Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3246
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Kakkaji » 30 Aug 2014 08:50

The fact that Liu showed up on this thread just after the news for the Arjun Mark2 order came out, shows that the adversaries are feeling 'mirchi' up their a$$e$ on the news.

And boo to Dhiraj for cribbing about costs of Arjun. :x If you compare with off-the-shelf foreign products, new indigenously developed products will always be more expensive. With this criterion, the indigenous products will never see the light of day.

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 » 30 Aug 2014 08:55

:rotfl: Resident Cheeni troll is trolling here over tank prices when all of their tanks and an overwhelming majority of their weapons are direct ripoffs of Russian stuff. Dude R&D is not same us revvrse engineering and stealing designs.

Rest has been said by other members.

member_23694
BRFite
Posts: 732
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_23694 » 30 Aug 2014 09:10

Kakkaji wrote:If you compare with off-the-shelf foreign products, new indigenously developed products will always be more expensive. With this criterion, the indigenous products will never see the light of day


Are Sir, maaf kar dijiye. In fact we should buy more Arjun to reduce the cost. No intention of being part of anti-Arjun brigade or someone who tries to take advantage of a simple calculation.

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3246
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Kakkaji » 30 Aug 2014 09:41

dhiraj wrote:Are Sir, maaf kar dijiye.


Jaao maaf kiya. :wink: Phir kabhi humaarey pyaarey Arjun ko badnaam mat karna.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1604
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Khalsa » 30 Aug 2014 09:52

Kakkaji wrote:The fact that Liu showed up on this thread just after the news for the Arjun Mark2 order came out, shows that the adversaries are feeling 'mirchi' up their a$$e$ on the news.

And boo to Dhiraj for cribbing about costs of Arjun. :x If you compare with off-the-shelf foreign products, new indigenously developed products will always be more expensive. With this criterion, the indigenous products will never see the light of day.



Ye Lui bhaiya cheez kya hai ? He just shows up here to troll does he ? (Apologies I have never seen him before I think).
BTW I congratulate all the BRFites on their remarkable behaviour of not feeding the troll.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11309
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Aditya_V » 30 Aug 2014 10:10

Anther intresting fact, it was the NDA govt which ordered 124 Arjun-1's and now ordering the Arjun MK-II.

What did the UPA Govt do for 10 years, they cancelled the Denel anti material rifle deal since it was causing too many Pakistani casualties, delayed Barak-1 and triedto cancel the indegenious manufacture of 155 mm shells, turned the M-2000-5 order into the MMRCA contest which they did not sign in 10 years.

Only Italian Baretta SMG's, C-130 J, C-17 and luckily P-8I got priority. Also they did good job of ordering Akash.

It seems the whole philosphy was we should not buy offensive weapons.

Amitabh
BRFite
Posts: 270
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Amitabh » 30 Aug 2014 10:25

Aditya_V wrote:Anther intresting fact, it was the NDA govt which ordered 124 Arjun-1's and now ordering the Arjun MK-II.

And they managed to develop, test and validate the Arjun MkII in three months after taking office! #acchedin

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3888
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby deejay » 30 Aug 2014 11:03

Aditya_V wrote:Anther intresting fact, it was the NDA govt which ordered 124 Arjun-1's and now ordering the Arjun MK-II.

What did the UPA Govt do for 10 years, they cancelled the Denel anti material rifle deal since it was causing too many Pakistani casualties, delayed Barak-1 and triedto cancel the indegenious manufacture of 155 mm shells, turned the M-2000-5 order into the MMRCA contest which they did not sign in 10 years.

Only Italian Baretta SMG's, C-130 J, C-17 and luckily P-8I got priority. Also they did good job of ordering Akash.

It seems the whole philosphy was we should not buy offensive weapons.


Aditya V: In this jingo battle of Services Vs. Scientists, the real culprits always get spared. So your views on the matter are nice for change. One will see that almost all indigenous programmes have moved as per the Governments of the time and the GOI's wishes. A careful time vs. development vs. achievement vs. financial support study will also bring about this conclusion for all defence related programmes.

This also highlights the actual impact that the scientists and services really have on weapons development and the big role the GOI plays. Folks here and elsewhere will do well to identify and rectify the 'real' problem with the development of home grown mil-ind complex. Otherwise, the mess shall continue forever.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11309
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Aditya_V » 30 Aug 2014 11:09

Yes. No Defence minister/Government of the day is going to say that he does not want an indegenious product, he will always get the Army to take the blame. Similarly the MOD.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13099
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby negi » 30 Aug 2014 11:15

You have to give to the Chipanda drones they never felt the heat when India bought more expensive systems like C-17 or even the MKIs however we build and commission an MBT ourselves and they show this concern for the tank being expensive. Not that they need to be be responded to but fact of the matter is a 10 million $ Arjun MKII is still cheaper than a 1 million $ T-90 , a major chunk of the 10 million $ price tag is leak(corruption) in internal procurement channels where sourcing even a nut/bolt for MIL platforms is a lucrative business then there are things like IP and skillset which India has developed as part of Arjun program would Russia or anyone for that matter part with this kind of IP for even say 100 million $ ? Once DRDO is able to successfully build it's own MBT diesel powerpack Arjun's per unit price will come down even more , right now from just manufacturing perspective Arjun's unit price must be really lower than that 10 million $ figure for that is a government figure which includes chai-pakora, baksheesh and other stuff as well where as when you buy a T-90 the chai-pakoras and baksheesh part are under the table so they don't get billed towards cost of product .

Liu
BRFite
Posts: 824
Joined: 12 Feb 2009 10:23

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Liu » 30 Aug 2014 13:30

chackojoseph wrote:All new Arjun inductions come with associated infrastructure as its a new tank. Liu has ridiculous argument in terms of cost. Also Liu has ridiculous argument in terms of Chinese tanks. They failed in recent competition in Russia. Tracks came off from their best maintained tank which they sent to Russia for competition. I don't think Chinese tanks will pass the test with Indian Army GSQR.

China sent T96a for recent competition in RUssia.
T96a is just the low-end MBT of PLA,which costs only 1/3 of T99a.

In order to control the unit cost of T96a, Chinese have to put one cheap small engine into T96 while give T96a decent cannon, FCS and armor .

Thus, T96a have a poorer mobility ,but better cannon ,FCS and armor than T72.

Just having a look at the video of the competition in Russia ,we can see that moving T96a can lock and destroy the target much more efficiently than T72, while T72 has much better mobility than T96a....

in a word, CHinese engineers pay much more attention to FCS,cannon and armor than mobility while Russians pay more attention to mobility....

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_22539 » 30 Aug 2014 14:28

^Ya right. You have me and everyone else convinced.

If something else had broken down, he would have added that as well to the cheap/non-attention paid category. In the end it is just a cheap crappy copy of a old Russian tank. Even if it is a copy of something that has been made for decades, they still can't get it right.

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5553
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby vishvak » 30 Aug 2014 14:52

dhiraj wrote:
Kakkaji wrote:If you compare with off-the-shelf foreign products, new indigenously developed products will always be more expensive. With this criterion, the indigenous products will never see the light of day


Are Sir, maaf kar dijiye. In fact we should buy more Arjun to reduce the cost. No intention of being part of anti-Arjun brigade or someone who tries to take advantage of a simple calculation.

+10 to these points. Hopefully the govt. is looking at areas mentioned by Aditya_V ji too. Guns need ammunition too to be effective, for example.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8117
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Pratyush » 30 Aug 2014 15:16

On a personal level, I would prefer that the T 90 is scrapped and the current factory is scaled up, to make the Arjun. To a level that we are making 200 Arjuns per year. At the same time, the IA in consultations with the DRDO comes up with the specification for the FMBT. That project will be open to Pvt players and DPSUs.

So that we can have new tank ready by 2025, depending on the specifications released by the IA.
Last edited by Pratyush on 30 Aug 2014 15:17, edited 1 time in total.

Ranjani Brow

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Ranjani Brow » 30 Aug 2014 15:17

chackojoseph wrote:All new Arjun inductions come with associated infrastructure as its a new tank. Liu has ridiculous argument in terms of cost. Also Liu has ridiculous argument in terms of Chinese tanks. They failed in recent competition in Russia. Tracks came off from their best maintained tank which they sent to Russia for competition. I don't think Chinese tanks will pass the test with Indian Army GSQR.


Chacko any idea how many Arjun MkI have been delivered to Army out of total 124+124 ordered.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8117
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Pratyush » 30 Aug 2014 15:19

^^^

The Mk1 was capped at 124 units. No second order was placed. Even though the DRDO was asking for additional orders.

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 987
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby shaun » 30 Aug 2014 16:33

Liu wrote:
chackojoseph wrote:All new Arjun inductions come with associated infrastructure as its a new tank. Liu has ridiculous argument in terms of cost. Also Liu has ridiculous argument in terms of Chinese tanks. They failed in recent competition in Russia. Tracks came off from their best maintained tank which they sent to Russia for competition. I don't think Chinese tanks will pass the test with Indian Army GSQR.

China sent T96a for recent competition in RUssia.
T96a is just the low-end MBT of PLA,which costs only 1/3 of T99a.

In order to control the unit cost of T96a, Chinese have to put one cheap small engine into T96 while give T96a decent cannon, FCS and armor .

Thus, T96a have a poorer mobility ,but better cannon ,FCS and armor than T72.

Just having a look at the video of the competition in Russia ,we can see that moving T96a can lock and destroy the target much more efficiently than T72, while T72 has much better mobility than T96a....

in a word, CHinese engineers pay much more attention to FCS,cannon and armor than mobility while Russians pay more attention to mobility....

mr liu from 50 cent party wants to tell that ,they have sent an under powered tank to a competition where mobility is a prime factor. now that arjun have come online ,his desperation is quite understandable.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16405
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby NRao » 30 Aug 2014 17:13

Cheap tank should never mean that a tank's track falls off.

A cheap tank could mean an under powered tank, gun is inadequate, munitions are inadequate, but it should function well. Not fail to function.

This Chinese tank failed to function.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1604
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Khalsa » 31 Aug 2014 06:43

NRao wrote:This Chinese tank failed to function.


Mr Chairman is not impressed !!

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4225
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Manish_Sharma » 31 Aug 2014 07:05

negi wrote:You have to give to the Chipanda drones they never felt the heat when India bought more expensive systems like C-17 or even the MKIs however we build and commission an MBT ourselves and they show this concern for the tank being expensive. Not that they need to be be responded to but fact of the matter is a 10 million $ Arjun MKII is still cheaper than a 1 million $ T-90 , a major chunk of the 10 million $ price tag is leak(corruption) .....


Nice insight, Arjun MBT giving lots of burns to Cheap-panda and their cheap-panda tanks! Mogambo khush hua..... 8)

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby chackojoseph » 31 Aug 2014 08:07

Liu wrote:China sent T96a for recent competition in RUssia.
T96a is just the low-end MBT of PLA,which costs only 1/3 of T99a.

In order to control the unit cost of T96a, Chinese have to put one cheap small engine into T96 while give T96a decent cannon, FCS and armor .

Thus, T96a have a poorer mobility ,but better cannon ,FCS and armor than T72.

Just having a look at the video of the competition in Russia ,we can see that moving T96a can lock and destroy the target much more efficiently than T72, while T72 has much better mobility than T96a....

in a word, CHinese engineers pay much more attention to FCS,cannon and armor than mobility while Russians pay more attention to mobility....


Very funny reply. Now the tank is a cheap tank built by Chinese with so called decent stuff into it. Get yourself some chinese audience who will appreciate your incomprehensible logic.

Then you try to tell us that its cheaper than heavyweights like Arjun, which has passed the most hostile evaluation ever.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby chackojoseph » 31 Aug 2014 08:15

hecky wrote:
chackojoseph wrote:All new Arjun inductions come with associated infrastructure as its a new tank. Liu has ridiculous argument in terms of cost. Also Liu has ridiculous argument in terms of Chinese tanks. They failed in recent competition in Russia. Tracks came off from their best maintained tank which they sent to Russia for competition. I don't think Chinese tanks will pass the test with Indian Army GSQR.


Chacko any idea how many Arjun MkI have been delivered to Army out of total 124+124 ordered.


Actually there were reports last year that the the production was at fag end. I suppose the factory must be idling by now to make govt sit up and pass mk II with 10 odd less improvements originally desired.

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1847
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby uddu » 31 Aug 2014 08:20

Chaco, is it possible for you to ask the PM or the DM during any media event, why there is no huge orders for the Arjun in the thousand and only a mere order of 100?
Hopefully they are aware of the matter and would like to know the govt response to tide over the situation of low rate production of this great tank.

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1847
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby uddu » 31 Aug 2014 08:26

There was an indication of the Mark III variant of the tank by Gen V.K Singh
http://www.defencenow.com/news/476/arju ... chief.html
He also indicated the upgraded Arjuns could go up to Mark III version too.

"We found certain faults and these have been rectified in Arjun Mk II and it will become Arjun Mk III," he said.

Could you get some updates on this Mark III variant. Is this going to be the three men crew tank? a lighter version of Arjun tank?

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby chackojoseph » 31 Aug 2014 08:54

uddu wrote:Chaco, is it possible for you to ask the PM or the DM during any media event, why there is no huge orders for the Arjun in the thousand and only a mere order of 100?
Hopefully they are aware of the matter and would like to know the govt response to tide over the situation of low rate production of this great tank.



There is a long term equipment plan for Tanks and Army is working on it. T-90's have taken most slots. Arjun induction has a plan too and it will go as per that.

Could you get some updates on this Mark III variant. Is this going to be the three men crew tank? a lighter version of Arjun tank?


I have already mentioned MK III a year back. Its not going to be radically different. It will be iterations. There is no scope of downgrading tank weight in significant levels.

Rien
BRFite
Posts: 267
Joined: 24 Oct 2004 07:17
Location: Brisbane, Oz

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Rien » 31 Aug 2014 17:41

I would love to see an Arjun with 500 ordered and an autoloader. There is supposed to be work on a diesel engine, but without large orders it doesn't make sense to make components here. The South Korea Black Panther also seems to be the very best modern tank, that can be compared and contrasted against for ideas on how to improve Arjun, against not just what they have today, but even what they will have tomorrow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K2_Black_Panther

I think the electrothermal-chemical gun would be the most interesting idea. One of the other things I wish we were working on was U-238 rounds, like what the US used so effectively to destroy the T-72 in the Gulf War. That would work very well against everything we are up against.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4322
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srai » 01 Sep 2014 07:36

chackojoseph wrote:
hecky wrote:...

Chacko any idea how many Arjun MkI have been delivered to Army out of total 124+124 ordered.


Actually there were reports last year that the the production was at fag end. I suppose the factory must be idling by now to make govt sit up and pass mk II with 10 odd less improvements originally desired.


There was no second 124 order for Mk.1 variant. That second order became 118 for Mk.2 variant, which was approved just recently. So the total Arjun orders/deliveries up to this point is 124 Mk.1 (delivered) and 118 Mk.2 (orders approved). Expect 2 years for the first lot delivery.

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby vic » 01 Sep 2014 07:58

50% cost of Arjun Order represents ancillary items, hence Arjun is priced at USD 5 million. Also I suspect Army will continue to delay placing formal order for Arjun.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby chackojoseph » 01 Sep 2014 11:32

srai wrote:
hecky wrote:..

Chacko any idea how many Arjun MkI have been delivered to Army out of total 124+124 ordered.


There was no second 124 order for Mk.1 variant. That second order became 118 for Mk.2 variant, which was approved just recently. So the total Arjun orders/deliveries up to this point is 124 Mk.1 (delivered) and 118 Mk.2 (orders approved). Expect 2 years for the first lot delivery.


Correct. the second order is going to be executed.

Vic,

The pricing includes infrastructure. Don't go by Abacus counting Chinese.

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 » 01 Sep 2014 11:37

apart from ofcourse a better main cannon with L55 caliber to defeat the latest armour, some ideas worth working on for next families of vehicles are
- build (finally) a indian IFV tracked to replace the venerable BMP series. we have a need for 1000s.
- build (finally) a wheeled indian IFV/scout vehicle - a gaping hole after the limited number we had ages ago retired
- the above could make use of optronics and remote weapon stn developed for arjun.
- build a trophy type active self defence system
- incorporate the BEL ground surveillance radar into a housing above the bustle to provide few Kms of warning against ppl/vehicles in optical blind conditions like rain, dust, smoke screens. should have telescoping mast for a quick look around and a protected housing.
- have ground penetrating radar in the hull front side to detect and avoid buried IEDs and mines (driver could see these on a gamer type screen as they come up) - the japanese type90+ is alleged to have this
- obviously this will need a stronger electrical system to service new devices

and the crown jewel would be to fund and complete the 1500hp diesel cummins of pune was supposed to be working on with VRDE. if we can get a reliable 1500hp 75% as TFTA as the MTU europacks, we will be home and dry......this can be downsized to 1000hp model for SP guns , IFVs and to 750-500 hp for scout vehicles......

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8117
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Pratyush » 01 Sep 2014 12:10

Singha, all the above is a jingo wet dream. Personally I have been having this dream for the last 20 years and am no closer to seeing it become real. It seems that we are forever destined to be 5 years away from critical breakthroughs. In tech and capabilities.

Rien
BRFite
Posts: 267
Joined: 24 Oct 2004 07:17
Location: Brisbane, Oz

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Rien » 01 Sep 2014 12:43

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

In regards to Singha's list above, Tata Motor's Kestrel is the answer. It is Abhay, the DRDO prototype as well produced by Tata.

http://www.indiandefencereview.com/news ... expo-2014/

Tata Motor's ‘LAMV’ (Light Armoured High Mobility Vehicle) is a recon vehicle moving ahead of the armored columns.
Sounds like the answer to your 2nd request.

I have no updates on the 1500 hp diesel engine, anyone know it's current status? As for your last 3 requests sounds like a good idea. Look forward to them.

member_20453
BRFite
Posts: 613
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_20453 » 01 Sep 2014 14:07

True, Kestrel by the looks of it can be easily adapted into various types and used for various roles, I think we need to test it quickly and replace all BMPs with it, IMO based on future requirements we need atleast 5000 of these in various types.

Ambulance, NBC recon vehicle, C3 vehicle, Troop carrier, AA defence, possibly Nag missile carrier similar to Namica, eventually Akash SAM for IA and 105mm artillery.

Rien
BRFite
Posts: 267
Joined: 24 Oct 2004 07:17
Location: Brisbane, Oz

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Rien » 01 Sep 2014 17:42

^^^^

Above makes sense. But Army needs to place order for thousands. When will they give Tata the order?

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7699
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby rohitvats » 02 Sep 2014 01:36

Rien wrote:^^^^

Above makes sense. But Army needs to place order for thousands. When will they give Tata the order?


Do you know that there is a FICV program under-way under the 'Make India' category where Indian firms in partnership with foreign players have been asked to submit their designs? And the fact that while 2 designs will be short-listed and R&D funded mostly by MOD (80:20 Public Private), one design will be short-listed? And not only that, the losing party will get order to manufacture certain percentage of winning design as well?

Read this: http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140617/DEFREG03/306170042/India-May-Restart-Vehicle-Program

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8117
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Pratyush » 02 Sep 2014 09:04

^^^

IIRC, the pvt players were suggesting that the OFB, make the winning design as it made little sense to set up a green field facility for such a project. But regardless of who makes the final product. The fact that this will be a vehicle designed in India (With or without assistance), is what makes this project worth while.

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 987
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby shaun » 02 Sep 2014 09:17

tata kestrel APC , IFV or WhAP what ever the name you give based on configuration ,have got basic frame design from Drdo ( having design inputs from OT-64) , transmission, gearbox and integration of other systems done by tata , lockheed and general dynamics acting as technology partner.

last year there was a tender for 100 wheeled APC. what is the status of it ?


if FICV have both tracked and wheeled versions than how are the numbers distributed between wheeled and tracked ?

merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby merlin » 02 Sep 2014 12:18

rohitvats wrote:
Rien wrote:^^^^

Above makes sense. But Army needs to place order for thousands. When will they give Tata the order?


Do you know that there is a FICV program under-way under the 'Make India' category where Indian firms in partnership with foreign players have been asked to submit their designs? And the fact that while 2 designs will be short-listed and R&D funded mostly by MOD (80:20 Public Private), one design will be short-listed? And not only that, the losing party will get order to manufacture certain percentage of winning design as well?

Read this: http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140617/DEFREG03/306170042/India-May-Restart-Vehicle-Program


I wonder what was the real reason for stalling the original 2009 proposal? Were the bids not realistic in terms of design and indigenous content? Or some other reason?

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 987
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby shaun » 02 Sep 2014 12:33

^^^
the then MOD prepared
Expression of Interest, or EoI did
not define the criteria by which the
winners would be selected. It wants
a fresh EoI to be issued, with the
criteria specified, according to shuklaji.

more over , bharat forge and force motors are too in the party now .

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7699
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby rohitvats » 02 Sep 2014 13:39

merlin wrote:
rohitvats wrote:Do you know that there is a FICV program under-way under the 'Make India' category where Indian firms in partnership with foreign players have been asked to submit their designs? And the fact that while 2 designs will be short-listed and R&D funded mostly by MOD (80:20 Public Private), one design will be short-listed? And not only that, the losing party will get order to manufacture certain percentage of winning design as well?

Read this: http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140617/DEFREG03/306170042/India-May-Restart-Vehicle-Program


I wonder what was the real reason for stalling the original 2009 proposal? Were the bids not realistic in terms of design and indigenous content? Or some other reason?


There was some stupid bureaucratic issue with the RFP released by MOD! And in glorious tradition of Saint Antony, the process got stuck for a prolonged period.

Here it is: http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2012/10/setback-for-private-defence-industry.html

But the MoD’s Acquisitions Wing, which must make the short list, now complains that the tender (called an Expression of Interest, or EoI) did not define the criteria by which the winners would be selected. It wants a fresh EoI to be issued, with the criteria specified.

The wing cites the Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP) of 2008, where Para 22 of the “Make” category, covering the FICV project, says: “The EoI should also lay down the broad parameters of the evaluation process and acceptance criterion for the system under development.”


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests