Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

vaibhav.n
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 575
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 21:47

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby vaibhav.n » 26 Oct 2014 10:15

Karan,

Hard to blame the Tata's. The Contract is for 100 APC's. In any case considering how many R&S Battalions we have the complete number is unlikely to go beyond ~300.

What is interesting is that they did it in 18 months and the fact that they have maintained commonality with Tata's standard automotive line.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1458
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Thakur_B » 26 Oct 2014 11:40

abhik wrote:
Thakur_B wrote:Amphibious armoured hull, lightweight armour to name a few. Tata's contribution is restricted to transmission and propulsion only with VRDE doing most of the heavy lifting. From the looks of it tata motors will be doing screwdrivergiri for DRDO instead of OFB for Kestrel. ...

From what I remember they put in foreign components wholesale, like turret, armour, RWCS, Anti-tank missile system, seats (and I don't think they explicitly mentioned that the engine and transmission were there own either), critical stuff that would make up a most of the % by value of the system. Kind of reminded me of the '90% imported' tag of the ALH Dhruv.


Only retards believe the 90% imported tag for Dhruv. The CAG report explicitly stated that the 90% was for raw materials only, largely because the Indian industry was unable to supply the quality required for Dhruv. The amount of spoon feeding and hand holding that has to be done by DRDO/HAL to it's suppliers, both public and private, major conglomerates included, is unbelievable.

Coming back to the topic, the weapon turret mounted on Kestrel was for demonstration only, as in sample of what the platform can mount. Tata motors rep himself quoted that the turret has been mounted only to showcase the modularity of the platform. The Kongsberg turret has been proposed but it is not yet known whether it is the definite weapon system that will be mounted.

If this was a first class DRDO project then I'd imagine they would try to design most of it in house, which is obviously not the case here. Hence my doubts on the level of involvement of the DRDO, any sources to the contrary would welcome.


DRDO outsources a lot of subsidiary systems to it's industry partners. They are restricting their role to that of a system integrator. Used to be the case in 90s where they had to design and test each and every support system, but now they simply call out tenders for participation given that Indian industry is a lot stronger than what was back then. If I remember correctly, VRDE called out three tenders for WhAP, and all three were won by Tata Motors (Chassis and transmission, waterjet propulsion and armament)

vaibhav.n wrote:
Thakur_B wrote:Amphibious armoured hull, lightweight armour to name a few. Tata's contribution is restricted to transmission and propulsion only with VRDE doing most of the heavy lifting. From the looks of it tata motors will be doing screwdrivergiri for DRDO instead of OFB for Kestrel. Kestrel is reported to have 16 variants eventually, from ambulance, mortar carriers to command and control hubs.


Couple of points.

1. Kestrel is in response to an IA contract for 100 Wheeled APC for United Nations Ops. However, the stalled FICV and with the BMP's going through an upgrade the IA just might look at Kestrel in larger numbers for induction with the R&S (Wheeled) Battalions.

To meet the operational requirements of troops deployed overseas on peacekeeping missions under the United Nations (UN), the Army is planning to acquire modern armoured personnel carriers (APCs). The Army is on the hunt for APCs with high mobility, state of the art driving and navigation aids, modern electro-optical sights for the driver, gunner and commander, firing ports in the hull, provision for externally mounted anti-tank guided missiles, adequate environmental protection and amphibious capability.

While wheeled vehicles are more susceptible to damage by small arms fires, mines, grenades and artillery fragments because of exposed tyres, suspension and underbelly components that tracked vehicles, they have higher road mobility and better maneuverability in built up and semi-built areas and in areas where operations in difficult terrain are not an issue.


Link: http://www.tribuneindia.com/2014/20141007/nation.htm#16

2. Kestrel is a VRDE led initiative. Tata has provided the vehicle chassis, a 600HP diesel engine and a (Proposed) Kongsberg Turret with VRDE providing the rest. It is all good, as long as we have ownership over the weapon system. What is need to diss an Indian Company to make DRDO look good? You do realise this is the same senseless argument people made against the Arjun MBT right?

French TI Sights, German Powerpack, American Mineplough. :roll:

Tata Motors was one of several Indian and foreign countries invited by Vehicle Research & Development Establishment (VRDE), a unit of DRDO, to respond to a request for information (RFI) for the supply of chasis, propulsion unit and weapon system for a wheeled armored amphibious platform. Other Indian firms invited to bid included L&T and Mahindra & Mahindra, while Russia's Rosoboronexport was among the foreign companies invited.

Tata responded to the RFI, and later to the RFP, for all the three modules of the armored personnel carrier (APC), and went on to win the three contracts. After being awarded the contract, the company shocked DRDO by developing the entire platform in just 18 months.

Depending on its configuration, Kestrel can weigh from 18-ton to 22-ton. Maximum weight can go up to 26-ton, but above 22-ton the APC loses its flotation ability.

Tata is relying on the modularity and open architecture of the vehicle to make it suitable for diverse roles. All the main subsystems of the Kestrel share commonality with in service Tata standard vehicle aggregates, so maintenance of the vehicle less expensive than foreign APCs.


No disrespect to Tata intended, but people on the internet went all gaga on the TFTA looks of Kestrel while being completely ignorant of who the original designers were :). Some people also commented that DRDO should learn from Tata on how to design IFV while cursing the Abhay project, which is the source library for all armoured troop carriers to come.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2524
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby abhik » 26 Oct 2014 12:24

vaibhav.n wrote:Karan,

Hard to blame the Tata's. The Contract is for 100 APC's. In any case considering how many R&S Battalions we have the complete number is unlikely to go beyond ~300.

Are you sure about which contract it was developed for? They have displayed its models before(2012 DefExpo) as the 'FICV' (them shown with a Rheinmetall turret).

vaibhav.n
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 575
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 21:47

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby vaibhav.n » 26 Oct 2014 12:39

These are separate contracts. The FICV is a dead fish in the water. Pretty sure about the numbers.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7770
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Indranil » 27 Oct 2014 17:49

AVL Austria is consulting CVRDE on the 1500 HP Automatic Transmission system. There will be 3 phases, and the first phase is now complete.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8118
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Pratyush » 27 Oct 2014 19:51

Do we know which engine it will be mated to.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20169
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 28 Oct 2014 12:29

If the figures quoted above are accurate then each OFB produced BMP-2 costs only ~ 1.8 Crores INR! Whereas we seem to be paying about 38 lac per Spike missile(+ requisite launchers etc). So in essence in a configuration where the BMP-2 carries 4 Spikes + reloads, the missiles would cost more than the carriers itself! :mrgreen:

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1458
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Thakur_B » 12 Nov 2014 19:07

CVRDE is looking for partners to develop active protection system for Tanks/AFVs.
Objective
To jointly develop Active Protection System to provide best posible protection to the tank and crew against wider spectrum of threats including Rocket propeled Grenade (RPG), anti-tank grenades, HEAT, HESH, CE, KE rounds and advanced ATGMs.

Requirement
1. The system should be capable of detecting and neutralizing various threats viz. RPG, HEAT, HESH, CE, KE projectiles and ATGM fired from any kind of platform (Land or Air based). 2. The system should have fully automated detection, identification, tracking and neutralization of incoming threats which includes Sensor suite, Control System, set of protective ammunition & its launcher, Launcher activation Unit and Display.
3. The system should have Multi spectral Sensor based threat detection including RADAR, LASER Sensors to cover wide variety of threat velocities ranging from 70 - 240 m/s
4. The system should have accurate Intercept computation based on various threat parameters in both static and dynamic conditions.
5. The system should have engagement range from 50 to 150 m and quick reaction time to effect neutralization before 50m.
6. The system should be able to neutralize close range threats.
7. The system should have Simultaneous Multi directional multiple threat detection and Neutralization capability with very high hit probability (95%)
8. The system should provide 360 degree hemispherical protection coverage.
9. The system should be able to intercept the target accurately when the tank is in both static and dynamic condition.
10. The system should be safe for nearby troops and issue audio/visual warning during activation of counter measure.
11. The system should have protection against accidental activation of the explosive charges due to small arm firing, artillery splinters or flares and flying objects of earth.
12. The system should be robust, light weight and modular in design and construction.
13. The system should be based on Open System Architecture with BITE facility.
14. The mounting of the system should not affect the Silhouette of the platform.

Scope of Work
1. To design and implement hardware and software for Active Protection System meting the above requirements with required Interface.
2. Integration of Active Protection System in AFV
3. Field Evaluation of Active Protection System
4. The system developed wil be part of AFV which should met he following requirements
(a) Environment Test Miltary Standard MIL 810G/JS555
(b) EMI /EMC standard MIL 461F
(c) Power suply as per MIL1275D
(d) Aplicable Software Standards

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4327
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srai » 13 Nov 2014 08:18

^^^

JV with the Israelis make sense.

member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_26622 » 13 Nov 2014 14:11

Philip wrote:
If the figures quoted above are accurate then each OFB produced BMP-2 costs only ~ 1.8 Crores INR! Whereas we seem to be paying about 38 lac per Spike missile(+ requisite launchers etc). So in essence in a configuration where the BMP-2 carries 4 Spikes + reloads, the missiles would cost more than the carriers itself! :mrgreen:


Base is wrong. If BMP-2 costs 1.8 crores, then think of Paki junk cost which will be taken out by Spike. I would not be suprised if Spike is more costly than their tin cans versions.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1458
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Thakur_B » 16 Nov 2014 10:08

srai wrote:^^^

JV with the Israelis make sense.


Or anyone good enough. The EFP projectile for the APS was developed a long time back, but hardly any progress has been reported since then.

Will
BRFite
Posts: 637
Joined: 28 Apr 2011 11:27

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Will » 20 Nov 2014 02:24

With the ban on the IMI being lifted looks like it will be a joint DRDO-IMI project for the next gen battle tank. Makes sense with quite of bit of Israeli tech already in the Arjun.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7227
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby nachiket » 20 Nov 2014 02:31

Will wrote:With the ban on the IMI being lifted looks like it will be a joint DRDO-IMI project for the next gen battle tank. Makes sense with quite of bit of Israeli tech already in the Arjun.

Next Gen tank? Half of IA's tanks are still T-72's. How about replacing them with current gen Arjun first, which is already available? I certainly hope DRDO doesn't get involved in another futile Tank development project. Enough time and money has already been wasted developing a tank to the IA's GSQR, which the IA then decided it had no interest in buying.

member_28722
BRFite
Posts: 333
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_28722 » 20 Nov 2014 05:33

+1

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2145
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Vivek K » 20 Nov 2014 07:26

+2

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20169
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 21 Nov 2014 09:55

Cost factor.One can't just junk a huge inventory of T-72s which have much life left in them.There have been many upgrade options which can improve many features bringing the tank upto contemporary stds. There is a clear programme of the IA to upgrade those tanks that have life in them,complete the number of T-90s on order and manufacture Arjun Mk-2s in larger number than the MK-1s.The main issue seems to be that Avadi is unable to handle the huge amount of work ,upgrading and building at least a thousand tanks,which any armoured vehicle industry would be grateful for,building them on time and within cost.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8118
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Pratyush » 21 Nov 2014 10:19

But they can be replaced with a tank that is as expensive as the Arjun and which is still dependent on the Russians for its vital components, for the final assembly in the country. The shells have to be imported and the missiles TOT is not available with us. TOT for Armour, main gun etc is missing. But we must make more T90s and pay through the nose to get the TOT.

FYI, BEML, also has the ability to make the Arjun.

PS: I forgot that the T90MS is the latest vintage, that the Russians will try to sell. So the IA must cancel the Mk2 and buy the T90MS.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9556
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Yagnasri » 21 Nov 2014 10:38

Tin Cans are and will be all around with fancy natasha offers. Hope "make in India" will stop natasha buys. It is like some Rushi doing tapasya and all Apsarasas dancing. :D Lot of times Tapasya failed because we ran behind Apsarasas with their gora color and fancy curves. :mrgreen: Hope it will stop now.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16408
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby NRao » 23 Nov 2014 05:57

India cancels Israel Military Industries boycott - report

Without fanfare, India has retracted its 2009 boycott of Israel Military Industries Ltd. (IMI). The measure will pave the way for negotiations between IMI and the Indian Ministry of Defense on potential joint projects, including development of a battle tank for the Indian army, according to a report from New Delhi by US periodical "Defense News."





Israeli gov is also thinking of selling some of their companies.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20169
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 23 Nov 2014 06:00

Armata – The Ultimate Next Generation Main Battle Tank
June 6, 2014
http://defencyclopedia.com/2014/06/06/a ... gram-11711

Ck the link for poss. configuration and layout.
Crew : 3

Weight : ~ 50 tons

Speed : ~ 60 km/hr

Range : 500+ km

Engine : ~ 1500 HP

Armament :125 mm smooth bore gun with coaxial 57 mm grenade launcher / 30 mm auto cannon. And a 12.7 mm Heavy machine gun

Inventory : 2300 tanks



The Russian Army's Secret Weapon: Enter the Armata Program

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the ... gram-11711

With America's own tanks becoming quite dated and running out of upgrade options, Russia's latest efforts to modernize its armored fighting vehicles should be cause for concern.

Dave Majumdar
November 21, 2014

The Russian Army will induct a new family of armored combat vehicles collectively called the Armata next year to replace its existing armored war machines, according to Russian state media. Production of the new armored vehicles is expected to start at the beginning of 2015 in January and two dozen of the new machines are expected to participate in the Victory Day parade in Moscow next year—as America struggles with the future of its own armored combat vehicles.

“The first batch will be available next year. You will see them in Red Square on May 9,” Oleg Bochkaryov, deputy chairman of Russia’s military-industrial commission, told the state-run ITAR-TASS news agency on November 18.

Developed by the Uralvagonzavod (UVZ) Corporation in the remote city of Nizhny Tagil in the Ural Mountains, the Armata is being developed in multiple variants, including a main battle tank, infantry fighting vehicle, a heavy-armored personnel carrier, self-propelled artillery and two support vehicle variants. The Russian ground forces are expected show off two-dozen machines during the parade—half will be the main battle-tank variant, while the remainder will be the armored personnel-carrier variant.

The Armata will ultimately replace the Cold War–era T-64, T-72, T-80 and comparatively newer T-90 tanks by the 2030s—assuming the Russian government can pay for it. The Armata series will also replace the BMP-series infantry fighting vehicles and a host of other vehicles; production could go into the tens of thousands if Russia were able to replace its existing vehicles on a one-for-one basis.

According to ITAR-TASS, the main battle-tank variant will be armed with a 125-mm cannon—which has been the standard on Soviet-built hardware in the 1960s—but the weapon will be mounted on an unmanned turret. The crew will be housed in a separate armored compartment—which is a unique configuration for any modern main battle tank.

Some Russian media reports have suggested that the Armata’s armor is specifically being tailored to operate well in the Arctic Circle, an area of the world that is becoming increasingly important for that country’s embattled economy.

Further, in a marked departure from the usual Soviet practice, the Armata program appears to place a far higher priority on crew survivability than any previous Soviet or Russian tank. That could be because Russia is trying to transition from a Soviet-era, conscription-based force to a professional army where individual soldiers are not considered expendable.

As such, the Armata-series vehicles are being designed with a completely new armor layout and will have all-aspect protection, Vyacheslav Khalitov, Uralvagonzavod deputy general director, told the Russian News Service radio station. The crew will be separated from the vehicle’s fuel and ammunition stocks, Khalitov said. As such, it’s possible the internal configuration of the new vehicles bears more resemblance to Western machines such as the M1A2 Abrams or German Leopard 2A7+ than to older Soviet tanks.

Little else is known about the Armata project, save for the fact that everything appears to be proceeding more or less on schedule—if Russian reports are to be believed. “Everything is proceeding in line with the contract. Work is being done ahead of schedule. We get ahead of all schedules,” Oleg Siyenko, Uralvagonzavod general director told ITAR-TASS in September. Additionally, Siyenko said that Armata project is currently meeting all of the Russian military’s requirements.

However, the Armata might be proving to be more expensive than the Russian government expected. Bochkaryov told ITAR-TASS that the Armata’s price tag is currently too high. Nonetheless, the Russian government is expected to sign a three-year deal to build the Armata at a set price. “We will continue to work with them, because we disagree with Uralvagonzavod high price,” Bochkaryov told Russia Today, another state-run media outlet. According to ITAR-TASS, Uralvagonzavod officials have promised to reduce the price of the new vehicle.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Army has made several abortive attempts to replace the long-serving Bradley infantry fighting vehicle and the Abrams main battle tank. In the early 2000s, the Army launched the Future Combat Systems (FCS) as a family of lightweight vehicles that would replace the service’s heavily armored tanks, infantry fighting vehicle and self-propelled artillery and other machines.

The idea was to develop multiple vehicles based on a common 20-ton lightweight chassis with the same survivability as an Abrams, so that an entire brigade could be deployed in eighteen hours to anywhere on the planet. However, physics intervened. It quickly became obvious that a 20-ton vehicle could never hope to match the protection of a 70-ton tank—short of some sort of miraculous breakthrough.


One concern evinced by the Russians is a warning about the cost factor,which needs to be reduced especially when thousands of MBTs and variants are ordered from 2015 onwards.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2145
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Vivek K » 23 Nov 2014 07:20

Groan!!!

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Surya » 23 Nov 2014 07:35

:D

you expected something new?

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7227
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby nachiket » 23 Nov 2014 09:09

The Armata will ultimately replace the Cold War–era T-64, T-72, T-80 and comparatively newer T-90 tanks by the 2030s—assuming the Russian government can pay for it.

And if they can't, they can always name it T-100 and get a certain tincan enamored country to abandon its own indigenous Tank and help fund the Ultimate Next-gen Russian tank.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7701
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby rohitvats » 23 Nov 2014 11:43

Karan M - your thoughts on this (from TATA Power SED website):

Ballistic Software for T-90 tank (Indian and Russian Projectiles including Tank fired Missiles)

Have we solved the compatibility issue of T-90 FCS and Indian/Israeli ammunition?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20169
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 23 Nov 2014 12:14

Why should we abandon the Arjun? We've invested a lot of money and time in the programme.If the IA is bent upon a 4 man behemoth,that weighs 65t+so be it.If CVRDE can build around 400-500 within a few years,at reasonable cost it may be worthwhile. If someone else can produce a 3-man 50t MBT with an automated turret and the crew in an armoured capsule,good for them.If one goes through the article/reports in depth,the Armata is being configured for war in the colder climes of the Euro-Russian regions.It may not possess air-con comforts,essential for the tropics.The Israeli approach to the MBT differs from others due to the peculiar nature of their environment,and tactics with heavy frontal armour.The last Lebanon war saw them lose many tanks to humble tandem-warhead RPGs used by the Hiz.They have now developed an active defence against the same which was supposedly successful in Gaza.

When the FMBT requirement appears and a new design needs to be drawn up it would be worth noting the global developments. Ignoring new tanks like the Armata is akin to a "frog-in-the-well" attitude. In any case for the next decade or so our wagon has been firmly hitched to the T-90 which we are licence producing.T-90s and upgraded T-72s will be the mainstay of the armoured corps with hopefully at least 400-500 Arjuns around if Avadi can get its act together. With the new dispensation in Delhi,defence is getting the attention it deserves,with swift decision-making .

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1458
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Thakur_B » 23 Nov 2014 14:04

rohitvats wrote:Karan M - your thoughts on this (from TATA Power SED website):

Ballistic Software for T-90 tank (Indian and Russian Projectiles including Tank fired Missiles)

Have we solved the compatibility issue of T-90 FCS and Indian/Israeli ammunition?


That has been displayed on Tata SED website for a few years now. AFAIK they make the FCC and ballistics computer for T-Series tanks now.
Image

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1458
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Thakur_B » 02 Dec 2014 19:06

http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=112381
Press Information Bureau
Government of India
Ministry of Defence
02-December-2014 16:28 IST
Joint Venture with Russia for Anti-Tank Shell Production

In March 2014, the Government has concluded a contract with Joint Stock Company ‘Rosoboronexport’ of Russia for procurement of 42,000 rounds of fully formed AMK 339 tank rounds. Besides this, the Ordnance Factory Board, Kolkata has entered into ‘Transfer of Technology’ contract with Joint Stock Company “Rosoboronexport” of Russia for indigenous manufacture of AMK 339 tanks rounds.

This information was given by Minister of State for Defence Rao Inderjit Singh in a written reply to Dr. Chandan Mitra in Rajya Sabha today.

DM/HH/RAJ

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36393
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby SaiK » 14 Dec 2014 03:32

nice shot by the m1, and the camera!
http://i.imgur.com/DKEiBUJ.jpg
@5 times speed of sound.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7923
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby brar_w » 14 Dec 2014 17:38

JLTV RFP Out; Race To Final Pick

The race to replace the iconic Humvee has entered its final stretch. Today, the Army gave competing contractors AM General, Oshkosh, and Lockheed Martin the final Request For Proposal for production of the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle. The competitors have until February 5 to ask the government questions and must submit their proposals by Feb. 10.

After that? “We continue to look forward to a Milestone C decision [to enter production] and the award of a firm-fixed-price contract to a single vendor near the end of Fiscal Year 2015 [i.e. before October 1st],” said Scott Davis, the Army’s Program Executive Officer (PEO) for support systems, in a statement.

At stake for industry: an eight-year award for 17,000 JLTVs — and a de facto lock on what’s expected to be a 50,000-vehicle program with a quarter-century of production and untold decades of sustainment afterwards. At stake for the Army and Marines: a new truck that combines the offroad mobility of the original, dangerously fragile unarmored Humvee with the life-saving protection of the lumbering MRAPs (Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected) bought for Afghanistan and Iraq. With more ambitious programs like the Army Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) and the Marine Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) respectively in ruins or greatly scaled back, JLTV is the biggest ground vehicle modernization program going — assuming sequestration doesn’t kill it first.

Here’s more detail from the official Army statement: “The RFP outlines an award period covering three years of low rate initial production and five years of full rate production, procuring approximately 17,000 vehicles for the Army and Marine Corps. Based on the anticipated award, we expect to have the first Army unit equipped in FY18. The Marine Corps’ purchases of 5,500 vehicles are front-loaded into the plan, and we anticipate an initial USMC operating capability in FY18 with their fielding complete in FY22. Army procurement will last until approximately 2040 and replace a significant portion of the Army’s legacy light tactical vehicle fleet with 49,099 new vehicles.”

We also have comment from all three competitors. Highlights:

“The Lockheed Martin Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) Team has received the government’s Request for Proposal (RFP) and is already drafting its response, which is due 10 February. [We already] completed several detailed reviews of our customers’ draft RFPs over the past weeks.”

“AM General received the JLTV RFP earlier today. Our BRV-O JLTV team is fully engaged in providing our customer a very compelling and comprehensive response.”

“Oshkosh received portions of the JLTV Final RFP earlier today, and we expect the balance of the RFP to be posted later today.” (We’re asking whether they’ve gotten the whole shebang since this statement was drafted. Oshkosh is normally by far the fastest-moving most aggressive of the three competitors in its press operations, and not coincidentally the only one to rely on an outside agency, Edelman — the other companies simply use in-house press relations staff — but in this case coordinating between Oshkosh and Edelman may have slowed them down). [UPDATED: Oshkosh just confirmed they’ve received the whole RFP].

durvasa
BRFite
Posts: 170
Joined: 11 Dec 2000 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby durvasa » 14 Dec 2014 23:44

Thank you Brar Ji. You do a nice job putting an American perspective! Hope India buys some Yankee HW

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7701
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby rohitvats » 15 Dec 2014 10:32



MODERATOR NOTE: How is this relevant to Indian armored vehicles discussion scene? Please post such information/news in relevant thread. Consider this as a caution. - rohitvats.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7923
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby brar_w » 15 Dec 2014 10:39

rohitvats wrote:


MODERATOR NOTE: How is this relevant to Indian armored vehicles discussion scene? Please post such information/news in relevant thread. Consider this as a caution. - rohitvats.


Apologize! I thought this was a general armor discussion thread after reading the article about the Amtara.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12456
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby pankajs » 19 Dec 2014 21:20

Saurav Jha @SJha1618 · 3h 3 hours ago

And the Army is insistent that the missile firing issue be sorted out for the Arjun Mk-2. With LAHAT dropped, the focus is on the desi CLGM.

member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_22539 » 20 Dec 2014 05:54

^Funny how they were not this insistent on the invar missile of the tincan. They seemed to be happy begging the the russians to fix it AFTER ordering over a thousand tincans.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7701
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby rohitvats » 21 Dec 2014 19:13

brar_w wrote: MODERATOR NOTE: How is this relevant to Indian armored vehicles discussion scene? Please post such information/news in relevant thread. Consider this as a caution. - rohitvats.


Apologize! I thought this was a general armor discussion thread after reading the article about the Amtara.[/quote]

That is a valid question. The Russian armor development is at times discussed because of our legacy of using their equipment for mechanized forces of all hues. Including the current MBT. And we've some posters who feel new mechanized platforms being developed by Russians could form the base for our next generation of requirement.

You can quote/discuss a foreign weapon system in context of it's application in our environment.

member_27581
BRFite
Posts: 230
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_27581 » 23 Dec 2014 18:57

http://in.rbth.com/news/2014/12/23/indi ... 40517.html
The Indian Ministry of Defence has decided to purchase 124 Т-90 tanks from Russia, to assemble 272 from Russian parts and another 300 using its own resources, writes tribuneindia.com today.
The decision was dictated by a 40% short fall in tank production by local industry. Instead of the planned 300 Т-90 tanks which were to be produced locally, the industry was able to manufacture only 167 vehicles by 2013. The production of 124 Indian designed Arjun tanks was also scheduled.

koti
BRFite
Posts: 1119
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby koti » 24 Dec 2014 02:20

CAG report on Arjun Mk1 vs T-90 trials is out according Saurav Jha's twitter handle.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Viv S » 24 Dec 2014 03:32

CAG REPORT

_______________________________

ABSENCE OF LEVEL PLAYING FIELD
_______________________________


The most significant setback to production of MBT Arjun was the change in requirements put forth by the Army in February 2007. The tanks produced by HVF, Avadi were to be issued to the Army after inspection at the factory site in the Joint Receipt Inspection by the representatives of HVF, DRDO and Army. The issued tanks were put through two trials - the Field Trial and the Accelerated usage-cum-reliability trials (AUCRT), by the Army. Joint Receipt Inspection was conducted (March 2005) for first five MBT Arjun manufactured (2003-04) in the pilot phase, one year after production. The inspection of the second lot of nine pilot MBT Arjun, took place in February 2007, two years after production. By 2007, 53 MBT had already been produced by HVF, Avadi. It was during this inspection in February 2007 that Army reported water ingress in the fighting compartment of tank while crossing shallow parts of a river and raised two additional requirements in the design of the MBT Arjun viz. zero level ingress of water in the fighting compartment and lead time for fording (time from tank’s entry into water to exit from water) to be minimised to 30 minutes.

We noticed that the corresponding benchmark fixed by the Army for T-90 tank was more relaxed, allowing 2.5 litres of water ingress. The requirement of zero level water ingress for medium fording was not stipulated in the Army’s requirements (GSQR of 1985) or in subsequent stages of development which had seen many changes in design. In fact, the Joint Action Plan (of Army and DRDO), in August 1999, had cleared the medium fording capability of MBT Arjun. This issue was also not raised in the Joint Receipt Inspection of the first batch of pilot MBT Arjun. The new requirements necessitated the DRDO to modify the design of the second lot of nine pilot MBT Arjun. The same got modified and were issued to Army by September 2007. The first lot of five pilot tanks was brought back from Army, got modified and issued to Army till October 2007. Balance 39 tanks of the bulk production were dismantled, reworked and issued to the Army in 2008-10. The whole task of dismantling and reassembly of 53 MBTs entailed an additional cost of Rs 84 lakh. The Ministry stated (May 2014) that modifications were considered essential to improve overall performance from user’s perspective. The reply undermines the impact of the modifications in derailing the production and issue of MBT Arjun, which was a significant factor that led to an import of T-90 tanks that cost Rs 4,913 crore in November 2007 as discussed in Paragraph 8.3.4. The reply also does not address why the benchmarks on MBT Arjun regarding water ingress and fording, were more stringent than the corresponding requirements on T-90 tank.

Medium fording was one of the eight instances we noticed, where Army placed benchmark of parameters on MBT Arjun which were more stringent in comparison to those placed on T-90 tanks. These are detailed in Annexure XIX. We could not assess the impact of these benchmarks on the performance of the two tanks from our scrutiny of the Report on comparative trials of MBT Arjun and T-90 tank (February/ March 2010- referred to in Paragraph 8.3.2.8 ). While we appreciate the Army’s quest for improving the quality of MBT Arjun, the imposition of more stringent parameters precluded a level playing field and more importantly, the inability to freeze the designs led to several changes in design, consequent delays in acceptance of MBT Arjun by the Army and in the overall, the production and issue of MBT Arjun.

___________________________

IMPACT OF 'EVOLVING' GSQRs
___________________________


Changes in design

Mention was made in Report No. 3 of 2006 of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India about the frequent changes in design leading to delay in development of MBT Arjun. The development of MBT prototype was to be completed by April 1982 but after going through several modifications in design, the prototype was cleared by the Army in 1998. Given this concern on several changes in design, the Scientific Advisor to the Raksha Mantri had confirmed (2004) in a note to the Ministry that the design for MBT stood frozen. This was, however, not the case. We found that 316 amendments to design of various assemblies were carried out even after freezing of the design and up to August 2010. The changes were mostly justified by the Ministry in its reply (May 2014) as necessitated for product improvement and modifications based on user’s feedback on quality problems. The reply does not take cognizance of the fact that even after clearing the production after acceptance of the prototype (1998), the designs continued to be re-worked for 12 years thereafter and frozen only in 2010.

_________________________________

ARJUN - T-90 COMPARATIVE TRIALS
_________________________________


Comparative field trials of MBT Arjun with T-90 tanks took place in February/ March 2010. Till such time, the Army had been consistently reporting quality problems in MBT Arjun; this was also reported to the Standing Committee on Defence (2007-08). The comparative trials were on four parameters viz. fire power, survivability, reliability and miscellaneous issues of the tank with weightage of 40, 35, 15 and 10 respectively. As per the trial report, MBT Arjun performed marginally better than the T-90 tank in accuracy and consistency of firepower. However, T-90 tank performed better in lethality and missile firing capability. The Army concluded (April 2010) that “Arjun had performed creditably and it could be employed both for offensive and defensive tasks with same efficacy of T-90 tank.” The Army also recommended upgrades to make the Arjun tank a superior weapon platform. We were informed (February 2014) that the Mark-II version of MBT Arjun was under trials by the Army and that it would include the upgrades recommended by the Army.

We found that the MBT Arjun and T-90 tank were not exactly comparable in missile firing ability; the higher score of T-90 tank was mainly due to missile firing ability which was not in the design of MBT Arjun. Barring missile firing ability, the scores of MBT Arjun and T-90 tank would be 25.77 and 24.50 respectively in firepower. In the overall comparative score, T-90 tank scored 75.01, marginally higher than MBT Arjun which scored 72.46, mainly because of higher score on missile firing ability of T-90 tank.

__________________

T-90 PRODUCTION
__________________


The Russian Firm, M/s Rosoboronexport (ROE) was expected to transfer the design details in the Transfer-of-Technology (ToT) documents by March 2003. The documents were in Russian; the Army/Ordnance Factories’ efforts to get translated documents from ROE, failed. The documents were received between September 2001 and January 2003 following which HVF, Avadi concluded four contracts between September 2003 and September 2006 for translation of the documents. The translation was completed by July 2007 after the expiry of scheduled delivery period of first batch of 50 indigenous tanks by 2006-07. In all, the translation of ToT documents took almost six years.

The Ministry stated (May 2014) that translation of critical documents for indigenous manufacturing was carried out with available resource of Russian translators at HVF and there was no delay in production due to pending translation. The reply is not acceptable because delay in translation of ToT documents had certainly impacted on the indigenous production of T-90 tanks as production could not commence without the availability of translated documents.

Non-receipt of design documents for critical assemblies

We found that ToT documents in respect of some critical assemblies were not transferred by the Russian manufacturer, ROE, even after lapse of 12 years as of July 2013. An important component was the gun system (including barrel) for which the design had not been received as of May 2014. In fact, the Ministry cited this issue as the main reason for slippage in indigenous production of T-90 tank.

________________________________

QUALITY PROBLEMS WITH THE T-90
________________________________

During March 2010 to November 2013, HVF received 45 defect reports (DRs) from the Army relating to minor and major defects in the indigenous T-90 tanks. The defects mainly pertained to failure of gear box and defects in auto/electrical portion of the tanks. A Working Group was proposed (March 2012) to address these deficiencies which was not formed. The HVF, Avadi constituted (November 2004) a Failure Review Board (FRB) at factory level to investigate the reasons for defects at the users end. The FRB discussed (September 2013) the major failures and recommended remedial measures.

Accordingly, HVF implemented:

• a process audit to eliminate non-conformances in assembling process;
• introduction of 100 per cent pre-fitment and component level inspection and additional quality assurance checks at local supplier’s premises;
• extensive trials of samples supplied by the local firms after introducing improvements and before their induction into regular production; and
• deputing of HVF’s teams to field locations to ensure technical and maintenance support to the users.

Ministry told us that the FRB was a quality tool which facilitated timely action on defects. The delay in discussion of the FRB (September 2013), even when
the Army was raising quality concerns since March 2010, was not however, commented upon by the Ministry.

___________________

PRODUCTION RATE
___________________

Arjun:

The Public Accounts Committee had urged (December 2003) the Ministry to utilize the infrastructural facilities optimally so that the desired volume of production of MBT Arjun would enable increase of the indigenous content to 55 per cent. The Ministry assured the Committee that a production level, initially of 300 MBT Arjun to be raised to 500 tank later, would reduce the import content to under 30 per cent.

However, barring the initial indent of 124 tanks, the Board did not receive any further indents for MBT Arjun. Production has come to standstill since 2009-10 and to that extent, capacity created at a cost of Rs 87 crore for annual production of 30 MBT Arjun awaits utilization against Ministry’s decision for fresh orders. Meanwhile, HVF, Avadi holds idle inventory of Rs 128 crore reflected as “Work-in-progress”, which remains unutilised in the absence of fresh orders. The cost per MBT Arjun was Rs 21 crore (2009-10), against which the import content was Rs 13 crore. This brings the level of indigenisation in MBT Arjun to 38 per cent only. The initial development project on MBT Arjun had envisaged that barring the engine, all components/assemblies would be indigenously produced. Problems in sourcing major assemblies other than engines have been discussed in Paragraph 8.3.2.6.

T-90:

The production of T-90 tank at HVF, Avadi was short of the indent of November 2004 for 300 tanks, by 75 tanks as of March 2013. Even as the production was underway against the first indent, the Army placed a second indent for 236 T-90 tanks in December 2013. Meanwhile, the Ministry sanctioned (September 2011) Rs 971 crore for capacity augmentation of T-90 tank production by March 2014. This was expected to raise the capacity of Ordnance Factories from 100 per cent to 140 per cent of T-90 tanks.

It is noteworthy that Rs 96 crore was sanctioned (February 2004) for creating production capacity for 100 T-90 tanks, whereas augmentation of capacity from 100 to 140 tanks is slated for Rs 971 crore, a ten times increase in estimation over a period of seven years. Reasons for the extraordinary increase were not provided by the Ministry, in its response of May 2014. As of March 2014, only an amount of Rs 17 crore had been spent on the augmentation project and in the revised schedule, the project is expected to be completed in December 2016. The Board appears to have put the augmentation plan on a slow track as of now.

______________________________________
Last edited by Viv S on 24 Dec 2014 04:11, edited 6 times in total.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4327
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srai » 24 Dec 2014 03:51

^^^

Would be interesting to know the points awarded for survivability along with crew comfort and ergonomics.

From the CAG report, it is evident that the IA was trying to scuttle the Arjun MBT (in favor of more T-90) or that they did not know/understand/care about R&D and production cycle and the delays that would be incurred by their late changes to GSQR. With all the additional superior requirements, one would think the Arjun would have scored higher than T-90 but the IA awarded differently; so one begs the question why the IA insisted on those last minute "superior" requirements when those did not add a more significant "value" in their competitive trials?

rajsunder
BRFite
Posts: 596
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 02:38
Location: MASA Land

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby rajsunder » 24 Dec 2014 04:12

from Sanjay Jha's tweets about step brotherly treatment to the parametrs of testing for indigenous products
Image


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests