Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20311
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Philip » 12 Dec 2016 18:10

So the babus and their bosses politico get off scot free.Where in the report has the OEM been found at fault? No wonder that MP the DM said that the DPSUs "must get out of their cocoon of comfort".His words not mine!

Reeeated ad nauseum.If any OEM is found guilty ,take them to task...and the DPSUs and babus enjoying their cocoons of comfort!

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7871
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Indranil » 12 Dec 2016 22:39

In 2001, they had to tender for everything, wait for bids and then chose the lowest bidder. Even now if one goes to their sites they have to tender for copier paper, chairs and tables.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Viv S » 13 Dec 2016 14:37

Philip wrote:So the babus and their bosses politico get off scot free.Where in the report has the OEM been found at fault? No wonder that MP the DM said that the DPSUs "must get out of their cocoon of comfort".His words not mine![/b] Reeeated ad nauseum.If any OEM is found guilty ,take them to task...and the DPSUs and babus enjoying their cocoons of comfort!

Where in the report has the OEM been found not at fault?

The same OEM withheld paid-for ToT for the main gun and armour, forcing us to develop indigenous replacements? The same OEM that's responsible for multiple breaches of contract but still continues to get repeat business from the MoD? The same OEM being investigated for payoffs worth over $100 mil to Indian officials?

Its just 'curious' that you were all hot and bothered about the babus, but couldn't the spare the breath to mention their paymasters, save to demand 'proof' of their guilt when called on it.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20311
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Philip » 13 Dec 2016 18:07

If the OEM is so much at fault,then why is the GOI,this dispensation going ahead with more T-90 orders? One can only reason that the alleged omissions by the OEM were not so serious as made out to be and that the fault clearly lies with CVRDE/Avadi as spelt out in the "6 yr delay" report.Abysmal production has resulted in further orders from the OEM. The "translation " fiasco if you note the timeframe was clearly during the UPA regime's period ,with DM AKA responsible overall for the shortcomings of a DPSU under him. There is also a Min. of State for Def. Production. Where were these two? As I said before,one can understand if the issue was not flagged after one year,but 6? It's no secret that AKA sat with his spotless white dhoti on everything like a statue ,not taking any decisions,risking his reputation unless it was demanded by his party boss. The fact that the ICV tender has bene issued to pvt players is perhaps an indication of the frustration of the DM/GOI wiht the DPSUs.

http://m.dailyhunt.in/news/india/englis ... d-55714658
MoD for partnership with 2 firms for each sub-sector
(20 Jul) In a major step to spur up the "Make in India" effort and to open up big-ticket collaboration with private companies that can offer their expertise in five critically important sectors for defence, the defence ministry is mulling "strategic partnerships" with not one, but two companies for each sub-sector. The initial idea was to rope in one private strategic partner for each platform. "The ministry is now looking at a two 'strategic partner' situation rather than a single 'strategic partner' ,one for each of the five critically important sectors of defence production," a top source told this newspaper. The five sub-sectors are armoured fighting vehicles (AFV), aircraft and helicopters, submarines, ammunition and macro process management of issues and for which five sub-groups, respectively, had been formed on the MoD's orders on May 24, 2016. Last month, the private companies made their respective presentations to the government. "Basically the idea is not to place all eggs in one single basket. Besides preventing a monopoly situation, it will also allow for a good price discovery," said the source, explaining the rationale for such a possible move. Another objective of such a policy is to fire up the competitive zeal in the defence public sector units (DPSUs). Defence minister Manohar Parrikar has not been too impressed with the track record of DPSUs. Openly critical of the work culture in DPSUs, he had asked them in the recent past to step out of the "cocoon of comfort". In many cases, at least two partners are being sought for logistical reasons as the requirements are big as well as with huge market potential.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Viv S » 13 Dec 2016 20:21

Philip wrote:If the OEM is so much at fault,then why is the GOI,this dispensation going ahead with more T-90 orders?

A decade and a half of sabotage had to yield something.

One can only reason that the alleged omissions by the OEM were not so serious as made out to be and that the fault clearly lies with CVRDE/Avadi as spelt out in the "6 yr delay" report.

And here you were just telling us all that the fault lay with the babus.

Abysmal production has resulted in further orders from the OEM.

