Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7226
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby nachiket » 13 Jan 2012 08:37

Link to last page of previous thread:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5530&start=3960

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Khalsa » 20 Jan 2012 06:56

Well let me kick off the new year and the new thread by what I found. This is what T-55 can look like.
Notice the gap between the first and second set of wheels.

Joint American Chinese Development
THE JAGUAR - MAIN BATTLE TANK

Image

I don't know about you but I see a similarity with the Jf-17 thundaar story here. In terms of the spinoffs that the Chinee and Paki Bhais are coming out with.

More Information Here.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/jaguar.htm

Apologies if this has been posted before but it was new to me.

SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5177
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby SBajwa » 20 Jan 2012 07:24

Old wine in a new bottle


VinayG
BRFite
Posts: 181
Joined: 07 Apr 2010 19:02
Location: chicago

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby VinayG » 21 Jan 2012 14:07

Khalsa wrote:Well let me kick off the new year and the new thread by what I found. This is what T-55 can look like.
Notice the gap between the first and second set of wheels.
More Information Here.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/jaguar.htm

Apologies if this has been posted before but it was new to me.


INFO from the link u posted The development had been a complete success no orders for Jaguars were ever placed

The Jaguar was a joint Chinese-US main battle tank project carried-out in the 1980s, with the intent of modernizing the Type 59 tank and it's variants. From a political standpoint, such an undertaking would have been virtually unimaginable, if not for the Chinese-US "Detente" policy established in the 1970s. The objective of this policy was to better-stabilize the global balance of power, by enhancing China's status into a sort of a "buffer state" between the US and the USSR. Among other things, this involved the transfer of US military technology to China; the Jaguar was part of this legacy.

Development of the Jaguar began at some time in the mid-1980s, and was formally announced in late 1988. The two main contributors were Cadillac Gage in USA, and the China National Machinery & Equipment Import & Export Corporation in China. Though the Jaguar was already fully planned-out by mid-1989, the political fallout of the Tiananmen Square Massacre forced the US and Chinese teams to part company, and China apparently lost interest in the project. Undaunted, Cadillac Gage continued development of the Jaguar alone, finally combining the hull and turret in October 1989.

Though it's development had been a complete success (despite the political turmoil that rocked it) no orders for Jaguars were ever placed. The glutted market of used tanks after the Cold War, frequently seeing fully-operational tanks sold at scrap value, effectively doomed the project.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Khalsa » 22 Jan 2012 07:14

Indeed Vinay.

And now we stand at the point where those operational tanks from the 80s needs a quick and cheap upgrade to make them stand up to the modern day tanks and this seems like a good alternative to go with if you are in the market for new tanks but have a lot of T-Series sitting around.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby NRao » 22 Jan 2012 07:53

About a year ago, there was an article in DTI (Aviation Week), about modern tanks. I think - I have not followed it closely - the Israelis are the ones with the most progress.

WRT the Jag, if one were to upgrade it to something meaningful, it would be close to a redesign.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby uddu » 22 Jan 2012 08:06

T-55's are getting replaced by T-90's and the Arjun.
Upgrade of the T-72's started during 2011.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9554
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Yagnasri » 22 Jan 2012 11:59

Upgrade of 72? I thought some Ajeya or such project was already under implemetation for years and some 700 T72's were already upgraded. Am I wrong?

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Austin » 22 Jan 2012 13:53

^^^ Nearly 700 T-72 has been upgraded to CIA standard , check DRDO website for details of CIA update

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby chackojoseph » 22 Jan 2012 15:30

Arjun, Dhruv Get Thumbs Up From Indian Army Chief

It is a good tank in terms of mobility and such," Singh said here when asked to comment on the performance of Arjun that the Army has been operating in the deserts of Rajasthan for the last one year since a regiment was raised.

"There are certain problems (in Arjun)...everything cannot be perfect," he said, defending the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) that designed and developed the tank and the Avadi-based Heavy Vehicles Factory (HVF) that is manufacturing them.

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.

Asked if the number of Arjuns will go beyond the 248 already on order, Singh said the deployment of Arjuns will decide the number of tanks that will be inducted into service.

"And accordingly, the numbers have been fixed as per the number of units that will operate Arjuns," he said, without specifying the numbers.

The Army has already inducted Arjuns and raised a regiment that is now operating in the deserts of Rajasthan from among the 124 tanks ordered in the middle of last decade. About a year and half ago, it placed an additional order for 124 more tanks, but these will be the Mark II version, which is undergoing tests at present.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby chackojoseph » 24 Jan 2012 14:07

Based on ^^^^ . if you guys check back, I had hinted MK 3 and passed it as a guesstimate. MK4 & MK 5, I had attributed to FMBT tech based upgrades.

So, for MK 3, there is going to be another order.

Kailash
BRFite
Posts: 1061
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 02:32

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Kailash » 24 Jan 2012 20:42

Poland to Supply Additional 204 Armored Recovery Vehicles to India

January 19, 2012: The Polish largest arms producer Bumar will deliver 204 WZT-3M Armored Recovery Vehicles under a US$275 million signed earlier this week in New Delhi, Tomasz Basarabowicz reports. According to the agreement the vehicle production will be done primarily in India, by BELM, which has already produced 362 WZT-3 supplied for the Indian Army so far.

Since 1999 India has ordered 556 WZT-3M ARVs, to support the armored units equipped with T-90 and T-72 armor units deployed with the Indian Army. The WZT-3 is based on the PT-91 chassis, the Polish derivative of the T-72M.

Snehashis
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Snehashis » 26 Jan 2012 13:35

Arjun MK-3 might be a reality now



Arjun mk-2 with latest improvements might be ready for Army trials in June this year, but there has been some encouraging development in countries Main battle Tank’s saga. Delays in putting down requirements for the FMBT, countries next generation tank which Indian army hopes to field by 2020 might see rise of Arjun MK-3.

Arjun MK-3 if sources are to be believed will have some dozen improvements over Arjun MK-2 in terms of features in battlefield communication and engine refinement. DRDO is already working on a 1500 BHP engine for Arjun MBT and a further improved variant of it will also power FMBT in Future.

Army after lengthy trails for years refused to purchase Arjun MBT due to technical issues with the Tank, which DRDO took several years to remove all the flaws of the tank to make it acceptable to the Indian army, but Army had placed orders for only 126 tanks in first batch of Arjun MK-1 and later placed further orders for 126 tanks in Arjun MK-2 configuration which required some major and minor improvements in the tanks fire power and Armor.

Arjun MK-3 orders might come has a positive response from the Indian army , since DRDO time and again had maintained that orders less then 500 will the make the project development cost unrecoverable . further orders of 126 tanks will bring the total orders close to the required numbers and currently DRDO is also all set to revive the stalled self-propelled howitzer “ BHIM “, which will have a Arjun MBT chassis .

DRDO will select the Gun for self-propelled howitzer by end of this year and integration and user trials should take place next year.


suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3415
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby suryag » 26 Jan 2012 13:46

And then the user trials will go on for years :)) no one needs an astrology degree to predict this

Snehashis
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Snehashis » 26 Jan 2012 13:53

suryag wrote:And then the user trials will go on for years :)) no one needs an astrology degree to predict this


A small addition :

And then the user trials will go on for years before eventually banning the turret supplier:)) no one needs an astrology degree to predict this

Shrinivasan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2196
Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Location: Gateway Arch
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Shrinivasan » 27 Jan 2012 03:54

Kailash wrote:Poland to Supply Additional 204 Armored Recovery Vehicles to India

January 19, 2012: The Polish largest arms producer Bumar will deliver 204 WZT-3M Armored Recovery Vehicles under a US$275 million signed earlier this week in New Delhi, Tomasz Basarabowicz reports. According to the agreement the vehicle production will be done primarily in India, by BELM, which has already produced 362 WZT-3 supplied for the Indian Army so far.

Since 1999 India has ordered 556 WZT-3M ARVs, to support the armored units equipped with T-90 and T-72 armor units deployed with the Indian Army. The WZT-3 is based on the PT-91 chassis, the Polish derivative of the T-72M.

why is Desh buying such a large number of recovery tanks? is this another way of sneaking in more tin-cans by Rodina lovers?

Gurinder P
BRFite
Posts: 209
Joined: 30 Oct 2010 18:11
Location: Beautiful British Columbia

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Gurinder P » 27 Jan 2012 04:49

Shrinivasan wrote:why is Desh buying such a large number of recovery tanks? is this another way of sneaking in more tin-cans by Rodina lovers?


Would you rather have the army go to a farmer and use his tractor to pull the tank to the rear. Puts a new meaning to Jai Jawan, Jai Kasaan.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby NRao » 27 Jan 2012 05:20

Because in times of peace India could use them for farming.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby srai » 27 Jan 2012 05:47

chackojoseph wrote:Arjun, Dhruv Get Thumbs Up From Indian Army Chief

...

Asked if the number of Arjuns will go beyond the 248 already on order, Singh said the deployment of Arjuns will decide the number of tanks that will be inducted into service.

"And accordingly, the numbers have been fixed as per the number of units that will operate Arjuns," he said, without specifying the numbers.

...


It would be interesting to know what the "fixed" number of units that will operate the Arjun MBTs. That will give the most definite total numbers planned.

CJ, please find out what that "fixed number of units" is?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby vic » 27 Jan 2012 10:12

Why do we need around 600 armed recovery vehicles? Are we planning to fight WW# alone?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Singha » 27 Jan 2012 10:31

perhaps because we had very few earlier and are now kitting up to appropriate levels. dont forget they can salvage damaged ICVs and artillery tractors, tunguskas, ZSUs, SAM telar's as well...apart from 3000 tanks spread over a 3000km border...if anything we need a 1000 more made locally..or converted off the T-55 and vijayanta ..pretty useful things to have imo.

due to funds we have generally ignored/underinvested the logistical tail type stuff ... but the frightening power of a Khan armour div is precisely due to its massive logistical tail and rear support units. even good border roads tibet style is a force multiplier.
Last edited by Singha on 27 Jan 2012 10:32, edited 1 time in total.

Gurinder P
BRFite
Posts: 209
Joined: 30 Oct 2010 18:11
Location: Beautiful British Columbia

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Gurinder P » 27 Jan 2012 10:32

NRao wrote:Because in times of peace India could use them for farming.


They can really pull plows and combine harvesters when the times call

vic wrote:Why do we need around 600 armed recovery vehicles? Are we planning to fight WW# alone?


They are actually quite versatile, as they can help prepare defenses and other engineering needs of the army during battle. Sadly, they also suffer attrition due to mother natures fury or during the heat of battle.

Gurinder P
BRFite
Posts: 209
Joined: 30 Oct 2010 18:11
Location: Beautiful British Columbia

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Gurinder P » 27 Jan 2012 10:34

Singha wrote:perhaps because we had very few earlier and are now kitting up to appropriate levels. dont forget they can salvage damaged ICVs and artillery tractors, tunguskas, ZSUs, SAM telar's as well...apart from 3000 tanks spread over a 3000km border...if anything we need a 1000 more made locally..or converted off the T-55 and vijayanta ..pretty useful things to have imo.
.


Do we still have artillery tractors?? Man would I love to see a Voroshilovets come rolling down a side street.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby shiv » 27 Jan 2012 10:43

Gurinder P wrote:
Shrinivasan wrote:why is Desh buying such a large number of recovery tanks? is this another way of sneaking in more tin-cans by Rodina lovers?


Would you rather have the army go to a farmer and use his tractor to pull the tank to the rear. Puts a new meaning to Jai Jawan, Jai Kasaan.


:D In fact Jai Vigyan also for the idea and the catchy slogan.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby chackojoseph » 27 Jan 2012 10:49

srai wrote:It would be interesting to know what the "fixed" number of units that will operate the Arjun MBTs. That will give the most definite total numbers planned.

CJ, please find out what that "fixed number of units" is?


srai,

In time.

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 - Jan 12, 2012

Postby negi » 27 Jan 2012 11:02

Gurinder P wrote:Would you rather have the army go to a farmer and use his tractor to pull the tank to the rear. Puts a new meaning to Jai Jawan, Jai Kasaan.
Might be OT here but if you actually read up more about Ru MBT industry specially it's powerpacks most of them are manufactured by the Chelyabinsk tractor plant it makes everything from agricultural implements to MBT engines.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby rohitvats » 27 Jan 2012 11:12

Most armies tend to follow a set ratio of ARV to Tanks. Within NATO, the ratio in German Army is (was?) 1:7 while Uncle follows 1:6 ratio. The Soviets had a ratio of 1:14. IIRC, armored regiments in IA had (have?) 3 ARV for the entire regiment which at 1:15 ratio is closer to Soviet model.

Shrinivasan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2196
Joined: 20 Aug 2009 19:20
Location: Gateway Arch
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Shrinivasan » 27 Jan 2012 11:40

Gurinder P wrote:
Shrinivasan wrote:why is Desh buying such a large number of recovery tanks? is this another way of sneaking in more tin-cans by Rodina lovers?


Would you rather have the army go to a farmer and use his tractor to pull the tank to the rear. Puts a new meaning to Jai Jawan, Jai Kasaan.

We have an Arjun Chassis based ARV, it would have provided superior power that these Polish ones?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby rohitvats » 27 Jan 2012 11:55

Well, in a regiment of T-90 and T-72, I'd not want an ARV based on Arjun. Logistics, you see.

Gurinder P
BRFite
Posts: 209
Joined: 30 Oct 2010 18:11
Location: Beautiful British Columbia

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Gurinder P » 27 Jan 2012 22:47

Shrinivasan wrote:We have an Arjun Chassis based ARV, it would have provided superior power that these Polish ones?


Power isn't everything, especially when it comes to the ARV's. Torque is needed to pull heavy loads, hence you see diesel trucks/lorries having huge engines with like maybe 300hp but a huge amount of torque like over 1000 ft/lbs to pull heavy loads.

andy B
BRFite
Posts: 1597
Joined: 05 Jun 2008 11:03
Location: Gora Paki

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby andy B » 28 Jan 2012 07:29

This is my choice for a wheeled IFV instead of stryker...I'd hazard a guess that sooorya and GD would be all over this :P

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/sh ... any/page65

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Surya » 28 Jan 2012 08:21

always loved it
:D
especially the wedge shape - looks like a battering ram

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby member_22539 » 28 Jan 2012 12:41

Hi all,

I have always wondered about one thing, how come Russian defense deals are never seriously implicated in corruption scandals. Either they are quite honest (which i find hard to believe) or they are being protected somehow. Also, how come the glaring differences between the selection process of Arjun and T-90 aren't taken up for any serious investigation. I understand it if it was just the Govt or the Army, but it seems even the News media is giving the Russians a free run, while they look for scams in any other defense deal. Also, I would rather not point out specific instances of such bias and apparent disingenuousness, as they have already been pointed out ad nauseam in this forum. I really just want a honest answer to this question that has irked me for quite some time.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Singha » 28 Jan 2012 14:47

their lobbies and moles in delhi are the strongest and rooted for decades now...

secondly they have us by the short hairs in certain areas - SSN program help, some help on space pgm, chakra, vik, brahmos. MKI, PAKFA, agat seeker for astra ... which are all strategic projects that nobody would help us with....

so PMO has to grin and bear it for now, in parallel with cutting them out of as much other action as possible, as the recent flurry of western deals and domestic projects show.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Singha » 28 Jan 2012 14:53

a business mag had an article of asia motor works - AMW - factory in Bhuj- which is doing well and expects to sell 12,000 trucks this year.
they raised the bar by selling fully factory made cabins with superior interiors, AC and sleeping bunks than the 'shells' that telco and AL used to get away with....and owners are finding these cabins more durable and comfortable for long haul routes, which permits drivers to recover better.

its seems they source engines from cummins, gearbox from Eaton (for which eaton established a plant in india) and suspension from another vendor. they are trying to localize all these comps by getting the OEMs to start plants in india.
also they upped the HP to 470 and 9-spd gearbox vs 6-spd in other trucks here.

their market share is more than volvo, mercedes, M&M navistar and MAN though still behind AL.

I would say a promising co worth keeping an eye for to use in the defence automobile space.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby member_22539 » 28 Jan 2012 15:35

Singha wrote:their lobbies and moles in delhi are the strongest and rooted for decades now...

secondly they have us by the short hairs in certain areas - SSN program help, some help on space pgm, chakra, vik, brahmos. MKI, PAKFA, agat seeker for astra ... which are all strategic projects that nobody would help us with....

so PMO has to grin and bear it for now, in parallel with cutting them out of as much other action as possible, as the recent flurry of western deals and domestic projects show.



But that still doesn't explain the media's silence. I always thought they were bought up by Western interests, who no doubt would like to replace Russia any way they can, or is it that the govt has a leash on the media that is not that apparent.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby chackojoseph » 28 Jan 2012 20:16

Singha wrote:a business mag had an article of asia motor works - AMW - factory in Bhuj- I would say a promising co worth keeping an eye for to use in the defence automobile space.


They some tech from VRDE.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36392
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby SaiK » 28 Jan 2012 20:33

vic wrote:Why do we need around 600 armed recovery vehicles? Are we planning to fight WW# alone?

it becomes interesting if we think about taking chippanda alone, with pakis being finished off in couple of weeks time.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2565
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Postby Katare » 28 Jan 2012 21:34

Arun Menon wrote:Hi all,

I have always wondered about one thing, how come Russian defense deals are never seriously implicated in corruption scandals. Either they are quite honest (which i find hard to believe) or they are being protected somehow. Also, how come the glaring differences between the selection process of Arjun and T-90 aren't taken up for any serious investigation. I understand it if it was just the Govt or the Army, but it seems even the News media is giving the Russians a free run, while they look for scams in any other defense deal. Also, I would rather not point out specific instances of such bias and apparent disingenuousness, as they have already been pointed out ad nauseam in this forum. I really just want a honest answer to this question that has irked me for quite some time.


In deals with Russia no private party is involved so no cash corruption is possible.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests