Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10113
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby sum » 14 Dec 2015 08:25

^^ Maybe firing an IRBM was part of the GQSR for Arjun ( along with space-age lasers) ? :P :P

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4009
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby deejay » 14 Dec 2015 09:00

arshyam wrote:....
Upgraded Arjun Mark-II tanks undergoing trial at Pokhran
Vimal Bhatia,TNN | Nov 26, 2015, 01.20 AM IST

A major modification involves equipping the new version of the tank with missile firing capability. The DRDO aims at firing missiles accurately up to a range of 2,000 km. :shock: The missiles, fired through the tank's main gun, are primarily meant for targeting armoured vehicles and fortifications over extended ranges.

DDMitis?


Definitely miss reporting of stats, may be meant 02 kms. What is of interest is the Arjun Mk II trials. Any updates on the trials and how did it go?

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2580
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Vivek K » 14 Dec 2015 09:18

Arjun Mark II - another set of trials! The most shameful saga in Indian Armed Force's weapons procurement efforts. And the shame goes on!!

d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby d_berwal » 14 Dec 2015 09:59

deejay wrote:This was probably not reported though the news is from 26th Nov:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/jaipur/Upgraded-Arjun-Mark-II-tanks-undergoing-trial-at-Pokhran/articleshow/49927519.cms

Upgraded Arjun Mark-II tanks undergoing trial at Pokhran
Vimal Bhatia,TNN | Nov 26, 2015, 01.20 AM IST

JAISALMER: The upgraded version of the series of Arjun Mark-II tanks are undergoing trial at the Indian Army core level excercise at Pokhran field firing range. The tank, Arjun Mark-II, is being tested for different parameters here.


viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7051&start=320

it was reported in ARJUN thread...

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21166
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 14 Dec 2015 10:11

For the record.We'll know which country was the recipient of the intel when its similar looking MBTs roll out.

http://rbth.com/defence/2015/11/19/arma ... son_542347
Armata tank designer convicted of treason
November 19, 2015 Tatyana Rusakova
Defense physicist Maxim Lyudomirsky, one of the team responsible for developing the weapons systems for Russia's new Armata heavy tank, has been found guilty of treason.
Source: Michael Pochuev / TASS

The Moscow City Court sentenced Lyudomirsky, who was arrested back in 2014, to nine years in prison on Nov. 18.
Details of the hearing are not known, since the case is classified and was heard in closed session.

Maxim Lyudomirsky was a co-owner of the Elektrooptika research and production complex and concurrently held the post of chief engineer there.

The complex specializes in the development and manufacture of laser strapdown inertial navigation systems (LINS) (a navigation device for aircraft), their basic elements, as well as specialized software.

Lyudomirsky also designed some of the weapon systems for the Armata heavy tank. He is also the author of a number of works on laser technology.

According to the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, Lyudomirsky was found to have collaborated with a foreign country, passing valuable information on new developments in the Russian arms industry.

The defendant agreed to a plea deal with investigators and fully admitted his guilt.
Read more: Armata tank and IFVs of the future to be shown at Russia Arms EXPO-2015

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10113
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby sum » 14 Dec 2015 11:15

^^ Would be Cheeni birathers, i presume

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4752
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srai » 14 Dec 2015 13:39

deejay wrote:quote="arshyam"....
Upgraded Arjun Mark-II tanks undergoing trial at Pokhran
Vimal Bhatia,TNN | Nov 26, 2015, 01.20 AM IST

A major modification involves equipping the new version of the tank with missile firing capability. The DRDO aims at firing missiles accurately up to a range of 2,000 km. :shock: The missiles, fired through the tank's main gun, are primarily meant for targeting armoured vehicles and fortifications over extended ranges.

DDMitis?/quote

Definitely miss reporting of stats, may be meant 02 kms. ...


I would think gun-missile would be more like 4km+ range. Arjun gun-sabot round itself can take down targets up to around 4-5km given clear line of sight.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4009
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby deejay » 14 Dec 2015 13:53

srai wrote:[...

I would think gun-missile would be more like 4km+ range. Arjun gun-sabot round itself can take down targets up to around 4-5km given clear line of sight.


Yes, that is clear.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21166
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 15 Dec 2015 10:12

Western media reports that the latest T-90 avatars are being sent to Syria .These will most probably be the Ru variants with the better armour,specs,etc. It would be very interesting to see how they fare against ISIS,as US M-1s have taken punishment in the Yemen,as well as the fact that they're the mainstay of the IA.

Hobbes
BRFite
Posts: 219
Joined: 14 Mar 2011 02:59

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Hobbes » 16 Dec 2015 07:14

Philip wrote:Western media reports that the latest T-90 avatars are being sent to Syria .These will most probably be the Ru variants with the better armour,specs,etc. It would be very interesting to see how they fare against ISIS,as US M-1s have taken punishment in the Yemen,as well as the fact that they're the mainstay of the IA.

This is the expected outcome:
Image

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_22539 » 16 Dec 2015 15:03

^Almost there, you forgot the rust.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21166
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 17 Dec 2015 10:40

Wrong nomenclature.The tincans getting holed in the Middle East are in the Yemen and Iraq and they happen to be er...M-1s!

"Since 2003, 530 Abrams tanks in Iraq were damaged so extensively that they had to be shipped home or destroyed to prevent their capture.."
https://www.quora.com/How-many-M1-Abram ... yed-in-c...

http://www.janes.com/article/39550/iraq ... s-revealed
Iraqi Abrams losses revealed
Jeremy Binnie, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
20 June 2014

The armour on five of Iraq's M1A1 Abrams tanks was penetrated by anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) and six helicopters were shot down between 1 January and the end of May,
The New York Times quoted an unnamed US official as saying on 13 June.

The official said 28 Iraqi Army Abrams had been damaged in fighting with militants, five of them suffering full armour penetration when hit by ATGMs. The United States supplied 140 refurbished M1A1 Abrams tanks to Iraq between 2010 and 2012. While they have new equipment to improve situational awareness, they do not have the depleted uranium amour package that increases protection over the tank's frontal arc.

The penetration of a tank's armour by a shaped-charge warhead increases the likelihood of crew casualties, but does not necessarily result in the destruction of the vehicle, especially if it has a dedicated ammunition compartment, as in the case of the Abrams.

However, the US official said the Iraqi Army has problems maintaining its Abrams, suggesting it will struggle to get damaged tanks back into service.

At least one video has emerged showing an Abrams 'brew up' after being hit by an ATGM
during fighting this year in the western province of Al-Anbar. Militants operating in Al-Anbar have also released images of numerous attacks on other Abrams tanks, including ones involving a 9K11 Kornet ATGM, RPG-7 rocket-propelled grenade launchers, and a M70 Osa rocket launcher. The latter is a Yugoslavian weapon that has been widely used by insurgents in neighbouring Syria, but is rarely seen in Iraq.

The damage inflicted on the tanks has been difficult to assess from the images. These mostly seem to be stills from unreleased videos and tend to show spectacular explosions, but not the state of the vehicles after the attacks.

Only one sequence of images posted on a pro-Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) Twitter account on 6 June appears to show an Abrams actually being destroyed. A militant is seen placing a charge on the tank and an object is also thrown into an open turret hatch. Flames are then seen coming out of the hatches. The fate of the crew is unclear.

Another sequence posted on 28 May purportedly shows the same militant placing a charge on or in the turret of another Abrams in a hull-down position. While the extent of the damage caused by the resulting explosion is unclear, the fact that militants are repeatedly getting close to the tanks suggests the vehicles lack adequate infantry support.

Other types of armoured vehicle in service with the Iraqi Army appear to have suffered higher attrition rates than the Abrams. Militants have released many images showing destroyed or captured Humvees, M113 armoured personnel carriers (APCs), and mine resistant ambush protected (MRAP) vehicles.

The Soviet-era armour the Iraqi Army has been using in Al-Anbar has also suffered losses, including MT-LB multipurpose armoured vehicles, a BMP-1, and T-55 tanks.

The US official also said that six Iraqi helicopters had been shot down and 60 damaged in combat between 1 January and the end of May. This represents a significant proportion of the Iraqi Army Aviation Command's assets. Another helicopter was shot down by a light anti-aircraft gun (LAAG) over Al-Saqlawiyah on 16 June; its two crew members were killed.

It is unclear what helicopters the Iraqis have lost, but militants have released footage shot using an infrared camera of heavy machine guns or LAAGs bringing down at least two Mi-24/35 combat helicopters carrying out low-altitude rocket attacks.


http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/houthi ... 1726478735
Houthi Rebels Destroy M1 Abrams Tanks With Basic Iranian Guided Missiles
Tyler Rogoway
8/25/15
Houthi Rebels Destroy M1 Abrams Tanks With Basic Iranian Guided Missiles

The video below shows what are said to be Houthi rebels in Yemen using anti-tank guided missiles to destroy American-made, Saudi Arabian-owned and operated Abrams M1 main battle tanks. The M1 is world renowned as one of, if not the finest main battle tanks in service, yet this video is clear reminder of how vulnerable even they can be to rudimentary anti-tank guided missiles.

This video is graphic in nature and shows a real-world battlefield engagement that could have resulted in loss of life. Viewer discretion is advised.

The missile system being used in the video appears to be a Tosun anti-tank guided missile (ATGM), which is an indigenously produced Iranian version of the prevalent Russian-built 9M113 Konkurs ATGM.
These missiles are of a semi-automatic command line of sight variety, with flight-path information being updated in real time via a thin trailing wire attached to the launcher.

The 32 pound missile has a range of about two and a half miles and has a high-explosive anti-tank warhead weighing in at six pounds. Generally speaking, the Konkurs ATGM and its clones are considered the little cousin to the also popular Kornet ATGM.

The Abrams is an amazing machine, but it cannot bend the laws of physics, and if hit in the right area, it can be destroyed even by these relatively primitive and light ATGMs. New passive defensive upgrades to the Abrams, including reactive armor, could help with its suvivability against ATGMs, but still even these upgrades are not 360 degree total protection. Only active defensive systems, such as Israel’s Trophy system offer a high-degree of protection against incoming missiles and rockets from virtually all vectors of attack. Currently, this system, or one like it, is not installed on the Abrams family of tanks but could be in the future.

It is unclear exactly what version of the Abrams tank the two shown in the video are. By now the entire Saudi Abrams force, equaling about 440 units, are thought to have been upgraded to M1A2 standard. Further upgrades to the M1A2S configuration, similar to the American SEP (system enhancement package), which includes enhanced depleted uranium armor and updated displays and optics, continue to this day, although it is unclear how much of Saudi’s Abrams fleet have been brought up to this elite standard. Additionally, it is never perfectly clear exactly what level of armor is installed when it comes export versions of the Abrams, with many countries receiving versions without depleted uranium panels on the front of the turret.

There has been some debate as to Saudi Arabia’s extremely well-equipped forces’ abilities on the battlefield during the recent war in Yemen, and even in these videos, the tanks are sitting out in the open with their more vulnerable sides oriented towards the threat. A tank’s armor is strongest in the front and traditionally they will sit oriented looking out when idle on hills or ridge-lines, and will do so usually in groups so that some units can be constantly scanning for potential threats in every direction. Then again, this Houthi ATGM crew may just have been highly skilled or lucky when it comes to sneaking within range of such a deadly and capable weapon system.

Maybe some of our tanker readers will chime in and comment on what they see in these videos when it comes to tactics and standard practices.


http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20150 ... ssile.html
Huge flames come out of a US Abrams battle tank.
Old Soviet Missile Makes Easy Work of US M1 Abrams Tank (VIDEO)

© AP Photo/ Hadi Mizban
Middle East
10:56 31.08.2015
A Saudi-led ground operation in Yemen, involving US-made Abrams M1 tanks, immediately resulted in the loss of armored vehicles.

The video below shows what are said to be Houthi rebels in Yemen using old Soviet-designed Fagot anti-tank guided missiles to destroy American-made, Saudi Arabian-owned and operated Abrams M1 main battle tanks.

A direct hit by a Fagot missile at the M1’s turret led to the detonation of the tank’s ordnance payload stored in the turret’s back.
This is the weakest spot of America’s main battle tank, which leaves the crew with virtually no chance of survival.
The Fagot antitank missile system entered operational service in 1970.

Its missile uses a 2.5 kg High Explosive Anti-Tank (HEAT) warhead which can penetrate up to 600 mm of conventional steel armor and has an effective range of up to 2,500 m through the use of an improved solid propellant sustainer rocket motor and lengthened guidance wire.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20150 ... z3uYVRcqDL


Gulf states pay price for intervention against Houthis in Yemen
By Caleb Weiss | September 1st, 2015
Abrams

Houthi rebels are seen with a captured US-made M1 Abrams tank supplied to Saudi Arabia


While the Emirati and Saudi intervention against Iranian-backed Shiite Houthi rebels and their pro-Saleh supporters has been hailed as a success since Aden and other southern cities and towns have been retaken, the gulf countries have paid a price that is often not seen. The Houthis have destroyed several armored vehicles, including US-supplied M1 Abrams tanks, while battling Saudi and Emirati troops.

Houthi rebels, through their official satellite channel Al Masirah TV, have released several videos detailing the destruction of Saudi and Emirati vehicles in Yemen and in southern Saudi Arabia.

The first video, which was taken near the town of Al Khobah in the southern province of Jizan in Saudi Arabia, shows pro-Saleh Yemeni military and Houthi fighters firing anti-tank missiles at a Saudi tank. The video then shifts to showing the fighters on top of a US-supplied M1 Abrams tank. A second video, also from the Jizan region, shows a similar scene.

The Houthis destroy two Abrams with anti-tank missiles. Both tanks can be seen bursting into flames while the Houthi fighters are heard celebrating off-camera. Additionally, a video has been uploaded purporting to show the launching of a SCUD missile into Saudi territory. The Houthis in the video report that the SCUD destroyed a Saudi power station in the Jizan region. The Saudis have denied this, however, and said that its military “intercepted and destroyed” the missile.

Another video shows Houthi and pro-Saleh fighters overrunning a Saudi border guard post also in the Jizan region. The fighters can be seen capturing and destroying several vehicles, as well as capturing the weapons left behind by the Saudi border guards. Towards the end of the video, another captured Abrams is shown. It is unclear if the Abrams was at the guard post or somewhere nearby in the Jizan region.

In another short video from the Jizan region, Houthi rebels capture a US-made Humvee. The group’s motto, “Death to America, Death to Israel, Damn the Jews, Victory to Islam” can be heard during the footage. Towards the end of the video, another M1 Abrams is captured and then subsequently destroyed.

The last video details a destroyed Emirati armored convoy near the town of Mukayris in Al Bayda province. At least eight armored vehicles were destroyed in the ambush. It is unclear how many Emirati soldiers were killed in the attack. Additionally, a video has surfaced online which purports to show a giant Emirati military convoy in the Yemeni province of Hadramout. The UAE reportedly sent 3,000 troops and armored vehicles to Yemen last last month in order to support the Saudi-led intervention in the country.

P Chitkara
BRFite
Posts: 355
Joined: 30 Aug 2004 08:09

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby P Chitkara » 17 Dec 2015 10:51

Have the T-90s been in similar situations as the M1s? I am asking for an apples to apples comparison here.

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 » 17 Dec 2015 11:01

DU is perhaps only applied to frontal arc for improved protection.

the M1 has much thinner protection in hull(behind the wheels), rear half of turret(incl the ammo)m engine bay and any ATGM or high end RPG hit will mission-kill it. its big and clumsy in urban fighting even in wide open iraq let alone the ruins of syria. you will recall once the iraqis started in full tilt with IEDs the M1s and bradleys were withdrawn and mainly light wheeled vehicles and a isolated armour vehicles were used to fight the insurgency...they are too costly and clumsy like all MBTs to fight prolonged insurgency.

the blow off panels to save the crew from a ammo explosion does seem to work well per videos. fatalities will be few despite hits in the rear quadrant.

M1 also lacks the thick top attack and mine protection of the hull seen in the merkava which was more oriented to taking on sneak ATGM attacks and land mines. the hezbollah had to huge some giant 100kg buried mines to take out a few merkavas.

its good at what it was designed for in relatively open terrain, but a urban combat vehicle it is not. size and weight alone mean the urban fighting add ons like TUSK are just time pass concepts. same for Leopard urban combat kit. in the mountains and jungles too , lack of room to use its speed, constrained roads and top attack / close attack threats, lack of clear LOS will expose it...as it will all tanks...unless protected by gunships (only khan can arrange that enmasse)


in short its not a magic bullet.

in syria T72 and BMP teams crawl like agile serpents all around and even through the ruins

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21166
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 17 Dec 2015 13:01

On a serious note,the tandem warhead RPGs and even legacy short range ATGMs have been taking their toll of all manner of AVs. The Armata family of AV concepts which show much thicker side skirts/panels and active defensive systems seems to be a result of recent conflicts. There must've been extensive testing of hull armour for such threats.Is there any info as to our Arjun MBTs defensive capabilities in urban warfare situs? Our MBTs appear to be more oriented to classic tank vs tank scenarios given our previous war history.However,we showed at Longewala (and at Khem Karan) how well entrenched ground troops armed with Recoiless rifles withstood a mighty Paki armoured assault.The Pakis lost 12 tanks to such fire. Therefore,we cannot take lightly neglecting AV defence against RPGs,etc. in the future

Here are a few a quotes.
The British media significantly exploited[clarification needed] the defence of Longewala. James Hatter compared the Battle of Longewala as to Battle of Thermopylae in his article Taking on the enemy at Longewala describing it as the deciding moment of the 1971 war.[22] Similarly, Field Marshal R.M. Carver, the British Chief of the Imperial General Staff, visited Longewala a few weeks after the war to learn the details of the battle from Major Chandpuri.[22]


*This is most interesting,as one has never heard of such interest been taken in this historic battle.

Similarly in '65 at Khem Karan a very similar resutl happened.
War historians, including Dr. Philip Towle, regard the Indian resistance near Khem Karan as one of the key turning points of the war, one which tilted the balance of the war in favor of India.[8] Peter Wilson states[1] that the defeat of Pakistan Army in the battle of Asal Uttar was one of the greatest defeats suffered by Pakistan forces in the course of the Indo-Pakistan war of 1965.[1]


Despite the initial thrust of the Pakistani Army into Indian territory, the battle ended in a decisive Indian Victory.[1] The commander of Pakistani forces Maj. Gen. Nasir Ahmed Khan was killed in action.[1] According to military historian Steven Zaloga, Pakistan admitted that it lost 165 tanks during the 1965 war, more than half of which were knocked out during the "debacle" of Asal Uttar.[5]

The battle also witnessed the personal bravery of an Indian soldier, Abdul Hamid, who was honoured with the Param Vir Chakra, India's highest military award, for knocking out seven[12] enemy tanks with a recoilless gun.[13]

pkudva
BRFite
Posts: 170
Joined: 23 Jul 2008 13:57

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby pkudva » 17 Dec 2015 13:11

It is time when MOD swifty moves towards ordering of Arjun-MK2 and tell Army that developments are evolving Process and it must be a part of Upgradation of technologies rather than mere observer and Testing agency.

Army must learn from Naby as to how they have developed in house agencies and supported PSU's in Building various systems. Arjun MK2 is the need of the day as T-55 & some lines of T-72 have become obselete and need to be phased out.

CVRDE also need to focus on Projects with priorities rather tha working on all Projects i.e T-72 Ajeya, BLT, T-90 S , Arjun-MK1 , Arjun-Mk2 & now FMBT.

jayasimha
BRFite
Posts: 400
Joined: 09 Feb 2011 17:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby jayasimha » 17 Dec 2015 13:34

philip ,,,,,, u cannot expect US giving their best weapons to eeraq.

now you must be convinced that US / russies supply tin cans to outsiders and save the best of technology to themselves. and that too with our monies...


i use to hear same type of comments in gulf war when Saddam forces had xyz russian aircraft / tank which use to crumble in 1st instance.

that is why we should develop our own arms. Outsource we are doing....

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1798
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Thakur_B » 18 Dec 2015 07:32

Jugal R Purohit ‏@jrpur 15h15 hours ago
JUST IN: Purchase of 120 tank trawls (to clear mines laid) for T72 & T90 cleared. Outright purchase from Russia @ Rs 450cr.


Jugal R Purohit ‏@jrpur 15h15 hours ago
JUST IN: @DRDO_India ordered by MoD to produce four sets of trawls for army tanks by June 2017. Today, India has no option but Russia.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Gyan » 18 Dec 2015 15:31

I think that alongwith with un-obtanium FMBT, we should ask DRDO to develop a follow on to T-90s ie 3 person crew tank, otherwise imports of T-xxs will continue for ever and ever.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21166
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 19 Dec 2015 11:45

Reg armour,both Soviets and the US have had "export" quality versions,but India was a special case with the Soviets.We got better quality eqpt. than other nations,as the Soviets realised that we would use their weapons very well and suggest improvements.That trend has continued till today. Where we can produce better or equiv components,we've done,as with Kilo sonars,etc. How we turned the std. SU-30 into the MKI version ,that has clipped the wings of almost every fighter of the West.The problem is that propagandists lack objectivity and try and condemn just one MBT,because it is of Ru origin,ignoring the huge casualties of M-1s on the battlefield as well.But many of these M-1 casualties were operated by the US army,leading to improvements. However,the simple truth is that humble weapons like RPGs and legacy ATGMs,in skilled hands can kill tanks from both east and west.

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1875
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby uddu » 19 Dec 2015 21:39


The first one is an Arjun.

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1875
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby uddu » 19 Dec 2015 21:43


Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21182
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Prem » 05 Jan 2016 03:58

http://www.ibnlive.com/blogs/india/saur ... 48711.html
A look at the Indian Army's Main Battle Tank programs
In August 2014, the Defence Acquisition Council(DAC) finally gave the go ahead for 118 Arjun Mk-2 MBTs for an order value of about Rs 6600 crores.This signalled a return to production for the Arjun MBT line at Heavy Vehicles factory (HVF), Avadi that had been lying idle since 2010-11 when the last Arjun Mk-Is rolled out. Nevertheless the piecemeal order is indicative of the fact that the Indian Army (IA) continues to insist upon the demonstration of a potent missile firing capability from the Arjun Mk-2's gun before it places an indent for a much larger order. And a much larger order, as has been known to the Ministry of Defence (MoD) is absolutely needed to make it viable to indigenize various sub-systems in the Arjun Mk-2. Meanwhile, the IA continues to face issues with its pool of T-90S MBTs and is increasingly turning to the Defence Research & Development Organization(DRDO) to upgrade these tanks with domestically developed technologies .As of now DRDO has dropped the LAHAT from its Arjun Mk-2 MBT plans and is instead pursuing the Canon Launched Guided Missile (CLGM) being developed indigenously at the Defence Research and Development Laboratory (DRDL).
The missile firing capability requirement grew out of the fact that though the Arjun Mk-I with a score of 25.77 beat the T-90S with a score of 24.50 in the firepower criteria during the 2010 comparative trials if the T-90S's missile firing capability were to be kept aside, the T-90 fared marginally better in the overall final score primarily on account of its Invar missile firing capability.

So, the T-90S upgrade path is similar to that followed for modifying T-72M1s to the CIA standard which includes indigenous ERA, navigation aids, an uprated 1000 HP power pack, fire suppression system, new displays and sights. Almost a 1000 CIA's have been delivered to the IA, which now probably feels that the time is ripe for upgrading older T-90S lots besides building new ones with the improved features, since production seems to have finally stabilized at around 90-100 units a year.
The T-90S's domestic production at HVF after all has been a difficult process with the Russian OEM refusing to transfer technology for vital assemblies such as the gun system (including the barrel) and turret armour plates. For the first 175 T-90s produced at Avadi, the gun system had to be imported off the shelf from Russia. However starting 2012, an indigenous 125 mm smooth bore gun developed by DRDO with a 'modified chemistry barrel' of the existing T-72 gun has gone into production having completed trials in 2010.This modified chemistry barrel has also successfully completed a life cycle test conducted at Armoured Corps Centre & School Ahmednagar. The last two years have also seen the indigenization of the T-90S's commander hatch control unit, indigenous production of 50 types of critical optical components of the T-90Sand indigenously developed cable harnesses for the same. Overall the latest batches of T-90Ss will be between 80-90 percent indigenous by value. At the moment HVF is racing to fulfil the old indent of 300 tanks (of which 80 percent may have been delivered) and is looking to commence production for some 236 more tanks as per the December 2013 indent given to it by the IA. Overall the number of T-90Ss in the IA's inventory today is just over 900 units.ven as the domestic production of the T-90S stabilizes there may be a move underway to procure some 354 T-90MS tanks from Russia directly to counter the Chinese at some points on the LAC. Proposals for any more direct import from Russia however is a little strange given that the focus instead should be on producing sizeable numbers of Arjun Mk-2s and deploying them in the Punjab and Jammu sectors as well which would free up enough domestically built T-90Ss to be deployed against China. With a power /weight ratio of 21.0, and the nominal ground pressure (NGP) of 0.95 kg/cm2 the Arjun Mk-2 is more than capable of being deployed in these areas. Moreover the .feasibility report by the railways has confirmed that the movement of Arjun loaded wagon anywhere is not a problem. The Arjun Mk-2 is strategically mobile enough to be deployed to Punjab especially given that enough bridging equipment of maximum load class 70 is available anyway.
A larger production run for the Arjun Mk-2 say of the order of about 500 units will allow its developers to indigenize about 70 percent of its systems, from the current 40 percent. This is important because having domestic suppliers for these systems with stabilized quality will make it easier to productionize the proposed FMBT at a future date which will use sub-systems of this variety that have been refined and improved. It must be noted that while CIA induction is well and good many of the IA's T-72s will run out of their designed service lives by the early 2020s which would mean that new tanks would have to replace them given the IA's authorized tank strength of some 3717 units.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4752
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srai » 05 Jan 2016 04:28

^^^

Good article!

Let's hope now DM will make the IA see the light (like he did with the IAF on the LCA) and order 500 Arjun Mk.2.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7737
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby rohitvats » 06 Jan 2016 10:35

In the video linked above about army tank movement, did people observe the flat-bed car of Arjun tank and other (T-72)?

If you observe closely, you can see that Arjun flat-bed is different from other tanks. It is flat w/o the depression that you see in other cars. And is wider. The tracks of Arjun tank are within the flat-bed and do not extend outside. Same is the case with T-72. They're also just within their flat-bed cars.

Hobbes
BRFite
Posts: 219
Joined: 14 Mar 2011 02:59

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Hobbes » 10 Jan 2016 07:12

Twitter post by Saurav Jha:

The Turks plan to build a 1000 Altay (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altay_%28tank%29) units. That may be headed to Pakistan along with the MBT-3000 and T-99A2.

The Altay is a Western style heavy coming in at 65 tons. if this happens, the Army is likely to start screaming for the Arjun. At that point, all statements about infrastructure issues in Punjab and J&K will mysteriously disappear.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_22539 » 10 Jan 2016 08:32

^+1 :)

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4752
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srai » 10 Jan 2016 17:55

^^^

Nope ... given recurring pattern, the IA will scream for Armata instead!

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1798
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Thakur_B » 11 Jan 2016 07:55

Army wants next gen 30 mm ammunition for BMPs.
http://www.defencenews.in/article/India ... icles-1939

Kailash
BRFite
Posts: 1062
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 02:32

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Kailash » 12 Jan 2016 12:56

Highly doubtful if Altay would make it to Pakistan. It involves South Korean armour and a german engine. Neither of them will be keen to be associated with TSP. Our finalizing on a large Arjun order will firmly push the Russians to sell their Armatas to Pakistans (out of economic necessity if not geopolitics). Not that it will bother us much - but Armata would definitely price the Altay out of the race.

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 » 12 Jan 2016 13:05

>>Neither of them will be keen to be associated with TSP.

wrong brother. the germans allow TSP to license produce the G3 and MP5 for decades now, apart from selling other kit.
the south koreans have setup a 155mm ammo plant in TSP to go with the turkish panter towed howitzers, M109 and any other future 155mm.

Kailash
BRFite
Posts: 1062
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 02:32

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Kailash » 12 Jan 2016 13:43

I thought our artillery and naval orders, (forgetting LG, samsung and hyundai etc for now) should give us some leverage over SK, if not for China and pakistan's lavish nuclear tech transfer which has propelled NK into the nuclear club. Geopolitics and business often at odds, and most times it is too irrational for my understanding.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55054
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby ramana » 12 Jan 2016 22:55

The way MOD buys things India has no leverage except to hand over hard earned money.
Has been the scene since 1947.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21166
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 14 Jan 2016 18:03

Ditto.Just look at the latest Raffy costs .Far more than even the world's most expensive fighter programme ever,the JSF.

Hobbes
BRFite
Posts: 219
Joined: 14 Mar 2011 02:59

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Hobbes » 16 Jan 2016 06:46

Blow to Tata Motors’ role in combat vehicle project

From Ajai Shukla's blog:

Tata Motors’ role in developing a “future infantry combat vehicle” (FICV) for the army has received a serious jolt, with its leadership hopes dissolved and its very participation now in question.

On Thursday, the defence ministry ruled that Tata Motors’ domestic operations alone would count towards its commercial eligibility profile --- which is a key criterion for being chosen for the Rs 50,000 crore FICV project.

In a fax sent to all 10 contenders for the project, the ministry responded to a question from Tata Motors: can the financials of a subsidiary, whether inside or outside India, be added into the financials of a participating company?

The ministry’s response, which has been reviewed by Business Standard, stated: “(a) Companies are required to have capital assets in India, and; (b) Their turnover in India will be accounted for determination of threshold limit of turnover.”

Tata Motors’ query clearly referred to its UK-based subsidiary, Jaguar Land Rover (JLR). Last year, if profits from JLR were to be counted, Tata Motors had a consolidated turnover of 2,63,695 crore and a net profit of Rs 13,986 crore. Without JLR’s profits, Tata Motors’ generated a turnover of just Rs 38,176 crore from its domestic operations; and a net loss of Rs 4,739 crore.

Without its financial profile boosted by JLR, Tata Motors falls to number three position in a race that will have just two winners. The winning “commercial assessment” may now be that of Larsen & Toubro (L&T), with a turnover of Rs 57,017 crore in the same period. Mahindra & Mahindra (M&M), with its Rs 39,794 crore turnover will be marginally ahead of Tata Motors.


On October 27, the defence ministry had reached a similar conclusion regarding JLR. But an aggrieved and unconvinced Tata Motors sent in a specific query.

When contacted, a Tata Motors spokesperson said: “We have just received this notification today (on Thursday) and, while we are still studying it in detail, we note we meet all the requisite criteria for bidding for the FICV project.”

The Defence Procurement Policy of 2008, which governs the FICV project, specifies eligibility criteria for Indian private companies: they should have been registered for at least 10 years; have capital assets in India of at least Rs 100 crore and a turnover greater than Rs 1,000 crore for each of the preceding three years, and a minimum credit rating equivalent to CRISIL/ICRA “A”.

While Tata Motors meets these criteria, there is a question mark over another criterion that demands “consistent profitable financial record showing profits in at least three years of the last five years and with no accumulated losses”. Tata Motors’ loss of Rs 4,739 crore loss last year was greater than the profits of the four preceding years.

Ten Indian companies are in contention for the FICV project --- L&T; Tata Power (SED); Tata Motors; Mahindra & Mahindra; Bharat Forge; Pipavav Defence; Rolta India; Punj Lloyd; Titagarh Wagons, and the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB).

On Friday, these companies are due to submit their plans for building the FICV --- a tracked, armoured vehicle that will protect infantrymen riding into battle. The FICV must be amphibious and air-portable in the air force’s IL-76 and C-17 aircraft; and fire anti-tank guided missiles that destroy tanks at ranges of 4,000 metres.

The defence ministry will choose the best two proposals. Those vendors will form consortia and tie up with foreign technology partners to design and develop separate FICVs, with the defence ministry reimbursing 80 per cent of their design expenses. The better of the two will be selected, and the vendor will mass-produce 2,600 of them to replace the army’s obsolescent BMP-2 infantry combat vehicles.

Hobbes
BRFite
Posts: 219
Joined: 14 Mar 2011 02:59

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Hobbes » 16 Jan 2016 06:56

Govt gives ordnance factories free pass in combat vehicle project

Ajai Shukla's latest post:

In an undisguised favour to the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB), the defence ministry announced on Thursday that, while nine private sector companies would compete to develop the future infantry combat vehicle (FICV), the OFB would be nominated without competing as a third development agency. The FICV project is worth an estimated Rs 50,000 crore.

The ministry’s Expression of Interest (EoI), which invited ten companies on July 16, 2015 to submit proposals to develop the FICV under the “Make” procedure, specified that two development agencies would be chosen. Now, even as that competitive selection continues, the OFB has been given a free pass.

“Competent Authority has approved the deviation to DPP-2008 for ‘Nomination of OFB and two Indian Private Sector Industries to undertake design and development of FICV prototypes (sic)”, said a defence ministry circular on Thursday.
Business Standard has reviewed the circular.

Ministry insiders say this last-minute decision was taken because it was evident the OFB would not be selected in a fair competitive process. To ensure the OFB participates, the rules of the game have been unprecedentedly changed in the middle of the game.

The decision came just a day before the ten contestants were to submit their responses to the EOI. The ministry circular stated: “In view of the above decision, the date of submission of response to the EOI has been extended and now the EOI response [may] be submitted by (noon) on 15 Feb 2016”.

Private company executives who have priced their FICV bids say each company will spend about Rs 1,000 crore in developing the prototype FICV, of which 80 per cent will be reimbursed to them according to the “Make” procedure. By nominating the OFB as a third development agency, the defence ministry is increasing the cost of the project by about Rs 800 crore.

This step is likely to evoke strong objections from the nine private companies in the race --- Larsen & Toubro; Tata Power (Strategic Engineering Division); Tata Motors; Mahindra & Mahindra; Bharat Forge; Pipavav Defence; Rolta India; Punj Lloyd and Titagarh Wagons.

The last time the defence ministry attempted to grant similar favour; it was forced to step back. In 2009, it nominated defence public sector unit, Bharat Electronics Ltd (BEL), to build the Tactical Communications System (TCS) under the “Make” procedure. After strong objections from private defence companies, the TCS project was competitively tendered.

Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar has repeatedly promised, most recently in an interview on November 25, that the private and public defence sectors would compete on a level playing field. Private sector executives point to decisions like this to underline the hollowness of this promise.


Under the “Make” procedure, the defence ministry will choose the best two proposals. Those two companies, and the OFB, will design and develop separate FICV prototypes. The defence ministry would reimburse 80 per cent of their expenses. The best prototype will then be selected, and the vendor that built it will get a manufacturing contract. About 2,600 FICVs will be needed to replace the army’s old Russian-origin BMP-2 infantry combat vehicles.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21166
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 16 Jan 2016 08:47

Babudom is playing havoc with the defence acquisition process.Whether it is an outright purchase,JV or desi manufacture,innumerable hurdles and new procedures are regularly imposed and "updated",only leading to more delays resulting in the services losing their min capability to fight a war. There appears to be a concerted effort to keep out more capable Indi. industry from the lucrative never-ending budgetary expandable contracts that the DPSUs get.Once Ind. industry compete,the costs will be shown to be hugely inflated for the DPSUs and their alleged nest-feathering will be outed.
We cannot respond militarily to events like PKot because we cannot fight a war longer than two weeks.

The GOI should by-pass babudom with a special cabinet decision to acquire whatever it wants on a war footing due to the crisis in the armed forces acquisition and the challenges that the nation faces,PKot being the latest example.Get all the various jokers whose sigs are required in one room and do not let them out until they sign on the dotted lines.The 3 services should also have greater access to the executive and should develop their special technical teams to explain in simple language what and why various eqpt. is required,the most critical decisions to be made,etc.,etc. Babudom has no technical knowledge whatsoever. A senior IAS gent can be posted to the Def Min from anywhere,animal husbandry,pensions,,agriculture,health,etc.!

Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3616
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Paul » 16 Jan 2016 09:03

The PSU lobby has to be appeased and kept on board as the process is streamlined.

This step IMO is a wise move to mollify the PSU lobby in MOD. If this is not done the backlash from PSU lobby will sabotage the evolving process and we will be back to sq 1.

On top of this there are major factories like OB Medak set up to specifically mfg APCs. They will not be efficient but have oodles of knowledge that cannot be left idle.

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3507
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Aditya G » 16 Jan 2016 18:52

Newbie pooch: Is tata kestrel a prototype to meet FICV requirements? Or is it a separate program? If so, what IA niche does it fulfill?

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1798
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Thakur_B » 18 Jan 2016 06:48

Tata Motors clarifies on FICV:

With reference to some misleading media reports regarding Tata Motors’ bid for the Defence Ministry’s FICV project, Tata Motors would like to emphatically point out that it continues to be a strong bidder for this program. Tata Motors and the Tata group have the required credentials and a track record to collaborate, co-create and support the country’s defence agencies as a partner with long-term commitment to see products through multiple generations of evolution.
Among key points we would like to note:
A response to Tata Motors from the Defence Ministry’s IMPT (Integrated Project Management Team) shared yesterday, clarifies that bidding companies must have capital assets in India, and the turnover in India will be taken into account for the threshold limit. We note we meet ALL the requisite criteria for bidding for the FICV project. With our robust technical strength, the size of our Indian assets, a strong balance sheet and the backing of the Tata group, with other group companies joining hands in the consortium, we remain confident of being a strong bidder for this project.
It is imperative to note that the evaluation of the bid is to be based on technical and financial parameters. The financial parameters only account for about 26% weightage. The remaining assessment criteria parameters are all technical:
Technical Capability Assessment (32%),
Critical Technology Assessment (34%) and
Technical Specification Assessment (8%)
Tata Motors is confident of fulfilling all commercial / financial criteria, even with the above-mentioned clarification from IMPT stating that a company’s turnover from its domestic operations (excluding global operations) will be considered for the threshold limit. Notwithstanding this, Tata Motors will discuss with the Government and the Defence Ministry about including consolidated revenues, as its wholly-owned subsidiaries form an integral part of the parent company, including in stock exchange listings, and its consolidated revenues offer strong financial support to the project.
In Conclusion
Future Infantry Combat Vehicle (FICV) is one of the key projects that is bringing the Tata group companies together to work collaboratively and provide convergent defence solutions as required for the project. Tata Motors is the lead company on behalf of the Tata group for the FICV programme as the System of System Integrator (SOSI).
Tata Motors, with more than five decades of relationship with Indian defence forces, brings strong credentials to this bid. It has the capability, ability, long term commitment, right credentials and sound technological expertise to successfully participate in the FICV tracked programme.


http://www.indiainfoline.com/article/news-top-story/tata-motors-says-continues-to-be-strong-bidder-for-defence-ministrys-ficv-programme-116011500575_1.html


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests