns. Indigenous manufacture of another 1,100 howitzers may take place after transfer of technology.

The trials for the wheeled self-propelled howitzers are slated for the period of May-June. This tender is expected to involve 180 guns and may be worth around Rs4,700 crore.

The last component of the overall contract will involve the acquisition of 140 air-mobile, ultra-light howitzers for around Rs2,900 crore. These ultra-light guns will make it possible for the Army to deploy them in forward, inaccessible areas at short notice with the help of helicopters.


There is also a requirement for tracked self-propelled guns for which commercial and technical bids by foreign vendors are due in February.

Earlier attempts by the Army to get its artillery modernized were stymied mainly due to the infamous Bofors scandal of the 1980s. An unprecedented four rounds of trials for towed guns in 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2006 came to naught in 2007. The army chief General Deepak Kapoor has confirmed that the army has not bought a single artillery gun since 1986 when Bofors (the kickbacks scandal) happened. He also said that the army had issued global tenders for all kinds of guns -- towed, ultra-light howitzers, tracked and wheeled self-propelled howitzers. "We are on track now,'' he was quoted as saying.

Bofors, the original Swedish company is now owned by BAE Systems. Its guns and systems are also in the fray along with those of Israeli firm Soltam.


Numbers - 400 towed guns to be bought off the shelf, 1100 to be manufactured, 180 wheeled self propelled, 140 light weight and tracked self propelled guns.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10031
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby sum » 17 Jan 2009 22:59

The last component of the overall contract will involve the acquisition of 140 air-mobile, ultra-light howitzers for around Rs2,900 crore. These ultra-light guns will make it possible for the Army to deploy them in forward, inaccessible areas at short notice with the help of helicopters.

Wasnt the ultra light howitzer finalised?
IIRC, a article mentioned a American co would supply the howitzer or something to that effect. Notice that no timelines attached to any of the "tests". Hence, the IA can keep waiting for this decade and half of next to tick over before they can even dream of seeing any new howitzer..

Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby Vipul » 17 Jan 2009 23:12

This is one big ticket item which will be finalised by the new govt, as whichever party comes to power after the elections will need to recoup the investment just getting there.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2309
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby Vivek K » 18 Jan 2009 00:23

The arty procurement or lack of it for the last decade is another example of our failure in making strategic decisions early. Is the 2nd best gun better than the best gun that was purchased 20 years later?

Chinmayanand
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2585
Joined: 05 Oct 2008 16:01
Location: Mansarovar
Contact:

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby Chinmayanand » 18 Jan 2009 00:31

Future Weapons: The M777 Howitzer

Wickberg
BRFite
Posts: 255
Joined: 01 Jul 2008 18:45

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby Wickberg » 18 Jan 2009 01:40

durgesh wrote:Future Weapons: The M777 Howitzer



Speaking of Future Weapons: The Bofors Archer (or BAe Archer maybe sounds better in Indian politicians ears)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4jnUXUzV2c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CA1j7mJbgDU

Edit: (even if I don´t care much about that Discovery show)

Yogi_G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2400
Joined: 21 Nov 2008 04:10
Location: Punya Bhoomi -- Jambu Dweepam

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby Yogi_G » 18 Jan 2009 05:02

As per this wonderful article by a highly intellectual author, Arjun is already in operational service...

Link

kmc_chacko
BRFite
Posts: 326
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 10:10
Location: Shivamogga, Karnataka

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby kmc_chacko » 18 Jan 2009 07:48

Yogi_G wrote:As per this wonderful article by a highly intellectual author, Arjun is already in operational service...

Link


http://pakobserver.net/200901/11/Articles03.asp
An order has been placed with China for the purchase of 36 JF-10, a Mach 2.3 -5th generation multi-role fighter, comparable in performance to the Su-30 Mk-1 with the Indian Air Force. PAF is on Red Alert, and is maintaining full vigil to intercept and destroy IAF intruders. During the recent air space violation, the IAF intruders were in the sights of PAF’s F-16’s, but were allowed to escape unscathed to avoid a major diplomatic crisis. PAF pilots and technicians are well trained, high professionals, who will be able to prove their mettle in the future battle with India. A comparison of Indian Navy and Pakistan Navy reveals that Pakistan Navy could inflict substantial damage to the Indian Navy. Indian Navy has 16 submarines; Pakistan Navy has ten, some are brand new. Indian Navy has 27 war ships, Pakistan Navy has ten. Indian Aircraft Carrier Veerat, will be a menace, and must be sunk by submarine or air attacks, if it attempts to block Pakistan’s sea lanes or ports. It is hoped that better sense prevails and India desists from invading and attacking Pakistan. If it does, the consequences will be horrible for both the countries.


This is truly a wonderful BS article
:x

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17003
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby Rahul M » 18 Jan 2009 13:13

ParGha wrote:
Rahul M wrote:if inducted, a likely holding would probably see the some of mountain divisions with a regiment each.


Based on the specs described in the article it seems more like a heavier armored car or an IFV gun-carrier than a true tank. They can be of use anywhere that your doctrine sees fit- not just mountains. Generally speaking T-72s and T-90s - the backbone of Indian Armoured Corps - are pretty "light tanks" as far as tanks go.

I'm not sure what you mean by a true tank or even if such an entity in the light category is feasible or desirable.

btw, t-72 and t-90 are light MBTs i.e lightest of the heavy tanks, these are not light tanks.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest