Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2496
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ArjunPandit » 03 Jun 2017 01:55

Vivek K wrote:So now we're discussing that it is the inertia of staying with the "junk HM Ambassador" in place of the shiny new tech "Maruti"? Really!

Sad but true, cry or be sarcastic but thats our reality
Vivek K wrote:If you've been on BRF for a while then you would know that the "junk" Arjun is the most tested weapon system in the world that will not see war! It is the most ruggedized weapon system developed for "Indian Conditions" - and it works.

prabhuvar,
how many times i need to write that i believe in arjun, and it is not I but IA that is not accepting arjun. If it were to me me IA would have 10000 Arjuns by now. If not that at least T72 would ahve been replaced by Arjuns.
REgarding will not see a war, I dont know, I still hold the dream that in the next war Tejas and Arjun will prove their mettle paving the way for huge orders.
Funny that any other country - even China or Pakistan would have jumped at the chance to own a weapon system like the Arjun.

Sometimes i seriously consider the suggestion that we should sell Arjun to PA, only then the Arjun legacy will live
Boss, give up the "sir". We're seeing the continued demise of India and the decimation of any chance to build up its industrial strength. That is extremely regrettable!

Sad but true.
Since we both have stopped adding to the forum, so last one from me.

Bishwa
BRFite
Posts: 299
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Bishwa » 03 Jun 2017 03:00

Above article says "The 2A7 is protected by a special composite armor, which includes layers of ceramic.
The Leopard 2A4 has neither composite armor nor an APS, rendering it vulnerable to older Russian made anti-tank missiles such as the Kornet that can penetrate armor up to 1.2 meters thick."


The Arjun uses the Kanchan armor. Wikipedia says the following about kanchan armor "In 1980’s the Kanchan composite had a composition of ceramic, aluminium oxide, fibreglass and some other such materials mixed. The Kanchan composite tried out had two thicknesses, i.e. a 350 millimetres (14 in) plate and a 315 millimetres (12.4 in) plate.

Kanchan armour composition has undergone massive changes since 1980’s..... The composite has evolved too and it does not use the 1980s technology any more."

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2011
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Vivek K » 03 Jun 2017 04:46

nirav wrote:Allah oh Akbar.
The sucess/failure of a domestic weapons system = India's demise ?


Niravji read the posts again. India has bought 1500 t90s and operates another two thousand t72s. What if IA had bought 1500 Arjun's and also started replacing t72s with it? How would that affect the industrial base and economic conditions?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17947
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Karan M » 03 Jun 2017 05:30

Furthermore, the T-90s don't work. Current list of issues include
- FCS problems - to be replaced by an Indian GMS or a Russian GMS upgrade (latter, laugh away)
- ammo obsolescence. India is license producing the obsolete BM-42 Mango, a late 80-90's round. Even Poland doesn't take that anymore. So we have to buy more Refleks missiles, which cost huge amounts. And as and when TSP/PRC field APS these slow flying missiles will be useless.
- armor issues - replacing them with indian steel panels
- radiator issues. a great new fun thing which has emerged, holding up OFB production. will take a few years to resolve.
list goes on and on and on and on...

The t-90 was arguably one of india's worst post-independence purchases..

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8068
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Pratyush » 03 Jun 2017 08:41

But will the army buy Arjun. No. In 5 years we will have t 14 as the FM BT. Because DRDO will not receive GSQR for it.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5100
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby jamwal » 03 Jun 2017 11:00

Stop trolling nirav and dont put words in to other people's mouth.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5100
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby jamwal » 03 Jun 2017 12:12

Image

nirav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2021
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby nirav » 04 Jun 2017 02:48

jamwal wrote:Stop trolling nirav and dont put words in to other people's mouth.


Please read my replies in context to the discussion I'm having with a poster.

@all I spent a good deal of time last night reading up on the Arjun MBT.
Have they released information on the spares issue which caused the grounding of the fleet ?

Lack of foreign spares in an indigenous tank causing 75% of the fleet to remain grounded for a year and a half sounds real bad for the program.

If they don't reach a compromise on the weight reduction for the mk2, I believe it's the end of the road for Arjun MBT.its tragic that the decades long effort has to end this way.Id still consider this as a part success in realising many critical technologies for the MBT program.

