Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

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.
Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3704
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Rakesh » 21 Mar 2017 02:00

Philip will never stop. That's what makes him Philip. :mrgreen:

Can you imagine Khalsa Saar if there was a single engine, 4th gen, Russian plane? :lol:

Marten
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2176
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Marten » 21 Mar 2017 02:34

Khalsa wrote:Phillip
stop please.
He is actually not interested in the Ka or the Armata.
He was really mocking your blind following for anything Russian.

And you are just playing into his hands much to the delight of all BRFites.

Khalsa, since you mentioned me without showing the courtesy of naming me -- despite the appearances, I respect Philip and his immense knowledge a lot, and he knows this as well. I do not think he took it as a barb, just as a joke, as it was intended. No reason for you or anyone to feel bad. Also, I love the Kamovs, have been a fan for a long while, even before I knew of Philip or read him on this forum. :)

Admins, Admiral, sorry for the OT.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3704
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Rakesh » 21 Mar 2017 02:40

Marten: i need no apologies.

I am Admiral Emiritus i.e. Admiral without a fleet :mrgreen:

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 976
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Khalsa » 21 Mar 2017 11:17

Marten wrote:
Khalsa wrote:Phillip
stop please.
He is actually not interested in the Ka or the Armata.
He was really mocking your blind following for anything Russian.

And you are just playing into his hands much to the delight of all BRFites.

Khalsa, since you mentioned me without showing the courtesy of naming me -- despite the appearances, I respect Philip and his immense knowledge a lot, and he knows this as well. I do not think he took it as a barb, just as a joke, as it was intended. No reason for you or anyone to feel bad. Also, I love the Kamovs, have been a fan for a long while, even before I knew of Philip or read him on this forum. :)

Admins, Admiral, sorry for the OT.


Marten my bad.
Please enjoy the Ka and Armatas and all.

Phillip I just speak for myself then. We can't be repeating this cycle again and again (the cycle of MiG-21 and T-55 and T-72).
The Russians did support us and were strategic partners from 50s to 90s and I am immensely grateful for those decades. However its over my friend.
Its every man for himself.

The Russians still have plenty of business from us
FGFA
Su-30
T-90
Frigates
Sub (upgrade) + Nuke Sub.

Bas karo yaar.
:D

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17219
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Philip » 21 Mar 2017 11:24

Wait till the flying Armata is unveiled,then I wil Taka,taka,taka....,Until then I wil Talka,talka,talka...! :rotfl:

Marten
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2176
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Marten » 21 Mar 2017 11:28

:rotfl:
Philip, there is no chance. We will probably end up selling the LCH to them in ten years. Mark my words!
Khalsa, you are missing the context mate! Loving the Kamovs is not the same as wanting them for IA/IAF! :)

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 782
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Manish_P » 21 Mar 2017 11:42

Philip wrote:Ha!Ha! Nyet comrade,but it has another beast called the KA-52,the flying tank.watch it in action here.


<OT> The Mi-28 Havoc is said to have better armor protection as compared to the KA-52, and equal firepower. Also in attack helicopters, the tandem two seat config is generally more preffered than the side-by-side seating to give better visual situational awareness to both the pilot and WSO/gunner </OT>

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 976
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Khalsa » 21 Mar 2017 13:34

Philip wrote:Wait till the flying Armata is unveiled,then I wil Taka,taka,taka....,Until then I wil Talka,talka,talka...! :rotfl:


Oh Phillip you are never gonna give up are you ?
:D :D :D :D :D

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10565
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Gagan » 22 Mar 2017 01:59

Philip ji
Please tell us about yourself. Are you one single person, or a group of people who post under the name 'philip' ?
Are you from the land of Roos too?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5672
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Indranil » 22 Mar 2017 03:24

^^^ This is against forum rules. Gagan ji, please desist. Philip saar, ignore above message.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60263
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Singha » 22 Mar 2017 08:31

2 page article

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... been-19836

Takeaway
..great tanks are in themselves not enough. Logistical tail, mobility of infantry, air and artillery support are vital...

A panzer leader like rokosovsky held back his tanks and used artillery seeing a opportunity

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60263
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Singha » 22 Mar 2017 08:40

Search for battle of brody in wikipedia

Interesting to note kruschev was a powerful komissar those days spying on generals back to stalin.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17219
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Philip » 22 Mar 2017 12:34

Ha!Ha! Phi-Lip.Two words.Does it answer the Q? No. I am not from the land of Rus.,neither I am I a follower of Mr. Marx. I love watching the other Marx..Brothers! No biz dealings with Mr. Putin either unlike Pres. Trump,though would love him to send me some caviar and Stoly.
However,like all of us,input often comes from various sources,nothing classified ever posted.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19583
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Austin » 22 Mar 2017 22:28

CAG criticises Indian Army for slack maintenance of weapons systems

http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/ ... 79945.html
NEW DELHI: The Comptroller and Auditor General has slammed the army for not being able to effectively maintain large inventory of critical weapon systems including radars and battle tanks.

The CAG also took strong objection to inordinate delays by the Border Roads Organisation (BRO) in construction of 61 strategically-important roads, having a total length of 3,409 KM, under the Indo China Border Roads (ICBRs) project.

In a report which was tabled in Parliament, the CAG criticised the army for failing to come up with any long-term perspective plan for creation of infrastructure for newly- inducted military systems.

Citing examples of delays in maintenance of key weapon platforms, it said against the norm of 153 days, it took the army 1,512 days for the overhauling of BMP Infantry Combat Vehicles.

"Similarly, for Tanks T-72, the delay ranged up to 836 days against the norm of 144 days. Overhaul of Radar and its variants also experienced delays up to 921 days," the report said.


It specifically mentioned about lack of facility for repair and overhaul of Main Battle tank Arjun which were inducted into the army from 2004 and is due for overhaul from 2020-21.

"In case of Tank T-72, the quantum of backlog of overhaul was 713 at the end of 2010-11 and 479 at the end of 2015-16 which constitutes around 20 per cent of total holding," said the report on working of Army's Base Workshops covering a period of six years from 2010-11 to 2015-16.


The report suggested the army should have a detailed plan to keep the weapons system available for any eventuality.

Referring to maintenance of armoured recovery vehicles (ARV WZT 2), the CAG said the facility for overhaul of the fleet was set up in March 2009 after 28 years of its introduction.

"The vehicle was due for overhaul since 1996-97, but only 22 ARV WZT-2 could be overhauled against the total strength of 222. The equipment was likely to be de-inducted by 2018,"
said CAG.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3458
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby srai » 23 Mar 2017 04:30

^^^

Too many times we keep seeing this type of criticism and for a valid reason. The IA could get a lot more out of its existing weapon systems with proper infrastructure to support products over their lifetimes. But it seems, a new inventory keeps getting acquired without proper life-cycle support in place and even after a decade in service those facilities still don't get setup.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33452
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby shiv » 27 Mar 2017 06:52

This is Sputnik, so take FWIW
https://sputniknews.com/military/201703 ... vs-abrams/
M1 Abrams vs. T-90: Top US General Admits Russia Has Achieved Tank Parity


He recalled, for instance, that the US lost 80 Abrams in Iraq during the 2003 invasion, out of a total of 1,135 machines deployed. "As for tanks disabled by enemy fire and due to serious damage suffered by major components and systems, the picture is just depressing," Tuchkov wrote. In 2006, "the army had to ship 530 tanks –i.e. almost half of those deployed, off for repair in the US."
....
As for Russia and its T-90, it has a lower profile, a higher top speed, a longer operational range, and at 46.5 tons, weighs a full 16.5 tons less than the 63 ton US behemoth. It has partial dynamic protection by default, with no additional skirt installations required, and according to Tuchkov, has demonstrated its prowess in the Syrian conflict.


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5756
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby brar_w » 27 Mar 2017 07:06

He was saying in terms of tank technology in general on a number of systems around the world that are close, at par or superior as he highlighted the need to take stuff out of the lab and put it on a future tank. The US Army has no real money for a new tank however given the other stuff it has to modernize first. Number of cold war, or post cold war systems need to be significantly upgraded or completely recapitalized and these will consume majority of the modernization budget through mid to late 2020s so for that moment it is just upgrades.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7463
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Pratyush » 27 Mar 2017 07:16

What is tank parity. Does that mean that tanks from both armies will step out of the line and then challange the tanks from the other side to a duel.

What about the other systems that a tank operates with, they will all of a sudden become irrelevant just because a tank turns up on the battlefield.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60263
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Singha » 27 Mar 2017 09:28

russia already had parity or superiority in those except UAV.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5756
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby brar_w » 27 Mar 2017 09:34

I don't think total ground armor recapitalization is on the cards with the type of threats the US Army is likely to encounter. For now they will concentrate on command and control, counter-insurgency multi domain operations and ballistic missile defense. The USAF and USN will continue to get funding priority for the high end fight unless the Army can figure out how to effectively integrated in the Air Sea battle and justify high end investments beyond IAMD. The large scale tank on tank battles of the cold-war are not a pressing enough threat to take resources away from other investments and needs that are more pressing. Even the footprint in Europe is quite small compared to the cold war days.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7571
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby rohitvats » 27 Mar 2017 09:55

The US Army at present has actually moved away from armor heavy structure of the Cold War.

Today, it does not even have full fledged armor battalions/regiments of the kind found earlier. What you've today are combined arms battalions under Armor Brigade Combat Team (ABCT). Each ABCT has three combined arms battalion with two battalions having 2 x armor + 1 x mechanized companies while third one has 1 x armor + 2 x mechanized companies for a total of 90 tanks per Armor BCT.

Today, US Army has 13+2 Armor BCT ( 2 BCT being converted to Armor BCT) which should give about ~1,500 active tanks.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5756
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby brar_w » 27 Mar 2017 10:27

rohitvats wrote:
Today, US Army has 13+2 Armor BCT ( 2 BCT being converted to Armor BCT) which should give about ~1,500 active tanks.


As a reference that is a few hundred short of the total number of tanks the US deployed in GW1.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7571
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby rohitvats » 27 Mar 2017 10:37

brar_w wrote:
rohitvats wrote:
Today, US Army has 13+2 Armor BCT ( 2 BCT being converted to Armor BCT) which should give about ~1,500 active tanks.


As a reference that is a few hundred short of the total number of tanks the US deployed in GW1.


Thanks.

OT for the thread but I've a request - can you point me to studies/papers which discuss the optimal structure of various combat arms (infantry, armor, AD, mechanized, BCT) in US Army? For example, why should a tank company have 14 tanks or why Combined Arms Battalions in Armor BCT moved from 2+2 company structure to 2+1 structure? I'm trying to understand rationale for how Table of Organization & Equipment (T0&E) is arrived at basis manpower, organic fire-power, mobility and inorganic support.

Thanks.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17219
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Philip » 27 Mar 2017 13:48

Austin's post reg. the CAG report on tank maintenance or lack of it by the IA is the endemic problem affecting the services and nation. We simply ignore regular maintenance of anything given to us.Take public buildings for example,our major public buildings which were built during the British Raj have survived because they built then to last for centuries.Our new blgs. built by the PWD,whoever, can't even last a few monsoons. Somehow the aim seems to be acquire new toys ,preferably from abroad so that firang junkets and "perks" come with the deal,and then ignore support,spares and maintenance. One fine day,emergency orders are issued when such spares and eqpt. will cost a bomb,like the ammo that the OFB cannot produce which had to be a rush-order to Russia ..(pardon the pun!) and to israel!

I said in an earlier post,Avadi has enough and more on its plate in T-72 upgrades,T-90 prod.,specialist AVs,Arjun follow up whatever, before we need to think about a new FMBT. Dozens of LCHs ,armed Dhruvs/Rudras,MI-17Vs,LUHs and KA-52s for the IA, will give us a huge close support capability with these "flying tanks".Increasing the availability of the thousands of tanks in our inventory will be the equiv of ordering a few hundred new ones too.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5756
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby brar_w » 27 Mar 2017 17:55

rohitvats wrote:
brar_w wrote:
As a reference that is a few hundred short of the total number of tanks the US deployed in GW1.


Thanks.

OT for the thread but I've a request - can you point me to studies/papers which discuss the optimal structure of various combat arms (infantry, armor, AD, mechanized, BCT) in US Army? For example, why should a tank company have 14 tanks or why Combined Arms Battalions in Armor BCT moved from 2+2 company structure to 2+1 structure? I'm trying to understand rationale for how Table of Organization & Equipment (T0&E) is arrived at basis manpower, organic fire-power, mobility and inorganic support.

Thanks.


I haven't gone over the complete document but THIS may help answer some of those force structure questions. On the earlier point obout the shrinking quantity of US armor compared to the early 1990s -

Army modularity—restructuring the force to produce a supply of directly interchangeable
units—is the product of a number of experiences and concerns.1 Modularity may be best characterized
as the Army’s institutional response to a host of factors, some stretching back to the
early 1990s, that caused the Army to move away from its traditional division-based force to a
brigade-centric design. The most salient considerations included the following:


• There was a realization (circa 1990) that the Cold War was over and that, in its absence,
the United States’ standing was no longer endangered by a revisionist power with direct
military force. In brief, there was no “peer competitor.”
• There were concerns about the Army’s enduring national security relevance after 1999’s
Operation Allied Force succeeded against Milosevic’s Serbia without recourse to ground
forces, as well as the Army’s perceived difficulty in deploying its Task Force Hawk in support
of the allied campaign there.2
• There was a subsequent desire by then–U.S. Army Chief of Staff (CSA, 1999–2003) General
Eric K. Shinseki for a responsive, mobile, midweight (that is, mobile with its own
vehicles) force that would be deployable by air to any crisis in the world within 96 hours.
• The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, increased demand for Army forces.
• The Army became engaged in extended campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq.
• The Army was required to support enduring global counterterrorism efforts.
• The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and other defense guidance emphasized building
partnerships and partner capacity and the provision of security force assistance to
beleaguered friendly states around the world.
• There was a growing requirement to support civil authorities in homeland defense and
domestic disaster mitigation and response.
• The Army faced the imperative to be flexible and adaptive in providing appropriate military
capabilities to combatant commanders as the United States prosecuted its campaigns
against a variety of adversaries and antagonists


Given some if not most of these still ring true, it would be very tough for Army Generals to get a new tank through the acquisition cycle. It is far easier to push things that can complement the Navy and Air force in their Air-Sea Battle (a term no longer used for the fear of isolating the Army lobby) such as Integrated Air and Missile Defense, Long range fires, coastal defense, multi domain command and control and other closely allied programs such as future vertical lift.

The US army has also found unique missions to its traditional systems such as the current SCO project to enable Army guns to fire the hypervelocity projectile (developed for the navy Railgun program) in a counter missile defense mission. But despite of this pushing a new tank program above upgrades to the Abrams will be mighty hard. For now they are going to be busy buying JLTV's for the next many years..

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6498
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Mort Walker » 28 Mar 2017 02:03

All the IA T-72 and T-90 should be sent for recycling. The steel will be needed to the Arjun MkII. IA MUST BE FORCED TO BUY INDIAN. PERIOD.

RohitAM
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 47
Joined: 25 Oct 2016 21:28

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby RohitAM » 31 Mar 2017 19:01

The Armor Brigade Combat Team (ABCT) seems to be a smaller numbered, optimally organized way of looking at a traditional Soviet Motor Rifle Division, with emphasis on IFV's and Infantry compared to Tanks. Of course, within the ABCT, the US Army's networking and organizational system come into play, which makes it a much more lethal unit.

Do we have such an organization within the IA in the three main attack corps that we have deployed on the Western Front? Or are the tank regiments designed to operate independently from the mechanized and motorized army units?

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19583
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Austin » 05 Apr 2017 23:18

India Looking for Substantial Make in India Content in T 90 Tanks
By Vinay Shukla

http://www.indiastrategic.in/2017/04/04 ... -90-tanks/
Discussions have been held for some time in both the countries, the last round on March 18-19 in New Delhi. India is looking at 464 MBTs in addition to some 850 the Indian Army already operates. The deal is reportedly around $ Two billion, and will involve upgrades of the existing tanks at the Heavy Vehicles Factory of the Ordnance Factories Board (OFB) at Avadi in Tamil Nadu.

But this time, Transfer of Technology (ToT) will be a key component any agreement as per the Indian Government’s new Make in India policy to derive some offset gains for big purchases. The state-run Sputnik news agency has given some indications of the ongoing talks but officially, representatives of Uralvagonzavod (UVZ), which makes the tank, and Rosoboronexport (ROE), which handles the arms trade and exports, declined comment.

It may be noted that on March 18-19, the two countries held a Military-Technical Conference covering a comprehensive exchange of views on upgrades of various Russian origin systems in India, from aircraft to vehicles and ships.

The Indian Army plans to have nearly 1700 T 90 tanks by 2020. On offer from Russia now is the advanced T 90MS variant which incorporates some of the turret features of Next-Gen Armata tank developed for the Russian Army, Director of Moscow-based Centre for Analyses of Strategies and Technologies (CAST) independent think tank, Dr Ruslan Pukhov, told India Strategic.

According to him, it was high time for India and Russia to increase cooperation, but as for Make in India involving deep transfer of technology, a lot would depend upon the capabilities of Indian companies to absorb cutting edge technologies.

“Take for example the case of older Konkurs anti-tank wire-guided missiles, Russia has given full technology to India, but it could not absorb it. Some of your defence labs and facilities are world class, some are lingering in the past,” Dr Pukhov said.

The first India-Russia Military Technical Conference held in New Delhi on March 17-18 was co-chaired by Defence Minister Arun Jaitley and Russian Industries and Trade Minister Denis Manturov. It was attended by 100 Russian and 150 Indian companies, both from public and private sectors.

Signing of a long term agreement on lifecycle support and maintenance of the Sukhoi Su-30MKI air dominance fighters between HAL on the one hand and Russia’s United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) and United Engines Corporation (UEC) on the other was a key highlight of the conference. It was organised by the Department of Defence Production.

Russia is expected to supply spares and other equipment to the tune of US$ 300 million under the Su-30MKI MRO deal.

“Russia is ready to set up centres of competence across India for maintenance of Russian-origin military hardware,” Denis Manturov said, and called for the creation of five platforms to manage defence cooperation between Russia and India: helicopter building, aircraft building, shipbuilding, armour and anti-aircraft weapons.

Once details on specific arrangements are worked out, the two countries should be signing inter-governmental agreements to facilitate requirements of various platforms with the Indian armed forces.

Vivek K
BRFite
Posts: 1703
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Vivek K » 05 Apr 2017 23:48

“Take for example the case of older Konkurs anti-tank wire-guided missiles, Russia has given full technology to India, but it could not absorb it. Some of your defence labs and facilities are world class, some are lingering in the past,” Dr Pukhov said

This guy seems to be of a Vulcan origin. What about the main gun barrel? Has that tech been give? Why don't we remove the T-90s gun with the Arjun's and call it the T-90 MKI? Just kidding.

The Russians cannot give full tech to a competitor. Anyone who believes otherwise contact me - I have a lot of lemons for you to suck on!

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3458
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby srai » 06 Apr 2017 04:18

Wasn't ToT part of the original deal(s)? It was the Russians who reneged on things like T-90 armor and 125mm barrel tech. DRDO made substitutes.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3704
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Rakesh » 06 Apr 2017 04:42

:rotfl: Wait a sec! Are we doing MII of the T-90 when we have the Arjun? This is tragically ironic!


ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ramana » 06 Apr 2017 06:28

Austin wrote:India Looking for Substantial Make in India Content in T 90 Tanks
By Vinay Shukla

http://www.indiastrategic.in/2017/04/04 ... -90-tanks/
Discussions have been held for some time in both the countries, the last round on March 18-19 in New Delhi. India is looking at 464 MBTs in addition to some 850 the Indian Army already operates. The deal is reportedly around $ Two billion, and will involve upgrades of the existing tanks at the Heavy Vehicles Factory of the Ordnance Factories Board (OFB) at Avadi in Tamil Nadu.


But this time, Transfer of Technology (ToT) will be a key component any agreement as per the Indian Government’s new Make in India policy to derive some offset gains for big purchases. The state-run Sputnik news agency has given some indications of the ongoing talks but officially, representatives of Uralvagonzavod (UVZ), which makes the tank, and Rosoboronexport (ROE), which handles the arms trade and exports, declined comment.

It may be noted that on March 18-19, the two countries held a Military-Technical Conference covering a comprehensive exchange of views on upgrades of various Russian origin systems in India, from aircraft to vehicles and ships.

The Indian Army plans to have nearly 1700 T 90 tanks by 2020. On offer from Russia now is the advanced T 90MS variant which incorporates some of the turret features of Next-Gen Armata tank developed for the Russian Army, Director of Moscow-based Centre for Analyses of Strategies and Technologies (CAST) independent think tank, Dr Ruslan Pukhov, told India Strategic.

According to him, it was high time for India and Russia to increase cooperation, but as for Make in India involving deep transfer of technology, a lot would depend upon the capabilities of Indian companies to absorb cutting edge technologies. :(( :mrgreen:

Take for example the case of older Konkurs anti-tank wire-guided missiles, Russia has given full technology to India, but it could not absorb it. Some of your defence labs and facilities are world class, some are lingering in the past,” Dr Pukhov said. :?:

The first India-Russia Military Technical Conference held in New Delhi on March 17-18 was co-chaired by Defence Minister Arun Jaitley and Russian Industries and Trade Minister Denis Manturov. It was attended by 100 Russian and 150 Indian companies, both from public and private sectors.

Signing of a long term agreement on lifecycle support and maintenance of the Sukhoi Su-30MKI air dominance fighters between HAL on the one hand and Russia’s United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) and United Engines Corporation (UEC) on the other was a key highlight of the conference. It was organised by the Department of Defence Production.

Russia is expected to supply spares and other equipment to the tune of US$ 300 million under the Su-30MKI MRO deal.

“Russia is ready to set up centres of competence across India for maintenance of Russian-origin military hardware,” Denis Manturov said, and called for the creation of five platforms to manage defence cooperation between Russia and India: helicopter building, aircraft building, shipbuilding, armour and anti-aircraft weapons.

Once details on specific arrangements are worked out, the two countries should be signing inter-governmental agreements to facilitate requirements of various platforms with the Indian armed forces.


What type of gun does the Armata have?
Can the T-90 have the Arjun gun which seems quite effective?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ramana » 06 Apr 2017 06:32



Very good news. It doesn't tell what missile was fired?

Maybe the DRDO should sell a few Arjuns to China as they praised it!!!!

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7463
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Pratyush » 06 Apr 2017 06:57

Rakesh wrote::rotfl: Wait a sec! Are we doing MII of the T-90 when we have the Arjun? This is tragically ironic!


It would be comical. If it was not so tragic.

Vivek K
BRFite
Posts: 1703
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Vivek K » 06 Apr 2017 08:06

Only in India can we screw up so bad!

Sumair
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 47
Joined: 02 Jun 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Sumair » 06 Apr 2017 12:55

I had so much hope from the Modi government regarding the procurement mess and obsession of defense forces for the foreign maal; but alas. Seems like no hope is left.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 883
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby RKumar » 06 Apr 2017 13:43

[OT Alert on]
Why we get T-90 articles as soon as Arjun is in news for good reasons? lets wait for another round of tests and IA come back with request to replace the German engine as it is 20 years old and meet BS III. Which court has banned, so they can't buy it. So IA need a newer environment friendly engine which run on Alcohol, bio-fuel, petrol and diesel. Beside that there will be another 72 important and urgent changes required before IA order 126 Arjuns. :)

BTW, IA thought only 1 Arjun will be enough for the whole Pak/China Army!!
[OT Alert off]

ashishvikas
BRFite
Posts: 167
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ashishvikas » 09 Apr 2017 12:27

#AR17: Trials of @DRDO_India developed multi-spectral camouflage paints for masking T-90s and T-72s is currently underway.

#AR17 Trials for @DRDO_India developed 'commander thermal imaging cum laser range finding' sights for IA's T-90s were carried out in 2016.

#AR17: 67 of the 73 'tank fittable' improvements meant for Arjun MK-2 MBT have been declared successful.
The total number of improvements envisioned is 84. Out of which 73 are tank fittable as delineated above.


https://twitter.com/delhidefence/status ... 7839698945

https://twitter.com/delhidefence/status ... 1347461120

https://twitter.com/delhidefence/status ... 8449990656

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3458
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby srai » 09 Apr 2017 17:45

RKumar wrote:[OT Alert on]
...

BTW, IA thought only 1 Arjun will be enough for the whole Pak/China Army!!
[OT Alert off]


I think there's a new requirement for this mythical Arjun--absolutely critical-- ... Krishna!


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: arunsrinivasan, Baidu [Spider], Cain Marko, Google Feedfetcher, marimuthu, Thakur_B and 50 guests