Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9869
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Yagnasri » 17 Jan 2010 11:42

So one more drama of comparitive trials and thereafter all kinds of Natasha inspired news items telling all of us how bad the Arjun is. Really what is the meaning of this tests.

I think contries make weapon systems based on their national requirement conditions capabilities etc and do not do comaritive trials between two totally difforent systems. In any even T90 though may be good has no comparision with Arjun.

Any any guruji here give valid reason for this trials.

Bala Vignesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2017
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Bala Vignesh » 17 Jan 2010 12:13

President's Bodyguards is the name of a cavalry regiment of the IA. their duties include but is not limited to guarding the prez.

http://presidentofindia.nic.in/presiden ... uards.html

After Independence, in keeping with its high traditions, the PBG rendered yeoman service in 1947 and around the Capital in the upheaval during the aftermath of partition. The Regiment saw action in 1965, when it participated in "Operation ABLAZE" in the Western theatre. In 1988 and 1989, detachments of the Unit served with the Indian forces in Sri Lanka. The PBG has also served on the world's highest battlefield in Siachen, where it continues to do so till today, and with the Indian contingents forming part of the United Nations Force in Somalia Sierra Leone and Angola.

The PBG today is a small body of men comprising of four officers,14 JCOs and 161 Bodyguards-men backed up by administrative support personnel, an establishment which has not changed much in the last century. Equipped with armoured cars, its men are trained for operational duties, both as tankmen and airborne troops in addition to their ceremonial role.


their insignia would give you some idea of their wartime role.
Image

guarding the prez is more of a ceremonial duty and they don't use armoured cars for that role.


So the presidential body guards are actually multi-specialty force since they have both Para and Armored training??? why train them in two conflicting wings... I mean Armored personnel don't have to jump from the sky with the tank and the para guys sure as hell don't use tanks...
Wouldn't it be better if they train for one wing only say either Para or Armored...
JMHO...

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2484
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Vivek K » 17 Jan 2010 12:49

Narayana Rao wrote:So one more drama of comparitive trials and thereafter all kinds of Natasha inspired news items telling all of us how bad the Arjun is. Really what is the meaning of this tests.

Any any guruji here give valid reason for this trials.

I guess the purchasing folks will not give up till they get their due. Remember the last trials, when the "torsion bar" of the Arjun (that has hydro-pneumatic suspension) and then "Renk's transmission" were reported to be a major let-down in the Army's ambitious plans to (not) induct the Arjuns. Expect something similar this time. It is a shame that we are running around buying imported tanks that do not have night vision eqpt and here we have a home-grown design that can beat the crap out of any Puki or Chicom tank!

The game goes on!

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby srai » 17 Jan 2010 15:32

Rahul M wrote:singha ji, the number would be closer to 2000 now I think. rohit can answer better.

if there's a situation/sector where PLA can deploy tanks and we can't, only then something like the NAMICA as a stand-alone option is a possibility. but newer tactics would be needed to exploit its shoot and scoot potential.


BR - BMP-2
...Production continues at 100 per year and 900+ are in active service. ...


According to SIPRI, a total of 1,100 [700 (1987-1991) and 400 (1992-1995)] inducted between 1987 to 1995. Plus, 123 BMP-2K were received in 2007-2008.

If these data are accurate, then we can assume that there were around 1,100+ BMP-IIs in 1995 and production was continuing at 100 ICV/year.

1,100 -> 1987-1995
1,300 -> 1996-2009
123 -> BMP-2K 2007-2008
--------------------------------
Total: 2,523 BMP-IIs (currently)

Note: This total is not factoring retirements. It is likely some of the old ones are being/have been retired. IA also has quite a few variants of the BMP-IIs as well.

With production being increased to 200-250 ICVs/year, the numbers will jump up significantly in the next 10 years to 4,523 (2,523 + 2,000). Assuming 1,000 of the oldest will be retired by 2020, IA will have around 3,500 BMP-II ICVs in-service in 2020.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 17 Jan 2010 22:07

srai wrote:
Rahul M wrote:singha ji, the number would be closer to 2000 now I think. rohit can answer better.

if there's a situation/sector where PLA can deploy tanks and we can't, only then something like the NAMICA as a stand-alone option is a possibility. but newer tactics would be needed to exploit its shoot and scoot potential.


BR - BMP-2
...Production continues at 100 per year and 900+ are in active service. ...


According to SIPRI, a total of 1,100 [700 (1987-1991) and 400 (1992-1995)] inducted between 1987 to 1995. Plus, 123 BMP-2K were received in 2007-2008.

If these data are accurate, then we can assume that there were around 1,100+ BMP-IIs in 1995 and production was continuing at 100 ICV/year.

1,100 -> 1987-1995
1,300 -> 1996-2009
123 -> BMP-2K 2007-2008
--------------------------------
Total: 2,523 BMP-IIs (currently)

Note: This total is not factoring retirements. It is likely some of the old ones are being/have been retired. IA also has quite a few variants of the BMP-IIs as well.

With production being increased to 200-250 ICVs/year, the numbers will jump up significantly in the next 10 years to 4,523 (2,523 + 2,000). Assuming 1,000 of the oldest will be retired by 2020, IA will have around 3,500 BMP-II ICVs in-service in 2020.


Thank you for the analysis. Kind of validates my assumption that there should be ~2000 BMP-I/II in service considering the Orbat and numbers of Mechanized Regiments required.

And considering the push for more RAPIDs, IBG(yes, I know we need the arty.. :(( ) and may be a new armored division, the number will surely rise. Which brings us to the question: IA will shorty need to start adding new IFV so that the churn of old(BMP-II)-->new(X) can begin and we can have new IFV across the board by end of next decade.

ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 944
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby ParGha » 17 Jan 2010 22:13

Bala Vignesh wrote:So the presidential body guards are actually multi-specialty force since they have both Para and Armored training??? why train them in two conflicting wings... I mean Armored personnel don't have to jump from the sky with the tank and the para guys sure as hell don't use tanks... Wouldn't it be better if they train for one wing only say either Para or Armored... JMHO...

In World War II elements of the Viceregal BGC were designated as the premier pathfinder units for the Indian airborne forces engaged in the planned OP Olympic, so they were all para-qualified. Of course the Manhattan Project made it all unnecessary in event, but millions of Allied troops had prepared for air and amphibious invasion of Japan - and BGC would be right at the tip of the spear (at least as far as Indian Army was concerned). That is a strong legacy, so it continues. Of course, now there is also separate pathfinder company with the Parachute Regiment.

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1383
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Kersi D » 17 Jan 2010 23:58

Narayana Rao wrote:So one more drama of comparitive trials and thereafter all kinds of Natasha inspired news items telling all of us how bad the Arjun is. Really what is the meaning of this tests.

I think contries make weapon systems based on their national requirement conditions capabilities etc and do not do comaritive trials between two totally difforent systems. In any even T90 though may be good has no comparision with Arjun.

Any any guruji here give valid reason for this trials.



To "prove" that all phoren maaal is good and DRDO produces junk. :evil:

ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 944
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby ParGha » 18 Jan 2010 00:34

Narayana Rao wrote:I think contries make weapon systems based on their national requirement conditions capabilities etc and do not do comaritive trials between two totally difforent systems. In any even T90 though may be good has no comparision with Arjun.

Only two countries design major weapons systems based solely on their national requirements, conditions, capabilities etc. - the US and Russia. Everybody else follows them to various extents, permuting and combining to different levels - acquiring what they can get. China is trying to establish itself in some newer, niche areas - particularly in unconventional and disruptive technologies. But that is about it. Thus the comparison between T-90 and Arjun (Leo-style, ~50% imported components) is de facto a comparison between a Russian-style and Western/US-style future for the Indian mechanized forces. It is not a easy or light decision to make. In the past the decision was basically made for India by geopolitics.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby negi » 18 Jan 2010 01:00

^ That is not true for time being even if I leave out the Industrialized countries which more or less developed weapon systems on their own (Sweden, Germany, Italy ,France or even Israel) there are plenty of examples like KSA,Poland,Czech republic ,Brazil and Belgium who make state of the art weapons platforms and manage to sell it in the world market amongst stiff competition.

We have tasted some success in form of ALH but for a country of size like India and given her resurgent economy a lot more needs to be achieved in this sector.

If Arjun is indeed made ground up based on GSQRs as laid out by the IA then there is no question of any comparasion assuming it meets the former also I don't see any merit in a comparative trial unless IA wishes to increase the order for Arjun in place of its RU counterpart if it emerges out as a better tank .

Arjun is much more than a mere MBT it is the first stepping stone towards Indegnisation of a primary building block of our armored column , if one would trace through the history of M1A-Abrams one would realize the kind of importance given to the need for producing a tank in house by a major world power same is true for the British when they opted to go ahead with Chally-2 despite two matured platforms available and on sale (Leo-2 and M1A Abrams) and this despite Chally-2 being more expensive than the latter.Same is the case with Soko's K-2 or even the Japanese Type 90.

If the point is about mere firepower and having all the features what one can imagine a MBT should have then I am sure there are tanks out there which are better than T-90 but how many of these have been built around IA's requirements ?

Vinito
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 85
Joined: 16 Jun 2009 18:33

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Vinito » 18 Jan 2010 17:27

srai wrote:
Rahul M wrote:singha ji, the number would be closer to 2000 now I think. rohit can answer better.

if there's a situation/sector where PLA can deploy tanks and we can't, only then something like the NAMICA as a stand-alone option is a possibility. but newer tactics would be needed to exploit its shoot and scoot potential.


BR - BMP-2
...Production continues at 100 per year and 900+ are in active service. ...


According to SIPRI, a total of 1,100 [700 (1987-1991) and 400 (1992-1995)] inducted between 1987 to 1995. Plus, 123 BMP-2K were received in 2007-2008.

If these data are accurate, then we can assume that there were around 1,100+ BMP-IIs in 1995 and production was continuing at 100 ICV/year.

1,100 -> 1987-1995
1,300 -> 1996-2009
123 -> BMP-2K 2007-2008
--------------------------------
Total: 2,523 BMP-IIs (currently)

Note: This total is not factoring retirements. It is likely some of the old ones are being/have been retired. IA also has quite a few variants of the BMP-IIs as well.

With production being increased to 200-250 ICVs/year, the numbers will jump up significantly in the next 10 years to 4,523 (2,523 + 2,000). Assuming 1,000 of the oldest will be retired by 2020, IA will have around 3,500 BMP-II ICVs in-service in 2020.



Is there any reason why the IA does not want to upgrade the BMP-2 to a BMP-3 like configuration or even go ahead an order the BMP-3 since even the Russians are touting this version as a radical upgrade over its previous versions?

IMO, the older BMP-2 versions could be upgraded with the Sliver turret and upgraded powerpack and all new purchases will be the BMP-3.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 18 Jan 2010 18:44

whats there in a BMP3 that you really need?? on the other hand see the inside of the BMP3 -

d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby d_berwal » 18 Jan 2010 18:48



Is there any reason why the IA does not want to upgrade the BMP-2 to a BMP-3 like configuration or even go ahead an order the BMP-3 since even the Russians are touting this version as a radical upgrade over its previous versions?

IMO, the older BMP-2 versions could be upgraded with the Sliver turret and upgraded powerpack and all new purchases will be the BMP-3.


chaiwala says BMP 3 failed trails many years back.. so unsuaitable for IA.

There are some 200 BMP 2K we recieved directly form russia.. 1 or 2 yrs back in addition to domestic production...

an upgarade program is under way to upgare new TI sights (Started few yrs bk)
another to upgrade them to BMP 2M configuration (status unknown)

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9869
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Yagnasri » 18 Jan 2010 19:53

We can proceed with Abhay IFV than BMP II. I am sure we can do a lot better job than BMP's. Why not try to develop our own products when we our selves need them in huge no's. Does IFV Tech requirements are that great and beyond our present capabilities or we can not achive such capabilities if tried ???

Bala Vignesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2017
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Bala Vignesh » 18 Jan 2010 20:21

ParGha wrote:In World War II elements of the Viceregal BGC were designated as the premier pathfinder units for the Indian airborne forces engaged in the planned OP Olympic, so they were all para-qualified. Of course the Manhattan Project made it all unnecessary in event, but millions of Allied troops had prepared for air and amphibious invasion of Japan - and BGC would be right at the tip of the spear (at least as far as Indian Army was concerned). That is a strong legacy, so it continues. Of course, now there is also separate pathfinder company with the Parachute Regiment.


Thanks ParGha sir,
I did not know the regimental history behind the PBG unit, but it still stands that the para don't require training in Armoured doctrines and tactics..

Bala Vignesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2017
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Bala Vignesh » 18 Jan 2010 20:28

ParGha wrote:Only two countries design major weapons systems based solely on their national requirements, conditions, capabilities etc. - the US and Russia. Everybody else follows them to various extents, permuting and combining to different levels - acquiring what they can get. China is trying to establish itself in some newer, niche areas - particularly in unconventional and disruptive technologies. But that is about it. Thus the comparison between T-90 and Arjun (Leo-style, ~50% imported components) is de facto a comparison between a Russian-style and Western/US-style future for the Indian mechanized forces. It is not a easy or light decision to make. In the past the decision was basically made for India by geopolitics.

Not neccesarily... Sweden designed a tank that suited their needs so perfectly that it could not be a viable competitor in the international market (forgot the name)... Its the same with the Merkhava series in Israel... Their tanks are some of the heaviest in the world but israel has no need to ship tanks elsewhere so it can still go ahead with them... This pretty much proves that most nations plan and design major equipments based on their needs rather than follow someone else..

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 18 Jan 2010 20:43

yes nations that need to seriously fight like israel (and have financial backing) and rich nations that need to serious fight (sweden S-tank) will build stuff that matches their requirements.

Swedes are pretty unique in that they havent fought a serious contest in decades yet still produce world class weapons. normally things are refined by
use in combat and field deployments..look like those swedes trained pretty hard and seriously.

Craig Alpert
BRFite
Posts: 1440
Joined: 09 Oct 2009 17:36
Location: Behind Enemy Lines

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Craig Alpert » 20 Jan 2010 02:55

ParGha wrote:Only two countries design major weapons systems based solely on their national requirements, conditions, capabilities etc. - the US and Russia.

You forgot to mention France :lol: With that it is a total of 3 countries!

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9869
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Yagnasri » 28 Jan 2010 20:16

I have read the material on Abhay in Live Fist and it seems to be a good option. I do not know why it is not seriously persued. Remember reading that it is only a Tech demonstration thing. But still when there is a need why we stoped or delaying.

Any gurus on the bad things reported on Abhay. I have not read any bad reports.

krishnan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7342
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Location: 13° 04' N , 80° 17' E

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby krishnan » 28 Jan 2010 20:28

The only bad thing i read about Abhay was that it was just a TD

Dmurphy
BRFite
Posts: 1543
Joined: 03 Jun 2008 11:20
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Dmurphy » 29 Jan 2010 23:35

Indian Army to Buy Special Operations Vehicles

I can hear distant voices crying out "Stryker, Stryker, Stryker"

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10098
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby sum » 30 Jan 2010 14:20

Dmurphy wrote:Indian Army to Buy Special Operations Vehicles

I can hear distant voices crying out "Stryker, Stryker, Stryker"

:lol:
It can be safely assumed that under present GoI, any new multi-vendor military hardware winner will be US onlee.

If the US firm looses, the contract will be canceled on flimsy grounds and re tendering will occur. If it takes too long even then, a FMS will go through and Amriki maal will land here.

Bala Vignesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2017
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Bala Vignesh » 30 Jan 2010 18:43

Dmurphy wrote:Indian Army to Buy Special Operations Vehicles

I can hear distant voices crying out "Stryker, Stryker, Stryker"

Amen... :D :D
But as per the wiki article, the russian BTR 90 seems to be a better vehicle than the stryker in most categories...

pralay
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 519
Joined: 24 May 2009 23:07
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby pralay » 30 Jan 2010 19:46

Bala Vignesh wrote:
Dmurphy wrote:Indian Army to Buy Special Operations Vehicles

I can hear distant voices crying out "Stryker, Stryker, Stryker"

Amen... :D :D
But as per the wiki article, the russian BTR 90 seems to be a better vehicle than the stryker in most categories...


TRUE, BTR-90 is much well equipped and amphibious

d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby d_berwal » 30 Jan 2010 19:50

Bala Vignesh wrote:
Dmurphy wrote:Indian Army to Buy Special Operations Vehicles

I can hear distant voices crying out "Stryker, Stryker, Stryker"

Amen... :D :D
But as per the wiki article, the russian BTR 90 seems to be a better vehicle than the stryker in most categories...


If one reads the RFI.. it seems its more for a vechile lile BAE BvS 10 or Russian Vityaz or swiss Bv206 or SKT Bronco armored all-terrain vehicle.

Stryker / BTR 90 type vechile may not have provision for:
- All way Blade
- Rotary snow blower
- Snow cutter
- Tilt Trailer

and other requirements of RFI

Quantity is not mentioned in RFI but TOT is, thus actual quantity has to be good for OEM to part with TOT.

RFI for Stryker type vechile is already out and this RFI is different,
Some is serious about building credible Mountine n Snow Troops :wink:

Craig Alpert
BRFite
Posts: 1440
Joined: 09 Oct 2009 17:36
Location: Behind Enemy Lines

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Craig Alpert » 30 Jan 2010 19:57

^^ I think Jingos here might have jumped the gun on this.. Stryker is an ICV not an ATV. I THINK what they are expecting is something on the likes of those "desert scooters" or "snow mobile types", NOT the 8 wheeled track types...
Indian SF (Garuds to be exact) used it when they were training in Red-Flag with the US forces... Pics were posted in BRF..

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 30 Jan 2010 19:59

People its an ATV not IFV

I have been surprised that we never picked up the BV 206 all these years.

Pretty much every credible mountain\alpine units seem to use it.

Even the Israelis with just MtHermon to deal with have it.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 31 Jan 2010 00:08

Surya wrote:People its an ATV not IFV

I have been surprised that we never picked up the BV 206 all these years.

Pretty much every credible mountain\alpine units seem to use it.

Even the Israelis with just MtHermon to deal with have it.


Guess patrolling along the LAC in the Western Sector is going to be a different experience all together.BV 206 seems to be custom made for the Indian terrain in Ladakh

gogna
BRFite
Posts: 118
Joined: 08 Oct 2007 19:02
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby gogna » 31 Jan 2010 00:21

Is that BV 206 porkies using in saichin please identify what vehicle is that at 8:14.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EnIF_dpW80

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 31 Jan 2010 00:32

rohit

I meant for our mountain troops and Siachen

from antartic to norway to malayan jungles its been used. also used in bog, marsh and desert - so its really all round and I can see it needed in almost every sector

would be perfect for our mountain troops - there seems to be hardly any competion for it. of course we need hundreds of these

In the mid 80s when I used to scribble little fantasy orbats of the IA, I had the this and its predecessor on my list.

and its not like the IA has anything comparable.


gogna

yup the porkis have it

d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby d_berwal » 31 Jan 2010 00:38

Surya wrote:People its an ATV not IFV

I have been surprised that we never picked up the BV 206 all these years.

Pretty much every credible mountain\alpine units seem to use it.

Even the Israelis with just MtHermon to deal with have it.


Sisu NA-110 is what India has..

http://www.military-today.com/trucks/sisu_na_110.htm

Nothing can beat this beast: http://www.military-today.com/trucks/dt30_vityaz.htm
http://www.amphibiousvehicle.net/amphi/U_Z.html

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 31 Jan 2010 01:08

Surya wrote:rohit

I meant for our mountain troops and Siachen.................<snip>


errr....i think i also meant the same.You can only use it in a terrain which can already sport a vehicle.This thing is perfect to patrol the long LAC with two of these carrying a section of troops easily plus stores especially in the winter season.When I talk of LAC, I'm considering a more wider role for the vehicle and higher numbers.Will be real handy in the desert.BSF can mount long range patrols with these.

d_berwal wrote:
Sisu NA-110 is what India has..

http://www.military-today.com/trucks/si ... tm.........


Is the knowledge about NA-110 from personnel exp.?For I've not seen public pics of the same.Can you share who(unit type) uses these and for what purpose?Thanx.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 31 Jan 2010 04:47

rohit

fair enough

d_berwal

thanks for the info

Interesting -


wonder when they ordered it.

d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby d_berwal » 31 Jan 2010 17:41

Surya wrote:rohit

fair enough

d_berwal

thanks for the info

Interesting -


wonder when they ordered it.


As per the RFI:

The varied terrains for use of ATV are:
- Snow bound areas
- Marshes
- Creeks
- Beaches
- Deserts

The desired Accessories:
- GPS powered by vehicle electrical systems.
- Wind and temperature (internal and external) tachymeter.
- Fire extinguisher in driver and passenger compartment.
- External storage facilities for rapelling ropes, ice axes, pick axe and shovels.
- External storage facilities for 2 x 20 litres warming fuel jerricans.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 31 Jan 2010 19:33

berwal

I meant when the Sisu NA-110 entered IA service

d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby d_berwal » 31 Jan 2010 22:41

Surya wrote:berwal

I meant when the Sisu NA-110 entered IA service


some where in 90's in small numbers

Bala Vignesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2017
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Bala Vignesh » 31 Jan 2010 23:21

Berwal sir,
any estimate on the number we are looking to buy in CKD or SKD's and the number we are going to manufacture here???

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 31 Jan 2010 23:34

d_berwal wrote:
Surya wrote:berwal

I meant when the Sisu NA-110 entered IA service


some where in 90's in small numbers


And these were with which units/formations?Any info that you can share on their role?

d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby d_berwal » 01 Feb 2010 00:57

Bala Vignesh wrote:Berwal sir,
any estimate on the number we are looking to buy in CKD or SKD's and the number we are going to manufacture here???


Sir This particular RFI has a TOT option mentioned, so my educated guess is numbers are going to be big.

No one will setup MFG for 60-80 no of such vehicle.

+ IA plans to use them in deserts, beaches (landings), snow, marshes(kutch), Mountains(mountain troops).

Another guess is that they might be used as troops carriers within IBG's. Fast movement of Infantry.

The "Thandi Shuruat" is getting quite mature !!! :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

gogna
BRFite
Posts: 118
Joined: 08 Oct 2007 19:02
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby gogna » 01 Feb 2010 01:04

Surya wrote:rohit


gogna

yup the porkis have it


What are we using in siachin for similar needs, i remember reading here on BR how our soldiers were surprised at porkies at kargil how they were better equipped to fight in colder condition than our troops from their flushed out bunkers.

How are we better now or is it still the same.

Amit J
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 84
Joined: 27 Dec 2009 18:16
Location: CLASSIFIED

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Amit J » 01 Feb 2010 02:17

sameer_shelavale wrote:
Bala Vignesh wrote:
But as per the wiki article, the russian BTR 90 seems to be a better vehicle than the stryker in most categories...


TRUE, BTR-90 is much well equipped and amphibious


What is the apprx cost of the BTR-90 given tht the Stryker costs 1.5 mil USD apiece as per wiki


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests