Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 880
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Mihir » 25 Jun 2015 18:29

Rakesh, maybe they're hoping that the Russians will offer joint development of the Armata? After all, the PAK-FA is a shining example of such joint development, and they're probably looking to replicate it's success in the Army. After the grand success that was the T-90S T-o-T, it is the logical next step forward, no?

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9812
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Rakesh » 25 Jun 2015 18:41

Then why did the army and the govt string DRDO along all these decades? Why waste all this money? What was the point of the Arjun? Or the Tejas? What does the IN have that the IA and the IAF do not? I guess the fundamental question to ask is what is our definition of self reliance?

And correct me if I am wrong, but I thought this FMBT tamasha was trashed out, after the latest Arjun trials. The army decided to scrap the FMBT concept and go ahead with successive iterations of the Arjun as Mk2, Mk3 and so on. Armata came on the scene and some folks at the Armoured Corps got a hard on. It is that plain and simple. Why do we need enemies? We are self imploding.

And talking about Arjun trials, how many bloody trials do you need? Like jeez!! You keep sampling the milk, but never buy the cow.

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 » 25 Jun 2015 18:52

With any luck we will gain re export right of armata to third countries.

We in brf will raise funds via crowdsourcing to buy a signature edition for Philip sir

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9812
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Rakesh » 25 Jun 2015 18:53

Do we need to do this? One BRF member states, he already got a reply from the PM himself. Desperate times, call for desperate measures! If we are going to do this, there needs to be a collective thought process along with a formal letter of complaint.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7048

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 880
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Mihir » 25 Jun 2015 19:40

Rakesh saar, I was being sarcastic :)

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54825
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby ramana » 25 Jun 2015 19:53

SJha, tweeted about Indian Drone program.

I asked in jest if he was talking about the Armoured Corps!

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srai » 25 Jun 2015 19:59

Rakesh wrote:...

And correct me if I am wrong, but I thought this FMBT tamasha was trashed out, after the latest Arjun trials. The army decided to scrap the FMBT concept and go ahead with successive iterations of the Arjun as Mk2, Mk3 and so on. Armata came on the scene and some folks at the Armoured Corps got a hard on. It is that plain and simple. Why do we need enemies? We are self imploding.

....


Iterative approach was what was touted sometime back after one of the defense expos where an Israeli general talked about Merkava MBT development experience. It seemed at that time finally the Indian generals understood that concept ... but only to one's disappointment; a few years later they issue this FRCV :roll:

For what it's worth, Arjun has had several variants:
  • Arjun MBT Mk.1/2
  • Arjun SPH w/Denel -> blacklisted
  • Arjun BLT -> IA didn't want it
  • Arjun Catapault w/ 130mm gun
  • Arjun ARV -> under development

And DRDO has been developing all sorts of variations on BMP-2:
  • BMP2 Ambulance
  • BMP2 Mortar Carrier
  • BMP2 ARV
  • BMP2 Engineering
  • BMP2 Radiation
  • BMP2 NAMICA
  • BMP2 Akash launcher, Rajendra radar, Command vehicle
  • BMP2 105mm light tank

So there is enough know-hows within India to design and develop this FRCV.
Last edited by srai on 25 Jun 2015 20:33, edited 2 times in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54825
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby ramana » 25 Jun 2015 20:21

rohitvats, I hope you don't deny there is a fundamental problem with DGMF in the way they list the specs for weapons they desire to procure. By drawing up unobtainable performance specs they are effectively disarming the Indian Army. Hope you see that.
Add AKA type politicians it kills any chance of procuring any reasonable equipment.
Together they disarm more than any enemy.

Much as we don't like Rahul Bedi he is plugged into the system from a very long time.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby rohitvats » 25 Jun 2015 22:00

Rakesh wrote:<SNIP> I just read the above RFP and it is plagiarized entirely from the Armata brochure. <SNIP>


Can you please elaborate how the RFP has been 'plagiarized' from Armata brochure? Thanks.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Gyan » 25 Jun 2015 22:10

Can anybody put the CAG report on Air Defense Gun here? IIRC Army completely changed the specifications 9 times in 15 years to prevent development of indigenous Gun.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby rohitvats » 25 Jun 2015 22:18

ramana wrote:rohitvats, I hope you don't deny there is a fundamental problem with DGMF in the way they list the specs for weapons they desire to procure. By drawing up unobtainable performance specs they are effectively disarming the Indian Army. Hope you see that.


The problem with drafting over-exacting QRs is not limited to DGMF but something which has effected every arm of IA; and no less an authority than serving Vice-Chief of IA has admitted as such in front of Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defense. And how they're trying to address this issue.

Coming to DGMF and THIS RFP - I've put out a post earlier clearly showing that 9 out of 11 derivatives envisaged for this platform already exist for other armored vehicles in almost all the countries. So, how is THIS RFP an example of IA asking for unobtanium?

My problem is not with highlighting the OR related issue in IA but using wrong, and incorrect, examples to put across the point.

Much as we don't like Rahul Bedi he is plugged into the system from a very long time.


Rahul Bedi uses dubious examples (this RFP and other example about rate of fire for AD Gun) and mixes and matches stuff to put forth his point. Which itself does not stand scrutiny.

And much as I don't like Col Shukla, he was the first one to raise the more pertinent issue - Why do we have this RFP in the first place? Why are we even looking for external product for this segment?

And let me tell you a bigger issue hidden in this RFP which NO ONE seems to have picked up: Asking for 'Medium' Tank as replacement for T-72 effectively creates a succession plan for T-90 tank as well. After all, by 2025-2027, T-90 itself would've been long in the teeth and batches inducted between 2005-2010 would be 20 to 15 years old.

By getting a 'Medium' tank as replacement for T-72, IA would've created a successor for T-90 as well. After all, both are 'Medium' tanks.

But wait, it gets even better - This RFP officially splits the requirement of tanks in IA between Heavy and Medium segments.

Which means, IA can project something like 30%-70% split between these two segments. And guess which type of products will fill the 70% Medium segment? What this RFP effectively does is rule out 'Heavy' Arjun MBT for 'Medium' category T-72 tank in service.

Enjoy!!!

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby NRao » 25 Jun 2015 22:29

What this RFP effectively does is rule out 'Heavy' Arjun MBT for 'Medium' category T-72 tank in service.


The issue is not about a "tank", it is about the skills that need to be retained and supported within a nation that has the brain power and the need for such large number of tanks, etc - which is what is being done for a foreign vendor. How is that that is lost on the leaders in all related areas?

Entities that have invested in the Arjun should easily be able to address a "medium" tank.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Viv S » 26 Jun 2015 00:28

Singha wrote:We in brf will raise funds via crowdsourcing to buy a signature edition for Philip sir


:rotfl:

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srai » 26 Jun 2015 02:22

rohitvats wrote:...

And let me tell you a bigger issue hidden in this RFP which NO ONE seems to have picked up: Asking for 'Medium' Tank as replacement for T-72 effectively creates a succession plan for T-90 tank as well. After all, by 2025-2027, T-90 itself would've been long in the teeth and batches inducted between 2005-2010 would be 20 to 15 years old.

...


RFP is being issued in 2015. There is no way the IA will get a FRCV, which involves design, develop, and produce by possibly 3 different entities as stated in the RFP plus add testing and acceptance, by 2025 (i.e. 10 years time frame) ... unless they are looking to buy off-the-shelf stuff from abroad with "few" customizations and build the first few batches abroad too. Problem with abroad approach is that there too no one is building a "medium" MBT anymore unless you consider CRV-90-types as one. Even the Russians with its new Armata seems to be moving to the "heavy" category. Besides, this FRCV overlaps with FICV requirements.

So instead of iterating through Arjun MBT Mk.3/4/5 in the next 10 years to get to "FRCV", the IA is opting for something "new" that in 10-years time they will have nothing to show for it. A crisis in the making; followed by emergency imports and license production. Same old story.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srai » 26 Jun 2015 05:58

Some innovative ideas from IA's Maj Mohan Vizhakat. Good read.
Viability Study of Concept of Hybrid Antitank & Air Defence Armoured Vehicle (July 2000)

Some wise words:
...
9. CONCLUSION

The proposed system would be well-suited for employment in the highly dynamic battlefield environment of 21st century, where large quantum of information, automated decision making, very fluid situations, fast actions and reactions, large-scale employment of precision weaponry, etc. are likely to be the order of the day. It would be wise, prudent and pragmatic to be prepared and plan-effective weapon systems like the proposed one, to obviate technological obsolescence that would be the inevitable fate, if one merely imitates the existing weapon systems or just looks out for technological handouts of the dominant nations. The proposed system provides a simple, viable and cost-effective, yet state-of-the-art solution to maintain one technological relevance in the years to come. As such, the technological infrastructure required for the development of the hybrid AFV, including a nearly developed antitank missile system are already available. If one is to aim for achieving technological superiority in the coming years, one has to definitely tread new paths and conceive innovative ideas to overcome lag in indigenous developments, or even overtake other technologically dominant nations of the world.
Last edited by srai on 26 Jun 2015 06:10, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_22539 » 26 Jun 2015 06:01

rohitvats wrote:Which means, IA can (not will) project something like 30%-70% split between these two segments.


Certainties for foreign crap and possibilities (which never come through) for Indian stuff. How nice.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby rohitvats » 26 Jun 2015 17:09

Arun Menon wrote:
rohitvats wrote:Which means, IA can (not will) project something like 30%-70% split between these two segments.


Certainties for foreign crap and possibilities (which never come through) for Indian stuff. How nice.


Before you attack that keyboard of yours, do pause and think for a moment as to what was intended to be conveyed by the statement. Else, you'll end up making comments like above.

What that 30-70 split between Heavy and Medium tank segment was meant to convey was that even if IA is FORCED to accept Arjun in large numbers, it can limit the requirement to above 30% or whatever other number it manages to convince MOD about.

So, for a tank force of say about 2,500 tanks, Arjun or some other future 'heavy' FMBT from domestic stable would be restricted to something like 750 tanks while bulk may get filled with an import of Armata type 'Medium' tank.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Surya » 26 Jun 2015 18:38

over the weekend I plan to send this nonsense to the PMOs attention

If nothing is done - going to scoff at their Make in India program

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_22539 » 26 Jun 2015 18:41

^The Armata type tanks can be called "medium" only if some in the Army wants it so and will tailor the requirements to match it or some other foreign maal.

The FMBT was supposed to be in the 50 ton range, which is lesser than the Arjun and particularly the Arjun MkII. If the DGMF wants something matching their stated requirements (particularly protection) with less than 40 tons, they must be smoking something heavy. That being the case, I see this ambiguous (they have not spent out the numbers) "medium" requirement as something specifically created to exclude the FMBT or anything that the Indian MIC could reasonably make to fit most of the requirements. After this stupid list is left unfulfilled for ages and having wasted everyone's time, they will make an emergency purchase like the tincan-90. And guess what? The Armata will be ready just in time to make some people in the DGMF very happy.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby NRao » 26 Jun 2015 19:48

Nations ................... number of tanks.

Red = producer
Green = importer


Russia ........15,398
US ................9,150
China ........... 8,848
India .............6,464
Egypt .............4,624
Syria ..............4,500
North Korea ....4,200
Israel ............4,170
Turkey ...........3,778
Pakistan ........2,924


Go figure.

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1654
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Sid » 26 Jun 2015 19:53

Rohit, this 30%-70% split theory does not hold water. See the first two variants that FRCV platform is supposed to cover.

Although self defeating, but if a heavy variant will be required it will be covered in #3.a (mentioned in RFI). IA will not go for any other platform mix apart from this program.

How they plan to build a light and MBT variant on medium FRCV platform is beyond me.

3. The following variants are planned to be developed on the FRCV platform:-
(a) Tracked Main Battle Tank - Primary variant.
(b) Tracked Light Tank
.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_22539 » 26 Jun 2015 20:01

^Don't you get it? This is a requirement for unobtanium. And when nothing comes off it, it will be too late in the game and with nothing else in hand (FMBT project and Arjun MkII production long since smothered), we will HAVE TO import the likes of armata. And that will make some people very happy.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby NRao » 26 Jun 2015 20:07

Everything is subject to change in the direction of imports.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19840
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 26 Jun 2015 20:49

Arun, rohit was actually pointing out the long term issues with the DGMF RFI and that its very canny (medium weight onlee) not justifying it..

nirav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2020
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby nirav » 26 Jun 2015 21:24

Rakesh wrote:Rohit, Karan: does the Raksha Mantri have any say in when RFPs - like the shameful one above - are sent out? Or are they impotent in this entire process? This flies directly in the face of PM Modi's make in India campaign. I just read the above RFP and it is plagiarized entirely from the Armata brochure. PAF fan boys on the Internet - with wet dreams - do this. I never expected this to come from the Army. What an utter shame! Can the Raksha Mantri not squash this RFP and tell the armoured corps that no more tin cans are coming. Does he not have that power? We pride ourselves on the fact that we have civilian oversight on the military, that we are not TSP....but I seriously doubt that now. How such a RFP can come out without any disciplinary repercussions is beyond me.


Unfortunately IA has created a situation where the time is ripe for Jingos to hold IA hai hai chants/protests ...

IF Armata goes through and Arjun program gets shit canned, Im hitting the streets .. Protest outside raksha mantralay.

This RFP for a new tank is traitorous. :x

Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Sagar G » 26 Jun 2015 22:14

Gyan wrote:Can anybody put the CAG report on Air Defense Gun here? IIRC Army completely changed the specifications 9 times in 15 years to prevent development of indigenous Gun.


Posted two years back but provides a beautiful account of the mastery that IA HQ has achieved w.r.t. killing indigenous projects so as to keep the gravy train running under the able tutelage of "The Dynasty". They have perfected the system so well that even CAG couldn't conclude anything else other than to say

Ministry in its reply agreed with the audit contention of non finalisation/frequent changes to QR leading to failure to develop a Gun system acceptable to the Users.


Think where we would have been today if the developed one's were pursued..........

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21060
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 26 Jun 2015 23:17

Informed sources say that the new FMBTs revolutionary concept and ultra-advanced tech is under the highly classified project name of "Unobtanium"! Why firang RFIs are being widely circulated.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Gyan » 27 Jun 2015 09:16

Sagar G wrote:
Gyan wrote:Can anybody put the CAG report on Air Defense Gun here? IIRC Army completely changed the specifications 9 times in 15 years to prevent development of indigenous Gun.


Posted two years back but provides a beautiful account of the mastery that IA HQ has achieved w.r.t. killing indigenous projects so as to keep the gravy train running under the able tutelage of "The Dynasty". They have perfected the system so well that even CAG couldn't conclude anything else other than to say

Ministry in its reply agreed with the audit contention of non finalisation/frequent changes to QR leading to failure to develop a Gun system acceptable to the Users.


Think where we would have been today if the developed one's were pursued..........



The AD Gun mischief seems to have been done to help in import of Reinmetal Gun, which could not materialize due to corruption charges. The whole point of absurd FCRV proposal is to prevent indigenous development. It does not make sense as it is not intended to make sense.

FCRV proposal is like demanding a Car, Truck, Tractor and Motorcycle on same platform.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8311
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Pratyush » 27 Jun 2015 09:19

There will not be any split when it comes to the MBT purchase. It will be a single design and won't be Arjun. its dead and BRF's Arjun fans should give up the ghost.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby NRao » 27 Jun 2015 18:21


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 » 27 Jun 2015 20:49

licenses are fine...but huge orders are needed to make them formidable players.

Samudragupta
BRFite
Posts: 625
Joined: 12 Nov 2010 23:49
Location: Some place in the sphere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Samudragupta » 27 Jun 2015 21:43

I think we are seeing more Indo-Israeli collaboration for the Israeli FMCV and Indian FRCV.... both are light weight combat vehicles may not be necessarily tanks....

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1383
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Kersi D » 28 Jun 2015 23:16

Avinash R wrote: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?


I SMELL ARMATA !!!!

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 » 29 Jun 2015 05:28

India's Tank Plan Clouds Future of Arjun

Yet another report on FRCV. Nother special save for a quote by the highly respected General Shankar Roy Chowdhury. Worth looking at, even by the ardent defenders of the Army.

"Russian designers sought to achieve this [survivability] by smaller size [three-man crew and lighter armor], lower profile and speed. The West preferred larger turrets, hence thicker armor, heavier tanks. The test for both designs has been the Arab-Israeli wars and the gulf war. The Russian designs did not do too well. Blame that on the crews if you like," Roy Chowdhury said. {What is the Army looking for again? Aha yes a medium tank of the 50 ton class like the tincan! As the good General says, we can always blame the crews when the tanks get blown up}

The most important requirement, however, is that the future FRCV must be indigenously designed, Roy Chowdhury said.



And here's what the, ahem, eggspurts on the Army side say:

"I surely see Americans, Russians, French, Germans, Koreans and British participating along with Indian companies in stand-alone or joint venture mode. We could see leading companies from there which are involved with tank design, participating in it," Chait said.


Wow, I mean wow. But I really object, why don't we have the Chinese in this group as well? I mean come on we want the best in the world right? And the Chinese are surely better than DRDO right?

And this is what the another eggspurt says:

"As this is an open competition, private agencies could also be roped in to develop the tank. The best option would be for DRDO designing and developing the same with a foreign partner as it is best placed technically to do so. For an Indian private company in collaboration with a foreign partner it would be a Greenfield venture," where the foreign company would construct new facilities for the project, Bhonsle said.


The same guys who complain that that Arjun took 1,000 years to develop, now want DRDO to become a junior partner with a phoren company and learn some new tricks on screwdriver giri. And that too after the Arjun out gunned the T-90s even after the most doctored trials in the history of armoured warfare.

Sorry I may not be a uber expert on these matters and so I don't feel the itch or 'moral obligation' to discipline ignorant posters who question the Army's decision. However, I do have some experience in recognising FUD. I'm really saddened by this. I can only conclude that Army top brass don't consider the Indian Army to be one of the most powerful in the world, rather they think that their force is a Third World organisation only marginally better than Pakistan Armed Forces and dependent on phoren powers and organisations for technology since the country does not have the skills to develop indigenous technology. The Pakis have their 'Made in Pakistan' Bandars and the Indian Army can have their own 'Made in India' (or should be 'Make in India', Army style) FRCV.

Just imagine in the 2025-27 timeframe we will be the third largest economy in the world with a GDP in the region of US$5 trillion and a more than US$100 billion annual defence budget and other countries would be looking up to us for protection. And yet for something as basic for the Army as its Main Battle Tank we will still be relying on screwdriver giri. And this despite the fact we have a local tank which is better than the Army's favourite MBT.

It they want a smaller tank, surely the Army can work with DRDO instead of 'throwing open the competion to the world'? Sorry I can think of many reasons why they would want to keep the door open for foreign vendors despite local expertise in existence. I don't want to post these here as I still respect the Army.

However, all is not lost circa 2025-27 we'll probably be using our uber tacknology knawledge to fix the air-conditioning issue of the Armata so that it doesn't konk out in Rajasthan.
Last edited by amit on 29 Jun 2015 07:25, edited 3 times in total.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srai » 29 Jun 2015 05:51

^^^

The good generals still haven't gotten over the British Raj mentality.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2488
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Vivek K » 29 Jun 2015 06:02

These guys are a disgrace and an obstacle to india's security and progress. India is unfortunate to be served by such persons.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2488
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Vivek K » 29 Jun 2015 06:04

As a mask of protest, BRF should permanently retire the Armoured Vehicles thresd (s).

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 » 29 Jun 2015 06:05

srai wrote:^^^

The good generals still haven't gotten over the British Raj mentality.


I wish it were that simple. But if that's the case how can one explain the sane words of wisdom from someone like General Sankar Roy Choudhury? He joined the Army when it was even more British than today.

I would attribute this to intellectual laziness among the current decision makers. IMO there is no long term strategic vision. Weird as it may seem I feel the Army decision makers don't realise that you can't run one of the worlds most powerful Army defending one the world's largest economies while importing some thing as basic as the may battle tank. You have to develop local expertise, however long or arduous is.

The really sad part is that most of the hard work has been done with the Arjun finally emerging as a world class product.

Instead of building on the knowledge that has been acquired so painstakingly the Army want to destroy all the knowledge and keep on importing.
Last edited by amit on 29 Jun 2015 06:08, edited 1 time in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby NRao » 29 Jun 2015 06:06

The US trade delegations (and I suppose many others too) have openly stated that they would rather wait for the 55-60 years old people in India retire and deal with the younger generation. I think Blackwill also stated it in one of the recent vids.

5-6 years wait. Then expect change in this RFI.

arshyam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3940
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby arshyam » 29 Jun 2015 06:27

Vivek K wrote:As a mask of protest, BRF should permanently retire the Armoured Vehicles thresd (s).

Or rename it to the 'Rumoured Vehicles' thread, since we now have to talk about vapour-ware while ignoring something that already exists. Time to brush up on archives and get ready for the next slug fest over Arjun vs. Armata, similar to the Arjun vs T-90 of yore.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests