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.
ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1657
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 06 May 2021 16:07

Pratyush wrote:
ks_sachin wrote:The IDFs operational environment is different to ours


You missed the thrust of the argument.


Is there something other than cool videos I missed?

There is also more than deserts to op environment.

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2727
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Manish_P » 06 May 2021 18:00

Coolness of the videos aside, the tankers must have really appreciated the coolness provided by the AC unit of the Arjun.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1657
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 07 May 2021 03:46

Manish_P wrote:Coolness of the videos aside, the tankers must have really appreciated the coolness provided by the AC unit of the Arjun.

Perhaps. Although the heat was not raised as an issue by when I spoke to one of the tankers involved in the Arjun induction. It was more the doctrine and the op env which even some inf offers were concerned with.

However the inf offer questioned the rationale for such a large armr force itself..

Atmavik
BRFite
Posts: 977
Joined: 24 Aug 2016 04:43

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Atmavik » 07 May 2021 07:24

ks_sachin wrote:
Manish_P wrote:Coolness of the videos aside, the tankers must have really appreciated the coolness provided by the AC unit of the Arjun.

Perhaps. Although the heat was not raised as an issue by when I spoke to one of the tankers involved in the Arjun induction. It was more the doctrine and the op env which even some inf offers were concerned with.

However the inf offer questioned the rationale for such a large armr force itself..



most of us might have seen these videos. i think this is the best discussion on Arjun though the video is from 2012 and speaks mostly to Mk1 . all the three panelists agree that the Arjun is a world class tank. @ 5:45 Brig bikramjeet singh says that the tank was designed and developed for the desert sector.

T 90 does not have an AC and heat is an issue in the deserts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-p9GnT7Goo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmeawATDOM4

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1657
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 07 May 2021 09:58

Atmavik wrote:
ks_sachin wrote:Perhaps. Although the heat was not raised as an issue by when I spoke to one of the tankers involved in the Arjun induction. It was more the doctrine and the op env which even some inf offers were concerned with.

However the inf offer questioned the rationale for such a large armr force itself..



most of us might have seen these videos. i think this is the best discussion on Arjun though the video is from 2012 and speaks mostly to Mk1 . all the three panelists agree that the Arjun is a world class tank. @ 5:45 Brig bikramjeet singh says that the tank was designed and developed for the desert sector.

T 90 does not have an AC and heat is an issue in the deserts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-p9GnT7Goo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmeawATDOM4


I agree it is a world-class tank as well...

However we will not see more than 350 tanks in service.....

All this focus on COIN has meant that at the highest levels we are no longer thinking of our doctrines of warfare outside of counter insurgency. We don't have the time....

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2727
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Manish_P » 07 May 2021 11:00

Atmavik wrote:
ks_sachin wrote:Perhaps. Although the heat was not raised as an issue by when I spoke to one of the tankers involved in the Arjun induction. It was more the doctrine and the op env which even some inf offers were concerned with...


...
T 90 does not have an AC and heat is an issue in the deserts...


Why do I get strong 'Yes, Minister' vibes...

CAG raps Defence Ministry for inducting tanks without ACs

CAG rejected the ministry’s reply that its decision of not importing the tanks fitted with ACs was based on trials in which detrimental effects of prolonged exposure to heat and dust were not noticed and they came to light only after they were inducted.

“The ministry’s reply is not factually correct. The trial team had already highlighted the instances of overheating of components noticed during field trials and recommended addition of ACs,” the report said.

The ministry, it noted, had also accepted the necessity for the tanks fitted with ACs as long back as 2002 but a later contract in 2007 still did not include ACs fitted in tanks.

The ministry was of the view that Indian commanders preferred to operate the vehicles with open cupolas which will limit the effectiveness of these ACs.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8667
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Pratyush » 07 May 2021 11:17

ks_sachin wrote:
Pratyush wrote:
You missed the thrust of the argument.


Is there something other than cool videos I missed?

There is also more than deserts to op environment.


Sir Ji,

The argument is about domestic vehicle and the capability developed would have resulted in a whole host of other vehicles. For other environments.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1657
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 07 May 2021 11:31

Pratyush wrote:
ks_sachin wrote:
Is there something other than cool videos I missed?

There is also more than deserts to op environment.


Sir Ji,

The argument is about domestic vehicle and the capability developed would have resulted in a whole host of other vehicles. For other environments.


Pratyush Ji,

We cannot induct a proper small arm so let's not talk about vehicles...

I have become resigned...

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8667
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Pratyush » 07 May 2021 13:03

Even I feel frustrated and defeated. Yet every now and then my heart dreams of what can be.


jaysimha
BRFite
Posts: 1407
Joined: 20 Dec 2017 14:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby jaysimha » 08 May 2021 17:23

RFI Details
RFI Title: EOI For AFV Protection and Counter Measure System For T-90 S and SK Tanks
Branch Name: DG AC
Publish Date: 13 Apr 2021
Due Date: 07 Jun 2021

https://indianarmy.nic.in/site/formTemplete/RFIView.aspx?MnId=Xj5jb05RKW7TyTDK2sE7Ew%3d%3d

mody
BRFite
Posts: 879
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby mody » 09 May 2021 18:33

Turkey just tested their own 1,500 HP engine for the Altey tank. Earlier they had planned to use the German engine and then later tried for Korean engines to lower the cost.
The reason this is being posted in this thread is that Pakis are interested in the Altey tanks and if they are inducted by the pakis, the numbers for Arjun can increase.
Our own 1,500 HP engine was recently tested as well. I hope the govt. Puts MBTs on no import list and for es IA to come up with realistic specs for FMBT/Arjun MK2.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Philip » 11 May 2021 03:54

If Arjun as the brigadier said was developed for the deserts,there should be good export potential for it throughout the ME. Right from N.Africa, Egypt, through the Levant, Iraq, Gulf and Arabian peninsula,desert terrain predominates. Most of the nations in these regions also have good relations with us. The only factor that might work against it is the cost factor in comparison with other western rivals, but a review of costing for exports,waiving of duties,etc.for imported components,etc., could bring down the export price. Showcasing the tank at regional defexpos needs to be done. We neeed to think of exports as " package deals" too.B'MOS, Tejas,Akash, Dhanush,Pinaka, Arjun, Dhruv,the LCH,ASTRA,etc.Plus the various types of smaller warships,patrol craft,OPVs too. A combination of weapon systems to suit the buyers reqs. with attractive pricing could make significant breakthroughs in the export market.

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2727
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Manish_P » 11 May 2021 09:10

^ For exports, a very basic criteria is that the developer country should have large numbers of the product in use by its own armed forces, thereby ensuring a good availability of spare parts (from the mature ecosystem which manufactures and services them) and it should have a defined road map for future upgrades and iterations.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1657
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 11 May 2021 09:27

We can make Field Marshall Filipov Head of International Marketing for the Arjun program.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8667
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Pratyush » 11 May 2021 10:13

Philip wrote:If Arjun as the brigadier said was developed for the deserts,there should be good export potential for it throughout the ME. Right from N.Africa,

snip the rest........





Total BS.

The tank is suitable for employment in all terrain. It is only limited by the ability to think in an honest and objective manner.

The army will ask DRDO to make a tank that is only suitable for desert environment. Then why did they not ask DRDO to also make a tank for mountain and plains and for amphibious requirements.

DRDO makes to GSQR issued by the forces and not as per it's own bloody convenience.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4996
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby srai » 11 May 2021 12:02

^^^
If true for Arjuns then also true for Western heavies :mrgreen:

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Philip » 11 May 2021 12:39

.
Last edited by Philip on 11 May 2021 12:57, edited 1 time in total.

Atmavik
BRFite
Posts: 977
Joined: 24 Aug 2016 04:43

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Atmavik » 11 May 2021 12:47

srai wrote:^^^
If true for Arjuns then also true for Western heavies :mrgreen:


yes, this has ruled out any western and Armata imports.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Philip » 11 May 2021 12:56

Look,let's not go over "terrain" on Arjun debated for a decade+ now.Numerous generals of repute,who headed the mechanised corps, plus media reports stated that the tank will be based
in the desert as the infra in other areas did nor permit its easy operationsl use.

My positive attitude ,whether these generals and the IA,numerous chiefs, too, are right or wrong ,and there's a gigantic conspiracy involving the IA,MOD,politicos,etc.isn't the issue.The export potential of the tank against its western counterparts must be explored.Otherwise we will be the only nation operating a few hundred Arjuns which given its still considerable import content down the years will be difficult to support,past experience of the A-1. If we are able to export some,the volume increases for the spares/ support chain and costs could come down. Look at the Brits who've sold their Challengers in the ME to Jordan and Oman,small qtys., but operate far less MBTs than the IA. Another 148 C-2s are to be built for the BA.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4996
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby srai » 11 May 2021 14:04

^^^

Even if just the Thar desert area, at least 500 Arjun Mk.1/2 MBT should have been ordered. Enough terrain to support that many easily and economics of R&D more viable.

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2727
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Manish_P » 11 May 2021 15:10

This is from 2019 i know, but still re-posting because of the oft raised bogeys of imported components in the Arjun

India pays Russia $1.2 billion in technology transfer fees for T-90S tanks

India has awarded a $3.12 billion contract for local production of 464 T-90S main battle tanks after paying a technology transfer fee to Russia.
The deal stipulates that Russian original equipment manufacturer UralVagonZavod and arms export agency Rosoboronexport will be paid $1.2 billion for technology transfer, while India’s state-owned Ordnance Factory Board will be paid $1.92 billion for local production of 464 T-90S tanks, according to an Indian Ministry of Defence official. India will pay the Russian defense companies in roubles, Russia’s currency. The MoD official described the price tag of the technology transfer as too high, noting that domestic production of the tanks will increase to 80 percent from the current level of 40 percent.


So as late as 2019, 60% of the T-90 was imported

A senior OFB executive said complete localization of T-90S tanks in India is impossible, as a large number of parts must continue to be imported. The parts that will be locally produced include panoramic night sights, thermal imaging fire-control systems and explosive reactive armor, he added. However, the engines and transmission system that makes up 45 percent of the cost of a T-90S tank will come from Russia.


and this little but significant nugget

A senior Indian Army official said greater localization of the tank does not significantly help because life cycle support is not included. Because of this, the official argued, the service ends up paying three times more than the original cost of the tank.


Now where have we heard this before.. ah yes, Retd. Air Marshall Chopra had made a similar comment about the MiG 29 costs overtaking the Mirage 2000 costs within a period of 5 years...

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Philip » 11 May 2021 18:55

As a counter,MIG-29 vs M2K, upgrade costs,64 nos. of 29s cost just under $1 B at around $13/14M a pop,whereas 54 M2Ks cost , staggering $2.5 B , that's around $50M a pop,more than a brand new MIG-35,Tejas,etc., with HAL demanding extra labour costs over and above hhat figure leading to a spat between the IAF and HAL.
These are all open source/ official figures,so work out the lifetime costs again.

That Arjun-1 operational availability was v.poor due to non-availability of imported components is a fact.Here is a CAG report.

In 2016 Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India report said that Arjun tanks have not been operational since 2013 due to a lack of spares. In 2017 it was reported that the DRDO had received the necessary imported spares to repair the faults that had grounded 75% of the fleet.04-Oct-2020

And here's a depressing report if accurate,apportioning blame to both DRDO and IA,why my take on exporting it to keep prod. numbers and support happy.The problem that is common to many of our desi weapon system programmes is the long gestation and delay in the product arriving. During the decades of development, new tech,improvements in weapon systems emerge and the services want these improvements added to the system,adding to delays! If the improvements/components are not available locally,a search is made for them overseas with min-competitions for them. Both Arjun and Tejas suffered from this. But blame must also rest with babudom and the MOD as once the service reqs. and specs are cast,along with stringent timescale for the development of the product,no major changes can be made. Babudom must ensure that this happens. Let the MK-1 models arrive,get into service and first series production and then incrementally improve the system. That's what has happened to the very modest JF-17 ,which is now being further upgraded with an AESA radar,etc. While it lacks the sophistication and capability of Tejas,it's available to the PAF in numbers.

https://theprint.in/opinion/brahmastra/ ... nk/611917/
Why the Army’s order for 118 Arjuns is its last despite being India’s most potent tank
The Challenger 2 of the British weighs 62.5 tonnes, Arjun’s latest version weighs 68.5 tonnes.

An xcpt:
Xcpts:
The Arjun tank, first envisaged in 1972, was meant to replace the Russian T-72 that is still in service. It was meant to weigh just 48 tonnes but eventually ended up weighing 62 tonnes. The latest version weighs 68.5 tonnes.

But would one entirely blame the Defence Research Development Organisation (DRDO) for this? The blame also goes to the Army, because over the years it ended up wanting more and more from the tank — from bigger guns to better armour. The joke in the defence corridors being that the Army wanted a tank that could even fly!

The deployability issue
Arjun has a combination of systems but as a single entity, faces many challenges, primarily due to its weight and width.

Former Director General Mechanised Forces Lt Gen A.B. Shivane (Retd) tells me that the greatest challenge for Arjun is its deployability and restricted employability in open desert terrain — all because of its weight.

“It lacks operational and strategic mobility which limits its employment options besides sustenance and logistics challenges,” he told me.

Colonel Ajay Singh (retd), an Armoured Corps Officer, who has seen the Arjun MBT in action, tells me that the indigenous system is a beautiful machine. The Arjun MBT has an excellent 120 mm rifled gun, and a fine fire and control system, he says. Singh is all praise for Arjun’s ergonomics, saying that it provides the crew most comfort and ease of operation.

“But the 68 tonnes is too heavy for it to have any strategic mobility,” Col Singh says, adding that contrary to the belief that the tank is apt for deserts, it is more suited for semi-desert terrains.


Globally, the trend in Western nations is to build heavier, bigger MBTs that give more fire power and protection to the crew. This, despite the fact that there is an increasing focus on new warfare. The recent conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia showed what the future of warfare would be, along with the reduced operational capabilities of traditional war fighting machines.

But Robert Bateman, military historian and former US Army officer, argues that the Nagorno-Karabakh skirmishing doesn’t tell us anything about the death of armor.

“All it shows is two incompetently trained and equipped military forces that left themselves clumsily open, and the power of quickly produced video making extravagant claims in the social media age,” he said.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8667
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Pratyush » 11 May 2021 19:38

Philip,

Repeating a lie 1000 times to make it the truth??

Arjun was not started in 72 to replace the Tandoor 72. Any one says otherwise is ignorant at best and a liar at worst.

Rest is of the post is pure BS. Piled on BS upon BS.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8667
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Pratyush » 11 May 2021 19:43

Manish,

The irony is that the T 90 MS is what the Indian Army wanted the 6 iteration of the Arjun to be. But without providing the funds to the DRDO to make it real.

The Russians with all the TOT fee and license fee earned by them was able to develop this tank. Still saving the money and make more money selling it to the Indian Army.

Yet the rus rakshak's and import lovers on the forum are incapable to understand this basic truth.

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2727
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Manish_P » 11 May 2021 20:31

Philip wrote:As a counter,MIG-29 vs M2K, upgrade costs,64 nos. of 29s cost just under $1 B at around $13/14M a pop,whereas 54 M2Ks cost , staggering $2.5 B , that's around $50M a pop,more than a brand new MIG-35,Tejas,etc., with HAL demanding extra labour costs over and above hhat figure leading to a spat between the IAF and HAL.
These are all open source/ official figures,so work out the lifetime costs again.

...


You are again comparing upgrade costs and incorrectly asserting them to be directly proportional to operating and life cycle costs. In any case IAF discussion is OT for this thread so my bad.

Raveen
BRFite
Posts: 839
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 00:51
Location: 1/2 way between the gutter and the stars
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Raveen » 11 May 2021 21:33

Pratyush wrote:Philip,

Repeating a lie 1000 times to make it the truth??

Arjun was not started in 72 to replace the Tandoor 72. Any one says otherwise is ignorant at best and a liar at worst.

Rest is of the post is pure BS. Piled on BS upon BS.


This is regularly scheduled programming for some posters here but they are allowed to exist and troll on the forum irrespective

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1657
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 12 May 2021 04:36

The GSQRs were drawn up based on what we foresaw would be required in the desert and the threat perception. High Altitude would not be part of that.
You would not have this kind of GSQR for both environments.....one gets the

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8667
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Pratyush » 12 May 2021 08:26

ks_sachin wrote:The GSQRs were drawn up based on what we foresaw would be required in the desert and the threat perception. High Altitude would not be part of that.
You would not have this kind of GSQR for both environments.....one gets the


Remember that all major tank battles except Longewal took place in Punjab and erstwhile state of J&K.

So any tank that would work in Punjab and erstwhile J&K will have to work in Desert and vice versa. So why this persistent statements about the tank specially designed to fight in the desert.

This makes no real sense.

Especially keeping in view that all major western tanks were designed to fight in an environment similar to Punjab and erstwhile J&K.

Atmavik
BRFite
Posts: 977
Joined: 24 Aug 2016 04:43

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Atmavik » 12 May 2021 09:32

Pratyush,


if you watch those videos i think Brigadier Bikramjeet mentions "designed for desert sector" in the indian context. the Arjun is very similar to the Leopard and that is designed for the European plains. this whole desert thing is just cherry picking of the facts. there is a lot more to Op-env than the deserts and it is discussed in those videos.

we are all disappointed with limited orders of Arjun but it is what it is. we should start to look ahead for whats next. we all worried about LCA Tejas going the Arjun way but luckily that is not the case. I am hope full for the future.

not that anyone is listening to me but if i had the power i would induct the Tata krestel and try to convert it into a stryker like platform. L&T can work with SoKo Hanwa to get a tracked version of FICV/ light tank.

our private defence industry has come of age and hopefully the next Tank is of desi design. lets hope Mahindra/tata/kalyani/drdo collaborate for our FMBT.


btw, the other theater where tanks operated was Bangladesh which is even more riverine than punjab/jammu areas.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1657
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 12 May 2021 10:42

Pratyush wrote:
ks_sachin wrote:The GSQRs were drawn up based on what we foresaw would be required in the desert and the threat perception. High Altitude would not be part of that.
You would not have this kind of GSQR for both environments.....one gets the


Remember that all major tank battles except Longewal took place in Punjab and erstwhile state of J&K.

So any tank that would work in Punjab and erstwhile J&K will have to work in Desert and vice versa. So why this persistent statements about the tank specially designed to fight in the desert.

This makes no real sense.

Especially keeping in view that all major western tanks were designed to fight in an environment similar to Punjab and erstwhile J&K.

I don’t differentiate between Punjab and Deserts to the extent I do with High Altitude vs Low Altitude

Desert and Punjab same same

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8667
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Pratyush » 12 May 2021 10:46

Atmavik,

I understand the arguments against the non induction of Arjun as were communicated by the army in early 90s. That's the beginning of my issues with this whole fiasco.

Because the army should have understood the logistical challenge that an induction of Arjun project with a 60 ton vehicle would bring. Before the issuance of the GSQR itself.

Second, if the protection of the 40ton version of the project was rejected by the army in favour of a new development of the project. Then on what basis did the army arrive at the induction of the Tandoor 72 and subsequently the Tandoor 90.

Thirdly, if in army has been so keen on a below 50 ton tank. Then why did they not terminate the Arjun project in the early 90s and issue a GSQR for a new vehicle utilising components of the devloped for the Arjun.

Even today we have not seen the army release any GSQR for a new tank, ICV or APC. They had nearly 30 years to develop that since the early 90's.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8667
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Pratyush » 12 May 2021 10:48

ks_sachin wrote:I don’t differentiate between Punjab and Deserts to the extent I do with High Altitude vs Low Altitude

Desert and Punjab same same


This is the most logical comment I have seen on BRF on the desert and plains topic.

Atmavik
BRFite
Posts: 977
Joined: 24 Aug 2016 04:43

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Atmavik » 12 May 2021 11:08

Pratyush wrote:Atmavik,

Even today we have not seen the army release any GSQR for a new tank, ICV or APC. They had nearly 30 years to develop that since the early 90's.


this is the most perplexing part. it almost seems like the armour is on the back burner. we now have a clear path to replace the mig 21 but what abt the t 72 ?. i hope we are not short sighted here.

the current focus seems to be on Mijjiles

this image is a tweet from an officail IA handle
Image

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1657
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 12 May 2021 11:57

Atmavik wrote:
Pratyush wrote:Atmavik,

Even today we have not seen the army release any GSQR for a new tank, ICV or APC. They had nearly 30 years to develop that since the early 90's.


this is the most perplexing part. it almost seems like the armour is on the back burner. we now have a clear path to replace the mig 21 but what abt the t 72 ?. i hope we are not short sighted here.

the current focus seems to be on Mijjiles

this image is a tweet from an officail IA handle
Image


That is because our entire army is a CI army. There is a whole cadre of officers who have only done CI with the tempo that there is it leaves little time for other doctrinal discources

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5415
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby jamwal » 12 May 2021 12:03

Image
Grad rocket flying over a T-90

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Philip » 12 May 2021 19:57

Prat,around 24-18 months ago,the then DRDO chief spoke about the IA's wishlist for the FCMBT whatever,the bells and whistles asked for, plus weight to be around 50t+. The CVRDE/DRDO said it was impossible for all the paraphenalia to be accommodated in such a low weight and the IA had to firm up its reqs. for design work to proceed. Even the 3-man crew Armata T-14 with an auto turret comes in at 55t a good 10T more than earlier T-series MBTs.The IA also wanted the next FCV to be part of a family of AVs,modular,etc. Right now there's only the Armata family to study. In the current context of the IA and its threats the MBT inventory is pretty good both in number and quality.The latest T-90 model,T-72s upgraded to almost T-90 capability and A-1A on order. Almost 600 MBTs are in the pipeline clubbing the extra T-90s and
1As. Therefore, I too don't think that priority is high at the moment for a futuristic MBT .

But take a dekko at the ICV/AV inventory and it' here where much replacement work is reqd. Add the light/amphib tank to the same. Our old Sov. era ICVs have given good service in the past but are rather long in the tooth today. There is a limit to upgrade performance. The numbers reqd. too are huge, sev. thousand. In fact looking at one of the new ICVs in the Victory Day parade in Moscow, the AV ,not of the Armata family, was heavily armed with ATGMs,plus a main gun,extra armour,etc. We would really require two designs ,one an ICV with a compartment for infantry with probably a 30/40mm main gun and another of tank destroyer type with a heavier main gun and turret-mounted ATGMs. The same modular chassis could spin off an air-defence variant too with AA arty and SAMs. Here is where pvt. industry with out-of-box thinking can deliver concepts.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7604
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Prasad » 12 May 2021 23:45

Not a priority? When do we start retiring our T-72s btw? And how long will it take to deliver the FMBT after winter, summer, monsoon, drdo, user, aucrt, high altitude winter, high altitude summer, acceptance, trials?

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1657
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 13 May 2021 12:56

Prasad wrote:Not a priority? When do we start retiring our T-72s btw? And how long will it take to deliver the FMBT after winter, summer, monsoon, drdo, user, aucrt, high altitude winter, high altitude summer, acceptance, trials?


When we start decommissioning the t-72 perhaps we should start considering number plating some of our Armd Regts or making them mechanised. A like for like will not be the thing to consider but an overall doctrinal change.

Do we need so many tanks for the battlefield of the future??

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8667
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Pratyush » 13 May 2021 13:09

Prasad wrote:Not a priority? When do we start retiring our T-72s btw? And how long will it take to deliver the FMBT after winter, summer, monsoon, drdo, user, aucrt, high altitude winter, high altitude summer, acceptance, trials?



Why do you think that FMBT will happen. The army at way they are going. Will just buy armata in 2030-35 time frame as an emergency purchase and call it a day.

No worries. No need to hold trials. The taxpayer pays through the nose.

Problem solved.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 44 guests