Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

niran
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5404
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 16:01

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby niran » 19 Jun 2015 07:08

like the Arjun fire computer with M$ joystick acquired/aimed and discharged a round in under 4 seconds or the 4 man crew were able to put in 12 rounds on a stationary target in 10 seconds flat while T90 could manage 23 seconds and full one minute(60 sec)? discounting the fact after discharging the 5th round T90 fire kompooter konked and another tank was used to complete the test.

pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby pragnya » 19 Jun 2015 07:13

Karan M wrote:
pragnya wrote:Karan M,

that IA has effectively killed the Arjun is an 'urban legend'.

but come on, you are one poster who can see thro' both the poster and the post - for which i have admiration for you. it is surprising that you are responding to posts which are filled to the brim by 'sarcasm' just like the above ones!!! :roll:


Sorry, couldn't make out at all you were being sarcastic. Usually smilies etc do the trick to make me understand. The net is a tricky medium. So just responded with data. Hopefully some others not familiar with the Arjun debacle would find it interesting.


no pbm. i had to reveal myself as it was going a bit too far with many good posters getting to my neck. :mrgreen:

yes, smilies are a dead give away and takes away the 'seriousness' of a post. now niran has taken over. full power niran but you are revealed too!!! :wink:

Hobbes
BRFite
Posts: 219
Joined: 14 Mar 2011 02:59

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Hobbes » 19 Jun 2015 07:14

niran wrote:
Arun Menon wrote:^Exactly what is going to happen. What I would give to see the scene when the retarded old fools in the DGMF have to explain their nonsense in financial terms.

the answer

AvinashR wrote:I hope Modi and his national security team take a hard look at the corrupt dealings of these traitors in the army and deal with them strictly


MOD motaboss is reviewing, DGMF files daily DGMF are to explain the files first thing every Monday morning if they explain themselves (inclusive of the financial aspect) it is approved every fortnight.

the flies tells me motaboss has asked for justification on T90s maintenance/upgrade bills and why has IA not ordered Arjun to replace Vijayant tanks (note now it is Vijayant for now) he has provided the real figures about finances in INR right down to the INR spent on presentation by Ruski teams(yeah it was MOD money on Ruski team as opposed to Ruski money) WRT T90, DGMF is currently in the process of tallying the figures by motaboss and scratching his beard for an explanation or else... all within a time limit of 8 weeks from today. let us see his explanation.

most prolly motaboss will say no have that much moolah, have this much onree, you need this much MBT so the best is Arjun, oh! don't worry, will talk to Avadhi, they will ramp up production go get me a proposal for the same and yes i want it by next Monday (heaven forbid if this is a fridin)


If true, this is great news, probably the best I've heard since Ajai Shukla published the initial reports of the Arjun's triumph over the tin can in the trials. Quick question: does "motaboss" mean MP or his boss?

It might also help if the motaboss asked some pointed questions on the T-90's lack of working night vision, the issues with the Refleks, the denial of critical technologies for the gun and other bits after the MoD paid for them, and of course the call to the DRDO to help with the A/C. Other questions he might want to ask are the reasons for the relaxed quality standards in the trials and also compare those trials with the trials for the Arjun. Lastly, he should flatly ask the DGMF why they're rooting for an inferior imported product over a much better indigenous product.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7874
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Rakesh » 19 Jun 2015 08:03

Karan M wrote:The basic issue is that a bunch of folks at the DGMF level have sabotaged the program even after it came good. It remains to be seen whether the present GOI can force the issue and reverse such stupidity.

For that Saar, our PM and our DM have to take a keen interest in how the Arjun is good versus any of the present or future Russian tin cans. I am not saying that they are not, but they have a 101 problems to deal with. This new Scientific Advisor to the Raksha Mantri is a fantastic thing. I really hope they can convince the DM and the PM of the value of desi maal. Far cry from the days of Saint Anthony who only served to defend the furniture in his office.

Kailash
BRFite
Posts: 1061
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 02:32

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Kailash » 19 Jun 2015 08:16

Without question, there is overwhelming evidence to support superiority of Arjun over the tincans. Though we need to provide the best tech and weapon systems for IA to fight their wars, it is very important we design and develop them here. There needs to be change in thought process within IA to embrace the Arjun mk2 and invest further in it.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby vina » 19 Jun 2015 09:11

like the Arjun fire computer with M$ joystick acquired/aimed and discharged a round in under 4 seconds or the 4 man crew were able to put in 12 rounds on a stationary target in 10 seconds flat

WOW!! That is brilliant

while T90 could manage 23 seconds and full one minute(60 sec)? discounting the fact after discharging the 5th round T90 fire kompooter konked and another tank was used to complete the test.

Phack. This is such a piece of dog turd, it rightfully belongs in Pakistan !

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Singha » 19 Jun 2015 09:16

they will be badly shown up (at loss of our precious lives) in any serious fight. actually in iraq they were already mauled by the challenger(weakest of the western heavies in fcs & firepower) but apologists worked around it by saying obsolete models and ammo. I think even the french AMX30 saw some action in Khafji vs T-series , used by qataris

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khafji
The engagement of that night was to be the first battle the Qatari Army had seen in its entire history.[79] A platoon of Iraqi T-55s attacked a Qatari tank company south of the city, leading to the destruction of three T-55s by Qatari AMX-30s, and the capture of a fourth Iraqi tank :roll:

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby abhik » 19 Jun 2015 09:17

BTW what happened to the Arjun Catapult? Jinked because we are on the verge of TFTA Korean/Russian maal?

member_28756
BRFite
Posts: 240
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_28756 » 19 Jun 2015 09:39

deleted

K Mehta
BRFite
Posts: 955
Joined: 13 Aug 2005 02:41
Location: Bangalore

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby K Mehta » 19 Jun 2015 17:00

One of the side effects of only short war thinking is that you don't think about development of infrastructure to rapidly create replacements.

This type of thinking has been encouraged by the spectre of international powers intervening in conflicts. The above side effect has led us to not develop our MIC properly, something the world powers would want. I don't think this is a coincidence but a well thought design.

KBDagha
BRFite
Posts: 160
Joined: 10 Dec 2005 21:47
Location: Mumbai

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby KBDagha » 19 Jun 2015 17:29

CNBC TV18's 'Make in India - A new deal in Defence' series has some good footage of Kerstel prototype being tested. Apparently, TASL has won a contract to supply 3 more prototypes. Hope things turn out well! I think whole series is a must watch for jingos.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20172
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 20 Jun 2015 03:38

If one keeps goalpost shifting we will never get an indigenous MBT in sufficient number,neither will we get a firang MBT that is perfect.Eery weapon system will have its unique service characteristics,niggling problems;etc.The Q is how important are they? Are they fatal flaws in a conflict scenario,or do they require more intensive support? Given the Indian context,every 3 yeqrs a new chief comes along and priorities differ as tech develops.The GOI/MOD must find a solution to call "time",crack heads and place orders.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18667
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 20 Jun 2015 04:19

Niran wrote:like the Arjun fire computer with M$ joystick acquired/aimed and discharged a round in under 4 seconds or the 4 man crew were able to put in 12 rounds on a stationary target in 10 seconds flat


This is next to impossible, perhaps you misheard? That would be less than a second per round, which seems completely off even if the gunner was standing with round in hand (hot carry), he would have to open the breach, extract earlier round, get next rnd and gunner fires. All this in less than a second is impossible.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2146
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Vivek K » 20 Jun 2015 04:44

If India wants to be a serious power, it needs to invest in Arjun, LCAa, Arihant, Vikrant. If it wants to be a Russian stooge/puppet keep on buying the Sukhois and the TIn cans.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby NRao » 20 Jun 2015 05:09

Vivek K wrote:If India wants to be a serious power, it needs to invest in Arjun, LCAa, Arihant, Vikrant. If it wants to be a Russian stooge/puppet keep on buying the Sukhois and the TIn cans.


That - serious power - is a political decision, not a military one.

Furthermore, the economy needs sustained growth, which is something being heavily counted on, for that decision.

My feel is that it will happen. I cannot see modi just accept an order for the armata, especially one where India is reliant on the Russians.

The IA has just not caught up with modi yet.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2146
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Vivek K » 20 Jun 2015 06:41

I hope Modi stays. IA seems to be swayed by its corrupt practices and short sighted foolish leaders.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4330
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srai » 20 Jun 2015 17:05

NRao wrote:
Vivek K wrote:If India wants to be a serious power, it needs to invest in Arjun, LCAa, Arihant, Vikrant. If it wants to be a Russian stooge/puppet keep on buying the Sukhois and the TIn cans.


That - serious power - is a political decision, not a military one.

Furthermore, the economy needs sustained growth, which is something being heavily counted on, for that decision.

My feel is that it will happen. I cannot see modi just accept an order for the armata, especially one where India is reliant on the Russians.

The IA has just not caught up with modi yet.


True on political decision ... but if the armed forces are 70-80% dependent on foreign weapon systems then they won't be able to fully project power that the political leadership desires. There will be all sorts of MoU on usage (who can be used against, when can it be used and rights to monitor) and restrictions on spare parts, just enough to be held hostage during real war. For all we know, they may put all sorts of monitoring/controlling devices in the "black-boxes" that can only be serviced by foreign personnel. Any foreign sanctions will have huge impact on war fighting capability.

Bottom line is if you buy major weapons from foreign nations you become their vassal state by proxy. You no longer have full autonomy on your foreign policy. These "masters" need to be consulated and their approvals in place prior to going to war. If you piss them off, they will squeeze your warfighting capability and arm your neighbors to "rebalance" power in the region. During war, you need to run to them to provide you with spares and ammunition at any cost. After war, they will be expecting huge rewards for their "friendly" support in your time-of-need.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby NRao » 20 Jun 2015 18:45

The politician is it (worst case a dictator). Tear up those MoU and all agreements. Anyways, under the circumstances that thread does not help.

What would help is a very clear picture that the Services get the very first time they hear about it and are reluctantly inclined to follow. From that angle the Army, clearly, has not even woken up to the ground realities. No matter what the previous dynamics were the future has to be different IF India wants to be even a regional power.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20172
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 20 Jun 2015 20:15

Forget the AVs,at least we have relatively healthy numbers,but the IA hasn't even decided upon which infantry weapon it's going to need for the future. The IA also gets the biggest chunk of the def. budget,but is the money being spent judiciously? We have an army of 1.25 million that has enough ammo to fight for just 2 weeks! What the F*** have the last two army chiefs /DRDO chiefs been doing to get the OFB in line and acquisition from abroad of vital war reserves?

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4330
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srai » 21 Jun 2015 19:23

^^^

Most of the IA's budget goes into paying its 1.25 million personnel.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2146
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Vivek K » 21 Jun 2015 20:08

How is the DRDO chief responsible for the shortage of ammo? It is the IA's responsibility. If they stop wasting money on imports, there may be enough to pay for larger reserves.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Singha » 21 Jun 2015 20:31

i think a well trained loader can release around 12 rounds per minute in a firing drill but that is rarely a real scenario unless the tank is standing hull down and their position is being overrun by a swarm of targets. probably after 3-4 rounds there might be gap as next set of targets are found....a tank will rarely be alone but moving with 4-8 of its platoon and firing together, with the over all commander giving instructions like which direction to pick targets from...

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20172
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 22 Jun 2015 03:55

The DRDO is supposed to look after indigenous development of arms and ammo.The OFB does not come under the control of the IA. If most of what the DRDO can produce is tech demonstrators and flawed products,then it needs to be short-circuited.

PS:A very relevant Q asked some time ago in the media. What is the role of the Min. of Def. Production? There is silence mostly from his voice. He needs to be a trouble shooter visiting the various DPSUs ,identifying the problems,finding the solutions and firing those incompetents when needed.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2146
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Vivek K » 22 Jun 2015 04:02

Nice! Always find a scapegoat. The IA brass has no responsibility about procurement of adequate reserves?? All they care is about getting hot new toys?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_22539 » 22 Jun 2015 06:11

Philip wrote:The DRDO is supposed to look after indigenous development of arms and ammo.A


We all know how receptive they are of DRDOs products :roll:.

Some people want russian crappy toys and then blame DRDO when the natasha lovers in the Army buy that crap. Nice way to eat your cake and have it too.

TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby TSJones » 22 Jun 2015 06:15

it is the brass's responsibility to have a strategic overall plan with tactical scenarios envisioned and often practiced. IOWs, you train how you are going to fight. The plan should call for pre-positioned near front line supplies as well as to the rear in depth logistical depots. These should be inspected on a regular calendar basis with up steam reporting to the highest of authorities. Unsatisfactory reports should receive the highest response priority. If the government cannot or will not address these the problems as outlined in the unsat reports then the brass is no longer responsible for any ultimate outcome in case of a national security emergency. It's called CYA and it's practiced all over the world.

Hobbes
BRFite
Posts: 219
Joined: 14 Mar 2011 02:59

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Hobbes » 22 Jun 2015 06:45

Philip wrote:Forget the AVs,at least we have relatively healthy numbers,but the IA hasn't even decided upon which infantry weapon it's going to need for the future. The IA also gets the biggest chunk of the def. budget,but is the money being spent judiciously? We have an army of 1.25 million that has enough ammo to fight for just 2 weeks! What the F*** have the last two army chiefs /DRDO chiefs been doing to get the OFB in line and acquisition from abroad of vital war reserves?


Philip, you're completely off target here. The Services and DRDO have nothing to do with the OFB and its management. From what I've read in the past, DRDO is not happy with the OFB's production quality and timelines, and has in fact been recommending that production of at least some DRDO designed stuff be moved to the private sector. The Ordnance Factory Board is under the Department of Defence Production, which also looks after the DPSUs, and over the years has ensured that all of the organizations under its umbrella have sunk to abysmal depths of mediocrity.

dinesha
BRFite
Posts: 1124
Joined: 01 Aug 2004 11:42
Location: Delhi

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby dinesha » 22 Jun 2015 12:14

Army's new battle tank proposal sets stage for MoD tussle
Ajai Shukla
http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 028_1.html
Over the last three decades the army has first ignored, and then opposed the indigenous Arjun tank, designed by the Defence R&D Organisation (DRDO). Now, this fight has entered a second generation, with the army scuttling the DRDO's proposal to design the next-generation Future Main Battle Tank (FMBT).

In a blow aimed at the FMBT proposal, the army has floated a global Request for Information (RFI) asking global tank manufacturers to submit proposals to design a "new generation, state-of-the-art combat vehicle platform" for India.

The new tank will not just replace the army's 2414 obsolescent T-72 tanks, but also constitute a "base platform" that would be modified into 10 other variants, including tracked and wheeled light tanks; bridge laying and trawl tanks; a mobile platform for artillery and air defence guns; a combat engineering vehicle, and even a tracked ambulance.
ADVERTISING

This proposal has been named the Future Ready Combat Vehicle (FRCV) project. Army sources say this name has been selected to clearly differentiate it from the DRDO's FMBT project, which will no longer be supported.

The FRCV proposal RFI originates from the "Directorate General of Mechanised Forces" (DGMF). Dated June 10, it was posted on the internet a few days later.

FRCV is a direct blow to "Make in India", replacing not just the indigenous FMBT project but potentially also the Future Infantry Combat Vehicle (FICV) project that is being tendered shortly to Indian vendors under the "Make" category of the Defence Procurement Policy (DPP).

FRCV would divert lakhs of crores of rupees from Indian to foreign vendors. The FMBT project - which the government told Parliament on December 6, 2010, would be completed by 2020 - could itself be worth Rs 1,50,000 crore. This includes about Rs 25,000 crore for designing, development and testing, and replacing the army's 2,500-odd T-72 variants for about Rs 50 crore a tank.

Replacing the army's 2,600 BMP-II infantry combat vehicles would cost another Rs 50,000 crore. Currently the indigenous FICV project covers this replacement.

The new FRCV proposal has several dubious firsts. Unprecedentedly it lays down no specifications for the new tank, leaving it to the foreign designer to propose its form and capabilities. The RFI vaguely states that the "design must cater for 'future' battlefield environment and technological possibilities".

Traditionally, buyers of military equipment specify precisely what they need, placing the onus on the vendor to meet those requirements. In the case of tanks, users specify weight, the guns and missiles they want, their strike ranges, how much armour protection is needed, etc. However, in the FRCV, only a "broad design philosophy" will be specified to the vendors.

"Tanks are not designed by philosophers, but by engineers. The military needs to translate its operational philosophy into weapon systems, and to clearly specify to designers the capabilities that are needed. The problem is the generals themselves can't agree what they want, and so they want the designer to tell them," says a senior officer involved in the FRCV process.

Business Standard learns that a key reason for this lack of consensus within the armoured corps (which operates tanks) is that, for a decade, each of its director generals has brought his own ideas, overruling the ideas of his predecessors.

A second problem with the RFI is that it violates the DPP in the process it lays out for designing, developing and manufacturing the FRCV. The three-stage process envisaged is: (a) an international design competition, with vendors "asked to submit detailed designs based on the FRCV design philosophy". A ministry selection committee would select the best design; (b) development of a prototype by "nominated" development agencies (DAs), separate from the designer, but with the designer's "close involvement"; (c) the bulk manufacture of the FRCV by "one/two nominated Production Agencies.

There has been no such case in recorded procurement history where one agency has designed a product, another has developed the prototype, and a third has carried out mass manufacture. Defence vendors only undergo costly and laborious design and development when they are confident of making profits through bulk manufacture.

Since there is no provision in the DPP for the proposed three-stage process, the ministry's apex Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) would have to sanction a DPP deviation. Civil servants in the ministry say there is little chance of that, given that the DRDO, confident after building the Arjun, would steadfastly oppose a foreign-led process.

"We will support the DRDO, since this involves "Make in India," a senior defence ministry official told Business Standard. The army's future tank programme seems poised for significant delays.

niran
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5404
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 16:01

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby niran » 22 Jun 2015 12:39

dinesha wrote:Army's new battle tank proposal sets stage for MoD tussle
Ajai Shooklaw
http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 028_1.html


"We will support the DRDO, since this involves "Make in India," a senior defence ministry official told Business Standard. The army's future tank programme seems poised for significant delays.

in other word no more furrin maal onree desi, damn! how will coronail saab get that furrin face pack for his SHQ? i pity them.

aditp
BRFite
Posts: 438
Joined: 15 Jul 2008 07:25
Location: Autoland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby aditp » 22 Jun 2015 13:05

Niran Saab, If MOD motabhai is hauling up DGMF every Monday, how come they had the gumption to come up with this incredibly foolish FRCV proposal?

niran
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5404
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 16:01

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby niran » 22 Jun 2015 13:10

^^DGMF's is to propose, it is MOD's to approve or reject, you cannot stop DGMF from proposing can you?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Singha » 22 Jun 2015 13:13

think of the dgmf as the delhi marketing office of rosboronexport...why would they care about DPP or anyone else including MOD ?

quite clearly, it needs a wholesale cleanup as much as MSM needs it.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9558
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Yagnasri » 22 Jun 2015 13:23

Why we need a new type Tank? Just few years back IA gave so many "upgrades" etc to Arjun and they are all incorporated and the system is now ready as per the reports. Now many nations are coming up with any thing radical in tank design, at least the nations which we may fight a land war do not have some new world beating tank system in development? So why we need this 1.50 Lac Cr imports project other than making malai for babus and others? It is sick to read this "global tenders" new items time and again.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Austin » 22 Jun 2015 13:30

Russian Army will Upgrade T-90 to T-90B3 Standard

Image

Specs : http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lFsICsE6WMU/V ... C_0725.jpg

On the stand of the main Tank-Automotive Management Russian Defense Ministry has information about the T-90M "Break-3." It is reported that the main battle tank T-90M is a comprehensive modernization of the T-90 by increasing the combat and operational characteristics of modernization has touched a significant increase in firepower, protection and command control.

This tank is designed to conduct maneuver warfare against any opponent as part of the tank and mechanized infantry units as the main multi-purpose combat means.

The crew - 3 people, combat weight - 50 tons of ground clearance - 450 mm. The tank is armed with 125-mm GPS, as well as two machine guns of 12.7 and 7.62 mm. Engine power of 1130 hp Cruising on the highway with additional barrels - 550 km.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby NRao » 22 Jun 2015 13:55

The RFI should include foreign Generals as part of the operational requirements.

If, in 2015, India cannot deal with this RFI, the future is certainly very bleak.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_22539 » 22 Jun 2015 13:57

dinesha wrote:"We will support the DRDO, since this involves "Make in India," a senior defence ministry official told Business Standard. .


I never thought I would live to see this day :shock:. A MOD babu is more patriotic and less corrupt than an Army man. How low has the DGMF fallen! There are no words to express my disgust :x .

Avinash R
BRFite
Posts: 1973
Joined: 24 Apr 2008 19:59

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Avinash R » 22 Jun 2015 14:28

Instead of peddling new tanks to the IA the russian arms sellers should sell RPG-29 to IA with a Make-in-India component.

in field use
https://www.youtube.com/embed/30wpb_CYkck

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9558
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Yagnasri » 22 Jun 2015 15:21

Sorry for a Mango question

How these requirements etc for various systems are prepared (if it is done properly and cut and paste method) Any gurus?

Avinash R
BRFite
Posts: 1973
Joined: 24 Apr 2008 19:59

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Avinash R » 22 Jun 2015 15:34

^ Meet weapons dealers, discuss important details (size of cut, type of maal, foreign travel destination for family), Get brochures

Go home, Ask beta to type all brochures into MS-Word, cut & paste magic, a new RFI is ready to be released.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9558
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Yagnasri » 22 Jun 2015 15:37

That is not I asked Avinash sir. What is the proper procedure?


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests