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.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5853
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Indranil » 16 Sep 2017 01:38

^^^ You do realize that you are taunting the Indian army here? Show me a reason why I shouldn't warn in 24 hours, or you will be warned by this time tomorrow.

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 913
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Gyan » 16 Sep 2017 01:42

Initial designs of Arjun tank were made by Army in 1973

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5004
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby jamwal » 16 Sep 2017 02:04

What exactly is a taunt there ? I feel the same way. This is after reading all the stuff that some posters on other spectrum posted a while back.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33931
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby shiv » 16 Sep 2017 06:39

kit wrote:If the army has a design house let them develop one in paper at least :lol:

This would be a fair comment if Vivek Raghuvanshi's article is taken as true. Given that there is unhealthy competition between defence reporters and no such report has come from any others including Shiv Aroor, Som and so many others - it seems to me that this report by Raghuvanshi is being passed off as a kind of "scoop" to get the sort of attention and discussion it is getting on here. This is how the media work - especially in defence circles. I would really like to understand the nature of the "terrain advantage" that China has and why India must plan to fight using what they use for their terrain advantage rather than making the advantage a disadvantage, or by making use of our advantages.

Light tanks have thin armour easily penetrated by light weapons. Tanks on flat plains are visible and vulnerable. At 4500 meters IC engines consume 30% more fuel and are still inefficient. China has to ship fuel and spares from 2000 km away. We will have to transport fuel up from low lands to high

Every time some idiot reporter writes some article to attract eyeballs, develop his/her personal reputation (like Darkha did in Kargil) and win laurels for his media house - we grab hold of that and start treating it as ultimate truth. Vivek Raghuvanshi reports so we question the army and say "wtf you guys - do you even know about design?"

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1464
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby vasu raya » 16 Sep 2017 08:23

There was recent news that BRO is left with 270kms of road forming meaning rock cutting, coarse leveling etc and once that's done they can start flat topping the stretches which is the bulk of work left for them to be completed by 2022.

tanks or tracked vehicles for that matter are going to chew up the roads on those numerous hair pin bends as seen in some of the pictures, hopefully Army and BRO are on the same page when the tank comes up for design.

And if airlifting by choppers is considered as an option, will the tank be designed so that it can disassembled and assembled back like those bulldozers by BRO? which was not by design

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 913
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Gyan » 16 Sep 2017 16:01

Light tanks lost favour due to BMPs ie AFVs armed with ATGMs. Light tanks do not add any value beyond it.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5004
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby jamwal » 16 Sep 2017 17:41

Roads in areas under consideration here are not a problem. The mountains and the lack of stable terrain is. BRO can make a 6 lane highway with little effort. Real problem is keeping the roads open for traffic week after week with regular landslides ,avlanches and various other natural phenomena which can destroy tens of kms of road in a second. These delicate mountains are not really meant to support such roads.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 950
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Manish_P » 16 Sep 2017 20:07

The 2S25 Sprut-SD is essentially based on the BMD-3 Infantry fighting vehicle isn't it ?

So basically a modified up-gunned IFCV

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14600
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Karan M » 16 Sep 2017 20:17

This acquisition if it happens is tailor made for the Sprut.. all the other companies have lower main gun armed variants in service. Would love to be proven wrong. The commonality of rounds for the T-XX fleets means the Sprut is a winner logistically also.

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1464
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby vasu raya » 16 Sep 2017 20:18

delicate mountains mean that the disturbances caused have to be reduced, the noise and vibration from vehicles would have to be addressed and as a backup much like railways do, BRO emergency teams with their equipment are always available

hybrid vehicles operating in electric or quiet mode while transiting sensitive zones, one needs decibel classification of road sections, that would be an advancement. For those hairpin bends one ideally would have thought front and rear wheel articulated vehicles would be introduced, didn't happen so far

then more axles per vehicle to reduce the intensity of vibration transfer to the road

And then BRO should find ways of seismically decoupling the road from the mountain atleast for the ones they are building now

and probably in some place the only alternative would be tunnels

soumik
BRFite
Posts: 118
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 21:01
Location: running away from ninja monkey asassins

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby soumik » 17 Sep 2017 22:57

Karan M wrote:This acquisition if it happens is tailor made for the Sprut.. all the other companies have lower main gun armed variants in service. Would love to be proven wrong. The commonality of rounds for the T-XX fleets means the Sprut is a winner logistically also.


True, the Sprut is the only sub 30T vehicle with a 125mm main gun, That said however there are some more options for a Light Tank with a 120mm NATO spec main Gun that can give it a run for it's money. These are
1)Swedish CV90120
2)Polish Bumar Anders
3)The KC-21 with the CMI XC-8 Turret

In fact the CMI group from France has exhibited it's modular 120mm gun solution on both wheeled and tracked platforms.
we should get them here and build out own light tank on the Kestrel WHAP & the BMP-2 chassis.
http://www.cmigroupe.com/cockerill-xc-8-105-120hp

Image
Image

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14600
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Karan M » 17 Sep 2017 23:02

Thanks Soumik - any day take one of these with private sector making the 120mm ammo. If we take the Sprut, again locked into 125mm INVAR missiles.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5004
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby jamwal » 17 Sep 2017 23:45

Yup, more imports are the answer.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14600
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Karan M » 18 Sep 2017 01:46

What other options? The chance of local industry making this is next to nothing as IA has cited urgent need.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 539
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby nam » 18 Sep 2017 02:38

The Styker saga. Exactly the same requirement of "light tanks"

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-wheeled-cannon-that-everyone-hates-d5e6d22bdfcc

Good one to read.

The Americans were trying to sell it to us.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5853
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Indranil » 18 Sep 2017 04:13

Why not ask DRDO/Tata/OFB to come up with a Sprut equivalent based on the Kestrel and BMP chassis?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14600
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Karan M » 18 Sep 2017 04:17

All for it, plus the technology exists locally. But i suspect it will be imported as urgent need citing Chinese are ahead.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5853
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Indranil » 18 Sep 2017 07:24

I agree. And in my humble opinion it is a pity.

In between the platforms of Kestrel, BMP-2, Arjun, T-90 and within the organizations of Tata, Bharat Forge, L&T, AshokLeyland, Mahindra, DRDO and OFB, we have all the technologies to come up with 2-3 versions of 20-25 Ton tracked and wheeled versions within 5-10 years.

It's just one step away from an FRCV for which Tata is the front runner.

Image

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5853
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Indranil » 18 Sep 2017 07:27

jamwal wrote:What exactly is a taunt there ? I feel the same way. This is after reading all the stuff that some posters on other spectrum posted a while back.

It is not the Army's job to design stuff. I can't see the following as anything but a taunt. The user has been warned.

kit wrote:If the army has a design house let them develop one in paper at least :lol:

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60470
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Singha » 18 Sep 2017 07:33

isnt the T72 already a rather light and small tank @ 40t. by thinning out some of its armour to light tank levels can it not be made say 30t - poor in protection but high in firepower and mobility? the gun and sensors are already in long service.

we already have a ton of them, so may not even need fresh T72 and if we do I am sure the russians have ample number in the boneyard and depots.

even the older T62 with a 115mm gun fits the bill if we upgun it. still widely used in syraq.

cheap and quick solutions are needed, not importing billions for niche needs.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60470
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Singha » 18 Sep 2017 07:34

>>It is not the Army's job to design stuff

^^ :shock: the IDF did exactly that with the merkava and other armour I believe?
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdu ... story.html
His best known accomplishment was heading up the Israeli military committee in the mid-1970s that sought to design a battle tank that would wean the Jewish state off its dependence on foreign weapons.

Tal oversaw the design of the Merkava tank - Hebrew for "chariot" - which is widely seen as one of the best of its time. The tank was created to ensure the safety of its crew by placing the engine at the front, allowing crew and medics to enter and exit from behind, even under fire.

The tank was also developed for Israeli terrain, particularly specializing in long-range fire, according to the Armor Museum. The Merkava tank entered combat in the 1980s.

Tal's mastery of long-range tank fire tactics are widely seen as key to the Israeli break through of the Egyptian Suez Canal on the Sinai peninsula during the 1967 Mideast war where he served as an armored division commander.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60470
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Singha » 18 Sep 2017 07:39

one may argue he was retired by that time, but unless real armymen who have used these things and fought wars sit as part of the design team what hope is there that requirements will be properly captured by civilian engineers? this results in the never ending cycle of delivering a POC which IA then tests and mandates some "tens of small changes" - even simple things like placement of controls on Arjun had to be changed based on IA feedback which should have been part of the initial design reviews itself !!

tanks are not cameras or shoes, they are bespoke products delivered to suit a few user agencies whose lives depend on it. unless said users are part of the initial requirements capture, prototyping, UI design and other reviews they can never get what they want, or understand what they really need.

Khan armed forces have huge program offices to help the OEMs during the design and test process.

Vivek K
BRFite
Posts: 1787
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Vivek K » 18 Sep 2017 07:50

Indranil wrote:
jamwal wrote:What exactly is a taunt there ? I feel the same way. This is after reading all the stuff that some posters on other spectrum posted a while back.

It is not the Army's job to design stuff. I can't see the following as anything but a taunt. The user has been warned.

kit wrote:If the army has a design house let them develop one in paper at least :lol:

Indranil- if what you say is correct then doesn't it speak volumes about how the the IA, or any other force for that matter, comes up with a requirement? I mean with no capability in design, can a defence force have the ability to spec a requirement?

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby abhik » 18 Sep 2017 08:18

Aren't we already buying x00 numbers of the latest iteration of the tin can i.e. the t90MS specifically for the eastern front?

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5004
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby jamwal » 18 Sep 2017 08:49

Indranil wrote:
jamwal wrote:What exactly is a taunt there ? I feel the same way. This is after reading all the stuff that some posters on other spectrum posted a while back.

It is not the Army's job to design stuff. I can't see the following as anything but a taunt. The user has been warned.

kit wrote:If the army has a design house let them develop one in paper at least :lol:


From Indianarmy.nic.in
CHARTER OF ARMY DESIGN BUREAU


Charter of Army Design Bureau


Act as a central repository of technical know-how for the Indian Army

To collate operational requirements from the field formations and bring it forward for deliberations with DRDO, OFB, DPSUs, Defence Industry and Academia

To assist in formulation of GSQRs and Statements of Case in respect of Indian Army

To collate and bring to fruition the Innovations undertaken by the field formations

Subsume Army Technology Board and Simulator Development Division in its organisation and adopt their charter

Act as a nodal point to integrate and synergise the efforts of various Category ‘A’ establishments having domain specific centres of technological excellence

Generate long term research requirements for the Indian Army and share the same with the DRDO and Academia

Assist in identifying various projects for the DRDO and be the single point contact with it


But it seems like these lofty goals are actually limited to just collecting brochures and copy pasting stuff for gsqrs

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 33931
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby shiv » 18 Sep 2017 09:30

Vivek K wrote:Indranil- if what you say is correct then doesn't it speak volumes about how the the IA, or any other force for that matter, comes up with a requirement? I mean with no capability in design, can a defence force have the ability to spec a requirement?

I see it like building one's own house. I own the land and it has certain issues. It is sloping and has a low water table. My requirements are - no steps inside the house other than staircase, basement with no water leak. I have no design knowledge. It is up to the architect to say what is possible.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 950
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Manish_P » 18 Sep 2017 10:03

Fair enough, Shiv ji. But what if after the architect has taken your requirements properly and after finalising on it and the work is nearly getting completed, you then demand an indoor swimming pool just because your obnoxious neighbor has started building one..

Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2013
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Gaur » 18 Sep 2017 10:33

^^
Manish Ji, then that is a different issue. One would not need design/engineering/architecture experience to know that it isn't possible.

Army's job is to know what missions requirements do they want the equipment to fulfill and frame requirements around that (Eg: I would need my FICV/FRCV/LBT to travel to such distances, using such logistics, sustain hits from such rounds and able to fire such things, etc). It is designer's job to know if they can fulfill these requirements in a time bound manner. And if so, then how they can do that. If either parties deviate from that (Eg: Army asking for things based on what others have and DRDO saying yes to infeasible requirements and timelines), then they are not doing their job right.

Agreed, it would tremendously help if Army has more design people and Design agencies have more people with military background. I am also proponent of Army encouraging small engineering/design projects. But to expect Army to design full fledged complex systems like Tanks/CVs is asking too much IMHO. There may be some instances where militaries may have done that. But it is an exception rather than a rule. Army's mandate is to wage war. If Army is given the mandate to design, it would need different methods of recruitment/selection, training, structures, culture etc.
Last edited by Gaur on 18 Sep 2017 10:43, edited 1 time in total.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60470
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Singha » 18 Sep 2017 10:41

abhik wrote:Aren't we already buying x00 numbers of the latest iteration of the tin can i.e. the t90MS specifically for the eastern front?


at 50t tons base plus ERA it is too heavy for many areas. if roads can be built to get them up and release them into the tibet plains their heavier armour will surely overmatch whatever light buggies the chinese use up there. being tracked, they are not exactly cheap patrol vehicles for the 99% of warm peace. a wheeled BTR type vehicle with a good 30mm cannon or 76mm , 4 ATGM and good range , thermal sensors, AC will be a asset - that is why i am mystified why army is not seriously going in for tata kestrel type vehicles .... ??? not all need to be IFV with 6-8 troops, some can be uparmoured into light wheeled tanks and given more fuel and ammo

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 950
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Manish_P » 18 Sep 2017 11:15

Gaur Ji

True, sir. They do not have a globe which tells the future accurately. Unlike the Pakis and the Chinese where their military ARE the ones defining and dictating policy, our armed forces do not know what whims and fancies (infrastructure among other things) our civilian goverment of the day will priortise or delay or nix.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5004
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby jamwal » 18 Sep 2017 11:39

Karan M wrote:What other options? The chance of local industry making this is next to nothing as IA has cited urgent need.

OFB or maybe DRDO has built prototypes of very similar vehicles at least twice. I have seen one myself with a BMP chasis and a 105 mm gun. Afaik, no interest was shown then. Was army there no threat at that time or are they waking up only now ?
BTW, roads leading up to battlefields where army wants to deploy them can not support these loads. A lot of bridges over dozens of streams and rivulets leading up to many such staging areas in Laddakh are qualified only for 25-30 t or close loads only. That too on a good day as most of these bridges are decades old.

Quite a few others dont even have roads, only mule tracks closed for civilians. Some work is going on in certain regions to construct roads but it will be a really long time before they are made strong enough to support armoured vehicle movement.
Right now, transport by air is more feasible than roads.


The same army is refusing to induct Arjun even in deserts citing familiarity with T series and how induction of Arjun will be difficult in current eco-system of vehicle maintenance and supply chain. But by some miracle , this new ultra light tanks will not have this problem. Faith in humanity goes down a little bit every day.

Not saying faith in armed forces lest it gets me a ban too.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60470
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Singha » 18 Sep 2017 12:06

cough cough
Image

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60470
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Singha » 18 Sep 2017 12:08

thats why i was speaking of the tata kestrel types above
- cheaper and 4X the patrol range
- much lighter
- can be provided with a cannon or gun like BMP
- much less maint than tracked vehicles
- no special russi tank engines needed, these puppies run on large truck engines

the russis whom the IA bases its armour 'philosophy' on have ALWAYS maintained a large force of wheeled IFVs and the current one BTR80 is seen a lot in syria.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-05zMZW0AAdNPm.jpg

and taking a leaf from stryker uIFV family the russians are going to replace all their BTR with Bumerang 8x8 eventually
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumerang

There are two versions of the Bumerang 8×8 vehicle: the K-16 armored personnel carrier (APC), lightly armed with a 12.7 mm machine gun in a small remote turret; and the K-17 infantry fighting vehicle (IFV), heavily armed with the Bumerang-BM RWS with a 30 mm cannon and Kornet-EM anti-tank missiles.[7]

Variants[edit]
The Bumerang is referred to as "a combat wheeled vehicle" because it will serve several different roles, similar to America's Strykers. Other vehicle platform variations will fulfill different roles in addition to armored transport, including as an armored ambulance, command post vehicle, reconnaissance vehicle, anti-tank missile carrier, air defense missile launcher, fire support vehicle, and mortar carrier.[3] Further versions could include a light tank[6] and a self-propelled gun.[5]


^^^ if we are to learn good things from russians there are plenty like the above, but we end up learning the wrong things like T90

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17808
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Philip » 18 Sep 2017 12:11

The Sprut is only 18t making it much easier to transport,as it is also based upon the BMP series design.The main gun gives it t-90 capability with barrel launched ATGMs too.The latest upgraded T-72 being used in the ongoing Ru-Belarus Zapad mil. exercises weighs in at around 45t.Therefore at least 2-3 Spruts can be transported for the cost of one T-72/T-90 in aircraft which can transport BMP AVs. Costwise too,one could have 2-3 Spruts available on the battlefield instead of just one upgraded T-72/T-90. Furthermore,the Sprut is a multi-terrain light tank,whose use could complement larger MBTs in the palins,desert and v.useful for amphib ops,riverine terrain such as we experienced in the '71 war.

Since the AV has already been developed,and we have been manufacturing BMPs for decades,a Sprut/Sprut variant could easily be developed/built v. quickly in India either with the DPSUs or better still the pvt. sector.There is NO need to build anew infrastructure at all as the pvt. entities (Mahindras,Tats,etc.) have good facilities exg. already for manufacturing the same apart from the DPSUs.If you look at the components,the 125mm main gun is being made here for T-90s,extra ERA armour already developed for the T-72 upgrades,Arjuns,plus Kanchar armour could be sued for the turret,engines and chassis not a problem as they're already being made here too! The crew is just 3,auto-loader fort he main gun.I don't know if the Indian designed remote AA gun for the MBTs could also be fitted onto the turret,giving better AA protection.One could also have instead similar AVs optimised for mobile AA like the gun/missile Tunguskas to complement the light AV component.These are already in service,may need some upgrades for newer SAMs.MOst importantly,we would not be inducting a completely new system,where there is already an established supply chain for most of the eqpt. including the main gun. This would greatly enhance both production,cost-effectiveness and efficiency on the battlefield.Therefore a JV could easily be established for the same for the LT AV req.

Tata's Kestrel comes in the BTR (wheeled) class,supporting tracked AVs.Tracks give better traction and more widely used.Which is best depends upon the terrain.
Last edited by Philip on 18 Sep 2017 12:20, edited 1 time in total.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60470
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Singha » 18 Sep 2017 12:20

how stable and durable will it be with a huge gun and 18t weight? the last attempt to do that by massa himself was quite unseemly the sherdian - a similar concept to Sprut - air portable and heavy gun with light weight
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M551_Sheridan

it will likely need a very low velocity gun to survive - more suitable for hitting fortifications with AP and HESH shells than APDS dueling with MBTs at long range

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17808
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Philip » 18 Sep 2017 12:22

Originally desgned for airborne and naval infantry forces.Approx. 75+ in servcie with Ru forces.

Latest variant.
Sprut-SDM1 is an improved version that uses some technology of the new BMD-4M airborne combat vehicle and T-90MS main battle tank. The Sprut-SDM1 is fitted with new fire control system. It has new sights, from the T-90MS main battle tank. This light tank is powered by a UTD-29 engine, developing 500 hp. The same engine is also used on a BMP-3 IFV and BMD-4M airborne combat vehicle. It is more modern comparing with the original 2V-06-2S. Modifications were made to suspension. The Sprut-SDM1 is fitted with additional remotely controlled weapon station, armed with a 7.62-mm machine gun.


The first version of the 2S25 Sprut-SD was based on a chassis using the technology of BMD-3 / BMD-4airborne infantry armoured vehicle, the new version, the Sprut-SDM1 uses components of the BMD-4Mchassis as well as the same engine.


Latest info from Wiki:
The Sprut-SD is designed to defeat tanks, hard-skinned material and enemy manpower by airborne and amphibious landing forces, as well as by specially designated units of ground forces. Its main armament, the Sprut anti-tank gun, is capable of firing APFSDS, HE-Frag, HEAT and ATGM ammunition.[4] This allows the 2S25 to be as powerful as a main battle tank and as maneuverable and amphibious as airborne infantry combat vehicles. The 2S25 can be used by units of ground forces and naval infantry as a light amphibious tank. Currently, the only operators of the 2S25 are the Russian airborne troops with 24 of these vehicles in service.[2] The Republic of Korea and the Indian military have expressed interest in acquiring the 2S25 Sprut-SD.[5]


A report a couple of years old:
Almaz-Antey to display new Tor-M2KM missile systems on chassis Tata Motors.Any idea what happened?

http://defence-blog.com/missiles/almaz- ... otors.html

niran
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5386
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 16:01

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby niran » 18 Sep 2017 14:12

since we are on the subject of light tanks
IA had AMX 13Ts during 65, it was up gunned to 105mm with minor modifications by the frenchie, weight 15tons max speed 65kmph crew 3
Google for
-Indien Panzer
-Spähpanzer RU 251
-SPC 1C
the point is all the above were discontinued coz these so called light tanks could be penetrated by pistols(morphological speaking af kourse)
besides IA can look for anything they fancy, in the end it will be GOI who pays MOD approve

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17808
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Philip » 18 Sep 2017 14:20

That's why ERA options are poss. on the Sprut.If a similar JV project were to be launched with the AVs built in India,Kanchan armour for the turret ,plus desi-developed ERA armour-seen on the upgraded T-72s,Arjun-2,etc.,would give the AV extra protection.The weight could be managed to still be just below 20t.These AVs must be qualified to defeat tandem-warhead RPGs and ammo. from enemy ICVs,etc.

niran
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5386
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 16:01

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby niran » 18 Sep 2017 14:51

Philip wrote:That's why ERA options are poss. on the Sprut.If a similar JV project were to be launched with the AVs built in India,Kanchan armour for the turret ,plus desi-developed ERA armour-seen on the upgraded T-72s,Arjun-2,etc.,would give the AV extra protection.The weight could be managed to still be just below 20t.These AVs must be qualified to defeat tandem-warhead RPGs and ammo. from enemy ICVs,etc.

one single ERA tiles weigh from 3kgs(will withstand forces equivalent to swatting a bug) to 50kgs (withstand a Kornet missile) usually 25 to 30 of these will be needed that will negate the word Light tank" no?

Vivek K
BRFite
Posts: 1787
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Vivek K » 18 Sep 2017 22:11

shiv wrote:
Vivek K wrote:Indranil- if what you say is correct then doesn't it speak volumes about how the the IA, or any other force for that matter, comes up with a requirement? I mean with no capability in design, can a defence force have the ability to spec a requirement?

I see it like building one's own house. I own the land and it has certain issues. It is sloping and has a low water table. My requirements are - no steps inside the house other than staircase, basement with no water leak. I have no design knowledge. It is up to the architect to say what is possible.

Hakimji, that is a great example but can it be scaled up to state of the art or pushing technology limits systems? It's perhaps akin to writing a PhD proposal, defending it and then being allowed to work on the PhD. The proposal writing needs knowledge of the subject so that you don't go around chasing unsolvable problems.

So the IA should entrust GSQR writing to a design house and not boys that like foreign toys and brochures.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Indranil, Karthik S, Manish_P and 31 guests