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.
Akshay Kapoor
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1627
Joined: 03 May 2011 11:15

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Akshay Kapoor » 04 Jan 2018 21:28

I’ll post one more on the army thread. Do read it.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5690
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Rakesh » 05 Jan 2018 07:26

https://twitter.com/sjha1618/status/948618584829321216 ---> Things are becoming interesting now. Here's a rendition of a 'revolutionary configuration' study for a potential next generation main battle tank by DRDO's CVRDE that could weigh in at just 41 tons. Source: DRDO's DSJ

https://twitter.com/sjha1618/status/948622775693991936 ---> Of course, the paper itself where this rendition is given deals with the use of a 'design of experiments' statistical approach towards weight management for which both an evolutionary and a revolutionary configuration were considered.

https://twitter.com/sjha1618/status/948619126250995712 ---> It's been dubbed Generation Next MBT = GNMBT.

Image

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6869
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Indranil » 05 Jan 2018 07:51

As I read this paper, I kept thinking where had I come across a similar paper before.

Wasn't difficult to find.
Design Configuration of a Generation Next Main Battle Tank for Future Combat

It was July last year.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63090
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Singha » 05 Jan 2018 08:39

everyone except perhaps USA will be going the armata template route.

india -> we follow russian lead
cheen -> it looks cooler and next genish
EU -> lack of funds for bigger 4 -crew setup. netherlands has infact mothballed all its leopards and has no tanks now!

massa has stopped investing in abrams program, there is nothing planned, perhaps wheeled vehicles with smarter 105mm will be most used.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6627
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby brar_w » 05 Jan 2018 15:35

Singha wrote:massa has stopped investing in abrams program


Not correct. The evolutionary approach to adding capability on the Abams is moving along with the SEPV4s which should be ready by the early 2020s. Existing variants with APS will be fielded ahead of that.

https://scout.com/military/warrior/Arti ... -101457471

wheeled vehicles with smarter 105mm will be most used.


Along with a tracked "light tank" in the 25-35 ton class (2 potential contenders in the picture below). The "Mobile Protected Firepower" program RFP was released a month or two ago and the intention is to have the first unit fielded by 2025.

Image

Overall, yes there isn't much money being poured into the wholesale overhaul of the abrams or to look to completely start with a clean slate and design a new tank. Some of it has to do with need and some with money.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1340
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby nam » 05 Jan 2018 15:49

Singha wrote:EU -> lack of funds for bigger 4 -crew setup. netherlands has infact mothballed all its leopards and has no tanks now!



And not enough people to drive it...

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63090
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Singha » 05 Jan 2018 17:21

what I meant was avionics and active defence type bolt ons might change but the core armour, drivetrain, transmission, gun , thermals, ammo of the abrams has not changed at all since OIF days. there has been no need , its good enough and it works well. the TUSK thing was not invested beyond some protos right? neither was the Leo2 urban warfare model.

active defence systems are pocket change in massa budgets.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6627
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby brar_w » 05 Jan 2018 17:34

Singha wrote:what I meant was avionics and active defence type bolt ons might change but the core armour, drivetrain, transmission, gun , thermals, ammo of the abrams has not changed at all since OIF days. there has been no need , its good enough and it works well. the TUSK thing was not invested beyond some protos right? neither was the Leo2 urban warfare model.

active defence systems are pocket change in massa budgets.


TUSK mods were performed on site in Iraq when the US was deployed there in the late 2000s. Approximately 500 or so tanks were modified, most of them while deployed, in about 2 years from contract award to General Dynamics. More recently (2017), the US Army has begun adding the Abrams Reactive Armor Tile (ARAT) to additional deployed M1A2s in Europe. ARAT was one of the hardware additions included in the TUSK package.

https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Ar ... ive-armor/

As I said, these are evolutionary approaches. Even with APS, they chose to take mature systems and pay only for final development and integration as opposed to creating something from scratch. The same applies to the light tank where they do not want to invent or develop something clean sheet but want to work with an existing design so as to field something by the mid 2020s. A completely new tank for the US Army is a post 2030 goal (likely mid to late 2030s) and is not in the Army's top 5 investment priorities at the moment. Vertical Lift, and IAMD will chew up a lot of resources and there is also a major push on the precision fires front with both new start developmental programs and enhancements of existing systems in the works. Army labs and S&T does not have the resources of the USAF or even the USN so they have to prioritize as per their needs and at the moment a wholesale replacement of the Abrams with a completely new tank isn't a requirement coming down from the force providers.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1226
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby sudeepj » 06 Jan 2018 00:39

Where are the Americans planning to deploy tanks? Middle East, Europe and Afghanistan. M1 serves well in those areas as there is a good road/bridge network and where there isnt, there are few water bodies. Any next gen tank that is designed in the west is going to have a two or max three man crew. But investment in tanks went way down after the cold war was won. If a new cold war starts, I can bet we will see unmanned turrets with two or three men crews in the west too. They have all the building blocks, the only thing that is missing is the threat and the use case.

We on the other hand have both.. :-) And we have most of the building blocks too! If it were up to me, I would totally design a two man tank with a pilot and a WSO, tandem seated in the hull under the turret ring. 4K cameras recessed into the armor will present a 360 degree view to both the pilot and the wso, and the WSOs job will be to simply identify the targets on the screen and hand them over to the auto-gunner to engage. Multifunction screens and joystick steerings will allow both the pilot and the wso to perform each others job if needed. It will have an aux power generator to power the electronic systems, as well as power tools that will be used for the heavier maintenance load on the crew. It will have a 40mm grenade launcher system that will allow firing grenades at a high elevation angle for city fighting. All of this, and under 40 tonnes with protection levels that exceed the current M1-Tusk. If wishes were horses... :-)

*If wishes were horses, I would ride them into Pindi and Isloo.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15512
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Karan M » 06 Jan 2018 01:13

I am more concerned that our FSAPDS program is a bit behind & we dont have many reports of a Mk3 program. Only if the IA had not gone all in with IMIs claims and allowed DRDO to simultaneously work on a local program. We are still a ways off achieving any decent cost effective alternative to the Refleks round.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1226
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby sudeepj » 06 Jan 2018 01:41

Karan M wrote:I am more concerned that our FSAPDS program is a bit behind & we dont have many reports of a Mk3 program. Only if the IA had not gone all in with IMIs claims and allowed DRDO to simultaneously work on a local program. We are still a ways off achieving any decent cost effective alternative to the Refleks round.


The Mango is crap.. But even if the DRDO were to develop a longer dart, will our autoloaders on the Russian tanks be able to accomodate the longer darts? Arjun could, but should we waste national engineering talent on a round for 250 odd guns? Better to import the challenger rounds, even their legacy darts would do a lot better than anything we have right now.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15512
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Karan M » 06 Jan 2018 02:31

Sudeep, no body will give their prized engineering jewels away, even for something like FSAPDS rounds. It is taken that seriously by western nations, esp. NATO ones & who knows what US interplay the UK program has with the US & things like ITAR come into play. The Challenger rounds wont work for Arjun either. They are a mix of darts & bagged charges, and Arjun has one piece rounds.

Arjun Mk2 and 125mm MK2 use the same basis technologies for same performance, so if we develop something for T-90/T-72, it can be leveraged for Arjun as well. And of course, it makes sense to do so for 250 tanks - that's thousands of rounds over the lifetime of the tank and will provide yeoman experience to domestic industry to master the technology. We should just bypass OFB, even the HAPP despite the effort spent on it, if need be, and get Bharat Forge into the program.

Coming to how we can solve the issue - well, if we can't put longer darts in the T-90/T-72, perhaps we should look at denser darts, higher energy propellant (provided the gun can withstand it), something innovative for the Arjun like rocket propelled darts. What my concern is that we are still very derivative and the most basic & vital of ammunition, the IA should have, the FSAPDS, is neglected just because (for now), we have Refleks rounds.

As we were discussing earlier, what happens when an APS takes out your magic 1-2 round Refleks loadout, what will you do then versus heavily armoured adversaries. We will be like the lightly armed Brit tankers having their shots pinging off the German Tigers.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15512
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Karan M » 06 Jan 2018 02:34

On a positive note, 125mm MK2 and 120 mm Mk2 are both ready for production and have cleared IA trials AFAIK but they are better than Mango, but I doubt will be hugely ahead penetration wise. We are basically starting from a standing stop with the stop having occurred circa 1999, with those designs dusted off and being productionized. We have lost a decade of tinkering because IA said stop, take rounds only from IMI and the corruption allegations between IMI and OFB stopped that as well. Its a mess. At least we have restarted.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4087
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby srai » 06 Jan 2018 03:26

Karan M wrote:On a positive note, 125mm MK2 and 120 mm Mk2 are both ready for production and have cleared IA trials AFAIK but they are better than Mango, but I doubt will be hugely ahead penetration wise. We are basically starting from a standing stop with the stop having occurred circa 1999, with those designs dusted off and being productionized. We have lost a decade of tinkering because IA said stop, take rounds only from IMI and the corruption allegations between IMI and OFB stopped that as well. Its a mess. At least we have restarted.

Such short-sightedness from the user! In such a scenario, R&D efforts should have their own tech roadmap with separate funding.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15512
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Karan M » 06 Jan 2018 04:18

Hey Rakesh, you know what's fun? I hope DRDO and MOD do an ATAGs and go forward with this program. Might so happen, the IA FMBT program becomes another boondoggle and this program will be sitting right there for purchase.

Rakesh wrote:https://twitter.com/sjha1618/status/948618584829321216 ---> Things are becoming interesting now. Here's a rendition of a 'revolutionary configuration' study for a potential next generation main battle tank by DRDO's CVRDE that could weigh in at just 41 tons. Source: DRDO's DSJ

https://twitter.com/sjha1618/status/948622775693991936 ---> Of course, the paper itself where this rendition is given deals with the use of a 'design of experiments' statistical approach towards weight management for which both an evolutionary and a revolutionary configuration were considered.

https://twitter.com/sjha1618/status/948619126250995712 ---> It's been dubbed Generation Next MBT = GNMBT.

Image

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15512
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Karan M » 06 Jan 2018 04:19

The Armata is nowhere near ready. Blocky large turret with unproven basic performance. Why don't we start with our own. Enough experience via Arjun and key items like sights, stabilization, transmission & powerpack can now be done with pvt sector involvement.

Mukesh.Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 769
Joined: 06 Dec 2009 14:09

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Mukesh.Kumar » 10 Jan 2018 20:33

Slight OT, but Mahindra seems to be pro-actively looking beyond India for exports. Came across this Youtube video for the Gulf markets by chance.

Mukesh.Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 769
Joined: 06 Dec 2009 14:09

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Mukesh.Kumar » 10 Jan 2018 20:35

And this one:

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20873
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Prem » 11 Jan 2018 03:57

Brit Tank looks rugged and functional and not that glossy
Image

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1226
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby sudeepj » 11 Jan 2018 05:37

Korean war pic showing an M4 sherman M46 patton providing indirect arty fire support. Because a tanks main gun has limited elevation, a makeshift ramp has been constructed to increase the guns elevation. I remember seeing at least one more pic in a similar setup. Do the tanks with the Indian army ever use this jugaad mode of fire?
Image

Vivek K
BRFite
Posts: 1877
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Vivek K » 11 Jan 2018 07:37

deleted - Mod note - you better stop these snide comments and trying to derail the discussion. Next time I will be harsher. Akshay

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1527
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Manish_P » 11 Jan 2018 09:01

Britain is an island right... Why do they need tanks at all :P

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63090
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Singha » 11 Jan 2018 09:20

arjun chassis with a smaller engine + more internal fuel should also be made into a 155mm low velocity siege cannon thing for infantry support role.
this will supplement the usual BMP2 cannons which are not so effective in dense urbanized areas and hollow cement block houses which are common in rural areas now.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1226
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby sudeepj » 11 Jan 2018 10:19

Even an MMG will take apart a cinder block house.. let alone a 30mm BMP auto canon. With its high elevation and rapid fire, only those with limited life expectancy will underestimate it.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19592
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Philip » 11 Jan 2018 12:43

I think the IA;s Light Tank weight should be around 20t+ ,30t is too much.It should be capable of being airlifted by our heavies,not sure if it has to be C-130J compatible too.The Sprut with extra ERA armour is one route,as it is a tank already available to be tweaked /improved for our uses and it has the same main gun as on the T-72/90. That's a huge advantage on the smaller Chinese gun on its light tank.

The Arjun's chassis has to be modified if it is to accommodate a crew of 3 Armata style. There would probably have to be an increase in the height of the chassis for crew comfort/ergonomics. That beast has substantial armour protection on the turret as well and a variety of defensive weaponry and sensors.It's weight is what 45-50t? We must've tested our Kanchan armour against the best of both east and west anti-tank munitions,and could compare
tkness/weight reqd. for protection with the T-series,as we're manufacturing both MBTs.We've already developed an auto-cannon for the A-2,so thta isn't a major problem. The ATGM capability fired from the barrel is one aspect that needs to be resolved.Lahat failed,so what is the answer?

ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 864
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ParGha » 15 Jan 2018 16:25

Singha wrote:arjun chassis with a smaller engine + more internal fuel should also be made into a 155mm low velocity siege cannon thing for infantry support role. this will supplement the usual BMP2 cannons which are not so effective in dense urbanized areas and hollow cement block houses which are common in rural areas now.


Howitzer-type indirect fire at close-range is better provided by 120mm mortar (which have same explosive power as a 155mm shell), or a 160mm mortar if you really want to pulverize everything in your path.

For direct-fire, you can build a successor to the Centurion AVRE 165 (with the 165mm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Ordnance_L9) It would be a good exercise in making Arjun-series fully indigenous with a smaller engine available locally (along with other parts), and a safe experiment too -- because it will mostly be owned by the the Combat Engineers who don't need the off-road speed that the Armoured Corps needs.
Last edited by ParGha on 15 Jan 2018 17:18, edited 2 times in total.

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 927
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby shaun » 15 Jan 2018 16:47

Interesting modification ( concept from syrian adventure against ISIS ), apologies if posted before
Image


sarabpal.s
BRFite
Posts: 339
Joined: 13 Sep 2008 22:04

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby sarabpal.s » 24 Jan 2018 22:07

shaun wrote:Interesting modification ( concept from syrian adventure against ISIS ), apologies if posted before
Image

No, it is older than ISIS. perhaps lesson from 2nd gulf war , there is model of BUSK AT DEFEXPO2012 , but no actual prototype bulid

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4087
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby srai » 25 Jan 2018 06:03


Stupid news. Which tank gun fired missile has that 8km range the article talks about?

It would seem the IA’s T-90s are so afraid to engage the enemy MBT head on that they have to devise ways in which they can take long range sniper shots at their counter parts :mrgreen:

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1234
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Thakur_B » 25 Jan 2018 07:41

^^ Also third gen ATGM. Good luck saving your FPA in seeker from those G forces.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1527
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Manish_P » 25 Jan 2018 14:33

What is max range of the target viewing and aquisition systems on the T-90

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1226
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby sudeepj » 26 Jan 2018 00:22

Rhinemetall's Active Protection System test videos.


The next gen tanks will depend on APS to defend against chemical energy and the armor will be optimized to defend against KE alone. Infantry will once again be completely defenseless and irrelevant against tanks. The best way to defend against tank armies will be air attacks to slow/contain the attacks while own tanks are moved to battle the enemy tanks.

These new developments have great relevance to the Indian context as most Indian tanks are design limited in their KE offensive armament and their CE weapons could become irrelevant against enemy tanks.

jaysimha
BRFite
Posts: 645
Joined: 20 Dec 2017 14:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby jaysimha » 31 Jan 2018 16:56

corregendum 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
FUTURE READY COMBAT VEHICLE FOR INDIAN ARMY
1. Refer to Request for information hoisted on 08 Nov 2017.
2. It is requested to make following amendments at Para 21 (c) in RFI on Future
Ready Combat Vehicle : -
For : Time for Response. Last date of Acceptance of Receipt of response is 20 December 2017 31 January 2018.
Read: Time for Response. Last date of Acceptance of Receipt of response is 31 March 2018.
3. Rest no change.

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1794
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby uddu » 05 Feb 2018 20:40


jaysimha
BRFite
Posts: 645
Joined: 20 Dec 2017 14:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby jaysimha » 12 Feb 2018 11:40

https://indianarmy.nic.in/writereaddata/documents/DOI%20sub%20committee%20290118.pdf

Special Indigenisation sub committee (ISC) MEETING OF ITEMS
T-90,
T-72,
ICV BMP,
VT-72B &
WZT-3

is scheduled at CAFVD Kirkee, Pune on 30-31 JAN 2018
CAN anybody guess why this appears now on armyweb site and not before the scheduled date ? ¿ ? ¿ ? ¿ ? ¿

My guess is,,,,,,,,,,,, NIC( which hosts army/navy/AF websites), is again run by baboons, who would accord little / no priority to such events..

As usual DDM will participate, wolf on samosas/chai and later ignore to publish...

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19592
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Philip » 13 Feb 2018 17:29

Russian Deputy Defence Minister Yuri Borisov has confirmed an order for two battalions of T-14 main battle tanks (MBTs), the Ministry of Defence (MoD) reported on its website on 9 February.
The order for the T-14 MBTs and T-15 heavy infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs) is understood to have been placed in December 2017. Touring the Uralvagonzavod factory in Nizhny Tagil, Russia, Borisov said, “It’s no secret that we already have a contract for trials and combat operations: two battalions of Armata tanks and one battalion of heavy infantry fighting vehicles.” Both vehicles are based on the Armata common platform.

Borisov also reported on the current status of the Armata programme, which is part of Russia’s State Armaments Programme (SAP) 2012-2020. He said state trials would begin this year and continue until the end of 2019. In 2020, all new models will be complete, after which a decision on big contracts for serial production will be made, according to Borisov. This is good news for the Armata programme, which was earlier reported to be in jeopardy as Russian defence funds were diverted into modernising older platforms.

http://www.janes.com/article/77812/russ ... mata-order

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1226
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby sudeepj » 14 Feb 2018 21:52

Image
South Korean K21.. BMP is not the only swimming armor anymore! :-)

From the wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K21
Although not much is known about the composition of the K21's armour, the frontal armour of the vehicle is specifically designed to protect against large caliber automatic cannon rounds, primarily the 30 mm APDS munitions (30×165mm) for 2A72 automatic cannon used on BMP-3, which has approximately 50 mm (2.0 in) armour penetration at ranges of 1,000 m. The side armour is designed to protect against 14.5 mm AP rounds, which has approximately 25 mm (0.98 in) armour penetration at 1,000 m. The top can withstand fragments from 152 mm artillery shells exploding as close as 10 meters. It has been confirmed that the composite armour comprises S2-glass fibre and Al2O3 ceramic including lightweight aluminium alloy.[2]


South Koreans are making some great stuff (at least on paper)

jaysimha
BRFite
Posts: 645
Joined: 20 Dec 2017 14:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby jaysimha » 20 Feb 2018 19:07

http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease. ... lid=176690

DAC clears procurement worth Rs 1850 crore

The Defence Acquisition Council (DAC), chaired by Raksha Mantri Smt Nirmala Sitharaman, met today and accorded approval to Capital Acquisition Proposals of the Services valued at over Rs 1850 crore.



These include procurement of essential quantity of Infantry Combat Vehicle (BMPs-2/2k) for Mechanised Infantry and other Arms and Services at an estimated cost of over Rs 1125 crore from the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB). This procurement will meet the operational requirement of the troops in rapid deployment of Mechanised Forces.

sohamn
BRFite
Posts: 300
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 12:56
Location: the Queen of the Angels of Porziuncola
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby sohamn » 06 Mar 2018 15:10



Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Sagrawal, Trikaal and 31 guests