Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 22 Mar 2010 12:37

ravi_ku wrote:Sanku

All I get from various links is they are license manufactured, i.e. my interpretation is from SKD. If these are the first tanks to roll out from avadi, these are definitely SKDs and part of the first contract signed in 99-2000.

There is no need to interpret please; there is too much interpretation going on already when the fact are already quite clearly and visibly laid out.

Note a 2004 article
http://www.thehindu.com/2004/01/06/stor ... 311200.htm

CHENNAI JAN. 5. The first indigenously assembled Russian main battle tank (MBT), T-90 S, will roll out of the Avadi Heavy Vehicles Factory (HVF) on January 7, Defence Ministry officials said.

The semi knocked-down tanks were shipped to Chennai from Russia early last year. Russian experts are helping their Indian counterparts integrate the parts at Avadi. Once the technicians and experts here achieve a degree of familiarity with the integration of semi knocked-down tanks, they will begin working on completely knocked-down tanks. Production of the tanks under licence from Russia will begin thereafter.

Now in 2007
http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=30600&kwd=

Heavy Vehicles Factory has so far supplied 181 T-90 tanks to Army.

Now in 2009
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/unc ... 37287.html

Avadi (Tamil Nadu), Aug 24 (IANS) The first batch T-90 tanks manufactured in India under license from Russia were Monday handed over to the Indian Army.After a delay of one year, the first batch rolled out of the Heavy Vehicles Factory (HVF) here. The batch of 10 tanks was inducted into the army at a function in Avadi by Minister of State for Defence M.M. Pallam Raju.

The licensed production of the tanks has been kicked off only after a stalemate with Russia over transfer of technology was resolved.

More at : Indian Army inducts first indigenous T-90 tanks http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/unc ... z0it5eLujB

Enjoy madi....

And meanwhile Avadi takes 10 years and has still not made the first order of 124 Arjun's placed in 2000.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 22 Mar 2010 12:41

somnath wrote: Surya, I am pretty sure you are correct..In a one-on-one duel, an M1 (or even maybe an Arjun) will trump a T90/72 anyday...the problem is however, there is never a one-on-one duel...In Iraq (either versions), how many divisional armour attacks did the Americans conduct against the Iraqis without air support, arty support or their awesome situaitonal awareness? So when you see those charred T72s, thanks not just the M1, but an awesome system that ID-ed it first, tracked it day-and-night and enabled the tank gunner (or the bomber/apache pilot) take the first shot at a distance that outranged the T72's gun...

You once provided this link in the past in context of some other debate......how about having a re-look again and then commenting on the tank versus tank battles......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_73_Easting...

And what if, despite the overwhelming superiority in C3I and paraphernalia, the MBT tasked to fire the finishing APFSDS, was a another tank and not M1 Abrams?

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 22 Mar 2010 13:09

Rohitvats,

Related to production, there are two issues - one, QC, and two, rate of production...You say that Avadi has a "stabilised" rate of production of Arjun now...That rate is 30, or 50? How many years will it take for that rate to conjure up 1000 tanks? Avadi's track record in the overhaul of T72, either in terms of quality or in terms of numbers, does not inspire any confidence at all...In the pantheon of Indian DPSUs/departments, Avadi is the worst, playing for that position with the OFBs..

Wrt T90, in case Avadi screws up again (which it did), or if the Russians continue playing hardball, the IA can get it to machine SKDs - a far simpler job than CKDs, or even proper license manufacture...So technically not imports (as bulk of the Avadi-made T90s), but quite close to it!

About Cold Start, I said before that I dont think the T90 (or Arjun conversely) was acquired because of the doctrine...Simply that in the threat perceptions enunciated, we will not be fighting long drawn, large scale armoured battles with Pakistan...Short, sharp, and limited actions are envisaged, with the emphasis on the speed of mobilisation..

Part of the re-alignment would be to "forward base" armoured formations, as Brig Kapila mentions here..

http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers ... r1013.html

The 3:1 ratio I alluded to was simply trying to expemplify what the IA would try to do in the theatre, ie to move 3 times the number of tanks in the chosen theatre compared to what Pak would have..It is not about absolute force levels...

Would the Arjun make it as well in Cold Start scenarios? Most likely..Is the T90 therefore by definition garbage? Not likely, not in our threat scenario..

Couldnt open the link..can you repost it?

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 22 Mar 2010 13:13

Sanku ji,

Thanks

I did a basic search on google. but it turned out nothing at that time, first arjun from avadi, all turned to be from 2009

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 22 Mar 2010 13:38

ravi_ku wrote:Sanku ji,

Thanks

Thanks for the thanks Sir. Finding defence info in Google is tough, esp about India. Its just that I have been mucking about on this topic for a long time (thanks to interest kindled by JCage)

jai · Post by **jai** » 22 Mar 2010 14:35

If you get matching/Superior tanks now, how would T100's ever be bought ??

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Mar 2010 16:32

What happed to that Tank-EX which had chasis of T-72 and turret/gun of Arjun , is that in production ?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Mar 2010 18:35

This echoes what a JDW report said over a year ago,that HVF was inundated with to much work,T-72 upgrades,Arjun MK-1 production,and T-90 production too.In fact,the first and last items were hampering the second-Arjun production which languished from a large order of 400+ tanks which would then cover development costs.It appears across the board,that Indian defence PSUs even when given large enough orders for tanks,warships,aircraft,etc.,cannot meet deadlines for some strange reason.

M<eanwhile,a new "froce field" armour,where electrical force fields could repel incoming projctiles.

EXcerpt:

Armor could form 'force field'
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2010/03 ... 269110597/

LONDON, March 20 (UPI) -- A new type of armor would use pulses of electrical energy to repel projectiles away from an armored vehicle, British scientists say.

Researchers at the Defense Science and Technology Laboratory, better know as "Dstl" and located at four sites in England, say it is possible to corporate material known as supercapacitors into armor that would turn a vehicle into a kind of giant battery, The Daily Telegraph reported.

Dstl is the research and development arm of the Ministry of Defense.

The report said when a threat from an incoming projective is detected, the energy in the supercapacitor can be rapidly pushed into the metal plating on the outside of the vehicle. That produces a strong electromagnetic field.

The researchers say this would produce a momentary "force field" which in theory could repel incoming projectiles. Although the force field would last for only a fraction of a section, correctly timed it could repel a projectile, such as a rocket-propelled grade, the report said.

Scientists claim this would produce a momentary "force field" capable of repelling the incoming rounds and projectiles.

The supercapacitor would then be rapidly recharged.

The idea is similar to force fields in science fiction that produce an invisible deflector around a vehicle or object.

Professor Bryn James, head of Dstl's armor and protection science and technology center, said the electric armor could dramatically decrease the weight of vehicles and tanks.

"You would think this would require huge amounts of energy, but we have found it can be done with surprisingly small amounts of electrical power," he told the Telegraph.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Mar 2010 13:30

There's a very interesting light tank,which is the ideal replacement for the PT-76 that comes with a 125mm main gun too and weighs only about 18T,the Sprut SD.It doubles as a tracked SP gun,is "light,flexible and well armed",according to US sources.The tank built on a BMD chassis,would be ideal for use in high alt. battlefields and can be esily carried by our heavy transports like the IL-76s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2S25_Sprut-SD

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 23 Mar 2010 13:39

Philip wrote:There's a very interesting light tank,which is the ideal replacement for the PT-76 that comes with a 125mm main gun too and weighs only about 18T,the Sprut SD.It doubles as a tracked SP gun,is "light,flexible and well armed",according to US sources.The tank built on a BMD chassis,would be ideal for use in high alt. battlefields and can be esily carried by our heavy transports like the IL-76s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2S25_Sprut-SD

Phillip, is there any requirement for a "light tank" in the IA? For that matter, does that distinction exist anymore in the first place in any Army? In any case, IA's MBTs themselves already are quite "light", and IA seems to prefer them that way!

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 23 Mar 2010 14:11

somnath wrote: Phillip, is there any requirement for a "light tank" in the IA? For that matter, does that distinction exist anymore in the first place in any Army? In any case, IA's MBTs themselves already are quite "light", and IA seems to prefer them that way!

While we do need Light Tanks (please see my post couple of pages back - primarliy for Reconnaissance elements), I'm not too sure of the above tank. I saw a video of the same on YouTube; the thing looks like 'gun with a tank'. You can see the tank jumping from point x to y due to massive recoil from the main gun.

And this is a custom made for airborne forces. If we need Light Tanks, I'd go with somethin with better protection. Anf for the roles envisaged, 105mm should suffice. No need for monster 105mm and attandant risks and penalties.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 23 Mar 2010 14:21

^^^ Rohit, the recon elements are anyway supposed to be getting the NAMICAs (per Ajai Shukla)..Are they going to have another tracked platform in the form of a light tank? The NAMICA deplyment too, if it happens (I am personally quite sceptical about it, Ajai Shukla seemed to be extrapolating a bit too much from a old order for Nag) will almost be mini-revolutionary, as IA will be probably the only (maybe barrign the British?) army to have dedicated tracked missile carriers...But then, why are they so keen on the Stryker? they are also to be part of recon units, arent they? In any case, dont see any stated interest from IA for a "light" tank anymore..

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Mar 2010 14:22

Yes,there was some item of news some time ago about the need for a light tank that could be used in difficultterrain,marshy battlezones as the PT-76 was used in '71.This tank can even be air-dropped thanks to its low weight.The surprising feature is the calibre of the main gun,the same as an MBT.The only drawback apparently is the naturally lower armour protection,which is the tradeoff.This could even have wiremesh fitted to defeat tanndem warhead RPG rounds.It is fully amphibious,has hydro-pneumatic suspension,very helpful during airlift and drop procedures.It can be used on sea,river and lake waterbodies by means of ten-hour endurance waterjets and can fire when on the water too.There is a 3-man crew with seats for two more riflemen.The main gun is taken from the T-72,increasing the recoil length,thus reducing recoil foce.Ammo-APSFDS/HEAT/HE,plus an ATGM (Svir)fired through the barrel.Effective range is 5km and can penetrate RHA armour of 72cm thickness.It has nightfighting devices and a night sight range of 1km+.The tanks are being delivered first to the Russian airborne divisions and the Russian Navy,says the US report.

Such a tank would be very useful for our amphibious ops,use in the A&N islands,it supposedly has a 3000m alt. fighting capability.At a weight of only 18t,it comes in ideal for "weight-watchers" where our matronly MBTs are not below 45T! It has apparently been offered to several countries including India.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 23 Mar 2010 14:50

somnath wrote:^^^ Rohit, the recon elements are anyway supposed to be getting the NAMICAs (per Ajai Shukla)..Are they going to have another tracked platform in the form of a light tank? The NAMICA deplyment too, if it happens (I am personally quite sceptical about it, Ajai Shukla seemed to be extrapolating a bit too much from a old order for Nag) will almost be mini-revolutionary, as IA will be probably the only (maybe barrign the British?) army to have dedicated tracked missile carriers...But then, why are they so keen on the Stryker? they are also to be part of recon units, arent they? In any case, dont see any stated interest from IA for a "light" tank anymore..

Let me expand the explanation for you. Each RAPID has two Mechanized Infantry Battalions. One of them is termed as the Reconnaissanse and Support (R&S) Battalion. As the name implies, there task is to provide Recce & Support to the RAPIDS. They have interal ATGM component and hence, you see the NAMICA going to them. No surprises here. Their used to be four of them (all from Brigades of Guards) for each RAPID; the number should be 6 now.

The Recce Squadrons and Troops of Armored Divisions/Armored Brigades/Armored Regiments were always planned to be equipped with Light Tanks. But the job here is done by 4*4 vehicles. So, they are prime candidates for the Light Tanks. In fact, if you read the story about the airlift of T-72 to Jaffana, it speaks about Col.Kaul (then major, iirc) wanting to take his jeep also along for Recce role. He was forced to use T-72 for Recce as the Jeep could not be airlifted with the tanks.

As for the Stryker, I don't have any definite answers.Variants of the same are employed in RSTA Components by the SBCT; the main role is that of ICV/AFV. The one area where IA needs massive inputs is mechanization of its Infantry. While I don't know wether it is/will be cheaper to equip a mechanized battalion with BMP-II or Stryker, if we can use them to mechanize say, infantry brigades of RAPIDS, it will be a great boon.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 23 Mar 2010 15:04

Talking to Aussie infantry guys , prefer wheeled over tracked

Tracked is a nightmare for maint in the wet, muddy conditions

Wheeled even if they have to take a circuitous route, reach it in roughly the same time because they are faster.

Hence the Bushmaster and LAVs

Just a perspective

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 23 Mar 2010 15:10

Rohit,

I would still be sceptical about IA inducting NAMICAs on a large scale..In most armies, the R&S ATGM component is comprised of ICVs, not missile carriers..But lets see, as of now the order is only for 13 NAMICAs..If what you are saying were to pan out, the armoured forces will have T-series tanks, BMP-based ICVs and NAMICAs, Strykers and a "Light" tank...Quite a melange..(Imagine inducting Arjun in large numbers along with this)! Once again, light tanks as a category no longer finds favour with most militaries - better engines, manoeverabliity etc of "MBTs" and better armour, weapons of ICVs mean that most roles can be done as well between them..So it would be interesting in case the IA expresses a need for a light tank..

Philip wrote:Yes,there was some item of news some time ago about the need for a light tank that could be used in difficultterrain,marshy battlezones as the PT-76 was used in '71.This tank can even be air-dropped thanks to its low weight.The surprising feature is the calibre of the main gun,the same as an MBT.
...

Such a tank would be very useful for our amphibious ops,use in the A&N islands,it supposedly has a 3000m alt. fighting capability.At a weight of only 18t,it comes in ideal for "weight-watchers" where our matronly MBTs are not below 45T! It has apparently been offered to several countries including India.

Why would we need to use tanks in A&N?!!If anyone manages to land troops on the islands, no amount of armour, light or heavy, is going to help! And airdropping tanks is a bit rich...Even if technically possible, how many tanks can we airdrop? And how do we maintain the supply chain for the dropped tanks?

Most tasks of the erstwhile light tanks can today be done well enough between MBTs/ICVs, as explained above..

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 23 Mar 2010 18:49

A light Tank not in traditional sense but modern. It could mean armor + heavy barrel.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 23 Mar 2010 22:14

somnath wrote:Rohit,

I would still be sceptical about IA inducting NAMICAs on a large scale..In most armies, the R&S ATGM component is comprised of ICVs, not missile carriers..But lets see, as of now the order is only for 13 NAMICAs..If what you are saying were to pan out, the armoured forces will have T-series tanks, BMP-based ICVs and NAMICAs, Strykers and a "Light" tank...Quite a melange..(Imagine inducting Arjun in large numbers along with this)! Once again, light tanks as a category no longer finds favour with most militaries - better engines, manoeverabliity etc of "MBTs" and better armour, weapons of ICVs mean that most roles can be done as well between them..So it would be interesting in case the IA expresses a need for a light tank........

What you refer to melange is an operational requirement. You need to see the things in operational context and requirement.

As far as NAMICA is concerned, it is a wonderful weapon system which gives you non-LOS ATGM capability. The fact that other armies do not have such a weapon system (but do have dedicated tracked ATGM vehicles), does not take anything away from NAMICA. And since the R&S Battalions operate the BMP-II, there is commonality of platform and logistics.

As for the light tanks, I don't know what kind of images it conjures up in your mind. British Army operates the FV 107 Scimitar Reconnaissance Vehicle armed with 30mm cannon in their Formation Recce Regiments - they also call it Light Tank; similarly CV90 vehicle has a 105 & 120mm guns plus the usual 40mm/30mm variety. The ideal choice for the Recce Regiments/Squadrons/Troops will be a light tank based on existing ICV of the nation. AFAIK, BMP-II does not have such a variant. So, you might well see entry of a new type. And in the role they might be involved, the MBT does not fit. You need a Light Tank/Up-gunned ICV for that.

As for Stryker, allow me to explain in detail. Indian Army is off-balance as far as the mechanization of it's infantry is concered. Our Strike Corps are not fully mechanized and cannot move as a whole; so let us not even talk of Cold Start. Now, there are two routes you can take towards mechanization: equip all the required number of infantry regiments with ICV like BMP-II (expensive proposition) or equip the main elements (like Armored and Mechanized Divisions) with ICV/BMP-II and other with wheeled vehicles (lesser expensive). My comment about Stryker for increased mechanization was in this context; it was just a proxy for 6*6/8*8 vehicle. Prime candidates for the same will be our RAPIDS. The two infantry brigades in them (6 battalions) can be equipped with wheeled ICV. This will give them mobility, better protection and firepower. They can keep pace with their main armored brigade.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Mar 2010 22:29

there was one "sheridan M551" light tank like the Sprut. small body, massive dong. used to jump a couple feet in the air after each shot. it had a 152mm gun capable of launching ATGM also,

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 23 Mar 2010 22:41

and that gun was a low velocity gun.
the amrikis tried to replace the Sheridaan with the M 8 buford. there was even talk that the M8 project was being revived.

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 23 Mar 2010 23:12

somnath wrote: Ravi ji, as for Avadi, there isnt much Russia needs to do to "sabotage" them...they do that very well without help! You have to look at their track record in the T72 "overhaul" programme.....the biggest boon to any armoured effort indigeneously would be to permanently shut down Avadi and get Tata Motors to set up a facility...

Quite possibly true.

negi · Post by **negi** » 23 Mar 2010 23:23

Avadi could not overhaul T-72s but it did roll out a much advanced Arjun , being a PSU and obviously enjoying the protectionist policies of the GOI it might suffer from ailments as other Gobmint orgs , but inability to overhaul a vintage tank indicate it was not just Avadi which dropped the ball , the Russians are known for intentionally holding back on ToT , disimilar standards and language barrier do not help either.

Point being for a production line to be set up by an Indian player PSU/private the OEM has to share the related IP .As long as the product involved is foreign , one should expect such issues to crop up every now and then so point about scrapping Avadi and giving it to TATAs is valid only when the issue with ToT is resolved . Now it might help Arjuns, Pinakas or Namicas if manufacturing be outsourced to L&T and TATA however same is not the case for T-72 upgrade or even T-90 production , certainly not if bear does not cooperate.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 24 Mar 2010 01:51

negi wrote:Avadi could not overhaul T-72s but it did roll out a much advanced Arjun , being a PSU and obviously enjoying the protectionist policies of the GOI it might suffer from ailments as other Gobmint orgs , but inability to overhaul a vintage tank indicate it was not just Avadi which dropped the ball , the Russians are known for intentionally holding back on ToT , disimilar standards and language barrier do not help either.

Negi Sir, it Avadi only, every body from CAG to Parliamentary committee to xyz had cursed them for it.

Nothing do with Russians.

In general note the rate is the question as well as the QC, they can always DO things, but when will they do it and after they are done, what will be the result is the issue.

Avadi has to be fixed pronto. Already overdue.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 24 Mar 2010 06:06

negi wrote:Avadi could not overhaul T-72s but it did roll out a much advanced Arjun , being a PSU and obviously enjoying the protectionist policies of the GOI it might suffer from ailments as other Gobmint orgs , but inability to overhaul a vintage tank indicate it was not just Avadi which dropped the ball , the Russians are known for intentionally holding back on ToT , disimilar standards and language barrier do not help either.

Point being for a production line to be set up by an Indian player PSU/private the OEM has to share the related IP .As long as the product involved is foreign , one should expect such issues to crop up every now and then so point about scrapping Avadi and giving it to TATAs is valid only when the issue with ToT is resolved . Now it might help Arjuns, Pinakas or Namicas if manufacturing be outsourced to L&T and TATA however same is not the case for T-72 upgrade or even T-90 production , certainly not if bear does not cooperate.

First 30 or so is DRDO responsibility. So Avadi was not in complete control of the Arjun Production.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 24 Mar 2010 07:14

negi wrote:Avadi could not overhaul T-72s but it did roll out a much advanced Arjun , being a PSU and obviously enjoying the protectionist policies of the GOI it might suffer from ailments as other Gobmint orgs , but inability to overhaul a vintage tank indicate it was not just Avadi which dropped the ball , the Russians are known for intentionally holding back on ToT , disimilar standards and language barrier do not help either.

Point being for a production line to be set up by an Indian player PSU/private the OEM has to share the related IP .As long as the product involved is foreign , one should expect such issues to crop up every now and then so point about scrapping Avadi and giving it to TATAs is valid only when the issue with ToT is resolved . Now it might help Arjuns, Pinakas or Namicas if manufacturing be outsourced to L&T and TATA however same is not the case for T-72 upgrade or even T-90 production , certainly not if bear does not cooperate.

After 35+ years of induction, thats a very weak argument...Russian, language, standards et al...And we are talking of overhaul here, not manufacture!

Rohit, not sure that a Stryker will come cheaper to India than a BMPII derivative..."Internet" prices available talk of USD 1.4-1.5 million per unit of Stryker and USD 2 million for a BMP III..But then, American missiles and other accessories will be more expensive..Really, if the IA were so enamoured of "Russian" equipment, as is being alleged, they would be looking at a BTR variant, isnt it? Why a "WEstern philosophy" platform?

As for the light tank - how many different typers of vehicles are needed for a recce role? A BMP, A Stryker, a NAMICA, AND a light tank?

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 24 Mar 2010 08:03

..Really, if the IA were so enamoured of "Russian" equipment, as is being alleged, they would be looking at a BTR variant, isnt it? Why a "WEstern philosophy" platform?

Cmon - would you visit some base in frozen Russia to evaluate or Hawaii??

Jokes aside - (looking nervously for ASP to come charging

)

its still not clear this reason for LAVs. Is it some future interoperability?? or a shift to wheeled to speed up mechanisation??

And this one clearly should start off with a pvt manufacturer provided decent numbers are ordered

negi · Post by **negi** » 24 Mar 2010 08:04

somnath wrote: After 35+ years of induction, thats a very weak argument...Russian, language, standards et al...And we are talking of overhaul here, not manufacture!

Exactly and that is why I brought up the case with Arjun , there is more to this than just complacence or lack of enthusiasm from Avadi or OFB in general , overhauling engines and other parts of a MBT cannot be done without cooperation from the OEM at least not by Avadi alone . IN's maritime reconnaissance AC (Ilyushins and Tu-142s) make regular trips to Russia for routine maintenance and all this because HAL was unable to overhaul these AC and all this when latter manufactures Tejas and Dhruv .

Those 35 years amount to nothing if there was no effort made towards establishing a facility to actually undertake the overhaul of the T-72 MBT , even the otherwise abstract CAG reports clearly talk about concerned ministry's delays while procurement of the equipment necessary for Avadi to start the overhaul programme .

Even TATAs or L&Ts wont help if Russians renege on ToT agreement , the T-90 barrels and Refleks missile are classic examples of the above.

And I am surprised at people complaining about Avadi's inability to overhaul the T-72 when this has been case with most of the 'Imported' equipment which forces have in service . Whether it be issues faced by IAF when it came to overhauling of Migs , license production of engines by HAL's Koraput engine division most of the times it has been traced to an unreliable OEM .

Here from horse's mouth : http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Today ... 11BRD.html

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 24 Mar 2010 09:32

somnath wrote: Rohit, not sure that a Stryker will come cheaper to India than a BMPII derivative..."Internet" prices available talk of USD 1.4-1.5 million per unit of Stryker and USD 2 million for a BMP III..But then, American missiles and other accessories will be more expensive..Really, if the IA were so enamoured of "Russian" equipment, as is being alleged, they would be looking at a BTR variant, isnt it? Why a "WEstern philosophy" platform?

As for the light tank - how many different typers of vehicles are needed for a recce role? A BMP, A Stryker, a NAMICA, AND a light tank?

As for the Stryker, I said earlier also that I was using it as a proxy for wheeled APC/ICV. We still don't know wether IA wants Stryker and what role they will be used for.....the RFP for light tanks is for 300 numbers.....

As for the multitude of recce platforms that you've mentioned above, each of them has a dedicated role and their is no duplicity of tasks.....R&S battalions have Recce & Support role - NAMICA fills in the support role along with BMP-II in these battalions. As and when the Light Tanks come, they'll fill an already existing requirement where we have a void....

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 24 Mar 2010 15:45

negi wrote: And I am surprised at people complaining about Avadi's inability to overhaul the T-72

Because the GoI did root cause investigation and blamed Avadi and documented it for good measure.

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 25 Mar 2010 00:39

Arjun tank outruns, outguns Russian T-90.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 25 Mar 2010 00:53

Vipul wrote:Arjun tank outruns, outguns Russian T-90.

Where is the lungi dance icon??

Ankit Desai · Post by **Ankit Desai** » 25 Mar 2010 00:53

Vipul wrote:The current order of 124 Arjuns is equipping the army’s 140 Armoured Brigade in Jaisalmer. With that order almost completed, the Arjun production line at the Heavy Vehicles Factory (HVF) in Avadi, near Chennai, needs more orders urgently. The Rs 50 crore facility can churn out 50 Arjuns annually. That would allow for the addition of close to one Arjun regiment each year (a regiment is authorised 62 tanks).

As expected, Arjun goin to Desert.

Ankit

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 25 Mar 2010 01:05

Well if you can't induct it into your strike crops , use it for the new IBGs

As I have said before, the IBGs in any case must have qualitatively different equipment that can truly do justice to the paradigm shift that the cold start doctrine epitomizes.

The IBGs must necessarily have network centric or at least network enabled platforms and must be as indigenous as possible.

Because these IBGs have the potential to become the kind of strategic asset for India that the Pakistanis think they have in the various irregular terrorists they have spawned. A class I category coercive tool.

Since the IBGs in any case should be made up of new hardware the compatibility issues with respect to bridging equipment can easily be sorted out.

we will simply use the Arjun BLT and an Arjun based ARV. Also we could easily use the Bhim Self propelled howitzer. Not to mention compatibilities in electronics of all the indigenous equipment.

And finally Arjun is sure to make mince meat out of anything the Pakis throw at us.

And by the way don't forget the symbolism of Arjun versus the AL Khalid.

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 25 Mar 2010 01:25

30 yrs of this project finally culminates into victory for DRDO .
Imagine if we had started bulding these tanks at the rate of 100 per year, we would have the strongest tank force of modern tanksafter usa and Russia...
the army never told clearly why they neglected the best tank in Asia .

job's done by DRDO
now its army's turn to answer,...

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 25 Mar 2010 01:35

Yes India has demonstrated that it can make a tank..

I am sure when the LCA is inducted it will prove its mettle in exercises as well.

Come on people! Have a heart order at least 376 more.

I think the PM should intervene personally in the interests of indigenisation..

If I had the money I would buy the tanks myself...

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 25 Mar 2010 01:52

Ankit Desai wrote:
Vipul wrote:The current order of 124 Arjuns is equipping the army’s 140 Armoured Brigade in Jaisalmer. With that order almost completed, the Arjun production line at the Heavy Vehicles Factory (HVF) in Avadi, near Chennai, needs more orders urgently. The Rs 50 crore facility can churn out 50 Arjuns annually. That would allow for the addition of close to one Arjun regiment each year (a regiment is authorised 62 tanks).
As expected, Arjun goin to Desert.

Ankit

The reasoning seems sound. Unlike the urban areas to the north load-bearing limits of Pakistani bridges isn't much of an issue in the desert. Also, the T-90's electronics are prone to failure in the Rajasthani heat(though nobody had any qualms in blocking the Arjun for the same problem).

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 25 Mar 2010 03:05

The current order of 124 Arjuns is equipping the army’s 140 Armoured Brigade in Jaisalmer. With that order almost completed, the Arjun production line at the Heavy Vehicles Factory (HVF) in Avadi, near Chennai, needs more orders urgently. The Rs 50 crore facility can churn out 50 Arjuns annually. That would allow for the addition of close to one Arjun regiment each year (a regiment is authorised 62 tanks)

One thing:

--The 62 tanks/regiment will also help to understand the reserve tanks over the 45 operational ones in each armored regiment...but the question remains-who holds these tanks?

OK, gyaan over..now for the Lungi dance......."Aaj phir jeene ki tamanna hai...aaj phir marne ka iraada hai.....oooooo!!!!"

....

I'm off to grab my bottle of "Isle of Jura" and raise a toast to the Arjun and the team behind it.......

...I'm delirious with pleasure.........kushi ke aasoon rook nahin rahe......

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 25 Mar 2010 03:07

Ankit Desai wrote: As expected, Arjun goin to Desert.
Ankit

It was always in desert..remember the 43rd Armored Regiment...

Sudip · Post by **Sudip** » 25 Mar 2010 03:12

Congratulations to DRDO. Well done!!!!

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 25 Mar 2010 03:26

rohitvats wrote:
--The Brigade in Jaisalmer should be 340(I) Mechanized Brigade and not 140 Armored Brigade....

--The 62 tanks/regiment will also help to understand the reserve tanks over the 45 operational ones in each armored regiment...but the question remains-who holds these tanks?

Where is the 140 Armored Brigade based at?