Our Achilles heel stands thoroughly exposed though.
Unless we start moving on an indigenous solution for the propulsion front, our military projects will always be handicapped to a large extent.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8068
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Pratyush » 04 Jun 2017 08:40

Like not ordering enough spares to keep the vehicles operational and then crib about poor serviceability.

How convenient.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2435
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby abhik » 04 Jun 2017 10:22

Can some gurus explain what this IA doctrine is, that it supposedly favours tin cans over Arjuns?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17947
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Karan M » 04 Jun 2017 11:40

Pratyush wrote:Like not ordering enough spares to keep the vehicles operational and then crib about poor serviceability.

How convenient.


Especially when the data is clearly available showing the DM figured out the angle and got the spares ordered. Even if a handful of expensive gizmos are imported, and you dont order their maint kits, things wont happen. But wait, how many of the "serviceable" T-90s can shoot straight at high noon? Thats not any achilles heel...its a hole an Abrams can drive through.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5100
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby jamwal » 04 Jun 2017 13:58

nirav wrote:
jamwal wrote:Stop trolling nirav and dont put words in to other people's mouth.


Please read my replies in context to the discussion I'm having with a poster.

@all I spent a good deal of time last night reading up on the Arjun MBT.
Have they released information on the spares issue which caused the grounding of the fleet ?

Lack of foreign spares in an indigenous tank causing 75% of the fleet to remain grounded for a year and a half sounds real bad for the program.

If they don't reach a compromise on the weight reduction for the mk2, I believe it's the end of the road for Arjun MBT.its tragic that the decades long effort has to end this way.Id still consider this as a part success in realising many critical technologies for the MBT program.

Our Achilles heel stands thoroughly exposed though.
Unless we start moving on an indigenous solution for the propulsion front, our military projects will always be handicapped to a large extent.



Oh come on , don't take all of us for ignorant fanboys with personal H&D at stake. Earlier I though other posters were being being unfairly harsh on you, but agree with them now.

You just keep on flinging shit hoping that atleast some will stick. If proven wrong you downhill ski and repeat the process. Did you really get any information about Arjun program and cause of lack of spares ? I don't think so, because if you had done anything like that you'd not have posted the previous post about in service Arjun fleet.

Most posters here don't criticise armed forces just for the sake of it. But fanboys like you will defend the rotten system irrespective of reality.

nirav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2021
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby nirav » 04 Jun 2017 15:40

jamwal wrote:
nirav wrote:
Please read my replies in context to the discussion I'm having with a poster.

@all I spent a good deal of time last night reading up on the Arjun MBT.
Have they released information on the spares issue which caused the grounding of the fleet ?

Lack of foreign spares in an indigenous tank causing 75% of the fleet to remain grounded for a year and a half sounds real bad for the program.

If they don't reach a compromise on the weight reduction for the mk2, I believe it's the end of the road for Arjun MBT.its tragic that the decades long effort has to end this way.Id still consider this as a part success in realising many critical technologies for the MBT program.

Our Achilles heel stands thoroughly exposed though.
Unless we start moving on an indigenous solution for the propulsion front, our military projects will always be handicapped to a large extent.



Oh come on , don't take all of us for ignorant fanboys with personal H&D at stake. Earlier I though other posters were being being unfairly harsh on you, but agree with them now.

You just keep on flinging shit hoping that atleast some will stick. If proven wrong you downhill ski and repeat the process. Did you really get any information about Arjun program and cause of lack of spares ? I don't think so, because if you had done anything like that you'd not have posted the previous post about in service Arjun fleet.

Most posters here don't criticise armed forces just for the sake of it. But fanboys like you will defend the rotten system irrespective of reality.


Bhaisaab,
I wasn't aware of the exact spares problem which is why I asked.
I see you are into herd mentality. Others abuse me,hence you too have to join the fray.

@the continuous bashing on forces, I'd like to ask all the self proclaimed tank experts, how many thanks have you driven,operated,fired ?
And for how many years have you been doing it ?
What is the source of your "expertise" ?

Here's the feedback posted by a Fauji,quoted by Ramana in the feedback section.

ramana wrote:Here is some feedback.from a fauji
Please ruminate and think how you can individually make a change

I open a mil page on forum and the bile against fauj is just too much. Saala marein bhi hum, hathiyar bhi nahin Le sakte, decision kisi aur ka, paise ka baap koi aur, DPSU can't support what they sell, but gaali do fauj ko. Kabhi in logon ko North block or southblock me in file leke daurao phir pataa chalega how are the services managing. Idiots call us import passand. Try procuring from HAL. It is guaranteed that 03 chiefs will retire before HAL agrees. Fauj has a field reqmt, instead of saying no look elsewhere DPSU will jump and say look we will make it. 10 yrs later they will give a product with great specs but shoddy performance. It took 10 yrs of nursing the Dhruv by IA, before HAL got their act together. And Dhruv is a success story. BRF MIL FORUM is Engineer Rakshak Forum. Anyone else is not reqd there.


I was thinking of starting a poll.
Of all the people literally abusing the forces, I want to know which cars and electronics you use in your civilian life.

The success of Arjun tank was important.its unfortunate it's going the way it is to an eventual shut down.
We can't change the past but *must* take the right lessons into the FRCV project.

Army wants a medium weight MBT with all bells and whistles.DRDO must work to deliver that in a time bound fashion and not have the prototype ready in 2035 and be overweight, again.

On a personal note, you and your gang can abuse me all you want.i won't let it bother me like I let it earlier.
What can one expect from a bunch of people who in their minds are such worthies that they abuse the forces with impunity.im certainly an easy target.
Go on and show your best abusive self.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5100
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby jamwal » 04 Jun 2017 16:23

:rotfl:

Just proved what others say about you.

Marten
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2176
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Marten » 04 Jun 2017 21:18

nirav wrote:
jamwal wrote:

Oh come on , don't take all of us for ignorant fanboys with personal H&D at stake. Earlier I though other posters were being being unfairly harsh on you, but agree with them now.

You just keep on flinging shit hoping that atleast some will stick. If proven wrong you downhill ski and repeat the process. Did you really get any information about Arjun program and cause of lack of spares ? I don't think so, because if you had done anything like that you'd not have posted the previous post about in service Arjun fleet.

Most posters here don't criticise armed forces just for the sake of it. But fanboys like you will defend the rotten system irrespective of reality.


Bhaisaab,
I wasn't aware of the exact spares problem which is why I asked.
I see you are into herd mentality. Others abuse me,hence you too have to join the fray.

@the continuous bashing on forces, I'd like to ask all the self proclaimed tank experts, how many thanks have you driven,operated,fired ?
And for how many years have you been doing it ?
What is the source of your "expertise" ?

Here's the feedback posted by a Fauji,quoted by Ramana in the feedback section.

ramana wrote:Here is some feedback.from a fauji
Please ruminate and think how you can individually make a change


I was thinking of starting a poll.
Of all the people literally abusing the forces, I want to know which cars and electronics you use in your civilian life.

The success of Arjun tank was important.its unfortunate it's going the way it is to an eventual shut down.
We can't change the past but *must* take the right lessons into the FRCV project.

Army wants a medium weight MBT with all bells and whistles.DRDO must work to deliver that in a time bound fashion and not have the prototype ready in 2035 and be overweight, again.

On a personal note, you and your gang can abuse me all you want.i won't let it bother me like I let it earlier.
What can one expect from a bunch of people who in their minds are such worthies that they abuse the forces with impunity.im certainly an easy target.
Go on and show your best abusive self.

Would it suffice to call you ignorant? That would be factual and not therefore abuse. I asked you earlier to quote the posts that are abusive.

Once again, show these posts or stop the ranting.

nirav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2021
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby nirav » 04 Jun 2017 21:27

Marten wrote:Would it suffice to call you ignorant? That would be factual and not therefore abuse. I asked you earlier to quote the posts that are abusive.

Once again, show these posts or stop the ranting.


Marten,
If you have a problem with my posts, please report them.Or use the ignore button.
You might want a you scratch my back I scratch yours​, let's all dump on the forces kind of forum.
I don't want that and I will speak freely what I have to.

It's said you can't learn swimming by reading a book.

Somehow, we have tank,aerodynamic and rocket experts.
I don't think I'm wrong in asking for credentials/operational experience and source of the "expertise"..

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2011
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Vivek K » 04 Jun 2017 22:10

We cannot let one poster disrupt the forum. Asking for what car you drive is no comparison to what Tank we should buy. Such rambling incoherence should be put out of its misery.

Marten
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2176
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Marten » 04 Jun 2017 22:19

nirav wrote:
Marten wrote:Would it suffice to call you ignorant? That would be factual and not therefore abuse. I asked you earlier to quote the posts that are abusive.

Once again, show these posts or stop the ranting.


Marten,
If you have a problem with my posts, please report them.Or use the ignore button.
You might want a you scratch my back I scratch yours​, let's all dump on the forces kind of forum.
I don't want that and I will speak freely what I have to.

It's said you can't learn swimming by reading a book.

Somehow, we have tank,aerodynamic and rocket experts.
I don't think I'm wrong in asking for credentials/operational experience and source of the "expertise"..

Sorry, you don't get the luxury of thread crapping and getting away without substantiating your statements.
You didn't ask for jackshit before this -- you spent more time talking about forces being abused. When asked to quote the posts, you move the goal post. You are not one of the experts, but have been carping about abuse on this thread without any followup.

Once again, show the posts that are abusive to the forces.

nirav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2021
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby nirav » 04 Jun 2017 22:58

Marten wrote:Sorry, you don't get the luxury of thread crapping and getting away without substantiating your statements.
You didn't ask for jackshit before this -- you spent more time talking about forces being abused. When asked to quote the posts, you move the goal post. You are not one of the experts, but have been carping about abuse on this thread without any followup.

Once again, show the posts that are abusive to the forces.


What makes your highness think you have the luxury to demand things from me ?
Why don't you take it up with Ramana who actually posted the faujis feedback if as per you there is *no abuse*.
Ask him and the fauji to "quote" posts where forces are abused.

I was digging old posts and going through RayCs posts from 2010. Too bad he stopped posting. No wonder very few ex armed forces sign up here.. they get to learn about war and weapons and tactics from folks who'd probably crap their pants if they hear a real life grenade explode in their vicinity.

Talking about shifting goal posts, why don't you answer, what's your experience on tank warfare ?

nirav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2021
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby nirav » 04 Jun 2017 23:03

Vivek K wrote:We cannot let one poster disrupt the forum. Asking for what car you drive is no comparison to what Tank we should buy. Such rambling incoherence should be put out of its misery.


Why ?
You expect the forces to buy something desi, which they don't want,to fight wars.
When it comes to you and your civilian needs for road transport, do all of you Desh bhakts drive 100% indigenous cars ?

Local MIC is what you bat for.Why not local auto industry?

Marten
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2176
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Marten » 04 Jun 2017 23:27

nirav wrote:
Marten wrote:Sorry, you don't get the luxury of thread crapping and getting away without substantiating your statements.
You didn't ask for jackshit before this -- you spent more time talking about forces being abused. When asked to quote the posts, you move the goal post. You are not one of the experts, but have been carping about abuse on this thread without any followup.

Once again, show the posts that are abusive to the forces.


What makes your highness think you have the luxury to demand things from me ?
Why don't you take it up with Ramana who actually posted the faujis feedback if as per you there is *no abuse*.
Ask him and the fauji to "quote" posts where forces are abused.

I was digging old posts and going through RayCs posts from 2010. Too bad he stopped posting. No wonder very few ex armed forces sign up here.. they get to learn about war and weapons and tactics from folks who'd probably crap their pants if they hear a real life grenade explode in their vicinity.

Talking about shifting goal posts, why don't you answer, what's your experience on tank warfare ?


Who made you the spokesman for Ramana or the Armed forces? Or the AFT for forum members?
Show us the abuse that you have been talking about or stop thread crapping. Now that you have been caught out, you want to shift the topic to someone else, something else and so on. Shifting goal posts more than substantiating any of your words and insinuations.

What you are doing is proving why people are saying what they are about you. In one word - Gassing.
Nothing more to say to you since all you are doing is flamebaiting and threadcrapping. Flame on.
PS: In fact, I will not report your posts so that you can continue the petulant behaviour until it becomes too much for mods.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2011
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Vivek K » 05 Jun 2017 01:58

nirav wrote:Why ?
You expect the forces to buy something desi, which they don't want,to fight wars.
When it comes to you and your civilian needs for road transport, do all of you Desh bhakts drive 100% indigenous cars ?

Local MIC is what you bat for.Why not local auto industry?

My family has given up its lives and its entire wealth to set up import substitution projects in India. We lost our entire investment and my father his life because of your line of thinkng. Please get off this line of thinking.

Domestically - Maruti is exporting cars, so are other companies from India. So please compare apples to apples.

And this childish tit for tat is hilarious. The forces are feeling that the common man is driving Marutis so they should get T90s? :rotfl:

I kind of get the mental level of this poster. Will not reply in future.

nirav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2021
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby nirav » 05 Jun 2017 02:25

Vivek K wrote:
nirav wrote:
Why ?
You expect the forces to buy something desi, which they don't want,to fight wars.
When it comes to you and your civilian needs for road transport, do all of you Desh bhakts drive 100% indigenous cars ?

Local MIC is what you bat for.Why not local auto industry?

My family has given up its lives and its entire wealth to set up import substitution projects in India. We lost our entire investment and my father his life because of your line of thinkng. Please get off this line of thinking.

Domestically - Maruti is exporting cars, so are other companies from India. So please compare apples to apples.


Vivek Saar,
I'm sorry to hear about what you and your family went through.

I've been on this forum for more than a decade. The Arjun tank saga indeed has caused tremendous heart burn and at times misplaced anger.

The only conclusion that one can possibly arrive at after going through various threads is that gernails are corrupt, import pasand, killing local MIC..

I don't think it's irrational to step back a bit from that narrative and examine or atleast try and analyse what is it about the Arjun tank that the army just does NOT budge ?

As things currently stand, the MK2 has almost nil chances of getting inducted. A seven ton reduction looks unlikely and the time needed is 5-7 years !

Arjun while important for local MIC isn't as vital for security of the country.
If the institution responsible for security of the country have steadfastly refused inducting the tank, the reasons have to be understood and analysed.

Calling that very institution import pasand and an assortment of names isn't analysis, it's just spite.

In one of the interviews I read about the mk2, C Chsitopher said that even at 68 tons it will be usable in the desert and acknowledged what the army has been saying all along, it's too heavy for its doctrine.

Army isn't wrong in choosing T90 over Arjun, when it's clear that it can field more T90s with the same financial and manpower resources than the Arjun.

I btw used the car analogy only to drive home the point that when it comes to personal choices, we in general have no qualms in going for non indian vehicles/products.

But the same people thunder and label the army import pasand when it's quite clear, the imported option gives way more value for money spent and keeps National security.

We here in the civilian domain can only make educated guesses. Do we have a list of the 73 improvements asked for by the army ? Do we know how critical they are ?

What does that say for the mk1s fighting and maintenance ability ?

Also if the theatre of operations is only going to be the desert , why go in for an 8-9 million tank where you can just as easily deploy twice the number of T90s ?

If the T90s were not capable of handling paki zarrar and Khalid's and T80UDs, I would understand the railing..

It's not as if the Army is dumping the Arjun at 68 tons "too heavy tank" to induct 1000 Abrams 60+ tanks.


Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19880
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Philip » 08 Jun 2017 12:21

I've always emphasised the cruel fact of the "cutting floor",the beancounters. As we're seeing in the IAF's tanker acquisition,their selection of the A-330 was dumped becos of costs.The likely outcome is "more of the same",upgraded IL-78s ,far cheaper and even in the long run ,life-cycle costs,cheaper too.
It is evident that the IA want both quality and numbers ,affordable,and only the T-series with a huge stock of T-72s too,gives them the best option. The T-series tanks can also be transported to the mountains.Unfortunately,Arjun,for all its virtues,is a 4-man tank and carries with it the extra weight,cost,etc.

I am surprised though that at least a decade ago,when the T-90 was first being acquired,why the DRDO/CVRDE did not try and engineer a 3-man tank based upon the tech being developed for Arjun. Had we had a desi product somewhat similar in size,crew,etc., it would've been v.hard to dump it. Alternatively,with so many MBTs on order, aJV should've been made like the BMos missile prog.,for AV development across the board.Russia now has a family of AVs based upon the Armata concept,with much commonality,modularisation,etc. This is where we've failed to deliver,compartmentalising our AVs in separate progammes. Surely our Arjun chassis design/concept could've been used for the self-propelled arty req. which the pvt. sector is engaged in as a spin-off and other specialised options. tech developed by the DRDO could be handed over to the pvt. sector reducing time for them to develop the same,"reinventing the wheel".

If you examine China closely,this is what they've done for the last 2 decades.First acquire a firang (Russian/western) system,say for example SU-27s and Kilo subs.They then manufactured a clone at home,but with passing years,made their own improvements/modifications to the same.Kilos have morphed into the Song,Yuan classes.Thus they still maintained the core concept of the firang system,making it easy for support and operational availability with much commonality of components.Finally,by decade 3,they've come out (by stealing the JSF secrets!) with their first stealth birds,etc.

rajsunder
BRFite
Posts: 581
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 02:38
Location: MASA Land

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby rajsunder » 10 Jun 2017 00:59

nirav wrote:
Here's the feedback posted by a Fauji,quoted by Ramana in the feedback section.

ramana wrote:Here is some feedback.from a fauji
Please ruminate and think how you can individually make a change


I was thinking of starting a poll.
Of all the people literally abusing the forces, I want to know which cars and electronics you use in your civilian life.

The success of Arjun tank was important.its unfortunate it's going the way it is to an eventual shut down.
We can't change the past but *must* take the right lessons into the FRCV project.

Army wants a medium weight MBT with all bells and whistles.DRDO must work to deliver that in a time bound fashion and not have the prototype ready in 2035 and be overweight, again.

On a personal note, you and your gang can abuse me all you want.i won't let it bother me like I let it earlier.
What can one expect from a bunch of people who in their minds are such worthies that they abuse the forces with impunity.im certainly an easy target.
Go on and show your best abusive self.


I would like to ask Ramana Ji if he spoke with the fauji about the CAG report on Arjun and T-90 comparative testing, and how the CAG pointed out the step brotherly attitude given by Army to Arjun tank.
Also as to why the Army curses DRDO when it wants to install AC in Arjun but goes on with the installation of AC in T-90.

One need not be an engineer to figure out who is at the wrong side. And why is foreign maal given priority over Indian one.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby shiv » 10 Jun 2017 07:00

Tanks are made primarily of metal and in the intense desert heat - the turrets of airconditioned tanks should show up with more contrast (slightly cooler) than the surrounding desert in an infra-red scanner/seeker no? The turret outside temperature would be reduced (marginally) as the A/C inside directs the heat away.

I wonder if such a comparison has been made? This is not an argument for or against anything - just a technical doubt.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2011
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Vivek K » 10 Jun 2017 17:42

rajsunder wrote:One need not be an engineer to figure out who is at the wrong side. And why is foreign maal given priority over Indian one.

Is that so hard to understand?

nirav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2021
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby nirav » 10 Jun 2017 19:50

rajsunder wrote:

One need not be an engineer to figure out who is at the wrong side. And why is foreign maal given priority over Indian one.


Food for thought.

One thing ive realised over a decade+ of reading through BR and other military forums is that one can become a better informed person compared to the mango abdul on the streets.

One however can NOT become a better informed person than someone whose domain it is. Air force,Navy,Army,ISRO, BARC .. Even ADA/DRDO/HAL/OFB.

Too bad this basic truth gets overlooked when well read people start thinking of themselves as Subject Matter Experts and start passing Judgements and some engage in name calling.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5038
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Surya » 11 Jun 2017 06:37

Lots of info in this - the Werewolf MPV trials



http://www.wmf.com.na/files/india_trial_report.pdf

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1379
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Thakur_B » 11 Jun 2017 07:24

Surya wrote:Lots of info in this - the Werewolf MPV trials



http://www.wmf.com.na/files/india_trial_report.pdf


There seems to be a plethora of MPVs being offered by Indian industry and not too many takers.

Image
Image
Image
Image

^^ Tata Motors' Mine Protection Vehicle. Offers a hull protection from blasts equivalent to 14 Kg of TNT. Tata provides maintenance of MPVs at any Tata service center in the country.
------------------------------------------
Image
^^ Ashok Leyland Mine protected vehicle based on south african Marauder.
14 kg TNT under hull and 21 kg TNT under wheel blast protection.
--------------------------------------------------
Image
Image

^^ Mahindra Mine protection vehicle designed with BAE based on RG-31 (South African Design) on a Ural 5730 chassis. Mahindra-BAE MPV-I offers hull blast protection equivalent to 14 Kg of TNT and underwheel blast protection equivalent to 21 Kg of TNT.



------------------------------------------
Image
Image
^^ OFB Yuktirath III, upgraded design of earlier vehicle based on Caspier II (South African MPV) designed by VRDE. Protection is defined as a side mine blast of 14kg of explosive and 1kg of shrapnel from a distance of 5m and height of 1.5m. For land mine blasts it can take 35kg of TNT under the hull and 42kg under each tyre. Ballistic protection is sufficient to withstand Russian 7.62x54R rounds from 10m. Comes with an optional RCWS. Recently received an order of 250 units from the Army.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby shiv » 11 Jun 2017 09:20

The link provided by Surya is long but interesting in the stringent design requirements and features. It is obviously a brochure selling the advantages of the Werewolf - but still there are some interesting titbits like

1. Negotiation around sharp mountain bends (a Cassipir had toppled in one bend)
2. Water fording
3. Wheels/axles that shear off as per design
4. Live pig in MPV stayed alive in one IED test
5. Easy maintenance and repair

Apparently 3 drivers were selected for initial training. One was untrainable and rejected. Another was OK. The third was not so good at driving but helped with maintenance

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35017
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby shiv » 11 Jun 2017 09:22

Thakur_B wrote:Image
^^ OFB Yuktirath III, upgraded design of earlier vehicle based on Caspier II (South African MPV) designed by VRDE. Protection is defined as a side mine blast of 14kg of explosive and 1kg of shrapnel from a distance of 5m and height of 1.5m. For land mine blasts it can take 35kg of TNT under the hull and 42kg under each tyre. Ballistic protection is sufficient to withstand Russian 7.62x54R rounds from 10m. Comes with an optional RCWS. Recently received an order of 250 units from the Army.

Wow this Yuktirath has some fancy features..

We need to set up factories to build such stuff and more to employ our "youth bulge"

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23315
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Austin » 19 Jun 2017 18:21

India may sue Polish firm over armored recovery vehicle contract

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/ind ... e-contract

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5100
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby jamwal » 19 Jun 2017 18:58

Any idea what MPV BSF is using ? Are they VF Jabalpur ?

Eric Leiderman
BRFite
Posts: 363
Joined: 26 Nov 2010 08:56

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Eric Leiderman » 20 Jun 2017 06:18

Shiv ji wrt your post quoted below. (To clear your doubt.)

"Tanks are made primarily of metal and in the intense desert heat - the turrets of airconditioned tanks should show up with more contrast (slightly cooler) than the surrounding desert in an infra-red scanner/seeker no? The turret outside temperature would be reduced (marginally) as the A/C inside directs the heat away.

I wonder if such a comparison has been made? This is not an argument for or against anything - just a technical doubt."

The basics principle of an AC is as it cools an area the exhaust is hotter than the external ambiant temp.

Hence if a tank is camaflouged and not moving , trying to hide from IR seekers, the last thing it would use is an AC as the exhaust plume would be highly visibly to an IR seeker. On commercial / domestic units there is a 10 deg c difference between external temp and exhausted air.
Also there will be some sort of fire retardant insulation between the metal structures and the cooled spaces. for the AC to work effectively. So the turrent will remain relatively hot.

On a tank on the move u are not too bothered about the heat signature of an AC unit as your prime mover will be exhausting a lot of heat, So that is when u would run your AC unit.

Just my char anna.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4117
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby srai » 20 Jun 2017 07:11

^^^

The requirement for PROSPINA/NAG is to hit a tank 4km with temperature difference of only 0.2C in the peak summer afternoons. That would mean the inside of the tank would be cooking at above 45C - a nice oven. These crews must have high tolerance levels to be combat capable at those temperatures!

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby vaibhav.n » 20 Jun 2017 14:26

In India, tank temperatures frequently reach as high as 55-60 degrees on the inside. Units usually cover up a tank with camo nets during a halt. Tank crews are authorised twice the water and electrolyte rations of a regular unit in deserts. During winters night temperatures in deserts will drop to zero and crews will often sleep above engine decks during exercises to keep warm.

One of the reasons why a lot of fighting traditionally happens at night in our deserts.

kurup
BRFite
Posts: 124
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 14:22

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby kurup » 20 Jun 2017 14:58

Image

^^^^^^ Please id the vehicle ???

sarang
BRFite
Posts: 131
Joined: 16 Jun 2007 11:23
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby sarang » 20 Jun 2017 15:05

noob pooch, what type of MPV we have in production now?


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests