Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 1177
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby shaun » 19 Jan 2016 07:27

VRDE Light Armoured Vehicle
Image
Image

KBDagha
BRFite
Posts: 160
Joined: 10 Dec 2005 21:47
Location: Mumbai

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby KBDagha » 19 Jan 2016 08:08

I have few more pics for VRDE vehicles interiors that I took during IIT-B exhibition. Let me hunt for them.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8227
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Indranil » 19 Jan 2016 08:18

These pictures are from long time back, aren't they?

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 1177
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby shaun » 19 Jan 2016 08:46

the first pic maybe new, in the second pic LAWV having Minefield Marking Equipment (MFME)

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5246
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby ShauryaT » 19 Jan 2016 09:25

Philip wrote:A senior IAS gent can be posted to the Def Min from anywhere,animal husbandry,pensions,,agriculture,health,etc.!
What we need is a dedicated cadre that is focused on defense, governance and foreign services issues. What is sorely missing are educational institutions with specialization in these matters not just for defense but across disciplines. The generalist IAS should be summarily junked, should have been done so at time of independence itself. High time to get the K. Subramanyam envisioned NDU. Even for basic city planning issues, people need expertise sorely lacking. Modi ji, what is happening to the skills development agenda?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8227
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Indranil » 19 Jan 2016 09:46

Shaun wrote:the first pic maybe new, in the second pic LAWV having Minefield Marking Equipment (MFME)


Nope, I was right. These pictures are from 2008.

Nick_S
BRFite
Posts: 516
Joined: 23 Jul 2011 16:05
Location: Abbatabad

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Nick_S » 19 Jan 2016 10:11

Saurav Jha ‏@SJha1618 4m4 minutes ago New Delhi, Delhi
Tata Motors has won the 6x6 high mobility contract by the way. 1239 vehicles to begin with.
It will be very difficult to keep the Tata's out of the FICV program, especially given their work on the Kestrel etc.

member_29294
BRFite
Posts: 131
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_29294 » 19 Jan 2016 12:40

^ Does OFB even HAVE a prototype?

I have not seen/heard anything from them recently unlike the Kestrel.

And while it may be unfortunate that they got a free pass, one must remember that it should only be natural that a state-owned entity that has been allowed a monopoly since independence would have some major influence in MoD and Army. The fact that there is even a competitive trial in the first place is a huge change from just a decade ago, when there were no private players that could even compete. Just as long as the trials are fair and competitive, I am fairly confident that TATA will win as it is rumored as an Army favorite.

Oh, and something that is not mentioned is that there will be HUGE export potential for whomever wins. +2000 orders means lowered costs on top of the already cheaper labor costs in India will easily make FICV the best value IFV in the world. Plus, good relations means that apart from Paki, Chine, Turk, Wahabhistan, and Worst Korea, India could potentially sell to anyone else in the world.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5347
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Kartik » 05 Feb 2016 02:39

Indian FICV program hits hurdle over MoD's nomination of state-owned Ordnance Factory Board as one of the program's Development Agencies

NEW DELHI — India's $11 billion Future Infantry Combat Vehicle (FICV) program faces hurdles after private domestic companies objected to the Defence Ministry's nomination of state-owned Ordnance Factory Board as one of the program's Development Agencies (DA).

The other DA's will be selected from among more than half a dozen competing private companies, and the MoD has extended the date of filing their bids to Feb. 16.

Under the Make India category, two DA's would be selected and the government would fund up to 80 percent of the prototypes. After trials, one of the DA's would be asked to produce the FICV.

When asked if the private companies endorse the nomination of OFB, Rajinder Bhatia, CEO of Bharat Forge, one of the competitors, said, "No comment. We hope this one-time exception and nomination would be discontinued as promised by the MoD."

However, an executive of another competitor openly disapproved of MoD's decision to nominate state-owned companies.

"The new players would contest that this short-listing of one vendor was announced after the expression of interest [EOI] was published, which did not have this qualification criteria. This constitutes a change, more like an after-thought. This ground is sufficient for retraction of the EOI," said an executive of Tata Group.

Another senior executive of a private company, also in the race, said there is confusion whether OFB will be a third DA in addition to two DA's to be selected from competing private companies.

Bhatia said the impression being given to industry and EOI recipients is that OFB will be the third DA.

In addition, selection of OFB by nomination goes against the purpose of the Make India policy, which proposes to boost the domestic defense company.

The EOIs were issued to domestic private major Mahindra; Bharat Forge; Larsen & Toubro; Punj Lloyd; Tata Power; Tata Motors; Pipavav Defence; Rolta India; and Titagarh Wagons. The second DA will now have to be selected from these private sector companies.

The FICV project has struggled since it was conceived nearly seven years ago and may not ever take off in the Make India category, said an Indian Army official.

The Army requires the FICV to have a life span of 32 years. The vehicle should be tracked and have amphibious capability with full combat load. It will ultimately replace existing Russian-made BMP-2 infantry combat vehicles.

Questions Over Selection of the DA

"The basis of selection of a DA from among the private sector defense companies remains questionable as there is no strict yardstick to select the DA," said Nitin Mehta, a defense analyst here.

The commercial strength of the defense company is given priority over technical ability, according to the criteria formulated by the MoD.

"“Too much emphasis in the assessment of DAs has been laid on commercial and technical criteria, which should have already been taken into account during the feasibility study conducted for short-listing companies as potential DAs," said Khutub Hai, retired Indian Army brigadier general and managing director of Firmbase Consulting.

"Repeating the same criteria for final selection is a faulty method and only places emphasis on size of the company and the defense contracts executed earlier, even if such contracts have little in common with the FICV.”

Since commercial and technical criteria account for more than 60 percent of the assessment, Hai said, "only two or three large companies will qualify all the time.”

Meantime, the Army has pressed to upgrade existing BMP-2 infantry combat vehicles, ensuring against the delayed FICV project. The Army wants to upgrade these vehicles so they can remain in operation post-2017.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21053
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 08 Feb 2016 21:40

http://www.janes.com/article/57682/more ... light-tank
More details emerge on new Chinese light tank
Richard D Fisher Jr, Washington, DC - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
03 February 2016
The first close-up view of China's new 105 mm gun-armed 35-tonne light tank shows detachable armour on the bow and turret. Source: FYJS web page

A recent Chinese report and the first close-up image have revealed details of a new light tank that first appeared on Chinese web pages in late 2011.

The popular Chinese web portal Sina.com published a report on the tank on 23 January, offering an assessment of its history and missions and providing new details of its armament and features.

Confirming previous reports that it weighs about 35 tonnes, the Sina.com report noted that the new vehicle continued the People's Liberation Army's (PLA's) interest in light tanks that started in the 1950s due to a requirement to negotiate the unprepared roads, low-capacity bridges and rice paddies then common in southern China. This led to the 21 ton e Type 62/WZ-131 in 1962.

A higher priority on amphibious tank development in the 1990s caused a hiatus in light tank development, but the requirement was revived in the early 2000s to meet requirements for tracked armour for mountain combat, a continued requirement for light armour in the south, and future requirements for aerial power projection.

While the Sina.com report stated that the tank has a crew of four, there is speculation that an autoloader for the 105 mm main gun may dispense with one crew member. The gun's tungsten alloy penetrator round can penetrate up to 500 mm of armour and can also fire gun-launched missiles, according to the report.

The gun's main sights and the commander's optics appear to be derived from the new T-99A2 main battle tank and a shell-tracking radar appears to be mounted on the gun. The wedge-shaped turret features detachable reactive armour blocks and laser detectors, while the turret bustle can also carry smoke grenade launchers.

The tank may have a liquid-gas suspension, enabling it to 'crouch' to better exploit terrain for concealment and to assist with rail and air transport.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby NRao » 10 Feb 2016 03:19

Armata


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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby NRao » 10 Feb 2016 03:20

Interesting stuff


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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srai » 10 Feb 2016 03:51

^^^

Arjun MBT with Barracuda camouflage.

Image

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_22539 » 10 Feb 2016 08:05

^Nice ad. This is how people should advertise their products.

VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2394
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby VinodTK » 15 Feb 2016 18:40

Ajay Shukla: Rs 50,000 crore contest to build future combat vehicle kicks off today
On Monday, ten Indian companies will submit proposals to the defence ministry for designing, developing and manufacturing a “future infantry combat vehicle” (FICV) --- an armoured, tracked vehicle that will carry soldiers into battle.

A ministry team will choose the two best proposals, while the public sector Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) gets a free pass, being a defence ministry entity. These three development agencies (DAs) will each develop an FICV prototype, with the defence ministry paying 80 per cent of the cost. The best will be chosen and 2,600 FICVs built to that design to replace the army’s ageing BMP-II ICV fleet.

The FICV is required to be amphibious, and transportable in the air force’s IL-76 and C-17 aircraft. It must fire missiles that destroy enemy tanks at ranges of 4,000 metres.

The ten firms that received Expressions of Interest from the defence ministry on July 16, 2015 are --- Larsen & Toubro (L&T); Tata Power (Strategic Engineering Division); Tata Motors; Mahindra & Mahindra; Bharat Forge; Pipavav Defence; Rolta India; Punj Lloyd; Titagarh Wagons and the OFB.
:
:
:

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21053
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 16 Feb 2016 10:23

Ver goot! 'owever,a quick evaluation and decision would be most welcome,in fact abso necessary.,as enough time has been wasted in the earlier search,which led to upgrades of existing BMPs,a stop-gap solution. The PLAN have displayed a new light tank which will inevitably land up in Tibet. The proposed ICV should be tasked to combat this machine as well.There could be different turrets on the same chassis,a family of ICV variants as we're seeing with the Armata family.

PS:The Arjun in camouflage is a great pic.Ads could come with "find the Arjun" slogan.

member_29258
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 11
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_29258 » 16 Feb 2016 11:34

Transparent defence procurement will save money: Manohar Parrikar

When asked how the ministry will ensure quality of defence production as most of the defence forces turn down locally made items, like by the PSUs, he said this is a challenge but he is working out how to improve the after sales from the PSUs.

Parrikar was quick to point out that the issues with the Arjun brand main battle tanks will soon be resolved. He also said the Air Force has ordered as many as 100 Tejas LCAs recently, which shows that all the locally made models are not lacking in quality.

Should we expect a break through for Arjun at last...
Read more at:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/art ... aign=cppst

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1694
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Khalsa » 17 Feb 2016 06:11

I really hope to god we start buying desi stuff.
I can't wait for this good news for Arjun... it has been fondly watched by me and million others.....

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21053
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 17 Feb 2016 16:01

A def mag has more details about the desi IFCV.Sev cos. shortlisted.L&T,Tata's,Mahindra and the OFB.
Good specs.All round armour,ATGM range 4km,6-8 troops fully equipped,speed able to keep up with our current MBTs,which 35 yr old BMP-2s find difficult,IUL-76/C-17 transportable,10km speed in water against 4km currents,etc. Current BMP-2s are 35 yrs old,some being upgraded as a stop-gap move,they lack all-round armour,vulnerable for both crew and troops to modern man-portable weaponry,slower speed than our MBTs.The OFB has managed to slink into the list despite its poor track record.

Tata's Kestrel the front runner.A wheeled ICV with add-options. The requirement should be evaluated at speed and concluded to give a boost to indigenous manufacturing.The PLAN has introduced a new 30t 3-man crew light tank with a 105mm gun for Tibet. We need to think of the effect this will have on the ground in that sector and what we should counter it with.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby nirav » 20 Feb 2016 20:31

Not sure if this was posted.
Looks good.

Link - https://twitter.com/kumar_vinodkr/statu ... 4798044162

Image

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3478
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Aditya G » 20 Feb 2016 21:54

Philip wrote:....
Tata's Kestrel the front runner.A wheeled ICV with add-options...h.


I don't think kestrel is a candidate for ficv - which is going to be a tacked vehicle.

Kestrel it seems has only a niche rule like replacing brdms and BMPs in selected roles

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby uddu » 21 Feb 2016 06:59


Lot of these youngsters will be inspired by it for sure.

ArmenT
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 4239
Joined: 10 Sep 2007 05:57
Location: Loud, Proud, Ugly American

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby ArmenT » 21 Feb 2016 07:27

^^^^
Nice. Thanks for posting. I was able to get the location of where it was traveling at about the :32 second mark (hint: that inverted red brick triangle entrance on the right at around :32-:34 is kinda distinctive :)).

deWalker
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 89
Joined: 27 Apr 2003 11:31
Location: USA

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby deWalker » 21 Feb 2016 07:50

ArmenT wrote:^^^^
Nice. Thanks for posting. I was able to get the location of where it was traveling at about the :32 second mark (hint: that inverted red brick triangle entrance on the right at around :32-:34 is kinda distinctive :)).


Looks like the IITM campus, on the road going past OAT. I also spotted TN license plates in the follower traffic.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36416
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby SaiK » 21 Feb 2016 07:58

It has to be - read "Shaastra"

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2437
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Manish_P » 21 Feb 2016 09:07

Wow

Now that there is one pure SDRE video :lol:

An advanced MBT, with a bunch of kids sprawled all over the top of it, comes trundling down a small road even as several pedestrians and cyclists nonchalantly go about their way

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby NRao » 21 Feb 2016 09:25

@.25 or so, the tank had better brakes than the bike following!!!!

soumik
BRFite
Posts: 124
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 21:01
Location: running away from ninja monkey asassins

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby soumik » 21 Feb 2016 09:34

Philip wrote: The PLA have displayed a new light tank which will inevitably land up in Tibet. The proposed ICV should be tasked to combat this machine as well.There could be different turrets on the same chassis,a family of ICV variants as we're seeing with the Armata family.

An ICV shall be of limited use against a tank light or not, what we need is to build and deploy the LCH in adequate numbers along with a few regiments of Light Tanks of our own to counter the Chinese armor at the heights.
This concept from BAE/OBRUM is something we could look at given BAE's new collaboration with the Mahindra's as well. It matches the Chinese tank at 35tonnes and packs a silenced 120mm shooter to boot!
Oh! and before I forget It also has a modular turret with Radar and IR masking stealthy features as well.
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/is-pol ... 1554395391
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PL-01
Image
Image
Image

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby NRao » 21 Feb 2016 09:42

^^^^^^

Errrr...... IIRC, around 2000 or so, BEML had actually signed a deal to work with OBRUM - and if I am not mistaken on that very tank!!!! Of course, it was a paper tank then. Do not know what happened.

soumik
BRFite
Posts: 124
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 21:01
Location: running away from ninja monkey asassins

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby soumik » 21 Feb 2016 10:05

NRao wrote:^^^^^^

Errrr...... IIRC, around 2000 or so, BEML had actually signed a deal to work with OBRUM - and if I am not mistaken on that very tank!!!! Of course, it was a paper tank then. Do not know what happened.

Dunno about BEML But OBRUM/BAE have made a demonstrator for now. The Tank Chassis works and so does much of the tech packed into it. The Main gun tests are scheduled later this year I believe. we could still piggyback onto the Program. BAE would be more than happy to have us.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 21 Feb 2016 12:00

Cant see any video of any MBT.. what are you guys referring to?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby nirav » 21 Feb 2016 18:45

uddu wrote:
Lot of these youngsters will be inspired by it for sure.


@ Karan M

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 1177
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby shaun » 22 Feb 2016 19:39

It all started with the attack on CRPF convoy bus . I know every one over here is aware of these troop transporters , well still..here present CRPF/ BSF buses
Image

and what we can provide with them ,
Image
Army trucks
Image
and what we can provide
Image
and i am not talking about these , the idle one in such hot zones
Image
convoy protection jeep
Image
and what they should have
Image

This post is just to show , how our foot soldiers are dealing with the daily threats they encounter with those pieces of junks!!

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srai » 23 Feb 2016 05:22

^^^

Agree.

Too much of the budget is going into manpower increase. There needs to be much more investment in right quality equipment (and in sufficient quantities) for forces deployed on the front lines and battling on a daily basis. It seems too many lives are being lost due to lack of and/or inappropriate quality equipment.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21053
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 23 Feb 2016 12:26

Soumik,one's been pointing out the need for light tank for a long time.Surely the CVRDE/IA could've come up with a suitable desi design a long time ago. There was the "Tank X" attempt which recd. no interest.A light tank with a good main gun for the mountains to counter the PLA is a necessity.One can't operate T-72/T-90s in every theatre.

The Tata Kestrel was mentioned in the report as the front runner.Perhaps a tracked FICV is another part of the requirement.

member_29350
BRFite
Posts: 119
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_29350 » 23 Feb 2016 13:19

Don't Mahindra and Leyland also have a MRAP carrier trucks with them; why not use them instead of a light tank?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby NRao » 23 Feb 2016 21:20

Iran declines T-90s from Russia, to build own tanks

Ahmad Reza Pourdastan, Commander of Iran's ground forces, said on February 2 that his plan to buy a shipment of T-90 tanks from Russia did not find support among the country's military leadership.

"We informed the General Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces that the T-90s are in our interests. However, considering Iran's possibilities, the issue of buying the T-90 tanks was taken off the agenda. We intend to produce our own tanks," RIA Novosti cites Pourdastan as saying, according to the Mehr News Agency.

Pourdastan had said in December that ties between the Iranian and Russian militaries "had been established and that Iran plans to buy the T-90 tanks."

The T-90 is Russia's principal military tank. Between 2001 and 2010, it was the best-selling tank in the world, particularly because of supplies to India.

A new tank based on a Soviet model

According to available sources, Iran's ground forces have around 1,500 tanks of various kinds. The most modern tanks in the Iranian armed forces are the Soviet T-72s, of which Iran has 480, and the Iranian ‘Zulfikar’ (based on the T-72), of which there are 150.

Igor Korotchenko, director of the Moscow-based Centre for Analysis of World Arms Trade, Iran can autonomously reproduce only old models, but it cannot build and design contemporary machinery.

"Without the Uralvagonzavod plant, Iran cannot produce a T-90 type tank. Perhaps they'll make something based on the T-72," he said. "No one will give them armoured technology. They will make their own tanks but we don't know how successful they'll be."

"Decades are required to create your own school," said Korotchenko. "Iran doesn't have these possibilities. Many countries have tried producing tanks; India, for example. In any case, the T-90C is without competition, which is why they buy it and produce it serially. It is the same thing in this case."

Chinese technologies for Iran

"Sanctions against a country have a strange effect," said Vadim Kozyulin, Director of the Russian Centre for Political Research. "Many countries that did not have a military industry have created one as a result of sanctions. This is what happened with Iran”.

Tank construction is not a simple area, said Kozyulin, pointing to the fact that India “still has not produced a decent domestic tank.”

“Neither do we know anything about a good Iranian tank. We only know what kind of technologies they have there. I suppose they have been able to form an engineering team that they are proud of. Perhaps even by having attracted foreign specialists,” he said.

"Maybe someone is helping them, providing them with technologies," continued Kozyulin. "Maybe they'll buy some technologies from China. China believes that today it is in a position to produce the best tank in the world. If you listen to representatives of the Chinese military leadership, you get the feeling they think that their tanks are better, according to their parameters, than all foreign equivalents."

"But the Iranians can amaze us in the most diverse areas of military production. Perhaps this is another Iranian surprise," said Kozyulin, adding, however, that this was very unlikely. "Iran doesn't have a school. That is why the secret behind their choice is foreign technology mixed with Iranian money."


Seriously?

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1694
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Khalsa » 24 Feb 2016 05:54

I enjoyed the other message in the article.

The want to build their desi tank instead of more import. Reminds me of the Mekrava beginnings.... someone took a stand somewhere and did not budge.
Unfortunately in Indian Army if you took the Israeli stand then you can kiss your career goodbye amongst many other things.

Go the Arjun Mark II

johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby johneeG » 24 Feb 2016 06:13

All said and done, Iranians seem to know that one has to stand up for oneself when push comes to shove. They are actually preparing themselves. They have seen Iraq getting destroyed and seem to have woken up.

member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_26622 » 24 Feb 2016 09:35

Until recently China was making us look like fools and now even Iran. When will we stand on our own feet and put an end to this tamasha!


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests