Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Atmavik
BRFite
Posts: 934
Joined: 24 Aug 2016 04:43

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Atmavik » 04 Apr 2021 01:06

Security Scan - Wheeled Armoured Platform


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRe462BX49Y



Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2895
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Prem Kumar » 04 Apr 2021 13:33

Manish_P wrote:Nachiket ji, please check the post by Akshay Kapoor sir in the small arms thread. He states there is or very soon will be a severe shortage even in such a basic (as compared to ICVs and tanks) product as troop transport trucks!


I wouldn't be surprised. However, repeated COAS'es have proudly stated that they are ready to fight a 2.5 front war. Wonder where that confidence is coming from?

Probably from the valor of our grunts.

Not on any great planning by the generals. They're still implementing Sunderji's plan at a glacial pace.

This might not be a nice thing to say, but I'll say it: "Our generals are unprepared to fight even their last war, let alone the next one"

Akshay Kapoor
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1643
Joined: 03 May 2011 11:15

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Akshay Kapoor » 04 Apr 2021 14:37

2 Front war can be fought and won today. I share a short summary of my Concept of Ops below. This is based on detailed assessments by me and some others. Have also run it by a former VCOAS and he liked it.

There are some ammunition and a lot of B veh shortages but those can be made up in months cheaply. B veh shortage can be 40% solved just by removing VFJ and buying directly from AL. VFJ adds a 20% mark up to trucks it buys from AL and then sells to RM without any value addition.

Main point is that 2 front war can indeed be won. Here is the concept of Ops. Gents please feel free to share and discuss. I can be reached on noquartergiven108@gmail.com

https://twitter.com/Ak5985965/status/13 ... 30369?s=20

Atmavik
BRFite
Posts: 934
Joined: 24 Aug 2016 04:43

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Atmavik » 05 Apr 2021 01:27

i know there is talk about building a light tank from the K 9 chassis but i think we should use the krestel chassis to build a light tank and a wheeled SPG.

the south africans had some innovative armour concepts that we can take inspiration from.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooikat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G6_howitzer

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8534
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Pratyush » 05 Apr 2021 08:39

^^^

Too logical.

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 1216
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby shaun » 05 Apr 2021 10:47

Atmavik wrote:i know there is talk about building a light tank from the K 9 chassis but i think we should use the krestel chassis to build a light tank and a wheeled SPG.

the south africans had some innovative armour concepts that we can take inspiration from.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooikat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G6_howitzer


The denel guns were supposed to be assembled in India long back but for ..

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 11109
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 05 Apr 2021 21:15

Philip wrote:Anyway, this is the AV thread and successive chiefs for decades have gone down the T-series route,mainly because there was no alternative! It is only in recent times that western milware was available to us. There is a famous story early on in Arjun's development.The DRDO/ IA wanted the Leopard German engine.Repeatedly refused.So the DRDO began developing its own engine.When a prototype was first successfully tested ,the German offer came post- haste! Arjun took time to mature- no need repeating the saga here, and further orders of T-series happened. We are now sufficiently advanced in tank tech to decide upon future needs and decide what shape those reqs. demand. End of story.

Thank you for mentioning the bolded part. Please stop bringing non-relevant issues into this thread. I have had to move your post to the relevant thread. *PLEASE* also use spell check when you type. Thanks.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 11109
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 06 Apr 2021 05:28

https://twitter.com/singhshwetabh71/sta ... 70432?s=20 ---> T-90 with AH-64. Who would've thought.

Image

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21402
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Philip » 07 Apr 2021 12:59

Yes,only in India will you find both west and east,though,surprisingly,do many know that German U-boats use an Ru. navigation system?! It's used universally in the maritime sphere.Over 100 German naval vessels use the Ru. Navi-Sailor 4100 system ,says the German Bild paper.

V.interestingly is the latest Ru." Burlak" tank. It's got a unconventional forward sloping turret with a long overhang,meant to replace turret on all T-series MBTs. Reportedly developed in secret since 2006, the Burlak was to have replaced turrets by 2025.Budget restraints. The ERA slopes from bottom to front instead of conventional sloped turrets,plus has two auto-loaders, storage units,one in the overhanging bustle which allows rapid loading of diff. types of ammo. Will provide the link shortly.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8534
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Pratyush » 07 Apr 2021 14:14

April fool's day has come 7 days too late.

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2663
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Manish_P » 07 Apr 2021 14:31

Philip wrote:...V.interestingly is the latest Ru." Burlak" tank...


^ That might be a good example of forced (economic) juggad, going by this article... along the lines of our Tank Ex :D

Russia May Have a Secret Main Battle Tank
A “new” tank concept has surfaced in Russia, about 10 years after the country abandoned it in favor of the sleeker, newer-looking T-14 Armata tank. Production problems with the Armata, however, could allow the “Burlak” tank to take its place. Despite the lofty promises, the Armata project was mired in financial and technological difficulties that slowed development to a crawl. Today, the Russian Ground Forces have precisely zero Armata tanks, with serial deliveries now promised for later this year.

So what comes now? A Russian military blog recently uncovered another tank design that apparently lost out to the Armata in the late 2000s. The Burlak, is an interesting compromise design that leverages Russia’s huge inventory of older tanks and existing tank technology to produce a vehicle that’s almost as good as the Armata.

The Burlak takes a new tank turret and puts in on a modified T-80 tank chassis. The turret’s hexagonal geometry is derived from the T-90A tank that’s currently in service, but lengthened considerably in the rear to accommodate a dual-feed auto loading system for the main gun. This would allow the 125-millimeter main gun, the same caliber as the Armata’s gun, to quickly load two types of ammunition.

One feature that makes the Burlak more affordable—and easier to manufacture—than the Armata, is its use of the T-80 tank chassis. That tank was considered a failure, since its gas turbine power plant was unreliable. But Russia built about 3,000 T-80s, and so hundreds, if not thousands, of them are still stockpiled across the country. A refurnishing and new power plant could make a decent home for the Burlak turret.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21402
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Philip » 07 Apr 2021 16:43

Gents,in our debates about pros and cons of Arjun vs T-series,we're perhaps ignoring the "woods for the trees".MBTs are part of the jigsaw of armoured warfare which involves more than just the merits of an MBT,forgetting its accompanying AVs protecting infantry advancing on the battlefield,networking between various other AVs,SAM,ATGM AVs,drones,etc..The UKR spat and Azeri-Armenian conflict saw drones emerging as key factors.We've had several years of debate over Arjun,etc.but can take comfort that the very same issues are being discussed at length in the US a the future tank to replace the M-1 or to merely upgrade it,etc.Here is a report on the same,quite long,but an excellent read,I'm just quoting xcpts.
I trust this will spur more interesting ideas and concepts.

https://breakingdefense.com/2021/04/fut ... m1-abrams/


But why put a human in your heavy tank? Because, bluntly, remote control remains awkward and autonomous robots remain stupid. Sometimes you need an experienced human in the vehicle, onboard. That way they can use all their senses to understand the situation – the smell of smoke, the sound of the guns, the vibration of the engine — instead of staring at a screen. That way, too, their input can’t be hacked, jammed, or otherwise disconnected.


Other functions can be automated in the near future, but not the ability to command a tank in combat, Bendett told me. “This is not something that can be replaced by a neural network or an advanced algorithm anytime soon, given that no one can truly replicate all the nuances of a tank commander’s experience that may span many years, and even decades.”

“The future replacement for an M1 should be a family of vehicles, [including] a manned, well defended tank … which in turn commands a team of mid-sized, heavily defended UGVs [Unmanned Ground Vehicles] for ISR and combat roles, [plus] drones,” he added. “If the UGVs are unable to accomplish their task for some reason, it would be up to a manned tank with a commander who has extensive experience.”

If a manned main battle tank remains necessary, can the M1 Abrams continue to fill that role, or does the Army need a new MBT?

The M1 Abrams could be the centerpiece of the future manned-unmanned armored force, said Bendett. Much as it’s been upgraded in the past multiple times since its introduction in 1980, it just needs to be upgraded again, with counter-drone defenses, electronic warfare, and a command system for the robots.

But there are only so many upgrades the old M1 can take, argued Guy Swan, a retired armor officer now with the Association of the US Army.

“One thing is for sure, we cannot continue to hang more on the M1 Abrams frame,” Swan told me. “The tank, while I believe it’s still the best in the world, is far too heavy to navigate regions of the world where ground forces may have to operate.”


“The future tank can and will indeed be less than 60 tons – a threshold for many roads and bridges – without losing crew protection,” he said, thanks to new active and passive protections. That must include sophisticated “masking” both of its visual appearance and of its infrared and radio-frequency emissions, he said, because in a world of drones, “traditional camouflage is not enough.”


A clean-slate tank design would allow for a new engine, Swan added, preferably a hybrid-electric one that puts less strain on supply lines than the M1’s gas-guzzling turbine. It would also allow for an improved turret, although Swan felt the existing 120mm cannon has plenty of potential with upgraded targeting systems and ammunition.

Others felt more firepower was needed for future wars. “55 to 65 tons, [with] a bigger gun or laser, on-board loitering munitions, [an] unmanned turret, [and] hybrid engine,” wrote one retired officer.

Nikhil_Naya
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 12
Joined: 06 Nov 2018 16:44

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Nikhil_Naya » 07 Apr 2021 17:12

The following is based on my discussion with a veteran from quite a while ago, he was a part of the armored corps. Would like to have all your insights and I think it is very relevant in the current context of having tanks on the northern/ northeastern front.

He was like the doctrine that we always had was to have a heavy armour presence in the plains with light armour - 'Tank Destroyer' - types in the hills. This being due to the drastic de-rating of the tank's engines in the high altitudes, leading to losses in acceleration and mobility. Also, terrain challenges meant that tank transporters couldn't really provide 'last mile connectivity. None of our tanks had APU's which meant that the engines had to be running. To start a T'series engine in the winter at a high altitude takes up quite some time and it takes time to build - Movement speed. This meant, that in the hills we preferred lighter armor with an offensive punch like RCL's, Anti Tank Rocket teams, BMP/BRDM's with high-velocity cannons, and also per him this was to be the primary playground of the NAMICA. This would allow quicker mobility, higher 'rounds per minute' while the MBTs act as the 'ground domination' when we take up ground. Of Course, what happened with the NAMICA was a different story - with endless trials.
Also, lighter armor has better efficiency, which for our logistics needs at that time, were considered good (he quoted that typically a BMP would take 2/3rd or less fuel than the MBT for the same distance'). This is apparently true for the ammo as well.

In the current context, I think instead of light tanks with 105mm guns, if we have WhAP type vehicles with 30MM Rapid gun firing HE/AP type 'bullets' following up with a NAG/ equivalent and then scooting with their superior acceleration and mobility. This is supported by Infantry AT Missiles (Milan) who are also carried by the WhAP. Additional armouring by ERA Tiles, Slat armor, etc for the WhAP is also possible - we can remove the 'Amphibious' part of the package and replace that with additional armor without adding too much to the weight? Or Am I waaay off the line here.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1625
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 07 Apr 2021 18:31

Nikhil,
Definitely not way of the mark.
However, as much of what you veteran friend says was the operational doctrine was the army has upended it by inducting MBT into Ladakh.
So either:

A) The earlier doctrine was wrong and the Army when faced with tanks at high altitudes in Ladakh realised that its thinking had been wrong all along and decided to increase the token presence of Armr in Ladakh to counter the Chinese
B) We shed our well-reasoned doctrine at the drop of a hat (i.e. Chinese induction of Armr in Ladakh) i.e have become reactive even if the doctrine may have been right and well thought out.

Either way the lack of RMA type of thinking in Armr warfare, the lack of induction of platforms like Namica are biting us in the backside.

Nikhil_Naya
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 12
Joined: 06 Nov 2018 16:44

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Nikhil_Naya » 07 Apr 2021 18:41

I think induction issues - NAMICA, Lack of BTR/ BRDM types, Lack of Road Networks - we had to rely on the Airlifters, Lack of a rail network. Hopefully, this will change.
A few Rudras and LCH here plus the light / fast armor will change the balance in our favor easily.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8372
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby nachiket » 07 Apr 2021 23:06

Nikhil_Naya wrote:I think induction issues - NAMICA, Lack of BTR/ BRDM types, Lack of Road Networks - we had to rely on the Airlifters, Lack of a rail network. Hopefully, this will change.
A few Rudras and LCH here plus the light / fast armor will change the balance in our favor easily.

Unfortunately, the NAMICA, WhAP and LCH have seen no orders. The WhAP finally might have recently if some reports are to be believed, but the number quoted is only 100. If our doctrine requires such platforms, and indigenous ones are available, where does the disconnect lie?

Nikhil_Naya
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 12
Joined: 06 Nov 2018 16:44

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Nikhil_Naya » 07 Apr 2021 23:39

nachiket wrote:
Nikhil_Naya wrote:I think induction issues - NAMICA, Lack of BTR/ BRDM types, Lack of Road Networks - we had to rely on the Airlifters, Lack of a rail network. Hopefully, this will change.
A few Rudras and LCH here plus the light / fast armor will change the balance in our favor easily.

Unfortunately, the NAMICA, WhAP and LCH have seen no orders. The WhAP finally might have recently if some reports are to be believed, but the number quoted is only 100. If our doctrine requires such platforms, and indigenous ones are available, where does the disconnect lie?


From what my paanwala has told me, the orders are coming soon. There is some key date announcements that will happen on certain dates. That is probably why HAL is proceeding with the manufacturing of the LCH and the news about WhAP/Kestrel (It will be called a different name). Should not be saying this but a lot of it has to do with our previous government. Things are maturing now but C-19 put a cap on spending. Resource allocation is now key. That is why piecemeal orders. They are closing all Military Farms (130+) and that real estate will be reused including in some areas for private projects - this will help in funds management.

Atmavik
BRFite
Posts: 934
Joined: 24 Aug 2016 04:43

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Atmavik » 08 Apr 2021 09:16

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQuE3cA ... q06vtdaD7s

the video is about the end military farms but watch @ 19:39. the primary focus is on the Joint commands and the furious pace of missile testing is in prep for these theater commands. large scale orders will be placed once these commands are formed.

bharathp
BRFite
Posts: 177
Joined: 24 Jul 2017 03:44

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby bharathp » 08 Apr 2021 10:18

Nikhil_Naya wrote:
nachiket wrote:Unfortunately, the NAMICA, WhAP and LCH have seen no orders. The WhAP finally might have recently if some reports are to be believed, but the number quoted is only 100. If our doctrine requires such platforms, and indigenous ones are available, where does the disconnect lie?


From what my paanwala has told me, the orders are coming soon. There is some key date announcements that will happen on certain dates. That is probably why HAL is proceeding with the manufacturing of the LCH and the news about WhAP/Kestrel (It will be called a different name). Should not be saying this but a lot of it has to do with our previous government. Things are maturing now but C-19 put a cap on spending. Resource allocation is now key. That is why piecemeal orders. They are closing all Military Farms (130+) and that real estate will be reused including in some areas for private projects - this will help in funds management.

i am a nobody, I dont have access to any paanwallas. but going through all the peices, here is my deduction:
lch - hal is building without firm orders - but what date are they building for? why the hurry to build them?
kestrel - 100 units to be placed - why such peicemeal?
the lca mk2 is to roll out in aug 2022 (from the youtube videos of tarmak)

we may see all this for 75th independence day?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21402
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Philip » 08 Apr 2021 18:06

The point made about our unified commands and " missile testing" is interesting because there is a push in the US for greater
production and induction of missiles especially in the face of the PRC threat,growing more audacious by the day.What the PLAN has done in the Indo-China Sea sending in large numbers of its fishing bumboats as squatters to occupy atolls,etc., the PLAAF is doing the same on a daily basis entering the Taiwanese air defence airspace! Occupy illegally then claim it to be yours is the hallmark of the PRC.Missiles are hugely expensive and PGMs using smart kits for dumb bombs,etc. do help,but the demand for missiles by each service only increases.

A need for a light tank is quite valid for the Himalayan regions.If one can be found fit for amphib warfare too, like the old PT-76s good for marshy,riverine terrain, a sufficient number can be ordered ,using a large no. of common components with our existing AVs, it will help reduce costs and ensure easy operationability.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 11109
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 20 Apr 2021 04:38

https://twitter.com/KUNALBI25146617/sta ... 55268?s=20 ---> Indian Army launched RFI for APS under Atmanirbhar Bharat strategy, meant for 3,000+ tanks.

Image

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 11109
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 21 Apr 2021 05:24

https://twitter.com/Amitraaz/status/138 ... 10213?s=20 ---> TISAS to TIFCS upgraded D/N fire capable T-72 MBTs. Upgraded by ADDL.

Image

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4936
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby srai » 21 Apr 2021 14:02

Rakesh wrote:https://twitter.com/KUNALBI25146617/status/1383475820463755268?s=20 ---> Indian Army launched RFI for APS under Atmanirbhar Bharat strategy, meant for 3,000+ tanks.
...

Philip, don’t forget to add the cost of these enhancements to the original barebone T-90S :wink:

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8534
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Pratyush » 21 Apr 2021 17:09

What???

I thought that the Army insisting that Arjun Mk2 be fitted with APS meant that the T90 is already fitted with APS.

Surely I cannot be so wrong. Can I?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21402
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Philip » 21 Apr 2021 17:59

An issue of IMR last yr. had the costs of the 464+ last tranchd of T-90s ordered.Will fish it out from somewhere to ascertain the overall/unit cost. I think first series production of Armatas is on the move,though the Burlak is a v.interesting turret that could be used for upgrading legacy T-series if their chassis permits.

Incidentally,the latest VAYU has a good review of one of the battles in the '71 war ,the Battle for Kushtia and the stellar role of the PT-76s and SU-7s.

The 464 T-90MS deal was for $2.8 B. That's around $6M a pop?
The Arjun Mk-1As are to cost us $9.7M a pop,the deal is Rs.8,350 cr. for 118 tanks. The figure given in 2011 by the DRDO to the govt. was just 37 cr. a tank.

The cost for the T-90MS includes over $1B for TOT,as the GOI wants max. indigenisation possible for cheaper spares,etc. during the 3 decades lifetime of the MBT.
Now,an interesting comparison with other frontline MBTs.
T-90 M1- $1.5M, T-90S-$2.5M, 62t Leopard 2- $5.74M, 56t French LeClerc- $4M, 65t Merkava- $4.5M.

In addition the GOI has called for intl. suppliers for 36 12t transporters for the Arjun Mk-1 As. This will drive up the package cost . Arjun is therefore the most expensive MBT in the world from open source info.,that too with considerable imported components like the engine,etc.

This beggars the Q about the exorbitant cost of desi-produced AVs by the DPSUs. Clearly,we would on paper be better off importing MBTs,saving at least 30% in the bargain,where an Arjun Mk-1 A costs almost $10M ,more than half of the leading western MBTs., the M-1 excepted. That too an MBT that can be used mainly in desert terrain. But we would forever be drpendent upon the firang OEM. This points to the need to farm out DRDO developed tech to the pvt. sector which can surely make them cheaper!

M.Parrikar said long ago that the DPSUs could not expect
delays,cost overruns forever as if the services were a captive market.AKA said that before him too! In the era of CV and financial constraints,we must open up even more manufacture of weapon systems to our excellent pvt. sector giants so that competition along with the DPSUs gives us the most competitive price. We are seeing that happen with the arty. requirements, the same must be increased for AV production.

PS: I forgot Armata T-14 costs.According to a May 6th. 2020 Jamestown Foundation report,the cost per unit varied from around $5.4M to $9M.114 first tranche tanks have been ordered,first deliveries in 2021. Another point, the IA has planned for 1640 T-90s to be in service by 2021. Whether this will happen given local manufacturing delays of the tank is a moot point.Along with the approx. 2000 T-72s in service,being upgraded, our MBT inventory will be around 3750 to 4000 ,including the Arjuns. I think the planned for optimum figure is 4500 tanks.If the Light Tank req. is added to this figure it appears possible.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2668
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Vivek K » 21 Apr 2021 19:57

Philip wrote:An issue of IMR last yr. had the costs of the 464+ last tranchd of T-90s ordered.Will fish it out from somewhere to ascertain the overall/unit cost. I think first series production of Armatas is on the move,though the Burlak is a v.interesting turret that could be used for upgrading legacy T-series if their chassis permits.

Incidentally,the latest VAYU has a good review of one of the battles in the '71 war ,the Battle for Kushtia and the stellar role of the PT-76s and SU-7s.

The 464 T-90MS deal was for $2.8 B. That's around $6M a pop?
The Arjun Mk-1As are to cost us $9.7M a pop,the deal is Rs.8,350 cr. for 118 tanks. The figure given in 2011 by the DRDO to the govt. was just 37 cr. a tank.

The cost for the T-90MS includes over $1B for TOT,as the GOI wants max. indigenisation possible for cheaper spares,etc. during the 3 decades lifetime of the MBT.
Now,an interesting comparison with other frontline MBTs.
T-90 M1- $1.5M, T-90S-$2.5M, 62t Leopard 2- $5.74M, 56t French LeClerc- $4M, 65t Merkava- $4.5M.

In addition the GOI has called for intl. suppliers for 36 12t transporters for the Arjun Mk-1 As. This will drive up the package cost . Arjun is therefore the most expensive MBT in the world from open source info.,that too with considerable imported components like the engine,etc.

This beggars the Q about the exorbitant cost of desi-produced AVs by the DPSUs. Clearly,we would on paper be better off importing MBTs,saving at least 30% in the bargain,where an Arjun Mk-1 A costs almost $10M ,more than half of the leading western MBTs., the M-1 excepted. That too an MBT that can be used mainly in desert terrain. But we would forever be drpendent upon the firang OEM. This points to the need to farm out DRDO developed tech to the pvt. sector which can surely make them cheaper!

M.Parrikar said long ago that the DPSUs could not expect
delays,cost overruns forever as if the services were a captive market.AKA said that before him too! In the era of CV and financial constraints,we must open up even more manufacture of weapon systems to our excellent pvt. sector giants so that competition along with the DPSUs gives us the most competitive price. We are seeing that happen with the arty. requirements, the same must be increased for AV production.

PS: I forgot Armata T-14 costs.According to a May 6th. 2020 Jamestown Foundation report,the cost per unit varied from around $5.4M to $9M.114 first tranche tanks have been ordered,first deliveries in 2021. Another point, the IA has planned for 1640 T-90s to be in service by 2021. Whether this will happen given local manufacturing delays of the tank is a moot point.Along with the approx. 2000 T-72s in service,being upgraded, our MBT inventory will be around 3750 to 4000 ,including the Arjuns. I think the planned for optimum figure is 4500 tanks.If the Light Tank req. is added to this figure it appears possible.

No sources - yet continually bashing Indian domestic production. No mention of the CAG reports that stated that the price of the T-90 was hidden in separate purchases to make it seem cheaper than the Arjun. And this pricing comparison is for about 1300 T-90 production vs 124 Arjun Mk 1s order - so no consideration of economies of scale.

This continual pitch for imports over domestic makes one ask the question - what is Indianism? Should it be valued? Is freedom worth it? How can India grow and acquire a great power status if we only lust after the next junk that foreign vendors show us a picture of? The latest conflict with China has shown that India needs to invest in local development for that will provide adequate supply of hardware during times of conflict without paying a premium. And the basic economic principles that russo rakshaks deliberately suppress while making the case (perhaps as actual vendors drumming up public support through BRF) for imports:
a) the indirect impact to the Indian economy through local sourcing of military hardware - a huge chunk of change ($10-30B per year).
b) the easier availability of hardware, after sales support, easier upgrades, hardware designed to fight in Indian conditions - the Arjun includes ruggedized hardware (electronics) tested and proven in the harsh Indian conditions - while the T-90 is designed for European cold conditions and has issues in Rajasthan's heat.
c) the development of a tank industry with the potential of exports of this and future tanks.
d) the ability to conduct a sovereign, domestic foreign policy and through exports of critical hardware to friendly nations develop a bloc of like minded nations.

So it is easy to call other names when Indians cannot even order Indian products and pay a ransom for imports (please put up all T-90 costs and do not skew the comparison to suit your narrative). And after the initial purchase, it takes a ton more for service, spares, defect trouble shooting, and a fortune for upgrades.

Another highlight of the Arjun that russo rakshaks deliberately overlook is that in the IA's "biased" comparative trials (per the CAG) the Arjun beat the T-90 90% of the time. So this is a world beating tank but some would have Indians fight the enemy in obsolete, inferior systems without considering the needless loss of lives of brave soldiers. So in all - a biased coverage to favor imports of deeply flawed imports perhaps motivated for personal gain and to ensure that India and its industry remain low tech and dependent (with a begging bowl) on imports instead of acquiring a proud, great power status.

raghava
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 95
Joined: 29 Jul 2009 18:40

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby raghava » 22 Apr 2021 00:06

Vivek K wrote:This continual pitch for imports over domestic makes one ask the question - what is Indianism? Should it be valued? Is freedom worth it? How can India grow and acquire a great power status if we only lust after the next junk that foreign vendors show us a picture of? The latest conflict with China ...


We at BRF have been having these "imported system A vs desi system B" debates for a long time now.

Had we been a smaller country with some other unfriendly neighbour, imported systems would have been enough but,

- whether we like it or not, our biggest military threat in the foreseeable future is China

- China is a manufacturing powerhouse (as on today)

- whether the Chinese have a stomach for a long fight is debatable, but we have to be able to field weapon systems and platforms in huge numbers to match them

- fielding huge numbers of weapon systems and platforms is not possible with imports. Is there any other country in the world with armed forces of comparable size as ours and arming them with imports ?

- Huge numbers and surge production in the face of war attrition is possible only if the systems are desi

- DRDO is good at developing systems; DPSUs are bad at manufacturing in quality and on time. Imports are expensive and spares are an issue at times

- DRDO design manufactured by Indian private industry - isn't this the only logical way out of this mess ?

just my one naya paisa...

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21402
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Philip » 22 Apr 2021 10:45

Please,I am not making a pitch for continued imports! But the cost of desi milware as in the case of Arjun is twice even western MBTs! This is unacceptable. My cry is for better management of the DPSUs which have led a charmed life for decades, a captive 3 services with a " take it or leave it" attitude.Preventing desi pvt. industry heavweights too from quoting.
Look how MDL has repeatedly tried to sabotage L&T from building major warships and subs,because the true costs will be revealed ,no delays unlike MDL,5 yr. delay for Scorpenes,etc. and it will disgrace them. Unless pvt. industry is given major work, our efforts will be as they are. The DRDO after developing a weapon system should offer it to pvt. industry too.It should not be the manufacturer. That was the result of studies years ago.

Lisa
BRFite
Posts: 1267
Joined: 04 May 2008 11:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Lisa » 22 Apr 2021 13:29

Yes you are making a pitch for continued imports. I asked you 2 pages ago, do you or do you not understand that a dollar spent overseas is more expensive that a dollar spent in India and you declined to answer. Until you grasp this fundamental truth much of what you say lacks any real weight.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21402
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Philip » 22 Apr 2021 15:18

At twice the cost per unit?! Where do you think the money is coming from? We cannot be profligate. MKIs built in India do cost more than Ru OEM ones.The agreement when signed was for the desi- built ones to be not more than $1M. Today they cost at least 15% more,but it's manageable as over 75% is now from desi raw material. Dollars are hard earned currency and with Arjun a large % is still imported- no desi savings here!

PS: Open source stats.In 2014 around 55% of the content was imported,by the time A first tranche was inducted,"69%" was imported! Spares thus became a problem and later on L&T started making the tracks,etc. So where is the great saving at home? Arjun's design should've been offered to pvt. industry to build,with a reasonable royalty to the DRDO. We are seeing new AVs being developed by Mahindra,Tatas,Kalyani,etc. Give them a chance.

Lisa
BRFite
Posts: 1267
Joined: 04 May 2008 11:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Lisa » 22 Apr 2021 15:22

Just let me give you ONE example. Are you even aware of the fact that even one individual working for an Indian company pays tax that would not have otherwise have been collected? Does it even reach your comprehension that such an individual may not have been otherwise employed denying him the opportunity to repay the nation for the investments it has made in his education?

Are you able to even remotely understand the FACT that a dollar spent overseas is more expensive than a dollar spent in India?

Third time I am asking.

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2663
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Manish_P » 22 Apr 2021 15:31

Bump... (for Philip saar)

Manish_P wrote:^^ an image speaks more than a thousand words... so from that article itself the summary -

Image

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 11109
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 22 Apr 2021 21:56

Lisa wrote:Third time I am asking.

You will not get an answer. Best not to ask onlee.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2668
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Vivek K » 23 Apr 2021 02:01

It is sad when Indians know full well the cost of import but deliberately chose to portray themselves as patriotic and concerned about national security yet hawk imports continually.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1625
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 23 Apr 2021 03:29

Admiral the Field Marshall gets regularly corrected by Brar as well.

Altogether a new Philip thread is warranted where only he can post ——- and we can ignore.

Willful ignorance and being economical with the truth calls for some strong measures yes?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21402
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Philip » 23 Apr 2021 11:02

The figures only bear out my stats. Cost diff. between A and T series. My point,repeatedly,is give the Arjun and future AVs to pvt. industry to bring unit costs down. Have a closed competition between DPSUs and pvt. majors. See the difference. L& T have repeatedly delivered before time naval orders unlike most of the DPSU shipyards. Secondly ,desi orders should be in large qty. for cost-effectiveness,economy in scale. The first A orders were for 124 tanks with a v.high import content,69%, which made it v.difficult to support when the firang component manufacturers raised their prices or packed up. It is an open secret that a lot of that number were inoperative for the reasons mentioned. This is a major issue,not to be confused with taxpayer earnings!

PS.In fact the stats posted give unit cost for A-1A at over $10M.My figs. were below $10M.Please also ck. my figures for the other western MBT unit costs for comparison to give you an idea how much extra it is costing us per tank.Money saved can be better utilised for other key mil. projects.

PPS: It is the GOI according to latest reports that has issued an intl. RFI for 36 tank transporters to support the 118 the Mk 1As on order. An import. Please factor that as well,the GOI willing for an import not I!

Secondly, the last para on the report on the 1A order from VAYU,our premier military magazine.I quote:
"However, a major disadvantage of the Arjun Mk1A is its very heavy weight, being a 68.5t tank which decreases the geographical sphere where it can be deployed and the army has ordered 11i8 tanks to equip only two regiments. The Arjun Mk 1/ 1A could conceivably best be deployed in the western desert where its advantages would be obvious"
Last edited by Philip on 23 Apr 2021 12:51, edited 3 times in total.

rajsunder
BRFite
Posts: 708
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 02:38
Location: MASA Land

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby rajsunder » 23 Apr 2021 11:23

Manish_P wrote:^^ an image speaks more than a thousand words... so from that article itself the summary -

Image


This does not take in to consideration the operating costs of ARJUN and T-90, which for all intended purposes would be less for ARJUN compared to T-90.
My understanding is that over the life time, ARJUN would be cheaper to buy and operate compared to T-90

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21402
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Philip » 23 Apr 2021 12:59

Please ck. the operating costs for the A-1s. Anyway,the number of both A-1s and 1As are negligible considering the entire inventory compared to over 3000 T- series in service. As long as import content hovers around 50%, lifetime costs will be high and rise in time from past experience as firang OEMs raise prices.. Future AVs,ICVs,etc. if sought from desi manufacturers and ordered in large qty.,will prove very cost-effective.But first,the budget must be hiked. One method in which firang component costs can be kept is to establish spares/support entities in India between local entities and the OEM. A recent agreement ,entity has been set up for seamless support for the IN's MIG-29Ks ,RAC MIG and AEPL in line with the govt's Atmanirbhar policy.

Adm.Arun Prakash in the latest VAYU Aatmanirbhar issue, has a lot to say in a piece about how not to get caught napping by the Chins again, about govt. indecision,MOD blinkers and that " 2 decades after Kargil with the induction of specialised ISR assets "like drones, aircraft,sats and the inception of a dedicated " tech-int" agency ( I presume he means the NTRO,our NSA equiv.), " the PLA blatantly managed to sneak up upon us."
Last edited by Philip on 23 Apr 2021 13:08, edited 1 time in total.

Lisa
BRFite
Posts: 1267
Joined: 04 May 2008 11:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Lisa » 23 Apr 2021 13:04

We have an answer of sorts!

Off Tropic Post

I am not born in India nor do I live there but I am enamoured with its idea. It has taken me time to realise exactly who I am, from where I have descended and most importantly to realise that I belong to a people and religion that transcend time itself. Only 7 years ago we obtained our independence and finally got rid of those who illegally occupied our lands and then their replacements that attempted to occupy our minds. In these 7 short years we have already transformed our nation but it appears that there are those who lack both faith and hope and to that end still seek foreign validation of everything.

Its high time we took the decision to stand on our own feet and if necessary even put up with an inferior commodity for the sake of creating an ecosystem that is Indian. It will take time, effort and regretfully in some cases sacrifice but if it is Indian I KNOW that we will eventually overcome all obstacles. Everything MUST be made in India.

Many forget history and fail to realise that we have led this world for a very long time in virtually all matters and that both Christian and Muslim domination are just very recent events. In the span of our existence they are just a temporary aberration that we need to ignore and get on with the business of building India.

Time will not forgive us if we fail to do this!

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21402
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Philip » 23 Apr 2021 13:14

Dr.Shivthanu Pillai,the architect of the Brahmos project has clearly spelt out the roadmap to greater indigenisation in his book about the same. The GOI is following the same principle.Where we can make the item all on our own,we do so.Where we can't do it all alone and have to collaborate with a foreign entity we set up a JV. Where we have to import the entire item . A case in point for the last is the DSRV,sub rescue vessel, imported from the UK,which is right now on its way to Indonesia to help with the sub rescue efforts.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 46 guests