Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 23 Apr 2015 06:54

^These Russian parades have started to lose whatever gravitas they had. Increasingly they are looking like the toy exhibitions one sees in China. Who put the stupid cheap-looking stripes and star sticker? What a joke.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 Apr 2015 10:30

But thanks to few [mod edited] posters like Philip , you and few other in this and other threads its become a dick measuring contest .....Thanks to people like you BRF has lost its golden age and there is less of learning and sharing experiencing and has become a dick measuring contest and personal attacks on fellow BRF

MODS can delete my comment if its offensive but this is what I end up feeling visiting BRF for few years.

[Mod note ] - watch your language Austin. things can be conveyed in a more polite manner. we would not want to lose a productive poster like you

Fair Enough

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Apr 2015 11:41

Austin,develop a hide like the Assamese rhino! On BR one needs the equiivalent of "ERA" to brush off the attacks of the ingoramuses and "d" heads!.

It was several years ago that IDR came out with a comprehensive feature on the Indian armoured vehicle/tank production and predicted serious shortfalls in production.There was simply too much work for Avadi.T-72 upgrades,T-90 manufacture,Arjun development and production.What is our annual tank production including upgrades? If it is 100 tanks,it would take us a decade to manufacture 1000,why the news of a poss. buy of 300+ T-90s from Russia has been in the media. Unless we are able to increase production,we will always have a shortfall.(The fig. of a further 400-500 was mentioned because that is the fig that Avadi want to be ordered so that the dev. costs of the programme can be recouped).We already have 100+ Mk-1s delivered or do we?

With the battle between the IA and CVRDE over the Arjun's performance and seemingly unlimited improvements asked for by the IA,the primary stakeholder has to crack heads and decide what we can realistically build locally and how many,not some conjured up figure,and what we may have to import. If a new revolutionary tank like the Armata is offered to us,then we should take a serious look at it before ordering the extra 300+ T-90s. That's my opinion as such a tank would give us a huge qualitative advantage over the Sino-Pak combine.

The second point. A few years ago when debating the future Russian FMBT,it was reported that an entire family of armoured vehicles was part of the programme.Why have we also been so lax with the Arjun programme? There is a req. for more ICVs. looking at the pics of the new Russian AVs on parade,one wishes that we too had similar variants ,offshoots of the Arjun programme instead of searching for a new ICV and left with upgrading old ones. One must maximise the potential of the programme.

PS:Take a dekko at the Afghan td. for its strat importanc eto us as the Chinese are making /planning huge forays into that country.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 23 Apr 2015 11:42

^I agree that things have gone downhill, but you should have given your sagely advice back when the resident russophile made his first post.

I usually read the threads because it is quite informative for me, but there are some patently wrong posts that can never be ignored. This reaction and counter-reaction sometimes (most of the time) degenerates into sh!tfest soon enough, because we are at the point past educating these malignantly prejudiced posters. The only way to stop them from spreading their nonsense is to get into the mud and wrestle with them. I am willing to dirty myself, if this is what is require. In the process if I spare some other brilliantly contributive posters the same effort, I would count that as a the greatest contribution on my part. It is as simple as that.

All of us can't be on that high horse of yours. Some of us have to wrestle in the mud with the pigs.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Apr 2015 11:51

Oink!Oink!

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 23 Apr 2015 11:53

^Is that the call of the "Assamese rhino?"

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 23 Apr 2015 14:15

Philip wrote:With the battle between the IA and CVRDE over the Arjun's performance and seemingly unlimited improvements asked for by the IA,the primary stakeholder has to crack heads and decide what we can realistically build locally and how many,not some conjured up figure,and what we may have to import. If a new revolutionary tank like the Armata is offered to us,then we should take a serious look at it before ordering the extra 300+ T-90s. That's my opinion as such a tank would give us a huge qualitative advantage over the Sino-Pak combine.

You'd like to use the 'lack of production capacity' argument here as well?

1. The last production year for the Arjun was 2009. So that's 6 years of lost production. Roughly speaking 6 x 60 = 360 tanks. So just what is your basis for slinging mud at HVF's performance?

2. The Armata being a new and 'revolutionary' design is far from full production. The T-90 infrastructure in Russia aren't going to start churning out T-14s at the same rate. We have more than ample time to scale up Arjun production and/or convert the T-90 line at Avadi for Arjun production.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 Apr 2015 15:25

Philip wrote:Austin,develop a hide like the Assamese rhino! On BR one needs the equiivalent of "ERA" to brush off the attacks of the ingoramuses and "d" heads!.

As a poster I come here to learn and understand things but what I realised is you see some picture of new Russian toy and then post here we need to buy it without any reference or any intention of IA to buy or Russian willing to sell but just because you think so

Post that we just ending abusing the army and it goes downhill when none is called for just based on hypothetical assumption , If there is a need to discuss about new tank etc just keep to it rather then dragging IA or lets buy it syndrome.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 23 Apr 2015 15:44

I can see where Arun Menon is coming from. Off all the hundreds of debates that take place on the forum, you see numerous comparisons of US, Russian, Israeli, European kit with numerous argument in favour of and against each. Sometimes politics comes into play with everyone's views colored by their own perception of history and current affairs. Occasionally we have French members rooting for French kit, American members cheering for American equipment, Russians who believe their package is the best, and so on.

But it is a astounding to see an Indian (I assume) on BRF pushing for the import of a new off-the-shelf tank in lieu of a world class rock solid Indian product optimized for local operating conditions and supported by a mature production eco-system behind it. Abuse and scorn in response is... predictable.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Apr 2015 15:57

The posts were in reply to a poster who asked the Q whether it would be offered to us.The response has been entirely hypothetical and a suggested approach.The desire of the services to now acquire cutting edge weaponry ,the best available to maintain a qualitative advantage vs the growing sophistication of the Sino-Pak combine,where we cannot compete with the numbers of weapon systems that China has,or its production capacity. This has been very evident from the FGFA requirement/deal and the Rafale acquisition and the naval warship and sub plans. Unless we plan for the future well ahead,we will be continuously taking knee-jerk decisions as we have done with the Rafale.

Secondly,is a production rate of 60 tanks a yr enough for us? What is the IA's projected strength of MBTs? How many obsolete tanks are pensioned off each year? Even if production is around 100/yr,it will take a decade to produce 1000 tanks. The intent/wish to acquire 300+ T-90s has not come from me but from the IA/MOD! Therefore,unless we improve local production,there will be a limitation as to how many Arjuns or any other specialist desi AVs that will roll out of Avadi.

Hiving off elderly tanks that we will have to upgrade to meet our stringent capability needs to friendly countries is one way of creating a requirement that could be met by Arjuns whatever. Afghanistan is there for us to lose like we almost did with Sri Lanka. It is going to be much harder to retain our influence there if we offer peanuts.

Viv S,please read my posts carefully.I'm all for acquiring as many Arjuns as poss if they make the grade for the IA. I have never suggested to abandoin Arjun for a new Russian FMBT.The Q is,why are we then reading about another 300+ T-90s to be acquired off the shelf from Russia? Is our Arjun production too slow? Are the T-90s intended for a terrain (Himalayas) where they would be easier to operate than Arjun or what? Is it because we do not want anymore upgraded inferior T-72s but prefer more T-90s? There must be an answer for it. With regard to the Armata,the Q is if it is offered,purely hypothetical and a way in which we can acquire a better tank (to T-90s) saving costs.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Apr 2015 16:01

Sir will india acquire 1000 armata under a urgent G2G deal?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Apr 2015 16:03

>> The Q is,why are we then reading about another 300+ T-90s to be acquired off the shelf from Russia?

because vested interests want to spend all the tank budget and planned inventory on the T-90 , so no space remains in the tent for any more Arjun mk2.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Apr 2015 16:08

Then with the avowed mantra of "make in India" by the PM and co.,the GOI must step in and see if the tanks are truly required, and why the requirement cannot be met by Arjun Mk-2? Are we to be permanently held hostage to "vested interests" despite regime change? That would imply that the GOI does not have the ability to counter the power of the "vested interests" who would then be in a conspiracy with the services and/or MOD.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 23 Apr 2015 16:11

Is there any Tank in the stables or under development in China or Paki land which can beat Arjun handdown??? As for as my mango knowledge goes the answer is big NO.As per my mango information some 150 Tanks can be made a year at Avadi if big order is given. But we will not order it.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 23 Apr 2015 16:25

Philip wrote:The posts were in reply to a poster who asked the Q whether it would be offered to us. The response has been entirely hypothetical and a suggested approach.

And the ideal response would have been limited to - 'yes, if we want it'. You on the other hand went ahead to make a case for an Armata induction.

The desire of the services to now acquire cutting edge weaponry ,the best available to maintain a qualitative advantage vs the growing sophistication of the Sino-Pak combine,where we cannot compete with the numbers of weapon systems that China has,or its production capacity. This has been very evident from the FGFA requirement/deal and the Rafale acquisition and the naval warship and sub plans. Unless we plan for the future well ahead,we will be continuously taking knee-jerk decisions as we have done with the Rafale.

Tell me again how the Arjun Mk2 doesn't meet our qualitative requirements?

Secondly,is a production rate of 60 tanks a yr enough for us? What is the IA's projected strength of MBTs? How many obsolete tanks are pensioned off each year? Even if production is around 100/yr,it will take a decade to produce 1000 tanks.

Where does it say that the production ought to be capped at 60 tanks or even 100 tanks per year?

The intent/wish to acquire 300+ T-90s has not come from me but from the IA/MOD! Therefore,unless we improve local production,there will be a limitation as to how many Arjuns or any other specialist desi AVs that will roll out of Avadi

While the IA is dead-wrong on the T-90, if we're sticking to the script, I don't hear it lobbying for the Armata at least. That one's all you.

Hiving off elderly tanks that we will have to upgrade to meet our stringent capability needs to friendly countries is one way of creating a requirement that could be met by Arjuns whatever. Afghanistan is there for us to lose like we almost did with Sri Lanka. It is going to be much harder to retain our influence there if we offer peanuts.

Have the 'friendly countries' ever expressed an interest in retiring Indian tanks? And even if we assume that they will sometime in the future and we transfer the tanks, its still not relevant to the issue at hand.

Viv S,please read my posts carefully.I'm all for acquiring as many Arjuns as poss if they make the grade for the IA. I have never suggested to abandoin Arjun for a new Russian FMBT.

I've read them all carefully and while all your posts offer 'moral support' to the Arjun, fact is, the money that you'd like the IA/MoD to spend on the Armata, every other BRFite would prefer be invested in the Arjun program.

The Q is,why are we then reading about another 300+ T-90s to be acquired off the shelf from Russia? Is our Arjun production too slow? Are the T-90s intended for a terrain (Himalayas) where they would be easier to operate than Arjun or what? Is it because we do not want anymore upgraded inferior T-72s but prefer more T-90s? There must be an answer for it. With regard to the Armata,the Q is if it is offered,purely hypothetical and a way in which we can acquire a better tank saving costs.

Are you not familiar with the Arjun program and production? If not, it would be advisable to find out the facts, before offering it up as a data-point in a debate. The T-90s suitability for mountainous terrain vis a vis Arjun is far from given, but even if that were true, we have more than enough T-90s that can be diverted.

And while we've reading about another 300+ T-90s and then (rightfully) cursing the IA for its myopia, it is only now that we're hearing a proposal for Armatas (from you). Which will unsurprising prompt a new round of choicy abuse, directed at you this time.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Apr 2015 17:08

Oh Dear,short memories! The FMBT future requirement debate is over a yr old. It was discussed long ago the contours of an iIndian FMBT,statements from the then DRDO chief,etc,that the IA's requirements within a weight of 55t or thereabouts was "impossible". Therefore,an IA requirement for an FMBT does exist. In that context the future Russian FMBT was also mentioned. In answer to a Q from a poster,whether it would be offered to us,the answer to me is going by the Russian desire to sell us their latest wares,"yes".Here's a quote from elsewhere on the same issue.

http://idrw.org/with-russia-tempt-india ... mata-tank/

Love for Russian battle tanks in Indian Army is legendary and it won’t be a surprise if Russia will start lobbying for Export variant of Armata tank to India While locally developed Arjun MK-2 MBT is yet to enter into production due to Stiff requirements of Indian Army and India’s future main battle tank (FMBT) is still not taken off due to Indian Armies inability to make up its mind and issue General Staff Qualitative Requirements (GSQRs) for the new tank .

Given the IA's requirement in the future for an FMBT,like the IAF's desire for an FGFA,what is wrong in speculating about it? There are many who are rooting for the F-35,that still hasn't entered service either! The "case" for an FMBT has not been made by me,the IA has already indicated that it wants one in the future and is as the report says,undecided about its requirements.One is sure that it will take a good long hard look at the Armata.

PS:Abuse at me? I can handle it."Abuse" only demeans the utterer. One simply ignores it.It is ungentlemanly. One can ridicule my views using parliamentary lingo any time,that I enjoy.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 23 Apr 2015 17:31

Philip wrote:Oh Dear,short memories! The FMBT future requirement debate is over a yr old. It was discussed long ago the contours of an iIndian FMBT,statements from the then DRDO chief,etc,that the IA's requirements within a weight of 55t or thereabouts was "impossible". Therefore,an IA requirement for an FMBT does exist. In that context the future Russian FMBT was also mentioned. In answer to a Q from a poster,whether it would be offered to us,the answer to me is going by the Russian desire to sell us their latest wares,"yes".Here's a quote from elsewhere on the same issue.

So you'd now like to see DRDO's FMBT canned in favour of the Armata as well?

Given the IA's requirement in the future for an FMBT,like the IAF's desire for an FGFA,what is wrong in speculating about it? There are many who are rooting for the F-35,that still hasn't entered service either! The "case" for an FMBT has not been made by me,the IA has already indicated that it wants one in the future and is as the report says,undecided about its requirements.One is sure that it will take a good long hard look at the Armata.

Can you really not see the difference? Unlike the Armata, the FGFA/F-35 don't come at the cost of an equivalent or even near-equivalent Indian product (the AMCA is at least 15 years away) - they are force multipliers. More Armatas inevitably means less Arjuns and/or FMBTs. Even you ought to be able to grasp that.

What you're doing is more akin to lobbying for a Gripen C acquisition today. Or even better (to keep the Russian theme going) a second Smerch acquisition in lieu of the Pinaka 2.

PS:Abuse at me? I can handle it."Abuse" only demeans the utterer. One simply ignores it.It is ungentlemanly. One can ridicule my views using parliamentary lingo any time,that I enjoy.

Plenty of people can handle abuse. Very few go out of their way to invite it.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 23 Apr 2015 17:38

Philip wrote: ingoramuses and "d" heads!

Is this parliamentary language? Is this not abuse? Is your memory too short to remember what you posted on the same day?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 23 Apr 2015 18:00

Boomerang APC ( via mp.net )

http://i.imgur.com/odADS4d.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/rF3d0o3.jpg

Gun Module

http://i19.servimg.com/u/f19/18/28/77/60/epoha-10.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/vBq7wnR.jpg
http://sdelanounas.ru/i/c/z/c/czcuaG9zd ... pwZw==.jpg
http://s5.uploads.ru/JCGXt.jpg

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Apr 2015 18:08

"Ignoramus",is not an abusive word. it means the individual is "ignorant" of certain facts. His information boundary may be limited. Neither is "D" head.Do you know what the "D" stands for? It could be "dunce" head or "dumb" head for all you know. Every word that begins with the letter "D" doesn't mean it stands for "Dick" Nixon!
Pl. stick to the topic. Debate the issue not the poster please!

PS:From available info,the IA hasn't yet got its FMBT specs finalised. What did I say? It is sure to take a good look at the Armata ,any army worth its salt would since it is being touted as the world's first 3rd-gen tank (to my knowledge there isn't a two-man MBT in service anywhere) ,unless it behaves like "frogs in wells" like some others who hate anything Russian do! It may like the Armata,it might hate it and reject it .It might give the IA ideas for our own desi FMBT,but as it stands,there is no approved desi FMBT design as of now.

PPS:Prasad,here is an explanation for Avadi "twiddling its thumbs". Here is an xcpt from the CAG report Dec '14.

Inordinate delays in production of both the tanks, MBT Arjun and T-90, led to fresh import (November 2007) of T-90 tanks valuing Rs. 4913 crore

The report says that prod of T-90s is V.slow and lack of additional orders for Arjuns is keeping that infrastructure idle.

http://www.saiindia.gov.in/english/home ... of2014.pdf

DEFENCE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION
Para 6: Project Management in Vehicle Research and Development Establishment, Ahmednagar and Combat Vehicles Research and Development Establishment, Avadi
VRDE and CVRDE are the research and development labs of DRDO, which fall under the discipline/cluster of Combat Vehicles.
Audit scrutiny of the Staff and TD/R&D projects taken up by VRDE and CVRDE during the period April 1998 to March 2013 revealed that delivery of products required by Defence Forces under these projects was not effective, as described below:
Staff Projects
VRDE: Of the nine closed projects during April 1998 to March 2013, only one underwent productionisation.
CVRDE: Two Staff projects were closed during April 1998 to March 2013 out of which one project was undergoing Transfer of Technology but was yet to be productionised. In another project though the system developed was accepted by the user, yet the project could not be productionised due to imposition of ban on the foreign vendor.
Initiation of projects without firm General Staff Qualitative Requirement, failure of the laboratory to develop the desired deliverables and defective planning were the main reasons for failure in productionization in staff projects.
Technology Demonstration/R&D Projects
The status of Technology Demonstration projects undertaken by the two labs was not encouraging as 36 out of 51 closed projects did not lead to the utilisation of such technology in Staff projects.
Para 7: Defence Grants-in-Aid Scheme of Defence Research and Development Organization
The Defence Grants-in-Aid Scheme was instituted to encourage the indigenously available research talent and facilities in IITs, Universities, Higher Technological Institute, etc. for undertaking research and development work in order to add scientific value, preferably in areas of interests to Defence. Audit observed that there were critical shortfalls in the management and monitoring of the Scheme such as awarding the project without arriving at viable and specific research objectives and not defining the quantitative and qualitative targets to be attained. The major expenditure incurred out of Grants was on purchase of equipments rather than application/analysis of technology. Moreover, in majority of cases the disposal of equipments was left to the discretion of the Grantee institutions in the manner desired, resultantly no tangible benefit was available to DRDO. The money was also
sanctioned for creation of basic infrastructure against the provisions of the scheme. In these circumstances the objective of the scheme was not satisfactorily achieved.

Par8.3 Indigenous production of MBT Arjun and T-90 Bhisma Tank
The Ministry of Defence planned to achieve self reliance in manufacture of tanks by a phased induction of Main Battle Tank (MBT) Arjun during 1985-2000, the schedule later shifted to 2002-09. The production of indigenous T-90 tanks based on Transfer of Technology from Russia was slated to be accomplished during 2006-10.
We observed that the production of indigenous tanks did not meet the schedule planned for timely fulfillment of Army’s needs. In numbers, the Ordnance Factories met the indent for MBT Arjun (119 out of 124 indented); there is a gap of 133 against the indent for 300 T-90 tanks. The production of MBT Arjun was derailed due to frequent changes in design, contrary to the assurance in 2004 that the design had been frozen. Introduction of new requirements not envisaged in the original GSQR by the Army led to dismantling of already manufactured MBTs. Delays in the Ordnance Factories in erection of infrastructure facilities and problems in sourcing quality assemblies, added to the delayed production of MBT Arjun.

The Transfer of Technology for indigenous production of T-90 tank was affected by delays in translation of design documents and the Russian firm’s inability to share designs on critical assemblies like the gun assembly. The problem was compounded by delays in decisions on alternative solutions on these designs.
Inordinate delays in production of both the tanks, MBT Arjun and T-90, led to fresh import (November 2007) of T-90 tanks valuing Rs. 4913 crore.While the progress of the project for augmentation of production capacity of T-90 tanks sanctioned in September 2011 was very slow, the existing facilities for MBT Arjun remained underutilised in absence of additional orders for MBT Arjun from the Army.
Thus the plan of the Ministry to achieve self reliance remained unfulfilled.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 23 Apr 2015 18:14

have a production line twiddling its thumbs and people are blaming it for not producing a thousand tanks

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Apr 2015 18:32

Who is the primary stakeholder? The GOI/MODThe buck stops with them and the DM in particular.Thus far our new DM has been sweeping away the cobwebbed attitude of the MOD which went to sleep under AKA's stewardship. Like the Rafale deal,cutting the "Gordian knot",so too must the DM shine the spotlight on the tank production issue and the future of Arjun Mk-2 in the IA's scheme of things.

PS:Using the same argument,buy only locally designed/built systems,then why was the Rafale bought,even just 36 for at least $5B when the LCA is is on the cusp of series production ?

There is no FMBT desi design or prototype as of now unlike the new Russian FMBT. Even the IA's specs haven't been worked out. The issue at hand is not the FMBT for the future but why we need another 300 T-90s (not my idea!) when reports say that the Arjun MK-2 is available (and from the CAG report the prod line is idle? ).Other than "vested interests",can someone try and find a rational explanation/excuse please?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 23 Apr 2015 18:35

An individual is odiously and openly lobbying for a foreign acquisition over local programs proven to work. And BR curses arms dalals. No worse than the gent here.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 23 Apr 2015 18:36

The Russian ifv design is finally where western design like Bradley were in 1990 is 25 years ago.

Took a disastrous excursion into the bmp3 swamp

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 23 Apr 2015 18:47

Philip wrote:"Ignoramus",is not an abusive word. it means the individual is "ignorant" of certain facts. His information boundary may be limited. Neither is "D" head.Do you know what the "D" stands for? It could be "dunce" head or "dumb" head for all you know. Every word that begins with the letter "D" doesn't mean it stands for "Dick" Nixon!

Wow, you are debating what is and what is not a abuse word?

As for your gratuitous advice to not debate posters, you could have taken that same advice yourself when you were yakking on about "ignoramuses" and "D' heads."

Do you ever take your own advice?

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 23 Apr 2015 18:50

Karan M wrote:An individual is odiously and openly lobbying for a foreign acquisition over local programs proven to work. And BR curses arms dalals. No worse than the gent here.

Come on Karan, you are shaming dalals by comparing them to the "gent." After all, they do a job (however anti-national) and they do it for the money. This guy does it for free.

Also, this is the last from me on the "gent," will save the rest for when he has the next fangasm.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 23 Apr 2015 18:54

He has always been abusing Indian developers & industry non stop while acting like apologist for anything and everything Russian, even if its junk. Its got to the point that even an otherwise pro-Russian poster like Austin, calls him out for bias & he is brazen enough to laugh it off, what else is to be expected? Its pathetic & there really is no point in you or anyone engaging & wasting your time on such folks.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 23 Apr 2015 20:16

Moderator note: Let's get back to discussing armoured vehicles, not each other.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 23 Apr 2015 20:37

Singha wrote:>> The Q is,why are we then reading about another 300+ T-90s to be acquired off the shelf from Russia?

because vested interests want to spend all the tank budget and planned inventory on the T-90 , so no space remains in the tent for any more Arjun mk2.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 23 Apr 2015 20:44

Philip wrote:
There is no FMBT desi design or prototype as of now unlike the new Russian FMBT. Even the IA's specs haven't been worked out.

IA will issue FMBT GSRs as soon as they recieve the Armata's specifications, in English

Shalav · Post by **Shalav** » 23 Apr 2015 21:45

This is LoL funny.

Ironically it may well prove to be true too!

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 23 Apr 2015 21:57

funny and True

VibhavS · Post by **VibhavS** » 23 Apr 2015 23:23

Kersi D wrote:
Philip wrote:
There is no FMBT desi design or prototype as of now unlike the new Russian FMBT. Even the IA's specs haven't been worked out.

IA will issue FMBT GSRs as soon as they recieve the Armata's specifications, in English

Sad but true.. But my 2 cents on the same.. They will read the english translation of Armata Specs and then add Star War/ Star Trek/ HALO weapons specifications. Some lasers here and there, Some Rail Guns and a CIWS for anti-missile and RPG use and then a 3000 HP engine for 100KMPH. Then hand it over to DRDO and CRDVE and ask them to develop it in half the time of the Armata.
Both the Army and Airforce have always made unrealistic requirements. Hopefully they will relent this time around and not support this PoS called Armata.

One curious question for the Gurus, with 7 road wheels and all that Armor will these things actually weigh 55 tons or less. My guess is they will be touching 58-60 tons.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 24 Apr 2015 02:00

VibhavS wrote:One curious question for the Gurus, with 7 road wheels and all that Armor will these things actually weigh 55 tons or less. My guess is they will be touching 58-60 tons.

58 - 60 tons from Russia weights a lot less than 58 - 60 tons in India. The Russians have mastered the art of levitation.

VibhavS · Post by **VibhavS** » 24 Apr 2015 02:17

Rakesh wrote: 58 - 60 tons from Russia weights a lot less than 58 - 60 tons in India. The Russians have mastered the art of levitation.

Gee all of these years I believe levitation was an Indian Seer specialty... all that stereotyping wasted...

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 24 Apr 2015 05:01

If you look at previous pages, I think ArmenT already did the translation.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 24 Apr 2015 07:17

wonder if the Armata series armor is modular

amyway a side by side comparison of size with the T 90 would be interesting before the FMBT specs now materialize out of DGMF

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 24 Apr 2015 08:51

Surya wrote:amyway a side by side comparison of size with the T 90

Not really seen any comparising pics of the two but some one at mp.net posted a comparision between Kuragnets and BMP-3 taken with same reference

Kurganets vs BMP-3

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 24 Apr 2015 09:05

^The new APC has a larger profile than the BMP. This is usually something that IA would object to. I wonder what they would say if it were offered. Would it be the same thing that they would say to a similar offering from DRDO?

Anyway, it seems better than the unmitigated disaster that is BMP-3. Even all the dalals in India couldn't make that turd smell like roses.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 24 Apr 2015 09:07

Victory Parade 2015 rehearsal in Alabino - photos of new vehicles .

High Res pic by Vitaly Kuzmin

http://vitalykuzmin.net/?q=node/599