CVRDE is an R&D body not a production agency. :roll:

They're the ones who painstakingly developed the Arjun to the point where it was more rugged & more capable than the T-90, and were then forced to watch as Russian payoffs kept the T-90 gravy train moving and imports coming. Thankfully, they were able to partly indigenize the tank in the aftermath of the ToT perfidy else the import content would have been higher still.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

T-90 tank: Technology transfer, supply of assemblies hit Russian stonewall

Here is what happened. After the T-90S contract was signed on 15th Jan 2001, the 310 made-in-Russia tanks began to flow in quickly from Uralvagonzavod, the Russian facility that builds them. But the transfer of technology (ToT) and the supply of assemblies for building the 1000 tanks in India quickly hit a Russian stonewall.

First it took one and a half years to transfer to India the ToT documents required for building the T-90S in India. The tonnes of documents that finally arrived were found to be in Russian; translating them into English took another one and a half years.

Then HVF officials discovered that Russia had withheld key T-90S technologies without valid reason. This included technology for crucial components like the tank’s main gun and a key section of the turret armour. When New Delhi demanded those technologies, Moscow blandly responded that they were secret. To this day, Russia has not transferred full technology for building the T-90S in India.

The MoD has not responded to emailed questions about this issue. But when Business Standard asked MSN Rao, General Manager of HVF Avadi, how the T-90S was being built without these technologies, he confirmed: “We developed the tank gun indigenously in Central Ordnance Depot, Kanpur, and the turret armour component in CVRDE (Combat Vehicles R&D Establishment), Avadi. This is still a sticking point between India and Russia.”

That this remains an irritant is evident even from the careful language of MoD press releases. On 5th Oct 11, Defence Minister AK Antony met his Russian counterpart, AE Serdyukov, in the apex Indo-Russian Inter-Governmental Commission on Military-Technical Cooperation (IRIGC-MTC). The Indian press release noted, “Shri Antony drew the attention of the Russian side to the vexing issue of delayed export clearances for vital repair equipment for already contracted weapons systems. This has been affecting supplies of defence equipment and spares.”

By end-2007, Russia’s blockade of contracted T-90S technologies and components had stalled indigenous production for almost 7 years. Under pressure from the army for more tanks, the MoD capitulated to Moscow rewarding Uralvagonzavod with an order for 347 more made-in-Russia T-90S tanks. Only after this additional contract was signed did Russia begin supplying components for building the T-90S in HVF.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2171
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Vivek K » 13 Dec 2016 23:02

I suspect some of the posters on BRF are actually arms dealers based on their defiance of logic, lack of even a semblance of patriotism. Their loyalty therefore lies with their suppliers.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53841
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ramana » 13 Dec 2016 23:08

Guys knock it off.
Thanks, ramana

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby vaibhav.n » 21 Dec 2016 19:43

Rheinmetall Ups Tank Firepower with new 130mm Gun
The new 130 mm gun is a precondition for the future tank, known as ‘Main Ground Combat System’ (MGCS) being developed by Germany. MGCS is currently being developed by Germany and France as a future replacement for the Leopard 2 and Leclerc main battle tanks, considering the increasing threat posed by Russian systems such as the Armata (T-14) MBT's. The new weapon provides 50 percent improvement in performance, over the current 120 mm cannon.The new cannon is designed for integration in new main battle tanks. It has a vertical sliding breech mechanism and increased chamber volume handling larger, more energetic kinetic ammunition. The breech mechanism with the recoil system weighs about three tons. The barrel weighs 1,400 kg and has chrome lined smooth bore.


Image

Image
New ammunition designed for the L/51 cannon include high performance kinetic rounds – Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot – (APFSDS), and high explosive, air-bursting munitions (HE-ABM).


Image
The breech, and recoil mechanism of the new L/51 130mm cannon.

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2025
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Manish_P » 22 Dec 2016 12:06

Bigger gun, bigger shells, heavier shells ?

They might be needing the auto-loader soon

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8124
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Pratyush » 22 Dec 2016 12:41

In the late 80s every one and their uncle was thinking 140 mm was the next big thing in the tank development. But the end of cold war ended any further development of the gun. The Armata has brought forward a need for new main gun for tanks.

I wonder what the Indian army will choose as the next main gun caliber for tanks. Considering future threat represented by PLA tank developments.

Sabyasachi
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 54
Joined: 03 Jan 2011 16:01

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Sabyasachi » 22 Dec 2016 18:19

What kind of News article is this ?

India's Future Main Battle Tank Will Come Without Life-Saving 'Active Armour'
All India | Written by Vishnu Som | Updated: December 22, 2016 16:54 IST

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1829
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby srin » 22 Dec 2016 18:36

Looking at the lethal effectiveness of ATGMs, I'm not too sure we should go for "bigger the better" approach wrt the main gun. May be it is time to just delete the main gun, work on cheap ATGMs to equip the tank for the anti-tank purposes, and a 30mm cannon for anti-air and anti-vehicle purpose.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2224
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby John » 22 Dec 2016 23:09

We can all play arm chair general but IDF chief pretty much said any tank without APS is obsolete in current battlefield (he didn't even specify urban warfare). One of reasons Israel is forefront of APS technology.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Austin » 23 Dec 2016 12:49

Sabyasachi wrote:What kind of News article is this ?

India's Future Main Battle Tank Will Come Without Life-Saving 'Active Armour'
All India | Written by Vishnu Som | Updated: December 22, 2016 16:54 IST


The headline of the write up is misleading , better heading for the writeup could be "DRDO working on APS for IA Tanks" , Active Armour are the ERA Tiles , APS is better way to put it.

Ofcourse we need APS for all our tanks no one is disputing that and if DRDO is working on it then nothing like it , It is like asking for DIRCM , MAWS , Jammer for all our current & future aircraft , sure why not

Vishnu
BRFite
Posts: 272
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31
Location: New Delhi

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Vishnu » 23 Dec 2016 15:57

The headline was amended - India's Future Main Battle Tank Will Come Without Life-Saving 'Active Protection System'

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Austin » 23 Dec 2016 16:10

Vishnu wrote:The headline was amended - India's Future Main Battle Tank Will Come Without Life-Saving 'Active Protection System'


Thanks Vishnu

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8045
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Rakesh » 03 Jan 2017 22:34

Tata Power SED FICV Preliminary Concept Version 1.7
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95gPKhTcXMc

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20311
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Philip » 04 Jan 2017 12:58

Asinine MOD babus! If Arena didn't fit the bill then they should've chosen the Trophy! Choose the best system currently available and upgrade when newer better ones arrive.This looks like another DPSU scam where they want hundreds of crores for another useless "technology demonstrator" project.By the time the DRDO develops such a system,10 years hence,the cost of the latest APS system would've risen ten-fold and the DRDO will be rubbing its hands in glee for yet another desi project to replace the firang systems being considered! That's the way it has been working for decades. I am also at a loss to understand how the IA,which hasn''t had any recent real battle experience in armoured warfare/urban warfare,know better than the manufacturers of the MBTs that are being used in action and presumably have had some degree of success in protecting their tank crews? The Middle east is the ongoing battleground on the planet with ample opportunities to evaluate the rival systems. If the Israelis and Russians can't meet the high strds. of the IA,what about the Germans or French,why even the Brits and US too?

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2544
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Cybaru » 04 Jan 2017 13:05

Rakesh wrote:Tata Power SED FICV Preliminary Concept Version 1.7
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95gPKhTcXMc

Aluminum chassis?? Isn't that stuff combustible?

Rishi Verma
BRFite
Posts: 1019
Joined: 28 Oct 2016 13:08

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Rishi Verma » 04 Jan 2017 13:10

Rakesh wrote:Tata Power SED FICV Preliminary Concept Version 1.7
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95gPKhTcXMc


3D animation is really poor, can't believe this (animation) can be approved by Tatas.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8124
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Pratyush » 04 Jan 2017 13:24

Cybaru wrote:
Rakesh wrote:Tata Power SED FICV Preliminary Concept Version 1.7
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95gPKhTcXMc

Aluminum chassis?? Isn't that stuff combustible?



Iirc only in powdered form. But can be wrong.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby vaibhav.n » 04 Jan 2017 13:36

IIRC...All modern IFV's have had aluminium alloy hulls with additional add on steel or ceramic armour.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4453
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby JayS » 04 Jan 2017 16:18

Cybaru wrote:
Rakesh wrote:Tata Power SED FICV Preliminary Concept Version 1.7
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95gPKhTcXMc

Aluminum chassis?? Isn't that stuff combustible?


Try to burn Aluminium foil at home may be and see for yourself. :mrgreen:

On serious note, from what I know about Boron, and I am think pretty much similar should be the case for Al, Al is protected by a Oxide layer would not let it burn. First you have to break that layer, which would happen only at very high temperatures. In powder form the surface area is too much so burning is much easier so they use Al powder as high energy density fuel in rocket fuel, but the the HC fuel has to first burn and create that high Temperature environment where Al particles can burn. In normal Al metal components, it would almost never burn easily. I guess Titanium burns much easily at elevated temperatures that Aluminium.
Last edited by JayS on 04 Jan 2017 17:49, edited 1 time in total.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7711
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby rohitvats » 04 Jan 2017 17:43

Internet chatter tells me that Pakistan is running a new tank acquisition program under the name of Haider. AK and AK-1 number stand around ~350. This Haider is supposed to be a 'heavy' tank - which basically means whatever best PA can get from China with due customization.

May be, just may be, this 'heavy' tank induction will spur large scale induction of Arjun. But I doubt heavy be more than 55 tons here.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8124
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Pratyush » 04 Jan 2017 18:02

Rohit, this is the cue for the entry of Armata. Not Arjun in any iteration.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8045
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Rakesh » 04 Jan 2017 19:06

Rohitvats: I have a greater chance of falling off the Eiffel Tower and a nail catch my left eye when I hit the ground than Arjun get inducted in large (to me 1500+ is acceptable) numbers. Just saying.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby vaibhav.n » 04 Jan 2017 20:31

The tank pakistan plans to license and manufacture under the Khalid programme is most likely going to be the VT-4 aka MBT 3000. A souped-up T series.

The MBT-3000 is a recent Chinese main battle tank, developed specially for export. It is also referred as VT-4. It is being marketed by NORINCO. It is an improved version of VT1A. The MBT-3000 is similar to the Type 99G which is currently in service with the PLA, but has downgraded capabilities such as sights, propulsion and gun. A model of this MBT was publicly presented in 2012. First pictures of this new tank appeared in 2013. It seems that the MBT-300 was proposed for Pakistan as an Al Khalid Mk.2.


What is different is that the Type99 has a a longer barrel main gun, which in theory should impart higher muzzle velocity.

Reportedly, China intends to eventually install a larger 140 mm gun on the Type 99, but early tests have cracked up the weapon. This, incidentally, mirrors Russia’s plans to up-gun its new T-14 Armata tank to a similar caliber weapon.


What we are seeing is upgunning of tank main guns across the board in both western and eastern tank fleets.

Hitesh
BRFite
Posts: 793
Joined: 04 Jul 1999 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Hitesh » 04 Jan 2017 20:56

Philip wrote:Asinine MOD babus! If Arena didn't fit the bill then they should've chosen the Trophy! Choose the best system currently available and upgrade when newer better ones arrive.This looks like another DPSU scam where they want hundreds of crores for another useless "technology demonstrator" project.By the time the DRDO develops such a system,10 years hence,the cost of the latest APS system would've risen ten-fold and the DRDO will be rubbing its hands in glee for yet another desi project to replace the firang systems being considered! That's the way it has been working for decades. I am also at a loss to understand how the IA,which hasn''t had any recent real battle experience in armoured warfare/urban warfare,know better than the manufacturers of the MBTs that are being used in action and presumably have had some degree of success in protecting their tank crews? The Middle east is the ongoing battleground on the planet with ample opportunities to evaluate the rival systems. If the Israelis and Russians can't meet the high strds. of the IA,what about the Germans or French,why even the Brits and US too?


I do not want the IA to import any more tanks. It is time for India to manufacture indigenous designed tanks locally and in large numbers. You are so short-sighted when it come to this. Enough with the Russian tanks or other equipment. Time to make our own even it means that the DRDO makes more money. At least the money stays within the country.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20311
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Philip » 05 Jan 2017 01:19

Who's asking for more imports as a policy? The issue is tank protection and current feedback from ongoing conflicts.Here two systems were evaluated.The superior one should've been chosen.I reiterate,expecting the DRDO to develop such a system will take a min of 5 years to appear.Add another few years for trials,etc.By then the system would've become inferior to the latest ones.A pointless exercise unless the DRDO has a track record of delivering usable systems instead of its fondness fo developing mere "technology demonstrators"

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7871
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Indranil » 05 Jan 2017 01:27

Which tank battle are we going into tomorrow that we HAVE to emergently import these systems today?

And by the way, the DRDO designed system has outperformed the Russian designed system in many aspects. So please reconsider the superiority assessment. Also, Russian designers are not going to fight Indian tank battles. Indian Army is. So their opinion does matter. Additionally, they are not twiddling thumbs because there is no war today. They operate the tanks regularly, literally.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20311
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Philip » 05 Jan 2017 01:32

PS:Take a dekko at how much is Indian in any of our marquee def. projects.How many of them like the LCA are a hotch-potch of largely firang systems pressganged into a desi "shell"?
We are still woefully dependent upon key components like engines,radars,etc.The DPSUs and labs responsible for such development like the GTRE have been abysmal failures.These failing entities are parasites upon the nation where thousands of crores of the taxpayers money has been wasted.The GO I should reward those who succeed and haul up those unable to deliver.The req for the APS could've also been farmed out to the Indian pvt. sector.Why only to the DRDO?

If the DRDO system is superior to both the Ru and Israeli system why was there any need for an import?The report makes no mention of this.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7871
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Indranil » 05 Jan 2017 01:52

I did not know that a news report was a gospel.

The opportunity to import and develop will always exist simultaneously. Question is which one one chooses.

If we keep giving only money only in millions to develop a state-of-art engine, then forget GTRE nobody can develop a state-of-art engine. For God's sake we don't have testing facilities, what are we expecting?!!!

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7229
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby nachiket » 05 Jan 2017 02:43

Philip wrote:PS:Take a dekko at how much is Indian in any of our marquee def. projects.How many of them like the LCA are a hotch-potch of largely firang systems pressganged into a desi "shell"?

Can we have a separate thread for Philip to deride local products every time we do not buy a Russian one? Will save us from having to read cr@p like this in every thread.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8045
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Rakesh » 05 Jan 2017 03:02

^^ Can we also have that thread play the Russian National Anthem each time someone opens it?

Cybaru
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2544
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Cybaru » 05 Jan 2017 03:43

I am glad everyone feels like that!! Please do something, it happens to every thread.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20311
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Philip » 05 Jan 2017 12:35

Kindly post the report where the DRDO's APS system was better than either the Russian or Israeli one. Upto now I haven't seen it. Do we have such a desi system on the Arjun 1 or 2 either? For the record to those shortsighted biased posters,I clearly said that if the Ru system was inadequate,why didn't we choose the Israeli one? The issue here is delay by the MOD in choosing a vital component for the T-90s,the critical component,armour protection system,by (deliberately") not evaluating both Ru and Israeli systems together.This way instead of picking the best system,we're told that the DRDO will like magic provide a better system! Are we to see yet another "tech demonstrator project" in the making? For those with short memories,where is the Kaveri? Where is Nag? Where is Trishul? The CNS has rejected the NLCA too. OFB's failings have been well documented. So let's stop mollycoddling the DPSUs when they fail to deliver and waste thousands of crores of taxpayer's money. Even this govt.,both PM and DM have gone on record about the failings of the DPSUs .A "cocoon of comfort" was how the DM described them recently.

This is the armour equiv to commissioning the Scorpene subs without torpedoes!
Since we've been developing for decades our own desi torpedoes,why didn't the DRDO factor in a desi fish for the Scorpene series as an alternative to the western ones?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7871
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Indranil » 05 Jan 2017 14:05

When DRDO systems don't pass muster with IA, you say DRDO/DPSUs are potatoes. When the Russian system does not pass muster with IA, you say IA is a potato and India is a mango republic.

I don't know what the big fuss is about. We can't afford 2 crore per tank (and even infantry carriers) in our army and so we are trying to find a more economical way through domestic production under ToT. Nobody mandates that this has to go to a DPSU. It is under Make in India. Anybody can form a collaboration with the foreign firm and put forward an offer.

Please wait. They will appear on your favourite T-90s and provide much better protection than Arena.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Austin » 07 Jan 2017 11:08

Photofacts: About "Kurgan-25" and Kurganmashzavod

http://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/88602/

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2575
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby abhik » 07 Jan 2017 19:04

Rakesh wrote:Tata Power SED FICV Preliminary Concept Version 1.7
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95gPKhTcXMc

Are the 'gun ports' really of any use? Most (none?) of the western AFV seem to have it.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18824
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Karan M » 08 Jan 2017 10:14

Rishi Verma wrote:
Rakesh wrote:Tata Power SED FICV Preliminary Concept Version 1.7
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95gPKhTcXMc


3D animation is really poor, can't believe this (animation) can be approved by Tatas.



stop trolling

that animation is top notch


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests