Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7726
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby rohitvats » 18 Jan 2009 13:17

By the look of the numbers of towed 155mm guns, we're on our way to completely eliminating the 105mm calibre in the IA,save for the Moutain Divisions. And even here, post the induction of light 155mm in the strike elements, the calibre may percolate to holding formations also. Pukes are for sure going to be staring at the wrong end of a very big barrel. :twisted:

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

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby Aditya G » 18 Jan 2009 23:24

aditp wrote: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:


Hi Aditp,

1. T-72s were de-inducted by air from Ladakh. Was this agreement with PRC to de-induct armour from LAC documented? Have the chinese done the same?

2. T-90 is much heavier than the T-72 - it is more than the wt that can be transported by IL-76. T-72s required dissassembling because of the high altitude of the DZ.

3. Arjuns are limited in number and are going to be so. In any case you cant manufacture a tank on field with such ease!

4. Arjun's heating problems have been solved by CVRDE.

Ajai Shukla's blog ...

Light tanks are needed also for India’s amphibious forces, which protect island territories like the Andaman and the Lakshadweep archipelagos and offshore assets like Bombay High. The Hyderabad-based 54 Infantry Division is earmarked for amphibious tasks; the Indian Navy has built landing ships for tanks; it has bought the INS Jalashwa (formerly the USS Trenton) from the United States. But it hasn’t bought the light tanks that will be launched from these ships --- an essential component of any amphibious force.

Light tanks are needed also for airmobile operations. India has one of the world’s very few militaries with strategic airlift capability, its giant IL-76 aircraft able to drop a brigade of paratroopers onto objectives far from India. In November 1988, when Tamil mercenaries invaded the Maldives, two Indian battalions were dropped from IL-76 aircraft to restore peace. They did what was asked but if a parachute force were to encounter serious fighting, they would need tank backup that isn’t there today. The IL-76 can just about carry one Russian MBT, but it cannot para-drop it. A light tank, which could be air-transported and para-dropped, is a critical need.

A light tank is also needed against the growing threat of urban terrorism. Currently, India’s military, police and paramilitary forces use a variety of improvised vehicles, with armour-plates welded on, when they need fire support for operations in towns or cities. Lives would be saved by a light tank which can drive and manoeuvre in twisty streets and elevate its gun to fire at terrorists holed up in higher floors. A cleft turret fitted onto a light tank would give India this capability.

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

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby vasu_ray » 19 Jan 2009 00:38

so, why is the new 1500hp engine being developed for Arjun? wasn't that to solve weight and cooling issues? or just making it indigenous?

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 » 19 Jan 2009 04:50

for tanks with NBC protection, knocking down and re-assembling will be a very complex task I believe...

Sandipan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 83
Joined: 08 Dec 2008 06:22

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby Sandipan » 19 Jan 2009 05:38

Regarding the induction of new artillery pieces, both self propelled and towed, have we made any headway in their induction. Because last what i heard is that agreement with Denel is bogged because of corruption case. Do you guys have any information on fresh induction of artillery pieces specially 155mm howitzers since last time it was acquired was 20years back from Bofors

somnath
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3416
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: Singapore

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby somnath » 19 Jan 2009 08:27

A light tank, which could be air-transported and para-dropped, is a critical need.


Can a tank be para dropped?

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 » 19 Jan 2009 08:38

tank-esque vehicles can be. BMP-2 's have been para dropped by iAF IL-76s in exercises.

the russian VDV has entire regiments that can be para-dropped which include light IFVs like the BMD-4. http://www.military-today.com/apc/bmd_4.htm

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

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby Aditya G » 19 Jan 2009 22:43

155 mm M-46 upgrade at Know Your Army exhibition in Jalandhar:
http://flickr.com/photos/gopal1035/3196 ... ateposted/

compared to regular M-46:
http://flickr.com/photos/gopal1035/3198 ... ateposted/

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

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby Yusuf » 20 Jan 2009 14:05

As far as the Arjun is concerned, part of its failure is due to the Army and other probably due to vested interest in foreign purchase.

The Army has kept shifting goal post over the years. They keep adding more to the requirement once something new comes up in the international market asking the DRDO to incorporate that. Something similar has been done with the LCA as well by the AF.

According to me, the Arjun should have been in production with the original set of specs and then you keep adding capability in newer models. Thats how all other weapons systems work in the world. The F16 of 1976 is not the same as the ones today or the one in the RFP of MMRC or the F15s or even the M1 Abrams tank. You produce something, use and evaluate and then incorporate what you have learnt in newer models.

Arjun has a better armor than the T-90s. One of the grounds for its rejection was air conditioning mal function in desert conditions. Event the T 90s air con system failed and the Army sent a request to Russia to rectify it.

There are also vested interests who dont want local procurement. All the Mr 10% will be out of business if everything is locally produced.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2958
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby tsarkar » 20 Jan 2009 15:06

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

I don’t, but will highlight IA experiences. I am reminded of late 50s early 60s experiment. Large numbers of AMX-13 were procured to complement the Centurions. They had no turret – speed was cited for protection.

They failed abysmally during pitched battles of 1965 where the lesson learnt was the need to balance firepower, protection and mobility in any tank. One factor cannot be enhanced at the cost of the other.

Only exceptions were -

AMX-13 airlifted by An-12 to Battle of Chushul where they played a decisive role against Chinese human waves, however this was because the Chinese lacked infantry anti tank weaponry.

Battle of Chamb where C squadron 20 Lancers with only 12 AMX-13 and infantry support held back 80+ Pakistani tanks. This was because Major Bhaskar Roy commanding had in advance carefully prepared enfilades and entrenchments for his tanks and ammunition trucks and trained his men. He was awarded the Maha Vir Chakra for his actions. He & his wife tragically died in a car accident a few years later.

In 1971, PT-76 provided infantry support in the East, however Pakistani armoured presence was negligible after their Chafee tanks were mauled in initial skirmishes with T-55s. Pak infantry didn’t have any AT capabilities in the east barring a few 106 mm RCL guns.

Based on the poor performance of AMX-13 in 1965, they were hastily replaced with T-55 in time for 1971. There was a 105 mm tank gun mated to BMP-2 by ARDE, however it was a failure (300 hp engine couldn’t cope with the increased weight).

The solution is not light tanks but prepositioning heavy tanks and improving the border roads infrastructure.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby Singha » 20 Jan 2009 15:54

. T-72s were de-inducted by air from Ladakh. Was this agreement with PRC to de-induct armour from LAC documented? Have the chinese done the same?

this has never been made public. but one thing is sure,
if the agreement called for keeping tanks X km away from
that sector, we have the rough kargil and manali roads to
re-induct while they can comfortably drive through the
flat aksai chin from parking lots in the interior carved into
mountain caves.

its time to tear up the toilet paper and redeploy whatever
is available. I would imagine good line-of-sight is possible
in ladakh for infantry and Nag type ATGMs also looking at
photos of the region. Ahuja sir has shown that a salvo fired IIR guided Nag can be quite destructive even amidst
smoke.

sarabpal.s
BRFite
Posts: 344
Joined: 13 Sep 2008 22:04

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby sarabpal.s » 20 Jan 2009 20:26

The developers have announced the creation of a new rocket to increase up to 120km range and weighing up to 250kg of the head. The new shells have increased speed (up to M = 4.7 at an altitude of 40km) and dvuhrezhimnym equipped with a jet engine, providing a rapid acceleration of a shell in the initial phase. Длина нового снаряда - 7.2м. Поступление на вооружение нового образца планируется с 2012г. The length of the new projectile - 7.2m. Admission to adopt the new model is scheduled to 2012g.


http://translate.google.com/translate?u=hhttp://www.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/pinaka/pinaka.shtml&hl=ru&ie=UTF-8&sl=ru&tl=en

I know 40km where this 120 km come from i never heard we have devloped it

any news.

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 » 20 Jan 2009 20:34

it's an ongoing project called pinaka-2 by some.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinaka_Mul ... ture_Plans

HariC
BRFite
Posts: 358
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby HariC » 20 Jan 2009 20:44

tsarkar wrote:“ I am reminded of late 50s early 60s experiment. Large numbers of AMX-13 were procured to complement the Centurions. They had no turret – speed was cited for protection.
e.


are you sure? it does seem to have a turret

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

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby ajay_ijn » 20 Jan 2009 20:47

Indian army tested three towed for as many as four years, from 2002 to 2006 only to restart them again in 2009. isn't four years a bit too long. Is there no sense of urgency or panic that there is not a single SP Artillery inservice?

when Pakistan inducted T-80, Indian army inducted T-90 quite immediately, now that Pakistan has loads of US SP Guns inservice why there is no reaction from IA.

IAF, IN, IA tank force with all their modernization problems are in much better situation than artillery force.

Vick
BRFite
Posts: 753
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby Vick » 20 Jan 2009 21:27

Aditya G wrote:155 mm M-46 upgrade at Know Your Army exhibition in Jalandhar:
http://flickr.com/photos/gopal1035/3196 ... ateposted/

compared to regular M-46:
http://flickr.com/photos/gopal1035/3198 ... ateposted/

Looks like the upgraded M-46 has a new pneumatic ram behind the breech to help the loader with the larger and heavier shells and charge.

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

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby Aditya G » 20 Jan 2009 22:38

ajay_ijn wrote:Indian army tested three towed for as many as four years, from 2002 to 2006 only to restart them again in 2009. isn't four years a bit too long. Is there no sense of urgency or panic that there is not a single SP Artillery inservice?

when Pakistan inducted T-80, Indian army inducted T-90 quite immediately, now that Pakistan has loads of US SP Guns inservice why there is no reaction from IA.

IAF, IN, IA tank force with all their modernization problems are in much better situation than artillery force.


Per news stories doing round nowadays out of the three services - only the Army said that they were not in a position to launch an offensive on Pakistan - the ostensible reason being lack of artillery. If this does not cause panic then the only thing left is actual defeat in war.

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

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby ajay_ijn » 20 Jan 2009 23:52

Govt said it was single vendor situation when Bofors was the best towed gun in last series of trials.
what is this single vendor situation BTW?,

where were multiple vendors when Army was purchasing T-90s, Smerch MLRS. why no bidding, no short listing was done for them.

And with SP guns. Govt blacklisted denel in 2005. So the other choice was obviously Bofors. why did we have to send RFPs them again. Now its 2009 and the bids for SP guns are not even received yet.

this is the third time Indian Army has sent RFPs on SP Guns. i read in janes some time back that in 1995, there was competition for SPs Guns based on T-72. they spent 6 years only to cancel the whole competition and start SP & Towed Gun competition again.

after looking at all this, may be Amriki and Ruski style of govt to govt deals are far better than commercial competitions.

KrishG
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 1290
Joined: 25 Nov 2008 20:43
Location: Land of Trala-la

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby KrishG » 21 Jan 2009 01:24

I think that the biggest problem for the Army with Arjun is it's rifled 120mm guns. All other countries have standardized smooth barrel guns.

Anyway, if the army is sooooooooooooo keen on foreign tanks let them buy something which is very good and will help Arjun MBT. I would want to see the Army buying the Merkava-Mk 4 from Israel. It's if not the best, one of the top 3.

Merkava-Mk 4 is specifically built for operation in desert conditions and it's weapons range is very very impressive. It can even move troops of about 10 soldiers and the it has supplies for a week.

The important thing is that buying Merkava-Mk 4 can be a advantage over adversaries by itself and with it's technology Arjun MBT will also be helped.

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6949
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby Anujan » 21 Jan 2009 02:01

A krish wrote:I think that the biggest problem for the Army with Arjun is it's rifled 120mm guns. All other countries have standardized smooth barrel guns.

:evil: :roll: :x
120mm rifled gun capable of firing HESH rounds were in the GSQR submitted by the army. The gun and the rounds are capable of destroying all Nato targets at 2.5Km range. The army has *NO* complaints on the accuracy of the gun or the lethality of the projectiles.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby Katare » 21 Jan 2009 02:32

Kongress won't buy Bofors guns because it's leadership was accused of accepting bribes from Bofors. BJP govt can't buy Bofors because it accused Kongress of taking bribe from Bofors. IA would not buy anything else but Boforse because it is the only gun that meets its requirements. :roll:

Net result no new artillery for army!!

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54386
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby ramana » 21 Jan 2009 02:42

And if they buy any other gun they will be accused of scam. And DRDO cant make guns. The last one they made was the 105mm which weighed a tonne or two so its good for forts or buruzs.
Still same conclusion as above.

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6949
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby Anujan » 21 Jan 2009 02:45

Katare wrote:Kongress won't buy Bofors guns because it's leadership was accused of accepting bribes from Bofors. BJP govt can't buy Bofors because it accused Kongress of taking bribe from Bofors. IA would not buy anything else but Boforse because it is the only gun that meets its requirements. :roll:

Net result no new artillery for army!!


Why cant they call it BAe systems guns onlee and buy it ? Also, would someone please take bribes from Israeli middlemen and buy denel's guns ?

Kumar_I
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 28
Joined: 09 Jan 2009 05:27

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby Kumar_I » 21 Jan 2009 05:09

Do we have Denel D6, I remember India wanted to buy some 200 of D6 D5s. Didn't heard anything about it.

Baljeet
BRFite
Posts: 410
Joined: 29 May 2007 04:16

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby Baljeet » 21 Jan 2009 06:17

Kuma_I

No more Heavy Guns for India. Out of 410 that were initially purchased IIRC only half are in working conditions. Remember, every rupee spent on buying heavy gun, 5 Rs have to be spent on bribes, another 5Rs for RFC, RFP, Delay For Ever, ReInvent the Wheel, another 2Rs to pacify the Islamic Ummah, another 10paise for training of soldiers, 5paise for maintenance, Rs 150 for every screw that has to be imported (including custom duty, Truckers Union, Bharat Mazdoor Sangh etc), another Rs20000 for ammunition because there is not a single entity in this nation that can manufacture ammo for this gun.
See it is so costly and prohibitively expensive, it gives sleepless nights to our DeshBhakt Netas.
:lol:

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 » 21 Jan 2009 06:49

ramana wrote:And if they buy any other gun they will be accused of scam. And DRDO cant make guns. The last one they made was the 105mm which weighed a tonne or two so its good for forts or buruzs.
Still same conclusion as above.

actually they had made a very simple design 155mm gun in early 90's which was well liked by IA.
unfortunately at around the same time arjun's suspension gave lots of trouble and reliability of DRDO's designs came under the scanner.

of course, it was mulayam singh at the helm who had already decided semi-officially "there would be no acquisitions during my tenure (the military can go to hell, I've my own skin to look after)" :evil: :x

kumar, denel was blacklisted long back by UPA with the active support of renuka chowdhury and some unnamed IA officers. please look it up on google.

p.s. one of the best overviews on the arjun project is at frontierindia website.
this could be the link. http://frontierindia.net/history-of-arj ... velopment/

Div
BRFite
Posts: 327
Joined: 16 Aug 1999 11:31

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby Div » 21 Jan 2009 07:15

Yusuf wrote:As far as the Arjun is concerned, part of its failure is due to the Army and other probably due to vested interest in foreign purchase.

The Army has kept shifting goal post over the years. They keep adding more to the requirement once something new comes up in the international market asking the DRDO to incorporate that. Something similar has been done with the LCA as well by the AF.

According to me, the Arjun should have been in production with the original set of specs and then you keep adding capability in newer models. Thats how all other weapons systems work in the world. The F16 of 1976 is not the same as the ones today or the one in the RFP of MMRC or the F15s or even the M1 Abrams tank. You produce something, use and evaluate and then incorporate what you have learnt in newer models.

Arjun has a better armor than the T-90s. One of the grounds for its rejection was air conditioning mal function in desert conditions. Event the T 90s air con system failed and the Army sent a request to Russia to rectify it.

There are also vested interests who dont want local procurement. All the Mr 10% will be out of business if everything is locally produced.

The Indian military establishment (less in the Navy to some extent) has this misplaced superiority complex where they won't touch something developed in house, even if it means only being able to buy 1/10th of the shiny foreign versions, 10 years later.

They do not seem to want to follow the typical cycle of buying from companies that invest the proceeds to improve the product and buying more/upgrading the old, and so on. IMO this is the reason there is no military industrial complex in India and everthing lands at the feet of a few PSUs, who don't have to be competitive.

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

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby ajay_ijn » 21 Jan 2009 08:41

Katare wrote:Kongress won't buy Bofors guns because it's leadership was accused of accepting bribes from Bofors. BJP govt can't buy Bofors because it accused Kongress of taking bribe from Bofors. IA would not buy anything else but Boforse because it is the only gun that meets its requirements. :roll:

Net result no new artillery for army!!

why don't they simply "not take" bribes for once and clear the purchases quickly citing national security reasons. if they were fair, then CBI can do nothing about it.

if govts fear buying from tainted companies, then what about Barak Scam? we never stopped purchasing israeli weapons because of that.

chaitanya
BRFite
Posts: 193
Joined: 27 Sep 2002 11:31
Location: US
Contact:

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby chaitanya » 21 Jan 2009 08:45

Rahul M wrote:actually they had made a very simple design 155mm gun in early 90's which was well liked by IA.
unfortunately at around the same time arjun's suspension gave lots of trouble and reliability of DRDO's designs came under the scanner.


This is a crazy thought, but if such a program existed, could it be the case that such lengthy trials are actually to 'reverse engineer' certain technologies and/or run comparisons with an Indian 155mm gun? By reverse engineer I don't mean in the literal sense but sending in scientists/engineers in guise to check on the mechanisms and learn how to improve the guns by emulating certain aspects. Please enlighten!

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

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby ajay_ijn » 21 Jan 2009 18:43

chaitanya wrote:
Rahul M wrote:actually they had made a very simple design 155mm gun in early 90's which was well liked by IA.
unfortunately at around the same time arjun's suspension gave lots of trouble and reliability of DRDO's designs came under the scanner.


This is a crazy thought, but if such a program existed, could it be the case that such lengthy trials are actually to 'reverse engineer' certain technologies and/or run comparisons with an Indian 155mm gun? By reverse engineer I don't mean in the literal sense but sending in scientists/engineers in guise to check on the mechanisms and learn how to improve the guns by emulating certain aspects. Please enlighten!

20+ years should be enough to develop ones own gun. DRDO was asked to develop a Tank, nuclear submarine, fighter aircraft what not. but artillery (especially the 155mm), the most important & vital piece of weapon for Army was missing. just look at the Kargil and the decisive role played by Bofors. Besides DRDO developed Arjuns Gun, how difficult would it be for them to come out with a 155mm gun.
our requirement is so large that both indigenous and phoreign made ones can be inducted simultaneously. To become full fledged defence industry, some or the other time, Artillery must be developed indigenously.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20706
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby Philip » 21 Jan 2009 19:15

Ajay has made a vital point.India has now been ever a major arms developing and producing state like the US,Russia or even France or Britain.Our needs have been far less than those superpower and major powers.Therefore,it was ludicrous on the aprt of various Govt.s to imagine that everything could be developed and produced at home.During Mrs.G's time,there was also the fact that we did not have the most contemporary of defence equipment at that time,due to availability and cost.We licence manufactured very cost-effectively warships and subs,hundreds of MIG-21s,23s,27s ,Jaguars,plus Vijayantas and T-72s too later on.Mrs. G began the IGMDP also.Rajiv began the LCA project.But we also did import vital subs and destroyers for the IN and other equipment for the servcies when neccessary including Bofors guns.

The DRDO had too much on its plate to develop and manufacture,given the money and human resources shortfals too.Biut defence development and security being a dirty subject during peacetime,govts. have simply been guilty of dereliction of duty in monitoring the progress of the various programmes,whose non-availability right now is causing deep concern at a time of great military crisis.Weare actually militarily worse off now than during the Kargil crisis,when we had Bofors guns available,whose dwindling numbers of artillery have still not been rectified.We have no alternative but to import,use private participation and the DRDO/PSUs too in concerted action to keep the armed forces ready with their powder dry to meet any sudden threat.

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

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby Vivek K » 21 Jan 2009 20:29

There you go again, Phillip Bhai. Look at the Akulas, Gorshkov, Mig-29K and also the failures of the T-90. Huge delays in delivery and increase in price after signing of contracts is putting Indian defence in a precarious position. We were lucky that there was no war in 2002 as even the MKIs weren't available.

Indian armed forces must get over their addiction for imported arms and work with local industry (not only DRDO) to develop their requirements.

KrishG
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 1290
Joined: 25 Nov 2008 20:43
Location: Land of Trala-la

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby KrishG » 21 Jan 2009 22:31

Why can't we get any corporate investment into the defence industry ????
There are thousand private firms in US designing new integrated rifles, tanks and everything!
We are struggling with our corporate defence sector which is non-existent. All our indigenous weapons are designed by government funded industries controlled by 'babus'.

Why can't we have a 'TATA Dynamics' like 'General Dynamics' or some 'Reliance Aero-space Industries'. We need corporate investment to increase our standards. Indian corporates only want to make money but investment in this sector will make them immune to financial crisis etc because defence budget is one which can't be compromised. But, our corporates don't seem to understand anything! :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

Kumar_I
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 28
Joined: 09 Jan 2009 05:27

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby Kumar_I » 22 Jan 2009 00:50

Baljeet,
your calculation is scary. but I believe its close to reality. Also its sad.

Rahul,
Denel or not the bottomline is if we need 155mm selfpropelled then we need it. Pakistan is getting Chinese SH1 they already tried Turkish.


Also DRDO is praised and criticized, but basic fact is all the eggs are in same basket. DRDO will developing everything from underwear for solders to SSBN.
Can we create some more independent research organization directly under arm forces and private manufacturers manufacturing innovations. though there is some research by army and Navy on its own.

Philip,

India still is not major arms manufacturing country. user and buyer yes. Manufacturing still need lot of change in infrastructure.

Also about those Politicians, we need to see new generation of educated politicians. Enough with Khadi clad stupids. I have not seen not one current Minister's body language showing confidence when they talk to Foreign Counterparts. See how Indira Gandhi is standing with Nixon or with Russian. With all these rising power our politicians still behave like they are Imperialist slaves.

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

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby Yusuf » 22 Jan 2009 11:08

A krish wrote:Why can't we get any corporate investment into the defence industry ????
There are thousand private firms in US designing new integrated rifles, tanks and everything!
We are struggling with our corporate defence sector which is non-existent. All our indigenous weapons are designed by government funded industries controlled by 'babus'.

Why can't we have a 'TATA Dynamics' like 'General Dynamics' or some 'Reliance Aero-space Industries'. We need corporate investment to increase our standards. Indian corporates only want to make money but investment in this sector will make them immune to financial crisis etc because defence budget is one which can't be compromised. But, our corporates don't seem to understand anything! :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:


Its happening mate. The ATV is has L&T. TATAs are getting in aerospace in partnership with Boeing. Mahindras are also venturing into defense. The problem was there was no government encouragement from private contractors before. Its all changing now as the govt is now inviting private participation.

A big indigenous defense industry is vital for both self sufficiency and also economic growth of the country. The big powers are where they are today because they had a very sound defense industry. The US made a killing during WWII in terms of arms sale. The money and experience helped them get better. The industry provided lots of jobs. The research and development had other benefits which got into civilian lives, eg.. the microwave. That leads to other industries propping up.

So the benefit of having you own stuff is that you are not begging for things. You dont have to be satisfied with what you are served, but get what you want. No sanctions can stop you. And sell those arms and make huge $s.

VijayV
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 26
Joined: 16 Apr 2006 21:55

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby VijayV » 22 Jan 2009 13:05

Dear Yusuf there are a lot of encouragement given by govt. to Indian private players.

Few days back I met with one of my friend who is working at one of Godrej’s Vikroli plant. They are manufacturing defense equipments. When I asked about his future plans as his company is doing good. That time he told me that they are facing a problem, the govt. want to reduce the price again before lifting finish goods. And they are not going to give further orders till price is reduced more. When I asked him was there any tender or some agreement happened before manufacturing . His sad face and silence told me a lot.

Here our govt. is paying Russia billions for a free Aircraft Carrier. (The same country refused to stop delivery of helicopters to Pakistan when India requested by saying “If helicopters not delivered to Pakistan on time, then they have to pay a penalty to Pakistan as per agreement.”) :(( :(( :(( :evil:

ArmenT
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 4239
Joined: 10 Sep 2007 05:57
Location: Loud, Proud, Ugly American

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby ArmenT » 22 Jan 2009 13:32

Would this qualify as light armor :)
SUV that follows the presidential limo

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20706
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby Philip » 22 Jan 2009 18:52

Guys,please read carefully.I have not advocated total dependence upon foreign products,but in the current scenario,where the DRDO has to be reorganised too,with huge shortfalls in major items and much equipment,we have no alternative but to make knee-jerk imports and JVs for priority items.The DRDO's shortcomings and lack of accountability can be overconme with Indian corporate giants making defence equipment.If you talk about delays,then almost every programme including indigenous production of U-209 subs,Bison upgrades,Scorpene subs,etc. has had its share of setbacks.The key question is what was the timespan of delay and was it rectified within a reasonabale timeframe given circumstances .

I wonder if a list of world class items of defence equipment (systems like tanks,aircraft,etc.)the DRDO has produced,on time and upto design specs over the last two decades could be drawn up in comparison with foreign suppliers.It could be quite educative.Apart from our strategic/tactical missiles,one would see that there are vast gaps of eqpt. what the services require that cannot be met by soley by the DRDO.As mentioned,we cannot expect the DRDO to be the equivalent of DARPA with the resources,human and monetary that we have.Take Brahmos for example,it could not have been developed by us with out the Yakhont's engine,etc.An AESA radar is another item.We simply have to acquire some technology from abroad if we wish our projects to succeed in full.The worst example of our ineptitude is the Kaveri engine,which after the HF-24 programme being shortened because of the alck of a pwoerful engine,should've been rectified by the GTRE.The LCA is flying with a US engine,the IJT with a Russian one,the ALH with French ones,and so is the Arjun moving around with a German one.So let's once and for all forget about the illusion of placing all our bets upon the DRDO and desi PSUs.The %age of indigenised items has been officially stated as 30-40% when our goal has been 70%.So we can see that we have a long way to go and with daily news of scientists leaving for private industry,how are we to bridge the gap?

The current situation speaks for itself.The MMRCA requirement for a foreign aircraft.Submarines,tanks,etc.For cutting edge technology we have entered into JVs for the 5th-gen fighter and nuclear subs,but for other items,especially for the Army,artlllery,tanks,ICVs and specialised armoured vehicles,we have lagged behind and can make an attmept here.One report said that one reason for the T-90 choice was because a Russian FMBT design was part of a Russian effort to develop a modular approach to armoured vehicles,where instead of designing a number of individual designs,many items including the chassis would be modular,allowing it to be the basis for a variety of armoured vehicles.At least in the light armoured scout vehicles being used in Iraq and Afghanistan,the GOI must let corporate houses like M&M,Tatas,L&T to design and build prototypes using their own R&D capabilities,leaving the DRDO to on areas of its strength.Look at how many other smaller nations are successfully designing and building their own tanks and armoured vehicles and we long before them were licence producing Vijayantas (from Krishna Menon's time!)T-72s and ICVs.

Therefore,we have no alternative but to buy some,build some ourselves-with JVs too and let Indian corporate giants develop and produce some.A threefold approach will ensure that hopefully,there is safety in the numbers of suppliers.
Last edited by Philip on 22 Jan 2009 19:14, edited 1 time in total.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3946
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby kit » 22 Jan 2009 18:53

The Bhishma s gun barrel tech was supposedly transferred .. can that be used for an indigenous 155 caliber gun

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

Re: Artillery and Armor thread

Postby KiranM » 22 Jan 2009 20:10

Philip wrote:Guys,please read carefully.I have not advocated total dependence upon foreign products,but in the current scenario,where the DRDO has to be reorganised too,with huge shortfalls in major items and much equipment,we have no alternative but to make knee-jerk imports and JVs for priority items.....

....Apart from our strategic/tactical missiles,one would see that there are vast gaps of eqpt. what the services require that cannot be met by soley by the DRDO.


Strategic missiles are not available on the market. So services had to make do with what was avaliable domestically. And accept upgradation in technology in tranches as is happening now with Agni.

If DRDO is as incompetent as claimed, they could have screwed around with even the missile program. But they didnt.

So if services could wait patiently for strategic missiles (given the need to deter Pak/ China), while making do with initial versions; it makes me ponder couldnt they be more prudent in accepting conventional platforms in few numbers initially, so that the kinks could be worked out?!

That is what all the 'foreign supplier' nations did with their forces. And their homegrown entities were not 'branded' as is happening to DRDO.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests