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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Philip » 26 May 2018 19:00

The F mag has an article about the IA's future plans for its
armoured corps.It is emulating the Ru family of Armata AVs, with a 50t MBT, with a remote turret. ICVs and a new fire support AV like the new Ru Terminator .This AV is in between an MBT and an ICV giving fire support to the MBTs which in recent years have become vulnerable to deeply entrenched RPG and ATGM ground forces as the Israelis discovered, suffering heavy losses of Merkavas in the last Lebanese spat.This AV armed with ATGMs and a heavy cannon is meant to take care of these forces especially in urban warfare.A family on AVs based upon a new chassis including specialist AVs is planned.The piece gives a detailed dxplanation of the Ru armoured warfare doctrine which the IS wants to emulate.

Asit P
BRFite
Posts: 312
Joined: 14 May 2009 02:33

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Asit P » 09 Jun 2018 23:45

If this article is to be believed, then in recent times, the T-90A which is less advanced than the T-90MS in service with the Indian Army has been performing, as bad or as good, as the Abrams and Leopards in the Middle-East.
Iraqi M1 Abrams tanks not only failed to prevent the capture of Mosul in 2014, but they were captured and turned against their owners. In Yemen, numerous Saudi M1s were knocked out by Houthi rebels. Turkey, which had lost a number of M60 Pattons and upgrade M60T Sabra tanks to Kurdish and ISIS fighters eventually deployed its fearsome German-built Leopard 2A4 tanks. ISIS destroyed eight to ten in a matter of days.


In February 2016, Syrian rebels filmed a video of a TOW missile streaking towards a T-90 tank in northeast Aleppo. In a blinding flash, the missile detonates. However, as the smoke cleared it became evident that the tank’s Kontakt-5 explosive-reactive armor had discharged the TOW missile’s shaped-charge warhead prior to impact, minimizing the damage.


According to Janovský, of the thirty transferred to the Syrian Arab Army, he is aware of five or six T-90As being knocked out in in 2016 and 2017, mostly by wire-guided TOW-2A missiles. (Some of the knocked out tanks, to clarify, may be recoverable with heavy repairs.) Another four may have been hit, but their status after the attack as not possible to determine.


Ultimately, the losses in Syria show that any tank—whether T-90, M-1 or Leopard 2—is vulnerable on a battlefield in which long-range ATGMs have proliferated.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Philip » 10 Jun 2018 08:53

It's why the new Terminator A/V has been developed to deal with RPG rounds and ATGMs , equipped with a twin cannon and 4 ATGM missiles to deal with both enemy ATGMs and MBTs.Dealing with well-entrenched fighters in UG bunkers equipped with the above weaponry too has taken a huge toll of western and Israeli MBTs.The Terminator being part of the Armata family has the crew in the hull in an armoured capsule,guns and launcher fully automated.We have an interesting concept for the desi ?FICV,but it has only one cannon and no ATGMs.The Namica on the other hand hand has only Nag missiles and no gun.

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1801
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby uddu » 10 Jun 2018 13:45

Shows both the Russian and export variant American tanks are failure when it comes to protection level. Iraq must start ordering Arjun tanks that will give them better protection and better firing accuracy. Namica will also be the best weapon against ISIS suicide vehicles with lock on before/after launch capability with a deadly warhead that can take out and make mincemeat of anything armored.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16451
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: woh log gawad hai, unpad hai !
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Rahul M » 11 Jun 2018 01:03

Philip wrote:The F mag has an article about the IA's future plans for its
armoured corps.It is emulating the Ru family of Armata AVs, with a 50t MBT, with a remote turret. ICVs and a new fire support AV like the new Ru Terminator .This AV is in between an MBT and an ICV giving fire support to the MBTs which in recent years have become vulnerable to deeply entrenched RPG and ATGM ground forces as the Israelis discovered, suffering heavy losses of Merkavas in the last Lebanese spat.This AV armed with ATGMs and a heavy cannon is meant to take care of these forces especially in urban warfare.A family on AVs based upon a new chassis including specialist AVs is planned.The piece gives a detailed dxplanation of the Ru armoured warfare doctrine which the IS wants to emulate.

link please.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Philip » 11 Jun 2018 08:47

Sorry, I collated details from the lengthy piece.A 2018 issue. NAMICA does not have a cannon like the Terminator's twin .So while it can take out enemy tanks , AVs, etc. using Nag , it can't counter mobile ground troops attacking the armoured columns.We would need another AV , an ICV as part of a team to do the biz.

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1535
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Sid » 11 Jun 2018 10:28

Philip wrote:Sorry, I collated details from the lengthy piece.A 2018 issue. NAMICA does not have a cannon like the Terminator's twin .So while it can take out enemy tanks , AVs, etc. using Nag , it can't counter mobile ground troops attacking the armoured columns.We would need another AV , an ICV as part of a team to do the biz.


Namica is a "tank destroyer", a purpose built machine. An ICV is an ICV. We have BMP, and other wheeled versions in pipeline.

And we are no Russian army, hope you know that comrade.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Philip » 11 Jun 2018 16:47

Kamerad, according to an article, ve are going to emulate the Ru doctrine of a family of AVs.The Terminator combines the role of tank destroyer along with infantry exterminator in one go.A missing gap in armoured warfare today from experience of latest conflicts.The T-rex protects MBTs from both enemy armour and anti- tank ground troops.It does not say say anywhere zat ve vill buy ze Ru toys but develop our own family( probably based upon Arjun experience) of AVs taking a cue from ze Ru beasts.

Ashutosh Malik
BRFite
Posts: 115
Joined: 07 Mar 2009 18:47

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Ashutosh Malik » 11 Jun 2018 17:01

Based on all the inputs that I keep reading from some of the regular posters on the Armoured Vehicles discussion thread, I have started to wonder whether the Indian Army thinks on its own, once in a while!

Either we are supposed to be thinking/experimenting/doing things like the Russians do/and Soviets did earlier, or we are supposed to be thinking like the Western Armies do!

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22050
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Austin » 12 Jun 2018 22:08

Ajai Shukla
‏Following @ajaishukla

The FICV project is dead. Unwilling to mediate between warring private sector firms, the MoD effectively ends the "Make" category of acquisitions, in which it subsidises private sector firms that develop defence platforms.

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2018/06/ ... -govt.html

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22050
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Austin » 13 Jun 2018 14:44

Iraqi brigade swaps Abrams for T-90S tanks

http://www.janes.com/article/80736/iraq ... -90s-tanks

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Philip » 13 Jun 2018 14:55

Probably cheaper to own and operate with smaller tank crews.Iraqi US Abrams may have been their tanks used in the war handed over to the Iraqi forces.With the US pulling out troops leaving only a small number, even tech. support for the MBTs would've been reduced putting a logistic strain on operating the Abrams.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22050
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Austin » 13 Jun 2018 15:53

Eurosatory 2018: Nammo unveils ramjet-assisted artillery round concept

Image

Norwegian munition manufacturer Nammo revealed at Eurosatory that it is developing a ramjet-assisted, INS/GPS-guided round for 155 mm L52 artillery pieces that will extend the range of precision fires out to 100 km and beyond.

Presenting the concept at the show on 12 June, Thomas Danbolt, Nammo’s vice-president for large-calibre ammunition programmes, noted that an artillery system with a 100 km range could effectively cover an area of 31,415 km 2 , offering much more versatility and perhaps transforming the way artillery batteries can be employed in theatre.

Nammo’s new 155 mm round is built around a compact solid-fuel ramjet that is initiated after the round is fired. The project is a collaborative effort between ammunition and rocket engineers within Nammo, who have already established an air-breathing test facility and gun pressure test cell within the company. They are now in the process of conducting combustor tests and performance evaluations, developing a high-performance intake for the round, and sourcing high-performance subsystems.

Also presenting at Eurosatory, Erland Orbekk, Nammo’s vice-president for new technology within its aerospace propulsion business, said that a projectile flight demonstration of the ramjet-assisted round was planned for 2019/20, with the ammunition planned to enter service around the 2023/24 timeframe.

He also mentioned the development of a ramjet-powered missile, a flight demonstration of which is planned for 2021.

Danbolt conceded that there was “no set-in-stone firm requirement” for the ramjet-assisted ammunition thus far, but when asked if the concept was therefore purely company funded, he replied, “So far it is, but that may change.”

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6003
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Rakesh » 13 Jun 2018 19:56

I do not like the wording of the title. Article is dated 07 May 2018

Nobody Cares About The Indian Arjun Tank
https://21stcenturyasianarmsrace.com/20 ... rjun-tank/

It can be argued the Arjun Mk. II is on par with the K2 Black Panther and the Leopard 2A7 but this does little to improve its chances. Since the Indian Army loves its Russian armor so much, it’s obvious it doesn’t want an MBT built to different standards. Never mind if the Arjun embodies the principles of “Make in India.” Aside from its engine, transmission, and an unnamed fire control system, the Arjun Mk. II’s assembly and supply chain is covered by local firms. At the rate it’s going the tank’s inevitable retirement can only be reversed by two far-fetched possibilities.

Either the Arjun Mk. II is displayed abroad to entice potential customers or it undergoes another series of improvement that result in…the Arjun Mk. III. The first option isn’t as difficult as it may appear since India does have defense/military exports that earn a modest amount of revenue. For best results, the Arjun Mk. II can be positioned as a third-generation MBT with bespoke features. Its appeal may stem from the dearth of genuine Leopard 2’s, whose stocks are dwindling from persistent demand. A $4 million Arjun Mk. II is a reasonable enough alternative to wasting money on Cold War vintage Chieftains, Leopards and Pattons.

Rebuilding the Arjun is a possibility that might be unavoidable. As automation and defensive countermeasures are pushing rapid advances in armor technology, perhaps making the Arjun Mk. II on par with the Merkava IV or the T-14 Armata is the DRDO’s next best chance to prolong the Arjun’s career. When Turkey’s Otokar unveiled an Altay tank–another troubled armor program–equipped for urban combat in 2017, this might have created a niche the Arjun Mk. II (or its successors) can compete in.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1351
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Khalsa » 14 Jun 2018 03:13

Philip wrote:Probably cheaper to own and operate with smaller tank crews.Iraqi US Abrams may have been their tanks used in the war handed over to the Iraqi forces.With the US pulling out troops leaving only a small number, even tech. support for the MBTs would've been reduced putting a logistic strain on operating the Abrams.



Thats a no, i.e Americans did not hand over any tanks to Iraqis.
The armour on all non-American Abram tanks does not contain Depleted uranium and they are of a lower quality build against other tanks. it is for this reason US did not hand over their tanks.

Iraq bought 140 NEW Tanks from the US and out of those 140 they have lost 40 to urban combat situations. And many hulks are still lying littered where they were hit.

We have seen this happen before, US equipment at that level is no match for the Russian ruggedness and price and the know how required to operated.
Mil-17 vs Blackhawks in Iraq and Afghanistan is another classic example.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9882
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Aditya_V » 14 Jun 2018 10:47

Philip wrote:Sorry, I collated details from the lengthy piece.A 2018 issue. NAMICA does not have a cannon like the Terminator's twin .So while it can take out enemy tanks , AVs, etc. using Nag , it can't counter mobile ground troops attacking the armoured columns.We would need another AV , an ICV as part of a team to do the biz.


BMP-2's having firing ports below the turrets where 7.62*54 mm machine guns are used to fire. I think Namica should also have this.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1594
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby nam » 14 Jun 2018 15:58

Norwegian munition manufacturer Nammo revealed at Eurosatory that it is developing a ramjet-assisted, INS/GPS-guided round for 155 mm L52 artillery pieces that will extend the range of precision fires out to 100 km and beyond.


Although it would sound like a wonderful idea, this is the usual over expensive, over engineered ideas looking for a market.

At 100kms the target you would want to hit will a large one like airfield or factories or storage. How many of these rounds can you fire? Just a normal guided shell is uber expensive. This one will more expensive than those. And all for a 45 kg warhead?

You are are better off using air launched glide weapon with a large warhead. Artillery are meant to cheap and something you can fire in thousands and constantly..

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7851
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Pratyush » 17 Jun 2018 13:02


dinesha
BRFite
Posts: 1059
Joined: 01 Aug 2004 11:42
Location: Delhi

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby dinesha » 23 Jun 2018 19:55

Real Reason Iraq's 35th Mechanized Brigade Swapped Abrams Tanks for T-90s -As per Sputnik
https://sputniknews.com/military/201806 ... -analysis/


Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6995
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Indranil » 13 Jul 2018 00:17

VRDE has floated an RFP for DEvelopment and manufacturing of 6X6 APC capable of carrying 8 troops. 15 ton GVW, 350+ HP, amphibious, STANAG II compliant.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16451
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: woh log gawad hai, unpad hai !
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Rahul M » 13 Jul 2018 08:30

about time ! I hope this spawns a family of APC's that will finally add much needed mobility to our infantry with a decent level of protection. let the mech. inf. have their tracked ICV's, but time to equip the regular infantry with APC's.

there should also be cargo variants of the above, to enable essential supplies (food, POL & ammo) in battle conditions, something that soft skinned trucks would be unable to do.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 691
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ks_sachin » 13 Jul 2018 10:46

Indranil wrote:VRDE has floated an RFP for DEvelopment and manufacturing of 6X6 APC capable of carrying 8 troops. 15 ton GVW, 350+ HP, amphibious, STANAG II compliant.

Wgat about the whap kestrel?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6995
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Indranil » 13 Jul 2018 10:50

WHAP is older brother. Bigger, stronger and heavier.

It is highly likely that this cake is baked. Basically, VRDE and Tata would have realized that they can easily come up with a smaller version of the Kestrel. All this RFP etc. is formality.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 691
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ks_sachin » 13 Jul 2018 11:40

Indranil wrote:WHAP is older brother. Bigger, stronger and heavier.

It is highly likely that this cake is baked. Basically, VRDE and Tata would have realized that they can easily come up with a smaller version of the Kestrel. All this RFP etc. is formality.

So where is that prog going?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6995
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Indranil » 13 Jul 2018 22:53

I have not heard of any distress. They have to test every combination of temperature, altitude and terrain (including amphibious operations).

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2347
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby JTull » 14 Jul 2018 01:24

Austin wrote:https://twitter.com/DefProdnIndia/status/1015454212971323392

Image


I find this tweet an insult. Wtf were they doing while importing 1000s earlier. Any idiot can "indigenise" once production run is finished. Is overhauling work the new goal of Make in India?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50763
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ramana » 15 Jul 2018 03:30

India orders 464 T90s. Cabinet Decision finalized 2 years ago.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Philip » 15 Jul 2018 18:49

Well at least engine replacements need not be ordered from Ru in the future, as we have a few thousand T-series MBTs in service of which the majority will be with us until 2030.The more indigenisation of components the smoother the spares and support situ will be.

However, the new MOD committee being set up to examine costs of products from DPSUs , and report within 60 days, will shake up the DPSUs which hitherto havd had a relatively lax regime with regard to costs.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5181
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby RoyG » 15 Jul 2018 19:32

Philip wrote:Well at least engine replacements need not be ordered from Ru in the future, as we have a few thousand T-series MBTs in service of which the majority will be with us until 2030.The more indigenisation of components the smoother the spares and support situ will be.

However, the new MOD committee being set up to examine costs of products from DPSUs , and report within 60 days, will shake up the DPSUs which hitherto havd had a relatively lax regime with regard to costs.


It must really excite you - [edited].
Last edited by ramana on 16 Jul 2018 21:22, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: ramana

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7851
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Pratyush » 15 Jul 2018 20:11

Philip may be a Russian shill. But the final decision is with the mod. They need to take the correct decision. Unless they do. Such purchase will continue to be made.

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 1470
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ArjunPandit » 15 Jul 2018 21:51

ramana wrote:India orders 464 T90s. Cabinet Decision finalized 2 years ago.

I still had hopes that we will have some meaningful orders of Arjun. But this order makes me believe there is something definitely wrong on one side. Either it is IA or it is DRDO/Arjun. Either ways DRDO should write off the loss and move on to focus on other things.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 996
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby RKumar » 16 Jul 2018 13:21

ArjunPandit wrote:I still had hopes that we will have some meaningful orders of Arjun. But this order makes me believe there is something definitely wrong on one side. Either it is IA or it is DRDO/Arjun. Either ways DRDO should write off the loss and move on to focus on other things.


I would not write Arjun off and hand over victory to the import lobby. FMBT development can't be started as its spec are not written, we are still waiting for a brochure imported and translated :((

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1594
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby nam » 16 Jul 2018 13:35

These are replacement T90s for the units which had moved from western to the chinese front.

Obviously they cannot be replaced with Arjuns. It Arjun orders are to be placed, they will be for T72 units.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7851
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Pratyush » 16 Jul 2018 13:42

nam wrote:These are replacement T90s for the units which had moved from western to the chinese front.

Obviously they cannot be replaced with Arjuns. It Arjun orders are to be placed, they will be for T72 units.



If things go as they are going at the moment. I will not be surprised if the Armata is purchased starting commonality of munitions and gun.

barath_s
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 45
Joined: 03 Apr 2017 10:40

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby barath_s » 16 Jul 2018 14:28

RKumar wrote:FMBT development can't be started as its spec are not written, we are still waiting for a brochure imported and translated :((


Why import one brochure when you can import them all ? Then pick from each of them !

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 1470
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ArjunPandit » 16 Jul 2018 14:38

nam wrote:These are replacement T90s for the units which had moved from western to the chinese front.

Obviously they cannot be replaced with Arjuns. It Arjun orders are to be placed, they will be for T72 units.

^^not sure why do you say so sir, Apart from weight, Arjun has distinguished itself on almost all parameters. In fact the famed T90 is quite a lot Arjunised. Arjun is probably more appropriate for western border.

barath_s
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 45
Joined: 03 Apr 2017 10:40

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby barath_s » 16 Jul 2018 14:46

nam wrote:
Norwegian munition manufacturer Nammo revealed at Eurosatory that it is developing a ramjet-assisted, INS/GPS-guided round for 155 mm L52 artillery pieces that will extend the range of precision fires out to 100 km and beyond.


Although it would sound like a wonderful idea, this is the usual over expensive, over engineered ideas looking for a market.

At 100kms the target you would want to hit will a large one like airfield or factories or storage. How many of these rounds can you fire? Just a normal guided shell is uber expensive. This one will more expensive than those. And all for a 45 kg warhead?

You are are better off using air launched glide weapon with a large warhead. Artillery are meant to cheap and something you can fire in thousands and constantly..


Long range precision fire is one of the upcoming strategic priorities of the US army among others. There are a variety of such equipment with varying ranges, from missiles,to integrated shells to screw on kits on regular shells/rockets.

Precision fire can often be effectively cheap because it allows for support near friendlies, reduced collateral damage and reduced shots/time/ammo to take out the objective (which increases survivability eg against counter battery fire) . ie The 100 km target need not be a large one !. There are limitations (eg suppression,area fire etc). It's not immune to being too expensive/wrong requirements, small lots. You already have dedicated ballistic missile/rocket artillery. The hope is that providing greater flexibility with less dedicated units will help. But ramjet guided shells seem to be a little ambitious, even if a south korean firm has also announced similar concepts; it might pay to be careful

Air launched brings in a number of other complications (air co-ordination, sortie rate, air supremacy, limited airframes, reduced conditions at take-off. etc). It can have a role,too, but there's no single carte blanche panacea.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 996
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby RKumar » 16 Jul 2018 15:12

barath_s wrote:
RKumar wrote:FMBT development can't be started as its spec are not written, we are still waiting for a brochure imported and translated :((


Why import one brochure when you can import them all ? Then pick from each of them !


Answered:
Pratyush wrote:If things go as they are going at the moment. I will not be surprised if the Armata is purchased starting commonality of munitions and gun.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50763
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ramana » 16 Jul 2018 21:20

See there is DRDO developing the Arjun with HVF Avadi and then there is the HVF Avadi where the T-90s are going to be assembled.

All in all I see no point in second guessing the IA armored corps which positively hates the Arjun.
Unless MoD is ready to force it down their throats by deploying the Arjuns in Indep Armoured Brigades One regiment each.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests