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.
jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5424
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby jamwal » 13 May 2021 13:45

IA should look for some thing like Swedish S-tank(?), the one with no turret. The designer wanted to have a 2 man crew, but was forced to add 3 by Swedish army.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8676
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Pratyush » 13 May 2021 13:49

Naah armata it is. No need to innovate. No need to reinvent the wheel.

If purchase is not possible then leasing will do.

Why bother to release any GSQR. Why bother to improve the the testing of equipment. Why bother with summer, winter, high altitude, low altitude trials.

basant
BRFite
Posts: 457
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby basant » 13 May 2021 14:59

If we have a rolling tender for Russian tanks, I am sure we can them induct prior to completion of their final drawings. :mrgreen:

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2733
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Manish_P » 13 May 2021 16:15

ks_sachin wrote:...

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


Very interesting question.

What do you think the battlefield of the future, specifically for India, will look like?

Bearing in mind that in addition to our vast natural topographical challenges we have a powerful military-industrial economy, wanting to be the world's top dog, on one side... and a rabid impoverished (whose only hope is keeping us bogged down with asymmetrical warfare) Jihadi kabila on the other side.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8676
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Pratyush » 13 May 2021 16:52

Manish_P wrote:
ks_sachin wrote:...

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


Very interesting question.

What do you think the battlefield of the future, specifically for India, will look like?

Bearing in mind that in addition to our vast natural topographical challenges we have a powerful military-industrial economy, wanting to be the world's top dog, on one side... and a rabid impoverished (whose only hope is keeping us bogged down with asymmetrical warfare) Jihadi kabila on the other side.


It is an interesting observation about the future of tanks.

On the battlefield you will always need a vehicle to do the job that a modern tank does.

The question is will it a 60 ton monster or a 40 ton vehicle or a 20 ton vehicle that doesn't have massive passive protection but have active protection capable of dealing with KE / CE rounds.

A case can be made for the existence all three types of vehicles in the Indian army. ( Exact numbers of the types can be defined by the specific ORBAT guys) This is purely for the plains and not applicable for the mountain's

1) Heavy Armored Divisions consisting of 2 tank brigades & 1 Heavy Infantry brigades. (massive ATGM holdings)
2) Mechanized Infantry division consisting of heavy Infantry brigades and 1 Tank brigade. (Heavy / Medium tanks & massive ATGM holdings for Infantry)
2) Motorized Rifle Division with Light Infantry forces. Equipped primarily with 8*8 vehicles. ( Mostly Rapid Response forces with ATGM holding's so vast as to frighten any one with more than 2 brain cells to rub together)

For direct fire support you can have either;

1) In the light category a stabilized 120 MM main equipped Wheeled / Tracked vehicle with active protection to deal with RPG, ATGM, KE& CE rounds. All up vehicle weight of under 20 to 30 tons.

2) In the heavy category a stabilized 155 MM 24 or 30 Caliber gun fitted on a modern tracked vehicle designed for direct fire support. Think of the Russian terminator but with 155 MM gun.

The indirect fire support will continue to be handled by self propelled & Tracked 155 /52 howitzers.

Now entering a wet dream territory

Each division should be have at minimum one attack helicopter regiment attached organically along with similar numbers of UAV's capable of 12 to 16 hrs endurance at 120 Km from launch position.

Now becoming realistic. None of the 3 category of vehicle I am refereeing to above will ever be Indian in any serious numbers. Numbers will always be Russian. If they are not Russian. Then they will be South Korean or US made.

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2733
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Manish_P » 13 May 2021 20:02

Pratyush wrote:..

A case can be made for the existence all three types of vehicles in the Indian army. (Exact numbers of the types can be defined by the specific ORBAT guys) ...


My line of thinking too.. In recent times the oft ('mis'?) used buzzword of 'Modularity of Platform' is being touted to provide the answer, especially as it provides benefits of scale, ease of manufacturing, maintenance, spares, quicker re-configuring of the assembly lines based on the need of the hour. Both the west and even more the east seem to be investing a lot of time and R&D in it. We should too, for our future projects.

souravB
BRFite
Posts: 593
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby souravB » 13 May 2021 21:38

Pratyush wrote:The question is will it a 60 ton monster or a 40 ton vehicle or a 20 ton vehicle that doesn't have massive passive protection but have active protection capable of dealing with KE / CE rounds.

Why not an ~40T vehicle with the protection profile of 60T vehicle?
One of the way to reduce weight is to make the vehicle smaller. So why not have space for only two crews?
A 3rd crew can be used to offload workload during wartime who'll necessarily not have to sit in the tank but use the sensors & datalink to share work. Imagine the protection a 55T tank can provide which houses only 2 crew.
I understand it is a radical idea but the tech is there to implement it. Also there could be some issues with soldier ethos since tank crews are a tight bunch.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8676
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Pratyush » 14 May 2021 08:42

souravB wrote:Why not an ~40T vehicle with the protection profile of 60T vehicle?
One of the way to reduce weight is to make the vehicle smaller. So why not have space for only two crews?
A 3rd crew can be used to offload workload during wartime who'll necessarily not have to sit in the tank but use the sensors & datalink to share work. Imagine the protection a 55T tank can provide which houses only 2 crew.
I understand it is a radical idea but the tech is there to implement it. Also there could be some issues with soldier ethos since tank crews are a tight bunch.


Given the complexities of the modern battel field it may not be possible to reduce the size of the crew to below 3. Driver might be removed. But you will still need to add someone to manage surveillance, electronic warfare and battle management and provide security.

gpurewal
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 97
Joined: 20 Oct 2018 03:23

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby gpurewal » 15 May 2021 03:38

Pratyush wrote:
souravB wrote:Why not an ~40T vehicle with the protection profile of 60T vehicle?
One of the way to reduce weight is to make the vehicle smaller. So why not have space for only two crews?
A 3rd crew can be used to offload workload during wartime who'll necessarily not have to sit in the tank but use the sensors & datalink to share work. Imagine the protection a 55T tank can provide which houses only 2 crew.
I understand it is a radical idea but the tech is there to implement it. Also there could be some issues with soldier ethos since tank crews are a tight bunch.


Given the complexities of the modern battel field it may not be possible to reduce the size of the crew to below 3. Driver might be removed. But you will still need to add someone to manage surveillance, electronic warfare and battle management and provide security.


Someone needs to drive the tank, so the driver cannot be removed. What I can envision is that driver is provided with a visor/helmet that has sensor/camera inputs feeding into it. Alongside this, the remote controlled HMG turret can be operated by the driver, where the turret itself is steered by the movement of the driver's head. Driver looks right, the turret turns right, etc, with the trigger on the driving wheel/stick.

The commander/gunner can operate the main gun, and the coax, and the situational awareness is shared between the two crewmembers.

That being said, there are huge downsides to removing an crewmember, like a loss of an extra set of eyes (reduced situational awareness). If both the commander and driver have tunnel vision at the same time (driver focused on driving, and commander on firing on certain targets), there would be opportunities for the enemy to sneak up and neutralize the vehicle.

souravB
BRFite
Posts: 593
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby souravB » 15 May 2021 08:36

Pratyush wrote:But you will still need to add someone to manage surveillance, electronic warfare and battle management and provide security.

gpurewal wrote:That being said, there are huge downsides to removing an crewmember, like a loss of an extra set of eyes (reduced situational awareness). If both the commander and driver have tunnel vision at the same time (driver focused on driving, and commander on firing on certain targets), there would be opportunities for the enemy to sneak up and neutralize the vehicle.


I think I wasn't too clear before. There will be 3 crew, 2 in the tank & the 3rd in a remote station connected to the tank's system via datalink.
3rd crew can access the data from the sensors & control RCWS among other things. Even drive the tank if necessary.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8676
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Pratyush » 15 May 2021 11:07

^^^

I don't know if manpower can be reduced in deployed tanks. At minimum you are going to need a 3 person crew. The question becomes can a vehicle with a 3 man crew be designed in such a way that it provides adequate protection and combat survivability to the crew. While maintaining sufficient levels of situational awareness.

Sometime ago on this very thread I had come up with the concept for such a vehicle.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7685&p=2450491&hilit=mast+mounted#p2450491

You might have a different approach in mind.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Philip » 15 May 2021 20:10

The unmanned era is upon us.UCAVs," loyal wingmen" etc.,etc. Ru has displayed a prototype of an unmanned AV, but lotsa work reqd. as the battlefield is another terrain altogether. Nevertheless, it's far cheaper making drones, kamikaze drones, in large number to use against ground and mobile targets which will require considerable anti- UCAV countrrmeasures,mobile high-powered jammers,battlefield Iron Dome clones ,and other AAA ,mobile SAMs,etc. The era of the 4-man crewed MBT is frankly almost over. The cost factor is just one reason.One may see even smaller MBTs/AVs arriving in the future. A 2- man crewed tank isn't a design impossibility, unless you also have as crew an R2D2/C3PO!

Nevertheless, the overall cost of the 4th. member must be factored in. It adds to one more family to look after even in retirement.Salaries and pensions take up a huge % of the defence budget. Cutting down on manpower wherever possible must be done. In the age of cyberwarfare, more hands are reqd. in the ranks of cyberwarriors, defending our cyberspace,secure commns.,all aspects of our key institutions like banking for instance,essential services, the full spectrum of everyday life. A million cyberwarriors isn't too little.

pushkar.bhat
BRFite
Posts: 420
Joined: 29 Mar 2008 19:27
Location: prêt à monter dans le Arihant
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby pushkar.bhat » 25 May 2021 17:08

I wonder what would be the Indian version of this test. Perhaps a glass of Ganga Jal or even better Old Monk. Whatever the liquid we use it should be mandatory for the T-Series and the Arjun or the FMBT.


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9803
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 25 May 2021 19:36

Philip wrote: Nevertheless, it's far cheaper making drones, kamikaze drones, in large number to use against ground and mobile targets which will require considerable anti- UCAV countrrmeasures,mobile high-powered jammers,battlefield Iron Dome clones ,and other AAA ,mobile SAMs,etc.


Cheap loitering munitions, disposable drones have nothing to survive when the EMS is contested. Once you add those capabilities they are no longer cheap. Only the most capable militaries will have these systems and a means to keep the EMS open but even then they would almost always have to operate in a highly degraded environment which will be problematic at best. So far none of those systems have performed in an ECM/ECCM rich environment against an opponent who has the capability to contest your networks through hard, soft kill and cyber. Kamikazee drones don’t do as well if they are denied a safe and secure connection back to their base station or if the base station and operator get blown up by SEAD because they are active emitters.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1658
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 26 May 2021 09:25

brar_w wrote:
Philip wrote: Nevertheless, it's far cheaper making drones, kamikaze drones, in large number to use against ground and mobile targets which will require considerable anti- UCAV countrrmeasures,mobile high-powered jammers,battlefield Iron Dome clones ,and other AAA ,mobile SAMs,etc.


Cheap loitering munitions, disposable drones have nothing to survive when the EMS is contested. Once you add those capabilities they are no longer cheap. Only the most capable militaries will have these systems and a means to keep the EMS open but even then they would almost always have to operate in a highly degraded environment which will be problematic at best. So far none of those systems have performed in an ECM/ECCM rich environment against an opponent who has the capability to contest your networks through hard, soft kill and cyber. Kamikazee drones don’t do as well if they are denied a safe and secure connection back to their base station or if the base station and operator get blown up by SEAD because they are active emitters.


Thanks brar_w. Always good to see your informative posts.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Philip » 26 May 2021 16:21

To imagine the C&C centres will not be heavily defended against air and missile strikes and will be a cinch to take out by SEADis wishful thinking. Such key nodes will have layers of defensive systems The Israelis use Harop extensively as a loitering drone.Hamas has still managed thanks to numbers fired,got some of its crude rockets through into Israel. The Hiz are supposed to have over 130,000 rockets and missiles,etc. The Houthis too have been doing rather well against the Saudis with their drones. Unmanned systems especially armed drones of various types kamikaze too,will not be controlled by mere ground controllers,but from the air,sat,etc. Even our desi Tejas was displayed at the last Aero-India with its little siblings!

Anyway,this is the AV td.So here goes,the latestLT to throw its hat into the ring for the IA req. of 350 LTs.

\https://asianmilitaryreview.com/2021/02/elbits-sabrah-light-tank-for-un-named-asian-army/
Elbit’s Sabrah “Light Tank” for Un-named Asian Army
By Stephen W. Miller -February 1, 2021
Sabrah-105-Pandur-1
Elbit Systems of Israel announced on Tuesday 26 January 2021 it had received a contact from an un-named South East Asian country valued at US$170 million for its Sabrah “Light Tanks”.

The requirement will provide the company’s Sabrah two man turret equipped with a 105mm gun integrated on to both the tracked ASCOD chassis and on the 8X8 Pandur 2 wheeled armoured vehicle. Both vehicles are from General Dynamics European Land Systems (GDELS) which has been collaborating with Elbit.

Sabrah’s main cannon is a soft recoil design with fires NATO Standard ammunition. It uses an autoloader carrying 12 ready rounds plus 24 rounds are stowed in the hull. Equipped with a 7.62mm coaxial machinegun and 8 smoke grenade launchers the turret has basic STANAG 4 protection. Fire controls include a 360 degree panoramic sight, plus cooler thermal and high definition color gunners sight with laser rangefinder. The system is fully stabilized with target auto-tracking for on-the-move engagement.

Deliveries are to occur over a three-year period. This would be fourth army to adopt the ASCOD following Austria, Spain, and the United Kingdom.

GDELS Vice President of International Business and Services, Dr Thomas Kauffmann, stated “The modular design and open architecture of ASCOD is a great example (of) … a clear trend in the armoured vehicle segment to medium weight (≤ MLC 50) and multi-role platforms.”

Pandur 2 was originally developed by Steyr-Daimler-Puch (now part of GDELS) and is used by the Czech, Austrian, Indonesian, and Portuguese Armies. The Sabrah also on the ASCOD and Pandur was also selected in October 2020 by the Philippine Army in its Light Tank Acquisition Project.
Ten Pandurs and eight ASCOD based Sabrah’s are to be delivered in the Philippine project with the first anticipated in 2021.

by Stephen W. Miller


Comparing the 3 contenders,the Sabrah,Sprut-SD and SoKO K-21-105 the weight of the Israeli and SoKo beasts are almost equal.The Sprut is a lot lighter but might need ERA to improve its armour.The Sabrah also has an ERA option.Both the SoKo and Israeli LTs however have only a 105mm gun,like the Chin Type-15. These are outgunned by the Sprut.It has the best gun of the 3,a 125mm gun,similar to that on the T-series MBTs,using the same ammo,making it the most compatible of the 3 in mountain ops in conjunction with the T-72/90s already stationed in the hotspots.
In the final outcome,that might swing the decision in its favour because logistically and operationally it will be the easiest to induct,probably the cheapest too,and is a fully amphibious tank something reqd. for its 2 amphib. warfare brigades of the IA which will most probably be under the new Maritime theatre command ,and/or Fortress ANC sub-command.
Last edited by Philip on 26 May 2021 23:38, edited 1 time in total.

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2733
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Manish_P » 26 May 2021 17:14

Philip wrote:..
The Sprut is a lot lighter but might need ERA to improve its armour..


There is no 'might' about it.

Through the frontal arc of 40º left and right the armor provides protection against attack from small arms fire up to 12.7 mm and through the remainder of the vehicle against attack from 7.62 mm small arms fire.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8676
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Pratyush » 26 May 2021 17:44

Imports are ok. As long as they are from Russia.

ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 968
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ParGha » 26 May 2021 21:04

Philip wrote:To imagine the C&C centres will not be heavily defended against air and missile strikes and will be a cinch to take out by SEAD is wishful thinking.


Identifying and attributing the C&C centers (of the kamikazi drones) is the bigger problem in Indian context, as many of its adversaries use proxies whose C&C centers are quite meaningless.

brar_w is correct that these drones will not be very effective in an all-out conflict where major powers have layered EW and AA capabilities. What he fails to acknowledge is that India has carefully avoided such all-out conflicts despite multiple provocations through proxies (1991-92 Kashmir crisis, 1999 Kargil conflict, 2001 Parliament attacks, 2008 Mumbai attacks), ever since Pakistan went nuclear.

To tie it back to armored vehicles: the kamikazi drones may not be a big threat an armored brigade with attached SPAAG and EW units, but it is an embarrassing vulnerability if you are sending armored sub-units against proxies (ex. Vijayanta MBTs in Bluestar, or T-72s to Jaffna University, or BMP-2s to Baramulla). The top of an AFV is typically the least protected surface, so it is particularly vulnerable to such LMs.

India has one thing going for it though: Indian area-domination centric COIN doctrine doesn't depend as much on AFVs as other countries' COIN doctrine -- fewer AFVs, fewer vulnerabilities.

mody
BRFite
Posts: 883
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby mody » 28 May 2021 15:10

Whether tanks are needed for the future battles is a moot question. They certainly are needed.
The more pertinent question is, does the current Indian force structure need some kind of re-balancing?
Currently the Indian Army has almost 5,000 tanks in its arsenal. As against this, it has about 40-50 dedicated attack helicopters, almost zero armed UAVs and UCAVs and about 2,500 old BMP2 for the mechanised infantry.

I think the future battlefield will require drastic re-balancing of the force structure for the Indian Army. The mechanised infantry formations, the attack helicopters and a variety of armed UAVs, loitering ammunition and UCAVs will need to increase and the heavy armour component will be reduced.

The IA rightly realizes that any future all out conflict will be short and intense. If its a long drawn conflict, then it will not be an all out war, but a limited localised conflict, which may or may not spread across the entire spectrum.
Force a short and intense conflict, the logistics and the speed of deployment will be very important.

The most prevalent argument in the favour of heavy armour is for taking the fight to the enemy and being able to capture and hold the ground in enemy territory. However, in the current battle field scenario, heavy armour cannot be deployed without adequate arty support, accompanying attack helicopters, local area wide air defense protection, as well as either local air superiority or constant air cover support provided by the air force. It was shown in Longewala itself that deploying heavy armour without local area wide air defense cover and airforce support would be a disaster.

The question then becomes that if all of the other support elements are in place, then do we need heavy armour or can the same objectives be achieved by lighter armoured units and mechanised infantry?

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8676
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Pratyush » 28 May 2021 16:19

Interesting set of questions. Keeping aside the need for a relook at the Indian army force structure.

Looking at the assessment of the Indian Army that any future conflict will be short and intense. With the outcome decided by the ability to bring relevant forces to the theatre very quickly.

Now while it looks like it is a difficult task.

However, at least on the western theatre, it is quite simple. The road infrastructure is good and sufficient forces are present in the local area to be able to conduct operations in conditions of Air superiority.

In this scenario a vehicle such as Arjun will be quite useful. As in case of any offensive action by TSPA. The armour forces would not be able to bring all the forces to the theatre.

It is quite likely to be outnumbered for a brief period of time. For moments such as those Arjun with its survivability is the best Tank for the Indian army.

Maria
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 84
Joined: 15 Aug 2020 13:50

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Maria » 28 May 2021 22:31

I see tanks as moving fortresses to protect infantry and are able to project force on the land. In the battlefield, you would infantry to hold ground and wherever you have infantry moving in, you would need armour to protect them and to help break through enemy lines.

Tanks can never be outdated because they complement infantry in their role.

I understand that the IA needed the tanks yesterday and are looking to fill that class with the best in the global market as per geopolitical availability.

However, they should be made to wait until an Indian MIC product is ready because it is not the most optimal step forward but because it is the RIGHT step in my humble opinion.

An aspiring power shouldn't have to shop abroad for light tanks when we can produce world class tanks such as the Arjun.

I imagine the future battlespace is one where heavy tanks will lead the charge, protected on the flanks by light tanks to add further mass. These light tanks are accompanied by infantry with hepters providing airborne sniping coverage to this offensive force. These hepters will be networked with MALE drones and satellites for information to clear the fog of war, real-time.

However, I do foresee the need for tanks to be able to perform multiple roles and hence they need to be ubiquitous in the ever changing battlespace of modern warfare. In simple words, tanks will need to be manufactured in a manner so that they can modified on the battlefield.

118 Arjun Mark 1As will not be sufficient. In a coming war, do not be surprised to suddenly see them on the mountains as well along with light tanks.

This is my opinion based on pure conjecture. I am happy to be proven wrong.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1658
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 29 May 2021 04:15

Pratyush wrote:Interesting set of questions. Keeping aside the need for a relook at the Indian army force structure.

Looking at the assessment of the Indian Army that any future conflict will be short and intense. With the outcome decided by the ability to bring relevant forces to the theatre very quickly.

Now while it looks like it is a difficult task.

However, at least on the western theatre, it is quite simple. The road infrastructure is good and sufficient forces are present in the local area to be able to conduct operations in conditions of Air superiority.

In this scenario a vehicle such as Arjun will be quite useful. As in case of any offensive action by TSPA. The armour forces would not be able to bring all the forces to the theatre.

It is quite likely to be outnumbered for a brief period of time. For moments such as those Arjun with its survivability is the best Tank for the Indian army.


Sirji this is what I am challenging.

Pakistan has not been sitting on its backside. The defences it has built up mean our options are narrowed.

So discount armrest battle of old.

Now with the IBGs things change as it is a different force structure and philosophy.

However do we need 5000 odd tanks?

Convert some Armd units to mechanised role I say.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8676
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Pratyush » 29 May 2021 12:07

Sure,. I have been thinking about this matter a lot.

My thought process however is stuck with the following structure. At least one the plains regions.

1). 10 heavy armoured divisions. ( 2 tank brigades & mechanised infantry brigade with relevant support elements) . Will they be IBG or different is just a matter of schematics to me.

2) 10 mechanised divisions ( 2 mechanised infantry brigade & 1 tank brigades)

3) rest of the forces consisting of infantry divisions. With 8*8 wheeled vehicles with different weapons fit.

I have no thought about the mountain forces. As I don't really understand the terrain and the requirements of combat.

mody
BRFite
Posts: 883
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby mody » 29 May 2021 17:24

Pratyush wrote:Interesting set of questions. Keeping aside the need for a relook at the Indian army force structure.

Looking at the assessment of the Indian Army that any future conflict will be short and intense. With the outcome decided by the ability to bring relevant forces to the theatre very quickly.

Now while it looks like it is a difficult task.

However, at least on the western theatre, it is quite simple. The road infrastructure is good and sufficient forces are present in the local area to be able to conduct operations in conditions of Air superiority.

In this scenario a vehicle such as Arjun will be quite useful. As in case of any offensive action by TSPA. The armour forces would not be able to bring all the forces to the theatre.

It is quite likely to be outnumbered for a brief period of time. For moments such as those Arjun with its survivability is the best Tank for the Indian army.


Sir the questions are interesting, but the answers are certainly not simple.
You say that on the western front the road infrastructure is better and hence the solution should be simple.

During Op. Parakram it took us 30 days to mobilise. True a lot of things have improved drastically since then, but the nature of the battle field and the force structure required for the same have also evolved.

The IBG concept is very good, but we need to understand the logistical implications a little better.
For the western front, 2 to 3 IBGs operating in tandem across a front, will require air cover to be provided by the airforce.
The air defense units will need to provide area defense capabilities. Each IBG would have its own short range air defense units like QRSAM, plus point defense units like AAA units and truck mounted AK-630 type units to take on UAVs etc.
Each of the IBGs will have heavy armour, mechanised units, infantry, self propelled artillery, towed artillery and hopefully attack helicopters.
In addition to this, medium range and long range guided and unguided rocket artillery units might also be present. Longer range units like Prahar will not move with the IBGs and may be used to provide support to multiple IBGs.
Apart from this, each IBG will require its own bridge laying units, mine clearing units and other engineering support units. In fact with the IBG concept the requirement for these type of support elements will increase.
Also, for the modern battlefield, each IBG unit will require its own ECM and ECCM units to counter drones, Loitering ammunition and cruise missiles.
The artillery units will also need the weapons locating radars etc. Short range UAVs will also be required.
Longer range HALE and MALE UAVs would not be operated at IBG level.

Now consider the amount and variety of ammunition required by all of these various units. A single IBG would have to handle the logistics for all of this. Currently each arm handles its own logistics, storage etc or it is handled at the Division level, which is a 3 times larger unit, as compared to IBG. Also in that logistics related o helicopter units is handled by AAC and IAF and not handled even at Division level.
Also a point to note is that in the past and even currently a lot of complaints are received with regards to the storage and handling of various types of ammunition and how the storage and handling is sub-optimal, leading to accidents.

Now to all this, add the complexity of new age guided ammunition. The storage and handling of regular artillery shells has been difficult for us. Now we have imported precision guided shells and in the future we will have our own precision guided shells, hopefully in fairly large quantity.
Upto now most units use only wire guided ATGMs. In future this will change to IIR and RF guided ATGMs. These will require much better storage and handling. Same goes for ammunition for all types of systems, from rocket artillery, to air defense units to ammo for attack helicopters, etc. The laser guided tank fired ATGMs may be supplemented by IIR guided units as well. The sensitive electronics and optical systems of all of these will require a a quantum leap in our logistical capabilities. I have not even mentioned regular things like fuel, lubricants, food, spare parts etc. etc. which are all regular requirements for the army, as these should be generally well taken care of and should be fairly sorted.

Note that even for the air force, the percentage of high end precision guided ammunition in its inventory is fairly small as compared to the total holding. Over the next 10 years, I would not be surprised if the guided ammunition becomes close to 60 of total ammunition is IAF inventory.

I don't know how much we have invested in improving our storage facilities to cater to the latest range of high end weapons. Having storage facilities for a few gold plated Meteor missiles and hammer or Scalp type systems is one thing and having sufficient storage for 10,000 BVR missiles and a plethora of other precision guided systems for all the three arms of the military is going to be different.

Now imagine being in a position to assemble multiple IBGs and having them ready for action in 7-10 days time frame at multiple locations. I think the 7-10 day timeframe would be the maximum time that we can take.

IAF demonstrated its capabilities to undertake short duration intense high tempo operation, when it flew more than 10,000 sorties in approximately 10 day time period, during Gagan Shakti. For IA with the new IBG concept and 2 front war scenario, more training and exercises will be required.

I don't know how much we have invested in improving our storage facilities to cater to the latest weapons systems and the combined arms IBG type of concepts. However, two things I am sure of is that the speed of deployment and speed and intensity of operation for all future wars will have to be very high. With concepts like maneuver by fire etc. a very high volume of firepower would be required in any future short and intense war, as for the western front, our intention will be to destroy as much of Paki military infrastructure and war fighting capability as possible, in the shortest possible time.
The second is that a lot more investment is required in improving our storage and logistics capabilities for the wars of the future.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4516
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby kit » 29 May 2021 20:10

gpurewal wrote:
Pratyush wrote:
Given the complexities of the modern battel field it may not be possible to reduce the size of the crew to below 3. Driver might be removed. But you will still need to add someone to manage surveillance, electronic warfare and battle management and provide security.


. Driver looks right, the turret turns right, etc, with the trigger on the driving wheel/stick.

The commander/gunner can operate the main gun, and the coax, and the situational awareness is shared between the two crewmembers.

That being said, there are huge downsides to removing an crewmember, like a loss of an extra set of eyes (reduced situational awareness). If both the commander and driver have tunnel vision at the same time (driver focused on driving, and commander on firing on certain targets), there would be opportunities for the enemy to sneak up and neutralize the vehicle.


why not have AI augmented sensors do threat perceptions and targeting options (networked with other vehicles and attack helps), would do a better job than a third person. The future battlefield is less manpower and more sensors and AI enabled hardware

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Philip » 29 May 2021 23:23

Mody ,you've pointed out a glaring deficiency,in attack helos and CS aircraft .They're reqd. but will suffer high attrition if the Afg. war is anything to go by,where even Apaches took a pasting. The best tank killers have been A-10 and SU-25 types,far more survivable than attack helos ,able to keep out of AAA fire. All attack helos should be handed over to the IA for seamless ops. Instead of attack helos,the IAF should be provided with light attack?trainer jets such as armed Hawk,Yak-130 or its Italian M-346 clone,since A-10/SU-25s are out of production. Ina ddition,substantial nos. of attack drones/UCAVs would complement the other assets. Defending against drone swarms with new air defences?EW systems is a new requirement.

gpurewal
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 97
Joined: 20 Oct 2018 03:23

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby gpurewal » 30 May 2021 11:41

kit wrote:
gpurewal wrote:
. Driver looks right, the turret turns right, etc, with the trigger on the driving wheel/stick.

The commander/gunner can operate the main gun, and the coax, and the situational awareness is shared between the two crewmembers.

That being said, there are huge downsides to removing an crewmember, like a loss of an extra set of eyes (reduced situational awareness). If both the commander and driver have tunnel vision at the same time (driver focused on driving, and commander on firing on certain targets), there would be opportunities for the enemy to sneak up and neutralize the vehicle.


why not have AI augmented sensors do threat perceptions and targeting options (networked with other vehicles and attack helps), would do a better job than a third person. The future battlefield is less manpower and more sensors and AI enabled hardware


When it comes to technology, I take the cautious stance. In the end of the day, technology breaks but Humans don't (as long sleep deprivation and hunger/thirst doesn't come into play). AI as a co-pilot is currently being fielded in aircraft but those aircraft are expensive and fielded in limited numbers (USA excluded). Within armored vehicles, implementing AI would be expensive in this century.

Regarding comments about having autonomous armoured vehicles, operated like drones, I don't like that idea either, because what if the battlefield endures extensive signal jamming and they just stop working because they cannot be remotely operated, or if the drone vehicles get hacked and overtaken by the enemy?

These are some questions that will need to be considered when going into this field.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4516
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby kit » 30 May 2021 17:27

gpurewal wrote:
kit wrote:
why not have AI augmented sensors do threat perceptions and targeting options (networked with other vehicles and attack helps), would do a better job than a third person. The future battlefield is less manpower and more sensors and AI enabled hardware


When it comes to technology, I take the cautious stance. In the end of the day, technology breaks but Humans don't (as long sleep deprivation and hunger/thirst doesn't come into play). AI as a co-pilot is currently being fielded in aircraft but those aircraft are expensive and fielded in limited numbers (USA excluded). Within armored vehicles, implementing AI would be expensive in this century.



As AI becomes widespread its not just about the cost but also effectiveness

https://www.militaryaerospace.com/computers/article/14179977/combat-vehicles-artificial-intelligence-ai-targets

The kinds of initiatives are now taking on a newer, more advanced character as artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled sensors, computers and targeting systems increasingly process and organize information more quickly, enabling ever-advancing measures of autonomy.

Commercial applications of autonomy, such as those for driverless cars, have been advancing for quite some time, however Army developers have been taking on something quite different. Combat vehicles need autonomy not just for linear navigation but rather for an integrated series of complex, fast-changing variables such as incoming attacks, rocky terrain, air integration, and means to optimize methods of attack.

Atmavik
BRFite
Posts: 978
Joined: 24 Aug 2016 04:43

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Atmavik » 30 May 2021 22:29

https://chanakyaforum.com/pla-armour-of ... himalayas/

PLA Armour Offensive in Himalayas
Lt Gen KJ Singh (Retd)

excerpt:

Our medium tanks, T-90s and T-72, in right combination are more than a match for these tanks. It is pertinent to highlight that numerically four of our regiments can match five Chinese regiments as our regiments have nearly 50 A vehicles.


Quest For Replacement Light Tank

After de-induction of PT-76 tanks in 1989, half-hearted attempts to find replacement were made including trials of Brazilian- Uruthu; British- Scorpion and French light tank in late 80s. Formalised RFI for 200 wheeled and 100 tracked light tanks was promulgated again in 2009 as part of build up for Mountain Strike Corps. Major specifications were 22 tons with gun calibre between 105 to 120 mm. Wheeled variant was to be 8×8 or 6×6 configuration. However, this RFI was retracted. Concurrently, DRDO has experimented with certain variants, utilising BMP chassis with 105 mm gun as also French GIAT TS-90 chassis. Even certain private manufacturers and DPSUs/Ordnance factories have produced prototypes in both wheeled and tracked versions, not finding much traction.

Current RFI and Options

India has projected requirement for 350 light tanks on fast track basis. This would translate to six to seven regiments depending on equipping norms. It will be important to clarify that the requirement is for an ‘Agile’ tank with optimum balance between fire power, weight (light) yet with sufficient protection. Strategic mobility in terms of air portability is an added imperative enabling strategic mobility. Desired profile would be tank of around 25 tonnes with power to PWR of 30-35 and gun calibre of 105-120 mm with missile firing and modern optronics. It is desirable to have tracks with rubber shoes to minimise damage to fragile communication arteries. Modernization in terms of Active Protection System (APS), anti-drone measures and rubberized tracks could be incorporated later. The overriding parameter is ownership of not only TOT but also ‘know-how’ through co-development under Atam Nirbhar route.

Options

Scan of global inventory generates few options ranging from eight wheeled Stryker variants, which were tried out in Yudh Abhyas series of joint exercises and even offered by USA through FMS route but not found suitable. Russia has 2S25 Sprut-SD light tank , weighing 18 tonnes, with 125 mm SB gun and PWR of 28.3 hp/ton. These tanks have also been air dropped in exercises. Israeli Sabrah tank is in keeping with her protection oriented philosophy and weighs 55 tonnes and only suited for desert terrain. :roll: Another viable line of development is to utilise expertise gained in production of K-9 Vajra SP gun. This is aligned with S Korean, K21-105 Hanwaha tank. This tank is joint production endeavour with Belgian John Cockerill Defence. Prima-facie, it can be tweaked to meet most RFI parameters, thereby adhering to stipulated deadline. The details of this platform can be accessed on Chankya Forum site and app.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Philip » 01 Jun 2021 17:10

With the new no-go list,all tanks and other related eqpt. are haram. Therefore,the IA is not going to get its 350 LTs on an urgent basis. However,the arty no-go decision hasn't been given the nod as the Israeli Athos is trying v.v. hard to squeeze its product in scuppering in our desi ATAGS which has an 8km extra range.The onus is on now for the DRDOand pvt. players to deliver on time,within cost and meeting alls ervice QRs. A tough taks as now even tank engines are banned.

niran
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5475
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 16:01

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby niran » 01 Jun 2021 20:25

pushkar.bhat wrote:I wonder what would be the Indian version of this test. Perhaps a glass of Ganga Jal or even better Old Monk. Whatever the liquid we use it should be mandatory for the T-Series and the Arjun or the FMBT.


serves no practical purpose in real life just marketing tactic to earn ooh and aahs


basant
BRFite
Posts: 457
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby basant » 02 Jun 2021 00:51

So what are competitors for the obvious candidate?

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2622
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby John » 02 Jun 2021 02:45

Atmavik wrote:Israeli Sabrah tank is in keeping with her protection oriented philosophy and weighs 55 tonnes and only suited for desert terrain.

He is confusing Sabra with Sabrah? Sabra weights 55 Tonnes while Sabrah when using ASCOT 2 weights 45 Tonnes the wheeled version using Pandur ii will weight much lower.

Edit:corrected to refer to the fact that OP was quoting an article
Last edited by John on 02 Jun 2021 05:41, edited 2 times in total.

Atmavik
BRFite
Posts: 978
Joined: 24 Aug 2016 04:43

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Atmavik » 02 Jun 2021 03:40

basant wrote:So what are competitors for the obvious candidate?


The requirement is for a medium tank so it rules out any of the western tank/Israel/Armata . Japanese will not export so the default is soko & L&T

basant
BRFite
Posts: 457
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby basant » 02 Jun 2021 04:11

I am not so sure. It is RFI and sounds too fantastic.

According to the Army’s requirements, the tanks should ideally be able to defeat the adversary’s tanks, armoured vehicles, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), and destroy or deter attack helicopters. The platform is needed to have multiple anti-aircraft weapons, counter UAVs and a ground role with different calibre assisted with remote control weapon stations.

The RFI also requires the platform to also have different stealth features.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3623
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby fanne » 02 Jun 2021 07:06

can it fly?

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1658
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 02 Jun 2021 09:02

It should be able to and also go underwater in Pangong lake

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Philip » 02 Jun 2021 09:09

I was in error,no ban on firang AVs,the GOI wants firang OEMs to collaborate with us as " paetners" to produce advanced bleedin' edge tech futuristic tanks and AVs.1770 FRCVs are reqd. in a phased manner,induction by 2030 under the " strat. partnership" route,with " comprehensive,detailed TOT, incl. detailed design manufacturing know-how" to the desi partner.
This is likely to have its effect on A-2's fortunes as the req. of the IA is an MBT of weight around 55+t which can be more easily transported and moved around.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: A Sharma, arunsrinivasan, Google [Bot], rkhanna, srin and 43 guests