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.
Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1592
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Manish_P » 27 Sep 2018 09:27

nam wrote:If tank battles are to move towards NLOS, then there is no need of heavy duty armor. An IFV, with APS + ATGM rounds are enough.


Actual service personnel have mentioned (IIRC earlier in this very thread) how MBTs and IFVs (and CAS elements) work as part of combined arms.

Also need to take into account how survivable are IFVs against mines/IEDs.

PS: Somehow i just can't seem to shake off the 'BVR AAMs' analogy

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36074
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby SaiK » 27 Sep 2018 09:39

even with trophy or arena defence system?

Kersi
BRFite
Posts: 149
Joined: 31 May 2017 12:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Kersi » 27 Sep 2018 14:38

ramana wrote:From Twitter

Defence Acquisitions Council, led by @nsitharaman, accords approval for procurement of 1000 engines of 1000 BHP for T-72 tanks under ‘Buy & Make’ category for over Rs 2300 crore. Post transfer of technology most of these engines will be manufactured by Ordnance Factories Board


Which engines are we getting for T-72s ? MTU ?? I do not think there are any Indian designed engines of this size in India.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9876
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 27 Sep 2018 15:53

This is related to news in July 2018

https://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/sitharaman-releases-made-in-india-multi-fuel-war-tank-engines-to-army-118072800512_1.html

Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman handed over two categories of indigenised multi-fuel engines for powering main battle tanks to the Vice Chief of Army Staff on Saturday. The engines were developed at the Engine Factory Avadi (EFA), Chennai, a unit of Ordnance Factory Board under the Department of Defence Production.

The engines have been fully indigenised for the first time under the Make-in-India Programme.


The first engine with 1,000 HP, named V92S2, powers T-90 Bhisma Tank and the second, named V-46-6, powers T-72 Ajeya Tank and its variants. Though these engines are manufactured based on Russian design, EFA has worked tirelessly to make critical assemblies under “Make in India” programme and has emerged successful in its efforts. These assemblies, which include Turbo Charger, Super Charger, and Fuel Injection Pumps, were sourced from Russia earlier.

EFA will be manufacturing the two engines with 100 per cent Indian made parts, according to an official release.


I guess from the above news the V92S2 engine is being used in the T-72 tanks which are similar in design to the T-90 tanks, see Indian army procurement doc from Sep 16 where they planned to install V92S2 engines in T-72 tanks as part of upgrade

https://indianarmy.nic.in/makeinindia/importantinformation/1000%20HP%20Engine%20with%20associated%20peripherals.pdf

Avinandan
BRFite
Posts: 155
Joined: 12 Jun 2005 12:29
Location: Pune

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Avinandan » 27 Sep 2018 19:15

Noob question -> Can we salvage the old engines for something useful ?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50757
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 27 Sep 2018 19:44

May be gen-sets as they are diesel powered but who will make a production run of 1000 gen-sets?
Not worth it except in dire straits.

Vips
BRFite
Posts: 1229
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Vips » 04 Oct 2018 03:16

India eyeing T-14 Armata as Army Chief Gen Bipin Rawat visits Russia.

Indian Army is now planning to procure Russia's multi-purpose future ready combat vehicles (FRCV) T-14 Armata to replace its ageing T-72 main battle tanks (MBTs).

According to Sputniknews.com, the Indian Army hopes to buy 1,770 multi-purpose T-14 Armata FRCVs from Russia which is likely to cost USD 4.5 billion.

With the Army Chief General Bipin Rawat arriving in Russia for a six-day visit to the country on Monday, the spotlight is back on the deal to purchase T-14 Armata FRCVs.

The deal to buy T-14 Armata FRCVs, if negotiated properly and finalised in the later stages, is likely to further cement the strategic bilateral partnership between the two countries.

Shedding more light on Army Chief's 6-day visit, Col Aman Anand, PRO Indian Army, said, ''General Bipin Rawat is visiting Russia from October 1-6 an official bilateral visit. During the visit, the Chief of the Army Staff-led delegation is scheduled to meet Senior Military hierarchy of Russian Armed Forces and visit Key Military formations and establishments.''

''General Bipin Rawat shall be visiting Mikhailovskaya Artillery Academy, Headquarters of Western Military District at St Petersburg and General Staff Academy and Headquarters of a Motorised Rifle Division at Moscow,'' the statement said.

Interestingly, the Gen Rawat's visit also coincides with a bilateral annual summit being organised on October 5 in New Delhi during which defence deals worth over USD 10 billion are likely to be signed.

The T-14 Armata FRCVs are likely to figure in the discussions as the Indian military delegation led by General Rawat meets the top brass of the Russian Armed Forces and key military formations and establishments.

The procurement process for FRCVs was initiated by the Indian Army in November 2017 as part of a plan to induct hundreds of armoured vehicles similar to the Russian T-14 Armata, Ukrainian Oplot, and South Korean K2 Black Panther main battle tanks.

According to the proposed procurement plan, the FRCVs will be manufactured in India by a private company in collaboration with the overseas original equipment manufacturer.

General Rawat is also likely to discuss the maintenance and life-cycle support of Russian-made military platforms in India.

The Indian Army has expressed hope that Gen Rawat's Russia visit will take forward the military to military cooperation to the next level.

"The visit is yet another milestone in giving impetus to the strategic partnership between India and Russia and taking forward the military to military cooperation to the next level," it said.


FWIW: The news report is attributed to Sputniknews

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9821
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby sum » 04 Oct 2018 07:11

Honestly, wont be surprised if it goes through

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19640
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Philip » 04 Oct 2018 08:37

Well, its the chief's call.However, if the IA does acquire an FMBT like the T-14 or equiv., it will be a massive qualitative leapfrog over anything that the Pakis can acquire.Even now the IA's armour is superior both in quality as well as numbers. What the IA does also need, perhaps more urgently is a light tank with amphib. capabilities that can be used both in the mountains as well as in amphib ops like the erstwhile PT-76 which performed so well in the '71 war.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 685
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 04 Oct 2018 08:57

Grrrrr. We should be thinking if we need that much armour...

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36074
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby SaiK » 05 Oct 2018 09:54

Futuristic Infantry combat vehicle project gets delayed again; Indian Army to rework the project
The Indian Army is reworking the $8-billion Futuristic Infantry Combat Vehicle (FICV) project.
https://www.financialexpress.com/defenc ... t/1337697/

kann
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 3
Joined: 17 Oct 2018 03:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby kann » 19 Oct 2018 02:11

Hello All; appreciate you folks letting me join. Been a long-time lurker. I do have a query for any resident tank experts we might have regarding T-90's in service with the Indian Army. During a documentary; IA was demonstrating deep river crossings on the T-90. They pointed out how Indian Army uses "sealing putty" in panel gaps, weld joints and along the circumference of the hatch. Is this a standard practice on modern MBT's (like Merkava; Leopard 2 A7 ; Abrams)? If they need putty to keep water out ; do they need putty also to keep out Sarin or Phosgene? How is this tank NBC Capable if it is not even watertight ? Is this a case of poor workmaship and unique to the T-90's in Indian Army service or common for all T-90's? And finally ; am I reading too much into this and missing something ? Thanks in advance folks

gpurewal
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 2
Joined: 20 Oct 2018 03:23

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby gpurewal » 21 Oct 2018 09:47

kann wrote:Hello All; appreciate you folks letting me join. Been a long-time lurker. I do have a query for any resident tank experts we might have regarding T-90's in service with the Indian Army. During a documentary; IA was demonstrating deep river crossings on the T-90. They pointed out how Indian Army uses "sealing putty" in panel gaps, weld joints and along the circumference of the hatch. Is this a standard practice on modern MBT's (like Merkava; Leopard 2 A7 ; Abrams)? If they need putty to keep water out ; do they need putty also to keep out Sarin or Phosgene? How is this tank NBC Capable if it is not even watertight ? Is this a case of poor workmaship and unique to the T-90's in Indian Army service or common for all T-90's? And finally ; am I reading too much into this and missing something ? Thanks in advance folks



Regarding armoured vehicles in an NBC environment, the crew is kept safe via positive air pressure inside the vehicle. The air pressure inside the vehicle is higher than the air pressure outside, hence contaminated air cannot come inside the vehicle via the gaps, crevices, etc. The only way for the contaminated air to come inside is through the air intakes, which will filter out the contaminants via scrubbers and filters.

Regards,

kann
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 3
Joined: 17 Oct 2018 03:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby kann » 25 Oct 2018 04:40

@gpurewal: Thank you! just to clarify And this mechanism wouldn't keep out water ? Also is there any record of western MBT's using sealing putty ?

gpurewal
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 2
Joined: 20 Oct 2018 03:23

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby gpurewal » 25 Oct 2018 23:33

kann wrote:@gpurewal: Thank you! just to clarify And this mechanism wouldn't keep out water ? Also is there any record of western MBT's using sealing putty ?


We Canadians like to use Duct Tape for all manners of maintenance and other handy work; ranging from fixing the old Sea Kings, to sealing tanks. All jesting aside, the following is from a quora post (Canadian Forces have Leopard 2):

"Only if the tank is designed to be able to do it. For example from my personal experience, the leopard 2 is designed to be able to cross water with a depth of about 4 meters. But to do this, it needs to be prepared, there are special inflatable seals all around the vehicle that need to be inflated, and of course the snorkel needs to be mounted so the engine still gets air.

Even so, it's one hell of a leaky ride, but thankfully the tank also has integrated pumps to get the water out of there again."


ref: https://www.quora.com/Can-a-tank-be-prepared-for-deep-fording

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22036
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Austin » 01 Nov 2018 08:39

https://twitter.com/Brig_Raj/status/1057644480474570752

Army holds approx 1000 T-90 & 2000 ageing T-72 tanks. It has floated"Request for Proposal"to acquire1700T-14 ultra modern tanks. Army seeks:Weight<57 tons.Armament, 125mm smooth bore gun. Penetration: 650mm at 2km. Engine1500HP. Auto laser range finder.Tank armour thickness-600mm

sivab
BRFite
Posts: 872
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby sivab » 01 Nov 2018 09:23

Austin wrote:https://twitter.com/Brig_Raj/status/1057644480474570752

Army holds approx 1000 T-90 & 2000 ageing T-72 tanks. It has floated"Request for Proposal"to acquire1700T-14 ultra modern tanks. Army seeks:Weight<57 tons.Armament, 125mm smooth bore gun. Penetration: 650mm at 2km. Engine1500HP. Auto laser range finder.Tank armour thickness-600mm


That is factually incorrect. It is not a RFP, but RFI. It was issued one year ago. The official PDF below contains all the details.
There is nothing about T-14 in it. Max weight is 57.5 tons, 120mm or 125mm is acceptable.

https://indianarmy.nic.in/writereaddata ... v%2017.pdf

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22036
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Austin » 01 Nov 2018 09:57

Thanks for the link , The weight is 50 T class +/- 15 and modular vehical from RFP

2. The Future Ready Combat Vehicle is proposed to be a Medium Weight Class Tank ( 50 Tons ±15% )


The lower the weight the better though as it affects tactical/strategic mobility and all up weight matters over bridge and other areas , I see French LecLerc and Armata as possible contender meeting specs quoted in RFI with French Leclerc having an advantage in proven design and combat proven in desert conflict and Armata being future ready due to modularity and isolation of combat module/safety. Weight wise both would be in IA specs on the lower side of ~ 50 T , The french electronics from Thales should also have an edge.

Eventually it will boil down to OEM meeting TOT and Cost as specified in RFI

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1592
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Manish_P » 01 Nov 2018 10:10

Austin wrote: I see French LecLerc and Armata as possible contender meeting specs quoted in RFI with French Leclerc having an advantage in proven design and combat proven in desert conflict and Armata being future ready due to modularity and isolation of combat module/safety. Weight wise both would be in IA specs on the lower side of ~ 50 T , The french electronics from Thales should also have an edge. Eventually it will boil down to OEM meeting TOT and Cost as specified in RFI


Come now, Sir. The Leclerc does not hold any advantage. It will be there only to give it some semblance of a impartial contest (No 'Rafale scandal' type moment). The past decades of using russian tanks (doctrine), along with the local PSUs maintenance and OEMs set up in place, will ensure that the Armata has the edge - operationally as well as logistically. What ever doesn't work (if it doesn't work out) on the Armata will be plugged by using French/Indian/Other equipment.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22036
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Austin » 01 Nov 2018 10:23

Like I said the French Leclerc is a proven design with atleast a decade of running in ME and in recent conflict against Houthis they have done well even with those Barbarian Saudi/UAE having no clue how to use it in combat. Thats a novelty because a lot of flaws will get eliminated in operational environment

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19640
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Philip » 11 Nov 2018 22:06

For quite some time I've been touting the idea of mating the Arjun hassis with the T-90 turret. It appears that the Europeans have done just that with the Leopard chassis mated to the Leclerc two- man turret with an auto-loader et al.Considerable saving in weight giving a better speed, range, etc. I am sure that the samd can be done using the Arjun-2 chassis and the latest T- 90 turret in an experiment in short time.If successful- and we are making the T-90 at home, we would rescue the A-2 program to a large extent plus obtain a large part of our future MBT requirements from a desi- built MBT.Considerable weight- saving should put to pasture the " obesity" problem being used against acquiring the Arjun.The CVRDE should give it a serious try.

Ankit Desai
BRFite
Posts: 469
Joined: 05 May 2006 21:28
Location: Gujarat

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Ankit Desai » 07 Dec 2018 06:30

Will Indian Army get $8-billion, made in India, Future Infantry Combat Vehicle? Fate to be decided soon

The fate of the $8-billion Future Infantry Combat Vehicle (FICV) project for the Indian Army is expected to be sealed when the Defence Secretary Production Ajay Kumar will meet with the stakeholders next week. Sources confirmed to FE that, “During the expected meeting on Dec 12, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) will decide the fate and the future line of action for the project which is expected to come under the ‘Make II’ category in an effort to involve the private sector in the defence sector to get more active in Make in India initiative.”

If all is clear then the Project FICV will go to the Defence Acquisition Council for approval. To be `Made in India’ it will have minimum 40% indigenous content.

According to sources, “The government is keen that this project is fast-tracked and it will speed up the modernisation of the armoured vehicles of the Indian Army.”

So far three companies including Mahindra and Mahindra, Reliance Defence and Engineering and Titagarh Wagons have sent their proposals to the MoD. The potential Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) include US-based General Dynamic, Russian companies under the umbrella of Rosoboronexport, and German Rheinmetall – subject to approval – among others.

As has been reported by Financial Express Online earlier, initially the FICV project which was approved under the strategic partnership model for the armoured vehicle segment was considered under the ‘Make’ category under DPP-2008.

Under the Make II category no funding is required from the MoD, unlike the ‘Make’ category, where the ministry has to provide 90% of funds up to the prototype stage. As per the Chapter–III of DPP-2016, the ‘Make’ procedure for indigenous design, development and manufacture of defence equipment/ weapon systems was simplified in 2016.

Later a new subcategory — Make-II (industry funded) — was introduced with a major focus on development of equipment/ system/platform or their upgrades or their subsystems/sub-assembly/assemblies/components. In this subcategory, no government funding is envisaged for prototype development purposes, but there is assurance of orders on successful development and trials of the prototype.

Under the initial proposal of `Make’ category, the plan was to have three development agencies (DAs) – two from the private sector and one from the Ordnance Factory Board, and the MoD had to give minimum of Rs 500 crore each to the three DAs as per the procedure. While under the Make II category, the ministry hopes to save money, it will ensure that the delayed project will move faster, sources told FE.

The Project FICV which has a lifespan of 32 years, around 2,600 FICVs will replace the Army’s old Russian-origin BMP-2 infantry combat vehicles.


-Ankit

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2254
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby abhik » 09 Dec 2018 09:02

"40% indigenous content" sounds pathetic, it needs to be at least 80% (both IP and manufacturing) - else it will be just another screwdriverigiri project.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9876
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 09 Dec 2018 09:30

Maybe pathetic but we can't run before crawling in the 1st stage.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2830
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby chola » 09 Dec 2018 11:34

abhik wrote:"40% indigenous content" sounds pathetic, it needs to be at least 80% (both IP and manufacturing) - else it will be just another screwdriverigiri project.


No, % of indigenous is far less meaningful than ownership of IP.

HAL can make 70% of the SU-30 MKI. But once the last plane of the contract rolls off the line, it is over. We cannot build the Flanker anymore unless we pay through the nose for another contract. THAT is screwdrivergiri.

The DDM moaned about the Dhruv being only 10% indigenous during its early days. BUT we own the intellectual property. We make as many as we want and derive as many variants as we want. It is ours because we own the design. Local content can always be raised later.

The FICV will be ours just like the Dhruv. It will be our design. NOT screwdrivergiri no matter what the percentage of indigenous parts.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2254
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby abhik » 09 Dec 2018 22:52

^^^
AFAIK it is supposed to be co-designed with the foreign partner (i.e. they will own the IP too) - its not like (for example) Arjun where we are importing specific components like engines and sensors from different foreign vendors (while we parallely try to develop our own). One can imagine if General Dynamics is chosen is the partner, we will own half, and the other half will be owned by US state department :evil: .

BTW are people forgetting that we developed Arjun tank, Abhai IFV etc ages ago? its not like do not know the A B C of making armored vehicles. Exactly what are the foreign players required for?

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1573
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby srin » 10 Dec 2018 20:38

While it is true that we don't have the expertise and that it needs to be built, there could have been a better way of going about it.

Here's my solution (not just for the FICV, but also for say, MMRCA etc):
1) The foreign vendor - Roe, Rheinmetal, GD - needs to establish a fully owned subsidiary in India to manufacture the vehicles. No offsets and 100% FDI allowed
2) Only Indian nationals+residents can be employed to work. So, IP - even if it is screwdrivergiri - is built outside of PSU defence companies, so 20 yrs in future, we may have thriving private defence sector.
3) Any defence related import by these will be taxed at 30%, so there is incentive for the subsidiary to do local manufacture and not import from videsh. And exports have no tax.
4) After a suitable time (say, based on some partial fulfillment on the contract), the foreign vendor can gradually divest by selling stake to local corporates. But that isn't from day 1.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15735
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 10 Dec 2018 21:57

FICV is another lollipop project supposed to make the private sector into DPSU alternatives. Problem is as we have seen, lollipop programs only lead to demands for more lollipops. The same way as the Avro replacement is a completely messy and unnecessary program wasting over a 1000 crores when the IAF needs more fighters, munitions and C3I, the same way this FICV is another boondoggle when we can make do with upgraded BMPs and there are so many pressing requirements.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Anoop, kurup, sum and 46 guests