Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20419
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 23 Jun 2015 02:05

It looks like the IA was waiting for the unveiling of the Armata to get its RFI act going! :rotfl:
It is going to be a great global tank battle.....RIP Arjun-3/FMBT.
The T-90 upgrade looks interesting.

Surely it is the DRDO's job to at least develop desi ammo for the big tkt acquisitions? What has it also done about developing the basic infantry weapon system? Firang entities are smacking their lips at the prospect of another huge order worth billions for teh same.I asked the Q earlier about the role of the Min. for Def. Production too.Army chiefs have been complaining for years about inadequate stocks of ammo,etc.,but it is the MOD that places the orders and the OFB gets first peck at ammo.Eventually,chiefs have no other option but to go to the media,that too at the fag end of the terms,to highlight the dereliction of duty by the political bosses,esp,.the last little lamented Cong/UPA regime and its Deaf Min.AKA.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36402
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby SaiK » 23 Jun 2015 03:02

philip, end this RIP business on homegrown products.. you will antagonize people.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby RoyG » 23 Jun 2015 05:05

Philip wrote:It looks like the IA was waiting for the unveiling of the Armata to get its RFI act going! :rotfl:
It is going to be a great global tank battle.....RIP Arjun-3/FMBT.
The T-90 upgrade looks interesting.

Surely it is the DRDO's job to at least develop desi ammo for the big tkt acquisitions? What has it also done about developing the basic infantry weapon system? Firang entities are smacking their lips at the prospect of another huge order worth billions for teh same.I asked the Q earlier about the role of the Min. for Def. Production too.Army chiefs have been complaining for years about inadequate stocks of ammo,etc.,but it is the MOD that places the orders and the OFB gets first peck at ammo.Eventually,chiefs have no other option but to go to the media,that too at the fag end of the terms,to highlight the dereliction of duty by the political bosses,esp,.the last little lamented Cong/UPA regime and its Deaf Min.AKA.


The thought of screaming soldiers in a tin can cooking off helps him sleep at night. Why else would he peddle it?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_22539 » 23 Jun 2015 06:15

^Nice, first indigenous aircraft crashing gave him the thrills and now this.

Of course, no post goes without bitching about DRDO or the domestic MIC, this time after just mentioning Arjun in the same post (who with any sense would do that?). All the while any faults of the greedy/dishonest/primitive russians and their crappy products are usually shamelessly defended.

SaiK wrote:philip, end this RIP business on homegrown products.. you will antagonize people.



You are talking to a gent who once boasted of having skin thicker than an Assamese rhino :rotfl: .

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16505
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby NRao » 23 Jun 2015 06:43

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


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


Well. Modi has placed the right people in the right spots I guess.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2195
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Vivek K » 23 Jun 2015 06:51

Philip wrote:It looks like the IA was waiting for the unveiling of the Armata to get its RFI act going! :rotfl:
It is going to be a great global tank battle.....RIP Arjun-3/FMBT.
The T-90 upgrade looks interesting.

Surely it is the DRDO's job to at least develop desi ammo for the big tkt acquisitions? What has it also done about developing the basic infantry weapon system? Firang entities are smacking their lips at the prospect of another huge order worth billions for teh same.I asked the Q earlier about the role of the Min. for Def. Production too.Army chiefs have been complaining for years about inadequate stocks of ammo,etc.,but it is the MOD that places the orders and the OFB gets first peck at ammo.Eventually,chiefs have no other option but to go to the media,that too at the fag end of the terms,to highlight the dereliction of duty by the political bosses,esp,.the last little lamented Cong/UPA regime and its Deaf Min.AKA.

What a great patriot!!

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_22539 » 23 Jun 2015 06:54

Vivek K wrote:What a great patriot!!


How dare you, he is a patriot :evil: (wait, we are taking about russian patriots right?)

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2195
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Vivek K » 23 Jun 2015 07:06

RRF - Resident Russian Fanboy!

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Avinash R » 23 Jun 2015 10:19

Philip wrote:It is going to be a great global tank battle.....RIP Arjun-3/FMBT.


Sweet dream princess but the reality is Arjun has proven it detractors wrong even the ones in uniforms.

Philip wrote:The T-90 upgrade looks interesting.


Does it come with AC? http://archive.defensenews.com/article/ ... estic-Help

The Indian Army will upgrade more than 600 Russian-built T-90 tanks by adding new features and replacing their thermal imaging sights, navigation systems and fire control systems at a cost of more than $250 million.

The upgraded T-90 tanks will have air-conditioning systems, which will be developed by India’s Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO). The tanks’ existing armor protection systems, navigation gear, thermal imaging sights and fire control systems will be replaced.

The lack of an air conditioning system in these tanks caused damage to their thermal imaging systems when operating in hot climates, an Army official said.

“DRDO had earlier attempted to mount air conditioning systems on the tanks, but were stopped by Russia, citing intellectual property rights,” said Arun Sehgal, a retired Army brigadier general and defense analyst.

The Russians were then asked to fit the air conditioning systems in the T-90 tanks, but the attempt was unsuccessful,” Sehgal said. The intellectual property rights issue has since been resolved between India and Russia.


Philip wrote:Surely it is the DRDO's job to at least develop desi ammo for the big tkt acquisitions?


Nope its the buyer's job (IA) to get proper ToT, spares and ammo which they have failed to do http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 684411.cms

India remains upset with Russia for not sticking to delivery schedules, transfer of technology (ToT) problems, huge cost escalations and shoddy supply of spares.

Russia, for instance, has delayed giving `full ToT' for India's plan to indigenously manufacture 1,000 T-90S tanks. This despite India first importing 310 of these tanks for over Rs 3,625 crore in a February 2001 contract, and then signing another Rs 4,900 crore contract in November 2007 to import 347 more tanks.


Philip wrote:What has it also done about developing the basic infantry weapon system?


What is the point of developing armaments when the Army invariably rejects them on flimsy grounds.

Philip wrote:Firang entities are smacking their lips at the prospect of another huge order worth billions for teh same


Just Daydreams of Sheikh Chilli

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8148
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Pratyush » 23 Jun 2015 10:30

Avinash,

Forgive me for being blunt. But you are playing a been in front of a Buffalo. He is so far gone in his rus rakshak mode that hecannot tell night from day.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Singha » 23 Jun 2015 11:11

looks like after we are done replacing the gun, ammo, fcs, avionics, AC, thermals, ERA of the t90, only the engine will be made in russia , as the chassis and hull is made in avadi. :rotfl:

a true DIY "some assembly required" project.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_22539 » 23 Jun 2015 11:56

Singha wrote:hull is made in avadi. :rotfl:


And guess what they use to make the hull, Kanchan armor , the same made for the Arjun by the "oh so bad and useless" DRDO. Why? Because russian armor is CRAP.

dinesha
BRFite
Posts: 1145
Joined: 01 Aug 2004 11:42
Location: Delhi

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby dinesha » 23 Jun 2015 12:28

Ajai Shukla: Filling in Mr Parrikar's silence
Our large military requirements make for an enormous buyer's leverage, which the defence ministry fritters away in piecemeal purchases
http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 184_1.html
Few tears will be shed, especially in the corridors of power, given his frequent gaffes, if Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar makes good his threat not to talk to the media for the next six months. Speaking less will give Mr Parrikar more time to think and to grasp fundamental defence issues that still elude him. Seven months after his appointment - when he boasted that swift action was his speciality and that, as an Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) graduate, he would quickly master technology-related issues - the new defence minister remains the new defence minister.

Alarmingly for someone who Prime Minister Narendra Modi has anointed a central pillar of the "Make in India" policy, Mr Parrikar has evinced neither the will nor the domain expertise needed to transform a military culture of buying foreign weaponry into one that promotes indigenous arms. This lack of leadership was painfully exposed this fortnight, when the army rejected the plan to develop its next tank in the country, instead inviting international companies to design a tank for India and supervising its construction. This would waste 30 years of Indian toil in designing and building the Arjun tank, an experience that must be harnessed into a more capable, next-generation tank. The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) is already working on such a tank - dubbed the Future Main Battle Tank (FMBT) - that the defence ministry told Parliament in 2010 would be ready by 2020. Yet the army has scuppered this project, with Mr Parrikar watching helplessly from the side-lines.

The reason is obvious. Mr Parrikar and his bureaucrats prefer to buy than to build, since the latter involves active government leadership in coordinating the accumulation of diverse capabilities that go into a weapons platform. In building the Arjun tank, for example, the DRDO started with little expertise and with a technologically primitive domestic industry. As it painstakingly learnt how to design a tank, many of the sub-systems - such as the engine, transmission, fire control and night-vision systems - remain imported. Meanwhile, Indian companies built others - such as the armour, gun, ammunition and suspension system - labouring alongside the DRDO to master these new technologies. An ecosystem now exists for tank production in India, even though the government failed to support these so-called "Tier-I" and "Tier-II" vendors (systems and sub-system suppliers) morally, technologically and financially. Meanwhile, the army did all it could to scuttle the Arjun's evolution instead of partnering the DRDO. After the Arjun outperformed the army's Russian T-90 tank in comparative trials in Rajasthan in 2010, the generals adopted a new tack. Complaining that the 60-tonne Arjun was too heavy, they demanded an improved Arjun Mark II. Incredibly, the additional capabilities demanded added up to another five tonnes.

Mr Parrikar is failing the country and Mr Modi's vision of "Make in India", by standing by while the army scuttles the Arjun's successor. He must exercise leadership by calling in the army, the DRDO and captains of industry, both public and private, and telling them flatly that the days of importing Russian armoured vehicles is over, and that a family of Indian tanks, infantry combat vehicles, reconnaissance vehicles and missile carriers will take their place. He must ensure they hammer out time-lines and financing, and allocate responsibility for who will build what and by when. Such decisions require the exercise of subjective judgement by decision-makers, not the time-consuming, timid "out" of competitive tendering. Private industry must be given ownership of intellectual property (IP) they develop and, crucially, assured profits from mass-producing the components and sub-systems they develop. Liberal taxation regimes must be uniformly applied across industry. Untenable notions of "national security", long misused by the public sector to keep out private sector competition, must be thrown overboard. Messrs Tata, Godrej and Mahindra, and chief executives of the other private firms, are as good Indians as the heads of public sector behemoths.

This meeting must be inaugurated with the ceremonial burning of the "Defence Procurement Procedure" (DPP), which could be retrospectively renamed "The Book of Reasons to Do Nothing". To Mr Parrikar's credit, he has declared that a lack of trust was impeding his ministry's functioning and the procurement manual embodies mistrust, with its preoccupation on procedures rather than outcomes. With the DPP out of the way, a "Manual of Standards" must be introduced to specify uniform parts that could be used across various defence platforms. The Russian military uses the same bolt to fasten wheels on to trucks, tanks and helicopters; and the same air blower is fitted in ships, aircraft and land systems. This makes for cheaper volume manufacture and eases logistics and stocking.

This big-picture combat vehicle project must encompass futuristic versions of all the military's current fleet, drawing in projects like the Future Infantry Combat Vehicle proposal that have meandered along for years like lost and forlorn cows. Each type must be overseen by a project manager, with unreasonable delay penalised with sacking. Mr Parrikar himself - being an IIT graduate - should chair six-monthly or annual review meetings to monitor progress.

The minister must evolve a similar big-picture approach to untangle the army's biggest current problem - the shortage of battlefield fire support, like artillery. Mr Parrikar's current solution is to expedite several individual procurements, each of a different gun type - including a 155-millimetre towed gun; mounted gun system; ultra-light howitzer; and two self-propelled gun types. Even though several indigenous initiatives are under way - including a successful Ordnance Factory Board gun; a DRDO-led project called the Advance Towed Artillery Gun (ATAG); and more than one Indian private sector solution - Mr Parrikar has failed to coordinate and synergise those by taking a step back and re-evaluating fire support de novo. Such a step could also factor in new equipment like the improved Pinaka rocket launcher, cruise missiles and the Prahar missile, all of which would enhance fire support to the front-line soldier. India could add another deadly dimension to its battlefield fire support by asking Washington for the A-10 Thunderbolt II (nicknamed Warthog) aircraft - a proven battlefield beast that the United States Army custom-built to pour fire on to enemy front lines, even in the face of retaliatory ground fire. With the United States close to retiring its Warthogs, we could evaluate the benefits of acquiring this legendary aircraft at throwaway prices under the "Excess Defense Articles" category.

Such a holistic approach would benefit not just the indigenising of systems but also import, where it is inescapable. Our large military requirements make for an enormous buyer's leverage, which the ministry fritters away in piecemeal purchases. The navy needs sonars and torpedoes for multiple types of surface and submarine vessels, but all these are imported separately, linked with individual warship contracts. Instead, our requirement of 100-odd sonars and several hundred torpedoes could easily be processed as separate contracts, with global vendors strong-armed into building in India for the global market.

This is equally true for air force procurements. If the ministry views the big picture of our fighter requirements, rather than as individual "procurement cases", major indigenisation of sub-systems and systems could be obtained from bundling the development and production of the Tejas light fighter, Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft, Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft, Multi-Role Transport Aircraft and a host of helicopters that the military requires.

All this, of course, requires Mr Parrikar to take a step back and look afresh at the unimaginative way we do our procurement. Hopefully, his silence will now give him the time.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9989
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby sum » 23 Jun 2015 12:39

Mr Parrikar is failing the country and Mr Modi's vision of "Make in India", by standing by while the army scuttles the Arjun's successor. He must exercise leadership by calling in the army, the DRDO and captains of industry, both public and private, and telling them flatly that the days of importing Russian armoured vehicles is over, and that a family of Indian tanks, infantry combat vehicles, reconnaissance vehicles and missile carriers will take their place.

Errr, how does Mr.Shukla know this isnt happening?

An entire article just because he doesnt like Parrikar but has no clue as to what could be actually happening in MoD currently?

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8148
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Pratyush » 23 Jun 2015 12:57

Sum Ji,

Don't be too harsh on the good colonel. After all he is the first DDM wala to openly call for make in India in defense and state in not so many words that the folks in DGMF have been a bunch of fools. Who killed the Arjun.

Besides, the DM is a political animal. He will make it happen in a way that the DGMF will not be able to refuse any make in India product.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Singha » 23 Jun 2015 13:43

DGMF seems to be even more powerful than 10 janpath and Antlia tower if its top political overseer duly elected by public mandate and appointed by the PM cannot make it toe the line.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8148
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Pratyush » 23 Jun 2015 13:50

The problems was that the last DM was totally hands off. That only meant that the MOD allowed the uniformed officials to do what they would. Every thing else be dammed.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Gyan » 23 Jun 2015 15:13

I find it very very odd that Army RFP combines the requirements of two weight categories ie 15-25 ton FICV and 45-65 ton MBT/FMBT and then if that was not enough add wheeled variant/s into it. This seems like an open shameless attempt to derail kill both wheeled & tracked FICV (to help BMP-2 modernization & Wheeled AFV import lobby) and also to murder Indigenous DRDO MBT/FMBT. Remember Army initially tried to kill DRDO FMBT by saying it wanted a 40 ton 4 person crew FMBT with protection better than Arjun. Now another attempt is being made from different direction as Tomato err Lemon err Armata is itself 60 tons.

Same thing is being done to Dhanush howitzer. No new orders are being given after initial 114 by saying that for the Balance 300 they want 52 caliber ATAGS Titanium barrel.

Similar thing is being done to Nag, LCA, AMCA, Prahaar, MCIWS rifle, HTT-40, MLH, Anti-Material Rifle, Rustom-1 etc.
Last edited by Gyan on 23 Jun 2015 15:30, edited 1 time in total.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Gyan » 23 Jun 2015 15:30

From karan post:-

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

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

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16505
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby NRao » 23 Jun 2015 16:03

What a great patriot


Patriot or parrot?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16505
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby NRao » 23 Jun 2015 16:34

The RM has to overcome a very powerful Russian lobby I would imagine. A lobby that is back by the Indian Army.

?????

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Singha » 23 Jun 2015 17:12

its out of control any way we look at it.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16505
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby NRao » 23 Jun 2015 17:43

Well, it is time for Indians to make up their mindS.

2015 is half over.

A tank will take around 10 years or so to arrive.

A carrier around 15-20 years.

Other systems anywhere from 5+ years.

So, the fruits of a decision today will be experienced 5 through 20 years from now.

member_28990
BRFite
Posts: 171
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_28990 » 23 Jun 2015 20:06

The first question that needs to be answered is why do we need a new "future" tank - in what ways is Arjun 2 not able to meet threat perception in our neighborhood?
Also slight OT: Mr. Shukla makes a very good point regarding purchasing warthogs - CAS is a vital component of any hot zone if we wish to maintain initiative - we currently have nearly zero capabilities here.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16505
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby NRao » 23 Jun 2015 20:25

The first question that needs to be answered is why do we need a new "future" tank


A "Future tank" has been on the table since at least 2010 (with expectations of it being delivered by 2020 (announced in parliament) (not that this carries any weight)). So, that is not an issue. And, such topics should be discussed.

The issue should be, in 2015, why lean on an outside vendor to deliver a product. A few components, granted. A complete product that has been built in-house already, why? (Do not give me the cry stories from yester years.) (Correct them.)

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16505
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby NRao » 23 Jun 2015 20:35

What/why does it matter if the Arjun is a dud?

All that should matter is if a military asset should be an Indian one as far as possible. Decide on that first.

Learning to write an RFI is important too. Cut-paste or translations are a reflection on the rot within.

member_28990
BRFite
Posts: 171
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_28990 » 23 Jun 2015 21:18

NRao wrote:
The first question that needs to be answered is why do we need a new "future" tank


A "Future tank" has been on the table since at least 2010 (with expectations of it being delivered by 2020 (announced in parliament) (not that this carries any weight)). So, that is not an issue. And, such topics should be discussed.

The issue should be, in 2015, why lean on an outside vendor to deliver a product. A few components, granted. A complete product that has been built in-house already, why? (Do not give me the cry stories from yester years.) (Correct them.)


The reason I ask is as follows:

I have noticed a pattern in most products which the services have a less than enthusiastic take on. While we are developing/maturing a certain product, there is always the specter of a future/mk2/super mega awesome version that is positioned as an Aristotlean "ideal case." This allows for rampant goalpost shifting (by both the DPSU and the services) -> anything that cannot be achieved, or is too complex, or is a result of brochuritis all are pushed forward as something to be tackled in the future amazing version of the product (while the current one is still being developed/tested!). This is the very antithesis of block based production - how can we push boundaries in our existing products if all cutting edge stuff is shunted off to these future paper products. With the LCA we have the Mk2/AMCA, with Arjun we have FMBT etc etc. These days I get irked by the mere mention of "Mark 2" by our DPSU or services folks - arrey bhai get the things you have on the pipeline on the production floor, polish the damn things after getting actual day-to-day user feedback, then design the new shiny toys. This thinking also encourages the chalta hai attitude that is prevalent - when you are guaranteed a second shot, you lose your edge for the first on, because "mark 2 hai na!"

So that is why I am a bit sceptical whenever someone announces a "future" version of anything whose base version is still on the anvil/not yet operational.

arijitkm
BRFite
Posts: 137
Joined: 12 Oct 2009 23:23

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby arijitkm » 25 Jun 2015 10:48

Indian Army chasing pipe dreams forever. The Hindu

Overambitious norms in Qualitative Requirements are largely responsible for the alarming equipment shortage that the forces face today.

.......
The Army’s request is for an FRCV that will not only serve as a ‘medium’-sized main battle tank to replace the Army’s ageing fleet of licence-built Russian T-72s but also as a ‘light-tracked and wheeled tank’, built on the same platform. In layman terms, this is like asking for a Humvee and a Maruti 800 on the same platform. Hopefully, the document will be either withdrawn or amended before its July 31 deadline.
.......

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby amit » 25 Jun 2015 13:14

arijitkm wrote:Indian Army chasing pipe dreams forever. The Hindu

Overambitious norms in Qualitative Requirements are largely responsible for the alarming equipment shortage that the forces face today.

.......
The Army’s request is for an FRCV that will not only serve as a ‘medium’-sized main battle tank to replace the Army’s ageing fleet of licence-built Russian T-72s but also as a ‘light-tracked and wheeled tank’, built on the same platform. In layman terms, this is like asking for a Humvee and a Maruti 800 on the same platform. Hopefully, the document will be either withdrawn or amended before its July 31 deadline.
.......



Wow. Even though this article is by Rahul Bedi it's a keeper, more details need to be quoted:

The typical process is this: all available literature on the equipment is gathered and its multiple characteristics collated. The idea is to include as many features as possible to demonstrate how exhaustively the task has been performed. Thereafter, as the draft travels up the chain of command, it gathers additional parameters, as each officer feels compelled to suggest more improvements. “The final QR takes the shape of a well-compiled wish list of utopian dimensions, which simply do not exist,” stated Gen. Suman.


BRF has a name for this right? Brochuritis.

For instance, in 2004, the Army issued a tender for 168 light utility helicopters to replace the obsolete fleet of Cheetahs and Chetaks inducted into service in the mid-60s. The proposal required the chopper to hover uninterruptedly for 30 minutes, a capability no helicopter in the world possessed at the time. The maximum hover time then available, with a U.S. helicopter, was seven minutes. The Army was forced to withdraw the tender soon after.


Similarly, a tender to upgrade FH-77B 155mm/39 calibre howitzers, acquired in the 1980s, had to be scrapped twice, first in 2006 and again in 2009, as the QRs drawn up by the Artillery Directorate were unworkable. A BAE Systems official associated with the upgrade at the time said that the requirements were ‘unrealistic’ for these old guns, expecting more capability than even new howitzers.


In 2013, the request sent to at least five overseas vendors to replace the Army’s obsolete Bofors 40mm L-70 and Soviet ZU-23mm 2B air defence guns had to be scrapped. All five vendors declared the requirements to be unreasonable, as they demanded a firing rate of 500 rounds per minute, a capability no gun in the world possessed.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4846
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Neshant » 25 Jun 2015 13:28

India should be more pro-active in proposing joint ventures in R&D of armored vehicles and other craft with Japan.

_____

Mitsubishi eyes technological leap, and exports, with armored vehicle

By Tim Kelly and Nobuhiro Kubo

TOKYO (Reuters) - In January, a top U.S. Marine general visited Mitsubishi Heavy Industries in Japan to look at a prototype of an amphibious assault vehicle that could one day be a key pillar in Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's push to sell weapons abroad.

Using engines adapted from the main battle tank the company makes for Japan's military and new water jet propulsion technology, the full-size prototype is undergoing pool tests, although it is in the early stages of development and production could be years off.

Nevertheless, the maker of the wartime Zero fighter plane is eyeing overseas sales after Abe lifted a decades-old ban on arms exports in April last year as part of his more muscular security agenda, two Japanese defense industry sources said.

Mitsubishi designers believe the prototype shown to U.S. Marine Corps Pacific commander Lieutenant General John Toolan will be more maneuverable and faster across the water than the 40-year-old AAV7 amphibious assault vehicle used to carry U.S. marines onto beaches from naval ships anchored offshore, the sources said.

The AAV7 is built by the U.S. unit of Britain's BAE Systems.

The prototype's engines in particular could be fitted onto other armored vehicles, the sources added.

"It's an opportunity for Mitsubishi Heavy to tap overseas markets for its engine technology," said one of the sources, who declined to be identified because he was not authorized to speak to the media.

Mitsubishi Heavy wants to build an amphibious armored vehicle that can move through water at 20 to 25 knots (37 to 46 km per hour) compared to the more than 7 knots (13 km per hour) reached by the AAV7, said the sources.

"If the Japanese can get 20 knots in the water without compromising maneuverability on land, we will be very interested," said one Marine Corps official who saw the prototype in January but declined to be identified.

"Whether that's possible remains to be seen."

A Mitsubishi Heavy spokesman said the prototype had been shown to the Japanese Ministry of Defense, but declined to give details about the vehicle. At a Paris arms show last June, a suitcase-sized model of an eight-wheeled armored troop carrier was the centerpiece display at the company's exhibition booth.

The Ministry of Defense was aware of Mitsubishi Heavy's research into amphibious vehicles but was not involved in the project, a ministry spokesman said.

Manny Pacheco, a spokesman for U.S. Marine Corps procurement, declined to comment on the prototype.

But he said the Marine Corps was "always interested in the technological advances of industry" and encouraged manufacturers to use "every opportunity to showcase their wares and get their products submitted through our competitive procurement process".

TOUGH TECHNOLOGY

Amphibious vehicles are central to marine units around the world, allowing forces to operate on land and sea. But there has been little significant technological advancement in such vehicles in recent decades.

A tracked Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle that was being developed for the U.S. Marine Corps by U.S. weapons maker General Dynamics Corp was canceled in 2011 after big cost increases and technical issues.

The Marine Corps last year kicked off a competition for a new wheeled amphibious combat vehicle (ACV) that could operate on shorelines and shallow water.

Pacheco said the Marine Corps was reviewing proposals from five manufacturers to build a prototype. He did not identify the companies.

A feasibility study by BAE and General Dynamics had recommended against using current technology to build a vehicle in line with Marine Corps requirements, a U.S.-based BAE spokeswoman told Reuters.

"The study concluded that although the technology existed, it would not be fielded at an affordable price," she said.

BAE was talking to Mitsubishi Heavy about being a potential partner on the body design of the new Japanese vehicle, the BAE spokeswoman added.

General Dynamics was in similar talks with Mitsubishi Heavy, said sources in Japan. General Dynamics said it did "not have any information to provide at this time".

NEED FOR SPEED

Mitsubishi Heavy has been making armored vehicles for Japan's military for around 80 years, beginning with the Imperial forces in the 1930s. It also builds fighter aircraft, naval vessels, submarines and missiles.

The company also makes high-speed marine engines and water jet propulsion systems, according to its website.

"Japan's technology is good enough that we have to look at it," said a U.S. military industrial source familiar with the amphibious vehicle plans.

Although a coastal nation, post-war Japan only formed an amphibious military unit in 2012. The 3,000-strong unit will be equipped with more than 50 AAV7s.

It was disappointment at the speed of those vehicles over water that spurred Japan to build a new one, Japanese defense officials told Reuters.

Japan's military is also concerned about the ability of the caterpillar-tracked vehicles to ride over coral reefs, a common feature in the East China Sea, where Tokyo is embroiled in a territorial dispute with China.

The BAE spokeswoman acknowledged the desire of the U.S. Marine Corps to increase water speed, adding there should be "no operational concern" with coral reefs.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/mitsubishi-ey ... ector.html
Last edited by Neshant on 25 Jun 2015 13:31, edited 1 time in total.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7716
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby rohitvats » 25 Jun 2015 13:30

amit wrote:<SNIP>
In 2013, the request sent to at least five overseas vendors to replace the Army’s obsolete Bofors 40mm L-70 and Soviet ZU-23mm 2B air defence guns had to be scrapped. All five vendors declared the requirements to be unreasonable, as they demanded a firing rate of 500 rounds per minute, a capability no gun in the world possessed.


Well, I think 'experts' like him should at least double check what they write. Especially, when internet offers everything quite easily.

So, NO gun in the world had rate of fire of 500 rpm in 2013, is it? Says who?

The ZSU-23-2 gun itself has a combined cyclical rate of fire of 2,000 rounds per minute; Wikipedia says it is practically restricted to 400 rounds per minutes. That gives the two-gun system a combined rate of fire of 800 rounds per minute.

BTW - the ZSU-23-4 water cooled guns have a practical rate of fire of 800-1000 rounds per minute. Giving the combined system a very high rate of fire of 3,200 RPM to 4,000 RPM. And this is pretty old technology!

And Oerlikon Contraves Sky-shield has 1,000 RPM rate of fire for a 35 mm system.

They should at least make up their case with correct examples.

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby amit » 25 Jun 2015 13:35

^^^^^

Boss I think point to check in the quote above is did or did not the five vendors declare the "requirements to be unreasonable". If they did, why? If they didn't then Rahul Bedi is fibbing.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7716
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby rohitvats » 25 Jun 2015 13:59

amit wrote:^^^^^

Boss I think point to check in the quote above is did or did not the five vendors declare the "requirements to be unreasonable". If they did, why? If they didn't then Rahul Bedi is fibbing.


Boss, the point is that Rahul Bedi is peddling this data-point as an example of 'unreasonable' QR set forth by the army. So, the onus is on him to check the veracity of this claim by these vendors before quoting the same. The fact that he does quote this as an example of unreasonableness of the army QR, goes to show he DID take their word at face value w/o bothering to check the truthfulness of the comment. So, vendors could've fibbed and Rahul Bedi went ahead with the sound byte.

And here is another data point for you - Oerlikon Contraves Sky-shield system was the AD Gun system of choice for replacing the L-70 and ZSU-23-2 system in the army. But guess what happened in 2012? It was banned in relation to OFB Chairman scandal and Abhishek Verma.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4400
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srai » 25 Jun 2015 14:04

^^^

General observation is that RPM is inversely proportional to mm/caliber. As the gun projectile size increases the rate of fire decreases. What caliber did the IA issue RFP for? If it was specified at 40mm or 57mm, then there are no guns that are firing at 500 rpm. Bofors 40mm/L70 fires at around 330 rpm. But if it was lower like 35mm or 23mm, then that is possible with Oerlikon 35mm and quite a few others.

There was a DRDO AD gun project back around late 90s/early 2000s and it apparently came close to that 500 rpm mark. But the IA canned it. Another decade goes by and the IA issues a global tender for the guns. Just imagine through iterative approach what the DRDO AD gun by now, 10 years later, would be capable of!

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7716
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby rohitvats » 25 Jun 2015 14:21

srai wrote:^^^

General observation is that RPM is inversely proportional to mm/caliber. As the gun projectile size increases the rate of fire decreases. What caliber did the IA issue RFP for? If it was specified at 40mm or 57mm, then there are no guns that are firing at 500 rpm. Bofors 40mm/L70 fires at around 330 rpm. But if it was lower like 35mm or 23mm, then that is possible with Oerlikon 35mm and quite a few others.

There was a DRDO AD gun project back around late 90s/early 2000s and it apparently came close to that 500 rpm mark. But the IA canned it. Another decade goes by and the IA issues a global tender for the guns. Just imagine through iterative approach what the DRDO AD gun by now, 10 years later, would be capable of!


Why don't you check facts about AD Gun RFP before giving the gyaan on relationship between caliber and rate of fire? As if those who drafted the RFP and are actually involved in operating such system(s) would've been blind to such a 'fact'?

BTW - just for your information, the tender called for 30mm caliber minimum. And Rheinmetal had tied up with OFB to bid for the army tender. Before the OFB Chairman bribery scandal came to fore.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4400
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srai » 25 Jun 2015 14:22

^^^
Relax bro :)

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7716
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby rohitvats » 25 Jun 2015 17:05

I would really like to understand in detail the issue Rahul Bedi, and other on BRF who support his assertion for this case, have with the platforms envisaged by the Army for FRCV.

First, there are a total of 11 versions envisaged to be filled by the same platform. Rahul Bedi picks up only two out of these 11 and goes to town about absurdity of the whole exercise. Interestingly, at no point he mentions Arjun tank and why should not DRDO be working on a lighter variant of Arjun, if that is what IA has set its mind on.

But we digress.

Coming to FRCV and various functions this platform is supposed to fill, apart from Tracked and Wheeled Light Tanks, many of these platforms already exists with T-72 as well. So, where is the heartburn?

Here is the list:

1. Tracked Main Battle Tank - Primary variant.

2. Tracked Light Tank – Present ‘Light Tanks’ based on IFV platforms and have 40mm or even 105mm canon. Such ‘light tanks’ tend to way north of 25 tons.

3. Wheeled Version – Based on IFV or independent platform. However, in case of USA, Stryker Combat Vehicle (which is wheeled) has a 105mm gun mounted version as well. And in service with US Army Brigade Combat Teams.

4. Bridge Layer Tank (BLT) – Well, IA itself operates T-72 based BLT in MLC 60 segment.

5. Trawl Tank and Mine Ploughs - Exists

6. Armored Recovery Vehicle (ARV) - Exists

7. Self Propelled Artillery Gun/Howitzer – This is subject to future requirement. Though, it is important to add that T-72 chassis was not able to handle the T-6 turret and stress due to gun firing caused issues.

8. Air Defence Gun/Missile System. – Well, we mated our very own Akash SAM on T-72 chassis

9. Artillery Observation Post Vehicle. – IIRC, this is being done presently using BMP-1 which were passed on from Mechanized Infantry to Artillery.

10. Engineer Reconnaissance Vehicle – Present Armored Engineering Vehicle (AERV) is derived from BMP platform. But I think there can be multiple categories for different class of armored vehicles.

11. Armored Ambulance – Again, presently based on BMP platform. Though, Israelis have Merkava tanks which can take wounded soldiers. But these continue to have their main gun albeit with reduced ammunition storage and some other penalties.

Question is – if some of these derivatives have not been created from same platform, is it criminal to want them to come from same stable? Further, maybe, they’d find out that few things cannot be developed from FRCV platform w/o major modifications and doing this makes it a different class of vehicle all together. And the list gets modified accordingly.

And why are we assuming that IA wants a ‘same design fit all’ philosophy?

Important thing to notice is that there is no mention of IFV derivative which has completely different set of requirements and will spawn its own set of derivatives.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Avinash R » 25 Jun 2015 17:51

The FRCV RFI http://indianarmy.nic.in/writereaddata/ ... %20RFI.pdf

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION FROM VENDORS FOR DESIGNS FOR A FUTURE READY COMBAT VEHICLE FOR INDIAN ARMY
1. The Indian Army is planning to design and develop a new generation, state-of-the-art combat vehicle platform for populating its Armoured Fighting Vehicle fleet in the coming decade. This vehicle, which will be called the Future Ready Combat Vehicle (FRCV), will form the base platform for the Main Battle Tank which is planned to replace the existing T-72 tanks in the Armoured Corps. It is also planned to subsequently develop other need-based variants on this platform.

2. The FRCV is planned to be a Design and Development project, to be executed in three stages as under:-
(a) Design Stage.
(b) Prototype Development Stage.
(c) Production Stage.
3. The details of all stages are given at Annexure ‘A’. With a view to identify probable designers/ design bureaus who can undertake the Design Stage of the FRCV Project, interested parties are requested to forward information on the work they can undertake. The broad specifications are given at Annexure ‘A’. In addition, the responders are also requested to furnish details as per the pro-forma at Annexure ‘B’.

DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF FRCV
Background
1. The Indian Army is seeking development of futuristic combat vehicle for induction by 2025-27. This fighting vehicle needs to be developed on a modular concept as part of a family of combat vehicles. The Tracked Main Battle Tank will be the primary/base variant and the entire project will be called the Future Ready Combat Vehicle (FRCV).
2. A ‘Future’ Combat Platform design must cater for ‘future’ battlefield environment and technological possibilities. To address the future battlefield scenario and the envisaged force profile in the coming years, the FRCV needs to be developed on a modular concept with a high degree of flexibility in a manner that, as a tank platform, it can address the varying requirements of different terrain configurations. At the same time it can provide the base on which a ‘Family of Vehicles’, catering to the operational needs of various arms of the Army, can be developed.
3. The following variants are planned to be developed on the FRCV platform:-
(a) Tracked Main Battle Tank - Primary variant.
(b) Tracked Light Tank.
(c) Wheeled Version.
(d) Bridge Layer Tank (BLT).
(e) Trawl Tank and Mine Ploughs.
(f) Armoured Recovery Vehicle (ARV).
(g) Self Propelled Artillery Gun/Howitzer.
(h) Air Defence Gun/Msl System.
(j) Artillery Observation Post Vehicle.
(k) Engineer Reconnaissance Vehicle.
(l) Armoured Ambulance.
FRCV Development Process
4. In this process, the development of FRCV will be in three separate stages, namely Design stage, Prototype Development stage and Production stage. The Design Agency and Developing Agency (DA) can be separate entities. The best design will be chosen and given to nominated DA(s) for production of the prototype(s). The selected prototype will be given to Production Agency(s) (PAs) for bulk production. Details of the three stages are as under:-
(a) Design Stage. In this stage, there will be a FRCV Design Competition for selecting the best design. Established tank designers will be invited by means of a global RFP (Request For Proposal), wherein the broad design philosophy for the FRCV will be given out, along with the detailed guidelines for conduct of the Competition. The participants will be asked to submit detailed designs based on the FRCV design philosophy. The evaluation and selection of the best design will be carried out by a Design Selection Committee, under the aegis of DGMF, which will have members 3 selected from amongst domain experts and representatives of concerned defence agencies. The selection will be based on detailed and comprehensive Evaluation Criteria.
(b) Prototype Development Stage. The selected design will be given to nominated DAs. These DAs will then develop the design and produce their respective prototypes.
There will be close involvement of the User (Service HQ) and the Design Agency with the DA(s) during the development of the prototype(s).
(c) Production Stage. After the prototypes are successfully trial evaluated, the approved design will be given to one/ two nominated Production Agencies (PAs) for bulk production.
Broad Framework of the Design Competition
5. While the detailed guidelines and the operational requirements/design philosophy of the FRCV will be articulated later, the broad framework of the proposed Design Competition is as under:-
(a) The Design Competition will be open to tank design bureaus/ agencies from within and outside the country, and will be conducted in two stages.
(b) In the first stage, based on the operational requirements and design philosophy given out, participants will submit broad concept designs, giving out the outline configuration and layout of the platform. These will be evaluated and shortlisted by the Design Selection Committee, under the aegis of DGMF.
(c) In the second stage, shortlisted participants will be asked to submit detailed designs of the FRCV platform on a common software platform. The detailed designs will be evaluated by the Design Selection Committee. The best design(s) will be shortlisted
in order of innovative design and suitability for Indian Army. The winning design(s) will carry suitable cash prize(s).
(d) The winning design(s) will become the sole property of the Indian Army.
6. The agency/bureau whose designs are selected will require to continue to work on the project through the prototype and the Limited Series Production (LSP) stages. For this, a separate contract will be drawn. The agency/bureaus participating in this competition will mandatorily have to give an undertaking to this effect while applying for the competition.

Brief Description of FRCV
7. The FRCV will be a fighting vehicle platform that will be required to conduct sustained continuous operations by day and night in all weather conditions in terrain and temperature ranges obtaining on India’s Western borders.
8. The design should be modular and compact to enable strategic, operational and battlefield mobility, as also facilitate up-gradation, easy replacement/ repair of assemblies and production of variants. The FRCV platform should enable creation of variants for employment in various operational roles in all terrain by varying its configuration and/ or weight/ armour envelopes.
9. The salient operational characteristics of the FRCV are as under:-
(a) Dimensions. The FRCV should be in the `Medium Tank’ category whose physical dimensions should facilitate transportability over existing terrain, in-service military bridges and major civilian infrastructure (including bridges) in the border areas (on either side of the Western border).
(b) Crew. The number of crew members should be such that they can perform their designated tasks, and operate all on-board systems without hindrance and without any overlapping of duties/ responsibilities.
(c) Fire Power.
(i) Should be well matched tp contemporary MBTs in engagement ranges, allweather day/night fighting capability, depth of penetration and variety of ammunition.
(ii) Should have very high accuracy [High FRHP (First Round Hit Probability)] and very high lethality [High SSKP (Single Shot Kill Probability)], at par with contemporary MBTs.
(d) Protection.
(i) Should provide very high all-round protection, including ballistic, active and any other form of anti-armour technologies, to ensure survivability in the contemporary and future battlefield.
(ii) Should incorporate signature reduction technologies.
(iii) High response evasion/ anti-detection system.
(e) Mobility.
(i) Should have adequately high power-to-weight ratio to enable all on-board systems to be run simultaneously, without disrupting the agility and mobility of the vehicle.
(ii) Should have high operating range, comparable to contemporary MBTs.

Questionnaire.
(a) What is your estimate of the approximate expenditure likely to be incurred in preparing the design?
(b) What is the approximate time period which will be required to prepare the design?
(c) What details would be needed in the FRCV design philosophy to enable the design to be prepared?
(d) What is the approximate amount of prize money for the winning design which will adequately motivate your organisation to participate in the competition?
(e) What would be your most preferred model for conduct of the competition such that maximum transparency and a level playing field is maintained?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16505
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby NRao » 25 Jun 2015 17:59

:rotfl:

(d) What is the approximate amount of prize money for the winning design which will adequately motivate your organisation to participate in the competition?



(e) What would be your most preferred model for conduct of the competition such that maximum transparency and a level playing field is maintained?



Hand the project over to the Indian Navy.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_22539 » 25 Jun 2015 18:15

^Indeed, they will certainly do a better job than the DGMF.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests