Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8125
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Pratyush » 22 Oct 2014 06:59

What about the shells that were developed by DRDO tech transferred to Mahindra.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1549
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Thakur_B » 22 Oct 2014 06:59

srutayus wrote:India Gives In to Russia's Terms For High-Priced Tank Ammunition
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20141021/DEFREG03/310210050/India-Gives-Russia-s-Terms-High-Priced-Tank-Ammunition
The MoD reluctantly agreed to the deal last month, despite the fact that Russia hiked the price by 20 percent and refused to accept offset obligations.

Issue is linked with the fact that the code for the fire-control computer is with the Russians and if DRDO tries to tweak it, they will cry foul quoting IPR. And we give in to this. Wonder if they even try arguing that with the Chinese...or with anyone else for that matter.
Imagine an actual, even a small-scale, conflict when the demand for ammunition is much higher.
Domestic is best


Well it's a good thing that 125mm Mk2 ammunition is undergoing a series of tests at ARDE. The l/d ratio on the penetrator in mk2 looks reasonably good.

KiranM
BRFite
Posts: 575
Joined: 17 Dec 2006 16:48
Location: Bangalore

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby KiranM » 22 Oct 2014 08:14

If nothing this and PKFA work share incidents show that Russia is keeping her interests fore front. Time for the Rodina fan boys to stop shouting hoarse when India keeps her interests when moving away Russian gear. But instead expect reams of pages on how Russia is an everlasting friend of India from the usual suspects (sigh).

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srai » 22 Oct 2014 09:41

India Gives In to Russia's Terms For High-Priced Tank Ammunition

...
Besides jacking up the price, the Russians also refused to transfer technology for making the rounds to the state-owned Ordnance Factory Board (OFB), a demand India has been making for the past five years, the MoD source added. A diplomat from the Russian Embassy merely said the sale of T-90 ammunition was on agreed-upon terms, and refused to give details.

India was forced to agree to the terms because OFB’s efforts at making the ammunition failed, an Indian Army official said.

“India bought T-90 tanks from Russia without transfer of technology for ammunition, which has resulted in perpetual shortages for the ammunition,” the official said.

“There were reportedly multiple problems in procurement of T-90 tank ammunition,” said Rahul Bhonsle, retired Indian Army brigadier general and defense analyst. “The ammunition produced in India was not compatible with the fire-control system of the tanks, thus these have to be modified. The Defence Research and Development Organisation [DRDO] has not been able to resolve the problem, hence there is a challenge. Meanwhile, there was apparently no fallback plan, thus orders had to be made to the single supplier, which hiked the prices thus compounding the problems.”

A DRDO official said technology for the ammunition actually has been developed and transferred to OFB.

The Indian Army official, however, said the ammunition developed by DRDO is only for the T-72 tanks. The ammunition failed when it was used in the T-90 tanks.

“The OFB has failed to produce ammunition for T-90 tanks because it is far more sophisticated than ammunition for Russian made T-72 tanks,” Bhonsle said. “Because in the case of T-90 ammunition, there are intricate linkages with the fire-control computer.”

“The way out of the ammunition crisis is the need to tie up with overseas original equipment manufactures [OEMs],” said defense analyst Nitin Mehta. The rise in demand for T-90 ammunition as the fleet strength increases will be an attraction for OEMs to come forward to partner with Indian companies in producing the required ammunition, Mehta said.
...


The IA seems to be conveniently blaming OFB for their own bad deal. The whole T-90 deal seems to have been hurriedly executed without proper contract in place with the inclusion of basic TOT (vital TOT missing, such as FCS, gun barrel, ammunition, etc.), infrastructure and other lifecycle costs. You can't really fight a war being depended on a foreign supplier for basic things like MBT ammunition. It is amazing that major lapses in the T-90 deal keep coming out in bits and pieces even after more than a decade in service.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8125
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Pratyush » 22 Oct 2014 09:59

Can any one on the forum tell me, just what the TOT for T 90 gives us??

I mean other than Natasha's & $$ in bribes to the Babus.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Hobbes » 23 Oct 2014 05:53

srai wrote:India Gives In to Russia's Terms For High-Priced Tank Ammunition

...
Besides jacking up the price, the Russians also refused to transfer technology for making the rounds to the state-owned Ordnance Factory Board (OFB), a demand India has been making for the past five years, the MoD source added. A diplomat from the Russian Embassy merely said the sale of T-90 ammunition was on agreed-upon terms, and refused to give details.

India was forced to agree to the terms because OFB’s efforts at making the ammunition failed, an Indian Army official said.

“India bought T-90 tanks from Russia without transfer of technology for ammunition, which has resulted in perpetual shortages for the ammunition,” the official said.

“There were reportedly multiple problems in procurement of T-90 tank ammunition,” said Rahul Bhonsle, retired Indian Army brigadier general and defense analyst. “The ammunition produced in India was not compatible with the fire-control system of the tanks, thus these have to be modified. The Defence Research and Development Organisation [DRDO] has not been able to resolve the problem, hence there is a challenge. Meanwhile, there was apparently no fallback plan, thus orders had to be made to the single supplier, which hiked the prices thus compounding the problems.”

A DRDO official said technology for the ammunition actually has been developed and transferred to OFB.

The Indian Army official, however, said the ammunition developed by DRDO is only for the T-72 tanks. The ammunition failed when it was used in the T-90 tanks.

“The OFB has failed to produce ammunition for T-90 tanks because it is far more sophisticated than ammunition for Russian made T-72 tanks,” Bhonsle said. “Because in the case of T-90 ammunition, there are intricate linkages with the fire-control computer.”

“The way out of the ammunition crisis is the need to tie up with overseas original equipment manufactures [OEMs],” said defense analyst Nitin Mehta. The rise in demand for T-90 ammunition as the fleet strength increases will be an attraction for OEMs to come forward to partner with Indian companies in producing the required ammunition, Mehta said.
...


The IA seems to be conveniently blaming OFB for their own bad deal. The whole T-90 deal seems to have been hurriedly executed without proper contract in place with the inclusion of basic TOT (vital TOT missing, such as FCS, gun barrel, ammunition, etc.), infrastructure and other lifecycle costs. You can't really fight a war being depended on a foreign supplier for basic things like MBT ammunition. It is amazing that major lapses in the T-90 deal keep coming out in bits and pieces even after more than a decade in service.


Aren't the commercials and TOT negotiated by the MoD babus and not the Army? AFAIK the Army's job ends when they approve the hardware for purchase and induction, with the rest of the deal falling strictly under the purview of the Ministry bureaucrats.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Singha » 23 Oct 2014 06:37

there was a report MOD lawyer panel had no background or exp in complex international agreements hence these kind of faulty agreements were getting signed.
apparently they were looking to engage pvt law firms to help fix this gap.

member_28756
BRFite
Posts: 240
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_28756 » 23 Oct 2014 13:37

Making its own munition should be a priority with DRDO by any means necessary. T 90 fleet is growing by the day cant keep on depending on the Russians forever...

Will
BRFite
Posts: 637
Joined: 28 Apr 2011 11:27

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Will » 23 Oct 2014 13:43

Its time to start playing hardball with Russia. With there economy in shambles following sanctions post Ukraine- now is the time to strike. Squeeze them for every last bit. They have been an all weather friends but the way they have been taking India for granted has to stop. They don't have a leg to stand on if they complain about India moving towards defence arrangements with other countries. Its Russia that forced India's hand when they backed out of contracts , delayed deliveries and supplied China with potent weaponry.
Last edited by Will on 23 Oct 2014 15:07, edited 1 time in total.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12913
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby pankajs » 23 Oct 2014 14:06

@Singha

IIRC, The contract was broken up into several pieces so as to make the acquisition cost of the tank appear low i.e the main contract was for a very basic tank stripped of most of the needed stuff.

Some of the other 'essential' stuff were negotiated as part of side contract(s). Some stuff were left to be negotiated at a later date. Once we acquired and paid for the basic tanks we were on the hook for the Russians to reel us in for whatever they wanted. Our MODs very chanikyan strategy of fooling the country abt the real cost of the tanks is also to a large extent responsible for all this mess.

So apart from badly negotiated contract and Russian refusal even with valid TOT contract our MODs chanikya's are also to blame.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12913
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby pankajs » 23 Oct 2014 14:11

One bargaining chip could be to publicly declare the Army/MOD/PM's faith in Arjun tank and signal our intent to acquire Arjun in good numbers in its current avatar and approve massive funding of its future versions.

In a sense it is not even a bargaining chip it is a no brainer necessity.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1549
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Thakur_B » 23 Oct 2014 15:13

http://thumkar.blogspot.in/2014/10/indian-army-releases-rfi-for.html

On October 21, 2014 Indian Army released a Request for Information (RfI) from vendors willing to undertake Comprehensive Upgrade of BMP-2/2K, covering Mobility, Fire Power and Survivability. The upgrade will be applied to approximately 2,600 vehicles comprising existing inventory as well as ICVs to be produced in the future.

Foreign vendors are free to compete directly for the procurement.


The upgrade is expected to span the following major systems of the ICV:

Engine, Transmission, Gear and suspension system, Cooling system, Weapons system and ammunition, Gunner Sighting (Day and Night), Commander Sighting, Fire Control System (FCS), Anti Tank Guided Missile (ATGM), Level of protection and Maintainability,

The Indian Government had earlier announced that the Indian Army would be upgrading it's entire fleet of approximately 1,900 Infantry Combat Vehicles (ICVs) comprising BMP-2/2K to BMP-2M standard to enhance the fleet's firepower and lethality.

Upgraded ICVs will be fitted with the latest generation Fire Control System, Twin Anti Tank Guided Missile (ATGM) Launchers, 30 mm Automatic Grenade Launchers and Commander's Thermal Imaging Panoramic sights.

In addition, they will feature better observation and surveillance, night-fighting capability and fire control.

They will be powered by a new 380 HP engine to enhance the ICVs’ cross-country mobility, flotation and gradient negotiating capability. Existing BMP-2s which equip the Indian Army’s Mechanized Infantry regiments are powered by 285 HP Russian-origin UTD-20 285 engine, which limits their versatility.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srai » 23 Oct 2014 16:39

^^^

The RfI sounds like only the basic hull of BMP-2/2K will remain the same. Everything else is getting replaced.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8125
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Pratyush » 23 Oct 2014 17:06

The Russians will throw a tantrum. We will go running back to them for BMP upgrade. Life will go on.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1549
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Thakur_B » 23 Oct 2014 21:06

srai wrote:^^^

The RfI sounds like only the basic hull of BMP-2/2K will remain the same. Everything else is getting replaced.


Yes. This is the Rafael-Kalyani proposal. New turret, armour, retractable ATGM(Spike) launcher etc etc. (The windows are for demo purpose onlee)
Image

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18828
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 23 Oct 2014 21:56

Hope Kalyani intends to do more than assemble Rafael assemblies OFB style

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_26622 » 23 Oct 2014 21:59

Wouldn't NAG be a good fit instead of any imported missile? Most of the offensive and defensive gear already present in Namica ? Does it make sense to fit a NAG missile with 5+ Km range versus 4 Km range Spike, especially if one is sitting in a light armor BMP?

Power pack is another story - but HP range seems like a DESI alternative should be there. Let's not fall in to the trap of replacing Russian with Israeli masters. Israel imports diesel power packs for tanks from US who have in turn licensed it from Germans MTU.

Hopefully Army is not looking to make another NEW Kichidi here - commonality has significant benefits. Sometimes the user has to take the lead and not just throw an RFP out.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srai » 24 Oct 2014 08:27

Karan M wrote:Hope Kalyani intends to do more than assemble Rafael assemblies OFB style


Good question. What technologies does Kalyani have to contribute to the Rafael JV other than domestic assembly?

If DRDO is roped in, then they could supply quite a few technologies, such as armour, sensors and weapons, integrated on its Abhay ICV.

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 » 24 Oct 2014 09:10

we need to divide this thing into 2 parts.

75% should be the regular ICV role
25% should be a 'raider' light tank role - the modifications being - much more ammo for the cannon and more ATGM reloads stowed in the emptied soldier compartment in the back, and more armour protection and hunter-killer thermals for the commander and gunner. a remotely controlled high elevation MMG also for urban warfare and slat armour skirtings.

the M3 Bradleys have been used to devastating effect in iraq in concert with abrams in this config. their 25mm DU cannon rounds were apparently able to cut up most iraqi tanks!

vaibhav.n
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 575
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 21:47

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby vaibhav.n » 24 Oct 2014 12:26

WRT the BMP-2 Upgrade, the winner will be the one who does a JV with Kurganmash or KBP. The contest almost seems to be tailored for the Russians. It is basically an engine and turret upgrade with no interest to improve on protection in order to retain flotation capability that the BMP's come with and so essential to the IA for all the canal humping that it has to do in the western sector.

http://www.kurganmash.ru/en/machines/bmp2u/

Mobility requirements are an exact match for what they can provide with the 400 hp UTD-23 Diesel engine. Newer turret design with the AG-17 AGL and Kornet E ATGM.

Berezhok Turret@Defexpo
Image

Turret Mockup@Defexpo
Image

The Indian specialists showed special interest towards the full-scale sample of Berezhok combat compartment and its simulator. The said interest is explained by desire of the Indian Army to upgrade armament of their BMP-2 fleet and the KBP’s upgrade package is of special interest to Indian specialists.


Best of luck to the rest. :rotfl:

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Viv S » 24 Oct 2014 13:14

Hobbes wrote:Aren't the commercials and TOT negotiated by the MoD babus and not the Army? AFAIK the Army's job ends when they approve the hardware for purchase and induction, with the rest of the deal falling strictly under the purview of the Ministry bureaucrats.


There's a critical difference. Western companies will have no problem exploiting any loophole found in a contract. Case in point: the Scorpene deal, where a badly drafted contract forced the MoD to shell out millions in supplementary payments. But a western supplier will respect the letter of the contract (even if it ignores the spirit). The Russians in contrast have little compunction in ignoring the terms of a signed contract, if not tossing it out and presenting a set of new take-or-leave it demands.

You can take a western company to court in the US or EU if you have a strong enough case (and they know it). With a Russian contractor, the MoD has little to no legal recourse in case of a default in delivery (and they know it). The only influence the MoD has is when it has some financial leverage (in the form of an earnest money deposit or similar), but more often than not the Russian side is the one with the leverage with the Indian side too far committed to retreat.

They've gotten used to strong-arming the MoD and that's the horrifying part about the PAK FA/FGFA's pay-first-see-later 'joint venture' participation scheme.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7713
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby rohitvats » 24 Oct 2014 14:03

@vaibhav - The DRDO upgrade for BMP-2 has the same configuration as the above turret.

vaibhav.n
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 575
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 21:47

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby vaibhav.n » 24 Oct 2014 14:57

Rohit,

Is DRDO running an BMP upgrade? Dint know, then why is MoD going outside. Even the designation for the upgrade is BMP-2M which is what the Russian side uses.

BMP Variants: OFB Medak

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5095
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby jamwal » 24 Oct 2014 17:12

IMHO, India should shut our Russians for this upgrade project and award it to an Indian company which can integrate indigenous and non-Russian technology on BMP-2. The experience gained can be used for Abhay. Russians have no concept of honouring contracts. There is no need to burn our money to feed the drunk bear.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1549
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Thakur_B » 25 Oct 2014 07:52

jamwal wrote:IMHO, India should shut our Russians for this upgrade project and award it to an Indian company which can integrate indigenous and non-Russian technology on BMP-2. The experience gained can be used for Abhay. Russians have no concept of honouring contracts. There is no need to burn our money to feed the drunk bear.


It's the other way round. The technologies developed in Abhay TD projects are being used in other armoured vehicles. For example:- VRDE-Tata Motors Wheeled Armoured Platform (WhAP), Kestrel's, ancestry lies in the Abhay project.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2578
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby abhik » 25 Oct 2014 08:47

Is there a DRDO BMP-2 upgrade too?
Thakur_B wrote:It's the other way round. The technologies developed in Abhay TD projects are being used in other armoured vehicles. For example:- VRDE-Tata Motors Wheeled Armoured Platform (WhAP), Kestrel's, ancestry lies in the Abhay project.

Can you expand on this? Which technologies/components developed for the Abhay were used in the Kestrel?

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8125
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Pratyush » 25 Oct 2014 09:38

Why upgrade the BMP. Let it carry on with what it has and use the funds so saved for the ficv. The BMP can be given TI sights at the most.

vaibhav.n
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 575
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 21:47

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby vaibhav.n » 25 Oct 2014 11:13

Pratyush wrote:Why upgrade the BMP. Let it carry on with what it has and use the funds so saved for the ficv. The BMP can be given TI sights at the most.



I think no Moolah, considering that the FICV is a $10 billion programme.

The FICV will be more than just a conventional armoured vehicle for transporting troops. It will feature advanced technologies and multidisciplinary integration. As per the Expression of Interest (EoI) by the Defence Ministry, the FICV would be operated by three crew members and carry seven additional soldiers with combat loads. The FICV will facilitate protection from bullets fired by 14.5 millimetre calibre weapons. It will be amphibious and it must be air-transportable, which would imply a maximum weight of 18-20 tonnes. Besides that, the FICV will have cannon and be capable of firing anti-tank missiles. An indigenous content of at least 50 per cent has been mandated.



I think it is clear that the requirements given by IA, they are still around BMP territory wrt to its weight class. A more protected vehicle but well below western heavyweights.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5095
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby jamwal » 25 Oct 2014 12:51

Thakur_B wrote:
It's the other way round. The technologies developed in Abhay TD projects are being used in other armoured vehicles. For example:- VRDE-Tata Motors Wheeled Armoured Platform (WhAP), Kestrel's, ancestry lies in the Abhay project.


If it's correct, then the project should be awarded to Indian companies including PSUs only.

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5639
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby vishvak » 25 Oct 2014 16:57

You can take a western company to court in the US or EU if you have a strong enough case (and they know it). With a Russian contractor, the MoD has little to no legal recourse in case of a default in delivery (and they know it).

Going to courts AFTER a war? Did Argentina go to courts when their anti-ship missiles didn't work during Falklands war?

Samje ki nahi? We don't have to buy brochures from western companies, like some holy book, and then go to courts too and then prove in courts that God exists and was on our side during the war!

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1549
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Thakur_B » 25 Oct 2014 17:01

abhik wrote:Is there a DRDO BMP-2 upgrade too?


No, but why bother understaffed DRDO with it? Let the smaller players do it, they need some vital experience in system integration before taking on projects on a turnkey basis.

Thakur_B wrote:It's the other way round. The technologies developed in Abhay TD projects are being used in other armoured vehicles. For example:- VRDE-Tata Motors Wheeled Armoured Platform (WhAP), Kestrel's, ancestry lies in the Abhay project.

Can you expand on this? Which technologies/components developed for the Abhay were used in the Kestrel?


Amphibious armoured hull, lightweight armour to name a few. Tata's contribution is restricted to transmission and propulsion only with VRDE doing most of the heavy lifting. From the looks of it tata motors will be doing screwdrivergiri for DRDO instead of OFB for Kestrel. Kestrel is reported to have 16 variants eventually, from ambulance, mortar carriers to command and control hubs.

jamwal wrote:If it's correct, then the project should be awarded to Indian companies including PSUs only.


The technologies developed for Abhay will be available for contenders in FICV project to make their own ICVs.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2578
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby abhik » 25 Oct 2014 18:19

Thakur_B wrote:Amphibious armoured hull, lightweight armour to name a few. Tata's contribution is restricted to transmission and propulsion only with VRDE doing most of the heavy lifting. From the looks of it tata motors will be doing screwdrivergiri for DRDO instead of OFB for Kestrel. ...

From what I remember they put in foreign components wholesale, like turret, armour, RWCS, Anti-tank missile system, seats (and I don't think they explicitly mentioned that the engine and transmission were there own either), critical stuff that would make up a most of the % by value of the system. Kind of reminded me of the '90% imported' tag of the ALH Dhruv. If this was a first class DRDO project then I'd imagine they would try to design most of it in house, which is obviously not the case here. Hence my doubts on the level of involvement of the DRDO, any sources to the contrary would welcome.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srai » 25 Oct 2014 19:13

abhik wrote:Is there a DRDO BMP-2 upgrade too?
Thakur_B wrote:It's the other way round. The technologies developed in Abhay TD projects are being used in other armoured vehicles. For example:- VRDE-Tata Motors Wheeled Armoured Platform (WhAP), Kestrel's, ancestry lies in the Abhay project.

Can you expand on this? Which technologies/components developed for the Abhay were used in the Kestrel?



DRDO Tech Focus (August 2009) - Technologies for Light Armoured Tracked Vehicles

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2578
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby abhik » 25 Oct 2014 19:42

srai wrote:
abhik wrote:...
Can you expand on this? Which technologies/components developed for the Abhay were used in the Kestrel?


DRDO Tech Focus (August 2009) - Technologies for Light Armoured Tracked Vehicles

My question was which of these developed for the Abhay are being used for Kestrel? What % by value?

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2578
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby abhik » 25 Oct 2014 20:13

Centre gives nod to defence projects worth Rs 80,000 cr - The Hindu
...
The other major decision was to purchase 8,356 Anti Tank Guided Missile of Israel worth Rs 3,200 crore rather than the US’ Javelin missile for the Indian Army. The Army will also purchase 321 launchers for the missile.
...
The DAC also decided to buy 362 infantry fighting vehicle from the Ordinance Factory Board, Medak in West Bengal for Rs 662 crore.

If the figures quoted above are accurate then each OFB produced BMP-2 costs only ~ 1.8 Crores INR! Whereas we seem to be paying about 38 lac per Spike missile(+ requisite launchers etc). So in essence in a configuration where the BMP-2 carries 4 Spikes + reloads, the missiles would cost more than the carriers itself!

vaibhav.n
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 575
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 21:47

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby vaibhav.n » 25 Oct 2014 21:17

Thakur_B wrote:Amphibious armoured hull, lightweight armour to name a few. Tata's contribution is restricted to transmission and propulsion only with VRDE doing most of the heavy lifting. From the looks of it tata motors will be doing screwdrivergiri for DRDO instead of OFB for Kestrel. Kestrel is reported to have 16 variants eventually, from ambulance, mortar carriers to command and control hubs.


Couple of points.

1. Kestrel is in response to an IA contract for 100 Wheeled APC for United Nations Ops. However, the stalled FICV and with the BMP's going through an upgrade the IA just might look at Kestrel in larger numbers for induction with the R&S (Wheeled) Battalions.

To meet the operational requirements of troops deployed overseas on peacekeeping missions under the United Nations (UN), the Army is planning to acquire modern armoured personnel carriers (APCs). The Army is on the hunt for APCs with high mobility, state of the art driving and navigation aids, modern electro-optical sights for the driver, gunner and commander, firing ports in the hull, provision for externally mounted anti-tank guided missiles, adequate environmental protection and amphibious capability.

While wheeled vehicles are more susceptible to damage by small arms fires, mines, grenades and artillery fragments because of exposed tyres, suspension and underbelly components that tracked vehicles, they have higher road mobility and better maneuverability in built up and semi-built areas and in areas where operations in difficult terrain are not an issue.


Link: http://www.tribuneindia.com/2014/20141007/nation.htm#16

2. Kestrel is a VRDE led initiative. Tata has provided the vehicle chassis, a 600HP diesel engine and a (Proposed) Kongsberg Turret with VRDE providing the rest. It is all good, as long as we have ownership over the weapon system. What is need to diss an Indian Company to make DRDO look good? You do realise this is the same senseless argument people made against the Arjun MBT right?

French TI Sights, German Powerpack, American Mineplough. :roll:

Tata Motors was one of several Indian and foreign countries invited by Vehicle Research & Development Establishment (VRDE), a unit of DRDO, to respond to a request for information (RFI) for the supply of chasis, propulsion unit and weapon system for a wheeled armored amphibious platform. Other Indian firms invited to bid included L&T and Mahindra & Mahindra, while Russia's Rosoboronexport was among the foreign companies invited.

Tata responded to the RFI, and later to the RFP, for all the three modules of the armored personnel carrier (APC), and went on to win the three contracts. After being awarded the contract, the company shocked DRDO by developing the entire platform in just 18 months.

Depending on its configuration, Kestrel can weigh from 18-ton to 22-ton. Maximum weight can go up to 26-ton, but above 22-ton the APC loses its flotation ability.

Tata is relying on the modularity and open architecture of the vehicle to make it suitable for diverse roles. All the main subsystems of the Kestrel share commonality with in service Tata standard vehicle aggregates, so maintenance of the vehicle less expensive than foreign APCs.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18828
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 25 Oct 2014 21:30

The Arjun uses those components in particular because of low production runs in part. The local GMS was cancelled f.e. because it made no sense to have two GMS in 100 tanks each given low IA orders. Engine and transmission likewise. Even so we have seen constant attempts to make things in house for very low production runs.

The Abhay TD also had a local FCS, local turret etc. developed specially to avoid import issues faced by our prior programs. these are breakthroughs and not being leveraged.

Tata could have roped in SED to do this as well. It has good experience in electric drives, FCS etc via the Arjun and Pinaka programs. If VRDE didn't specify local procurement to speed up timelines, the process should be changed.

Until and unless Kestrel uses local systems or has a plan to make them in house, as of now it's mostly a mishmash of foreign systems. It has a far higher percentage of critical sets sourced from abroad than Arjun.

DRDO can easily kit bash and put only foreign systems together, but more is expected of them and hence the focus on indigenisation. LCA is at 50 perc imported LEUs for prototypes, creditable against Gripen etc but more is expected, hence the drive to take it higher. This focus should remain.

The same should be expected of Tata or any pvt vendor if production runs are higher, say for the R and S requirement, otherwise we are back to OFB style assembly.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2578
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby abhik » 25 Oct 2014 22:08

^^^
Arjun does not use an imported engine just because of the low production run but because the development effort on the indigenous engine failed. Similarly only recently had the DRDO displayed indigenous TI sights which can be used in Tanks/IFVs going forward.

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 » 25 Oct 2014 22:13

^^^ The issues which cropped up with the engine would have required massive redesign and hence the project wasn't taken further. Whatever was learned then is now being utilized for the national engine development effort.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18828
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 26 Oct 2014 00:28

abhik wrote:^^^
Arjun does not use an imported engine just because of the low production run but because the development effort on the indigenous engine failed. Similarly only recently had the DRDO displayed indigenous TI sights which can be used in Tanks/IFVs going forward.


There was no development effort on a 1500 hp class engine. Last intended to be developed was 1000 hp class and dropped eons back (IIRC in the 1980s) when it became clear that time and cost were against it. MTU 1500 hp class engine was sought, denied, we made do with the older 1400 hp engine but with a supercharger. In some good news, T72 engine has been upgraded to 1000 hp and has cleared IA trials.

You are mistaken about TI sights - TI sights per se are not as much of a challenge to develop vs stabilised FCS, provided detectors are available and IRDE has TI sights in production for T-90, T-72, BMP for the commander. Earlier ones were for Namica, ALH and Naval ships too. The Naval one was a FCS too. What's being referred to is the complete sight plus fire control system.

Arjun effort was for a FCS plus sight complex called Gunners Main Sight. Combines day sight plus TI plus FCs plus stabilisation. Initial prototypes were tested, effort was ongoing and then dropped as low production runs for Arjun meant two sets of sights were pointless. But to develop the capability, Abhay had a local FCS developed, check the PDF. Current sight developed for Arjun and other apps is a HK sight with FCS that replaces existing CPS on Arjun. To indigenise as much as possible, even the earlier imported GMS is being license made and serviced at BEL.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests