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.
niran
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5469
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 16:01

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby niran » 19 Feb 2021 17:26

Arjun MBT in A1 iteration is in super heavy tank of ww2 era classification. it can go to 67kmph top speed and cruise along at 40kmph for better perspective light tanks average top speed is 60kmph for all practical purposes Arjun is Light medium heavy super heavy all 8n 9ne tank.
it is heavily armoured can go fast at reload time of 4 seconds among the highest first round hit probability carries a mighty punch. is the best this talk of light tank for mountain medium for Punjab heavy for dessert is like station wagon for groceries 7series for office G wagon for recreation yes if you have monay go ahead question is why spend if we already have all in one Arjun?

niran
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5469
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 16:01

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby niran » 19 Feb 2021 17:35

jamwal wrote:4 man crew usually needs more space than 3 crew + autoloader. Willing to be corrected if wrong.

so what? tanking is not real estate biznis saving few liters of space will earn you profit.
moreover crampy space decrease manhandling a round if the need arise means imcrease reload time means Mahadev forbid if a chain link stuck inbetween a fire fight your lighter(so called) space saving tank is a dead tank with manual loading loader out no problemo gunner of commander loads

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8492
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Pratyush » 19 Feb 2021 19:24

If the weight of protection against airburst 155 is too much. Then it can be deleted.

It's not a show stopper for what I have in mind.

The objective is to have a highly mobile vehicle with the most powerful gun in as light a frame as possible.

The crew if protected only against 30 mm rounds will be sufficient. Rest can be handled by APS.

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3605
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby fanne » 19 Feb 2021 19:31

Guys, we are confusing some aspects of armored warfare in LAC. I would broadly divide the area in 3 parts, with three different tanks

Flat hill tops - they may or may not have the means for any vehicle to drive from the foot hill. The war here is mostly infantry with almost no vehicle. Also infantry size itself would be in few dozens.The best arms that each side can muster at these heights are rifles and machineguns. Any armour here has to be possibly dropped from a plane (C-130), the terrain has to be relatively flat to accommodate them and should be able to resist at least 7.62 mm weapons. The Russian tanks we are importing fits that bill. How many hills would be there like these that we need - not much. Just import and be done with it. We don't need more than few (perhaps 100? or 200?). We did manage to put tanks here -Rechin La and Rezang La, perhaps because T-90/t-72 can negotiate the turns and reach here. Sprut at 18 tonnes fits the bill

Light/Medium Tanks - The Chinese T-15, we don't have any equivalent. At 33-36 tons it is not exactly light. If we had something similar, C-130 may not be able to transport it, C-17 and IL-76/78 can transport it (they can also transport 45-48 tonne T-90/T-72). There can be areas in LAC where the bridge is rated for 36 tonnes and not for 48 tonnes. There can be ground, slopes, valleys, hills, dry riverbeds (can anyone confirm please), for whatever reason can support 36 tonnes but not 48 tonnes (maybe the land will give away). In there Chinese can drive their T-15, where we can drive nothing. However any other area, where both T-15 and T-72/90 both can be supported, T-15 is like a tin can or a match box waiting to be lighted by T-90/T-72.Having these tanks only becomes necessary if there is indeed a theater where a tank-like T-15 can go but T-90 cannot. If both can go, I would go in a T-90

Heavy tanks - Both T-99 (Chinese) and T-90 of IA are deployed. On paper T-99 enjoys some advantage, but overall an even match.

Super Heavy - Arjun (Chinese have nothing), it will eat both T-90 and T-99 for breakfast. But can we transport and deploy them? if yes, this is our ace in the hole.

To expand further on this theme - an infantryman will be heavily outgunned by Sprut, which in turn will be outgunned by t-15, which will be outgunned by t72/t90/t99 which will be outgunned by Arjun. Each one is relying on the terrain and hoping that it is unviable for the superior tank to come in that terrain (owing to it being heavy). So Sprut will not face any of the superior tanks, if it is successfully dropped at black top. At Galwan juncture, where the road gets washed away every year in rainy season, the Arjuns or the T-99/T90 may find hard to negotiate that land (it is just made up data to make a point, I do not know if that is the case). At that point, perhaps both sprut and t-15 can show up, with T-15 having a upper hand.

But to my untrained civilian eyes, I see most places (Spanggur gap, DBO, Depsang plain), all kind of tanks can play. Arjun is the mightiest then.

niran
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5469
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 16:01

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby niran » 20 Feb 2021 12:12

Pratyush wrote:If the weight of protection against airburst 155 is too much. Then it can be deleted.

It's not a show stopper for what I have in mind.

The objective is to have a highly mobile vehicle with the most powerful gun in as light a frame as possible.

The crew if protected only against 30 mm rounds will be sufficient. Rest can be handled by APS.

you will need to define "Highly Mobile" in my defination 67kmph 12 sec/360 degree turret rotation 58 degree/second Traverse speed(tank rotation speed)is highly mobile.
BTW recoil is proportional to gun size countering recoil means weight and no SPGs recoil system cannot be used in tank recoil why? SPGs fire when stationary tanks are supposed to fire on the move

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21329
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Philip » 20 Feb 2021 12:44

Let me throw some light on the issue.A recent Security Scan prog. on RS TV on the acceptance of Arjun Mk.1A.
Lt.Gen.Sihivanane,former DG Mech.Forces.
Maj.Gen.Ravi Arora.,etc.

Highlights:
The Mk 1A is 68t up from 62.5t for the A-1.
1.This is a "heavytank".
In the Indian context,the need is for medium and light tanks for most of the borders/ terrain.Arjun can be used mainly in the desert.

2.For A-1,there are several service/ sustainability issues as 60% of it is imported, supply chain for many items is problematic.
For 1A the foreign component is down to 50%. Better but with low numbers, supply chain will be expensive.1A costs 44 crores a piece.T-90 only 30 crores.

3.Deployability.A-1 and A-1A require larger tank transporters, tank recovery vehicles,bigger bridges on our side,etc. for operations outside the desert. This adds to the spares,supply support chain. A vital point mentioned was that
even if we at extra expense build up our infra on our side so that an Arjun can operate elsewhere other than the desert, a tank is an " offensive" weapon and there is no guarantee that on the other side of the border the infra, bridges,etc. are suitable for operating Arjun MBTs.

4.The tank's 120mm rifled gun is the only one of its type in the world. Specialised ammo has to be manufactured,stockpiled at various ammo dumps in addition to the 125mm ammo of the two T- series MBTs which have the same gun. It cannot also fire missiles from the main gun.

5.Survivability.It has good armour protection but is large with a highly visible silhouette and will be spotted first.

However,unlike the Mk-1, which was " shoved down the throats of the IA", I quote, the A-1A has been " fully" accepeted by the IA which is a milestone in itself. This is THE major achievement of the Arjun prog.,like the LCA,accepted by the respective service.

From this one can conclude that two factors have been responsible for the reluctance of the IA in buying more Arjuns,size/ weight limiting its deployability,susttainability given few numbers and lastly the extra cost factor. One hopes that as Arjun 1As arrive, other T-series MBTs deployed in the desert sectors will be replaced by Arjuns and redeployed to beef up the armoured corps in other sectors.

Now L& T having finished delivering their order for K-9 Vajra SP 155mm howitzers,want more orders or permission to turn it into a light tank. An estimate is that this would bring it down to around 30t,still in the med. category. An idea reg. our AV developent often mentioned is to use a T-90 turret on an Arjun chassis, bringing down the weight substantially,plus only a 3-man crew, ammo would also be compatible with the T-series.
The Arjun chassis ,desi developed,would be far more preferable than the K-9 chassis which is from SoKo. The timf factor taken yo developcan LT vs. an import,will weigh heavily inthf minds of the IA as even though the drawback of forces on both sides appears to be going smoothly, there will be no relaxation of preparedness for combat at any time given the complete failure of trust with the PRC and the LT is a criticalcreq. Since the Nag ATGM has passed all its tests, a number of NSMICA AVs could also be deployed in Ladakh,etc. asap.

niran
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5469
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 16:01

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby niran » 20 Feb 2021 14:52

Philip wrote:
2.For A-1,there are several service/ sustainability issues as 60% of it is imported, supply chain for many items is problematic.
For 1A the foreign component is down to 50%. Better but with low numbers, supply chain will be expensive.1A costs 44 crores a piece.T-90 only 30 crores.


one example of so called problematic supply.
Arjun need a different kind of pneumatic oil early it was imported from Netherland 1 year worth supply was ordered meanwhile Castrol India began manufacturing same oil locally maintenance command office until September 2020 had not ordered local made oil meanwhile whole squadron remained parked due to lack of oil. some supply problem eh!

on price how much of 44 crores per tank remain in Bharat and how much of 30 crore remain
and
44= 27
30=0.3
BTW as me made a post earlier the one paying says Atmanirbhar Bharat so it remains.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5376
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby jamwal » 20 Feb 2021 15:19

Philip wrote:
Now L& T having finished delivering their order for K-9 Vajra SP 155mm howitzers,want more orders or permission to turn it into a light tank. An estimate is that this would bring it down to around 30t,still in the med. category. An idea reg. our AV developent often mentioned is to use a T-90 turret on an Arjun chassis, bringing down the weight substantially,plus only a 3-man crew, ammo would also be compatible with the T-series.
The Arjun chassis ,desi developed,would be far more preferable than the K-9 chassis which is from SoKo. .


How?
jamwal wrote:People are claiming that K9 Vajra can be converted in to a light tank just by replacing 155mm gun with something smaller. Unfortunately, things are not so simple.

Weights:
K9: 50t
T-90 medium tank: 46-48t
T-15 light tank: 33-36t
Company says a smaller gun will decrease weight by 10t. Then it'll need autoloader, targeting system and reasonable armour which will increase weight by 6-10t. If they demand same features that Arjun has, then it'll be 55t+. In no case it's going to go below 40t. Light tank should be around 32-35t. So K9 chassis as a light tank is wishful thinking at the moment. A 105 or 120mm gun on Kestrel like US Stryker or Chinese ZBL is a much better, cheaper and faster option. If I have my way, then DRDO should go for a smaller 3 crewed Arjun with autoloader & 105mm gun

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1864
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Thakur_B » 20 Feb 2021 15:28

Conversion of K9 to tank will simply become K2 black Pather tank. It is a 55 ton class tank.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8492
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Pratyush » 20 Feb 2021 15:46

niran wrote:you will need to define "Highly Mobile" in my defination 67kmph 12 sec/360 degree turret rotation 58 degree/second Traverse speed(tank rotation speed)is highly mobile.
BTW recoil is proportional to gun size countering recoil means weight and no SPGs recoil system cannot be used in tank recoil why? SPGs fire when stationary tanks are supposed to fire on the move



1)Highly mobile in this context means easy deployment in the regions where the PRC can use armour. Using existing road infrastructure or dirt tracks.

2) not necessarily, Khanland had developed a 120 mm gun designed for a 20 ton vehicle. Which was designed to use all in service 120 mm ammunition. The centaro wheeled vehicle also has a vehicle with a 120 mm gun, and fire on the move capacity. But that is a heavier vehicle. The gun is a ruag design.

So what I am asking for is easy to do with a little innovative thought process.

Rsatchi
BRFite
Posts: 1013
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 22:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Rsatchi » 20 Feb 2021 18:06

https://youtu.be/mZReAB-FtQ4
Came across this video!!
2-crew Tank!!
Says DRDO offering IA light tank with just 2 crew members and most functions in it would be automated!! :eek:
Is this for real/possible or the man just smoking some high-grade Ur :roll:

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9721
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 20 Feb 2021 21:01

Jamwal, the US itself is moving to a sub 40 ton light tank (with configurations ranging from 28-38 tons depending upon armor) for its infantry brigade combat teams (prototype vehicles from GD and BAE being currently evaluated). The Stryker is mobile, easier to deploy and smaller but probably not that optimal for this sort of usage when factoring in other things like firepower and survivability. You are really trying to balance firepower, mobility, sustainability and survivability against a range of targets and use cases.

https://defence-blog.com/news/army/gene ... hicle.html

Image
Last edited by brar_w on 20 Feb 2021 23:13, edited 3 times in total.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2590
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby John » 20 Feb 2021 21:37

105 mm gun for 37 ton tank seems to be but underarmed why not go with mixture of 40 mm gun with anti tank missiles.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9721
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby brar_w » 20 Feb 2021 21:41

John wrote:105 mm gun for 37 ton tank seems to be but underarmed why not go with mixture of 40 mm gun with anti tank missiles.


I would assume that operational requirements and lethality required to defeat a certain quality and quantity of targets (in the context of an IBCT capability and threat) would dictate the choice of the gun and why X would be specified over Y. Otherwise, why a 40 MM gun, why not just put a big laser on it and call it a day. This vehicle would sit above the upgunned Strykers (which could always be slotted in to IBCT's if that was a viable solution) and below the tanks that the ABCT's field. Anti tank missiles will probably continue to be a focus on unmanned vehicles across all BCT's. In fact even LTV's are getting upgunned beyond just anti armor capability. The USMC for example launched an NSM from a JLTV something that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. Both the Javelin and Spike continue to be available for other IBCT and BCT formations and lighter vehicles so this 38 ton vehicle (and it's really on a scale with both BAE and GD demonstrating profiles ranging from high 20's to mid 30's in terms of displacement in tons dependent on the armor package) is filling a void that they don't think they can fill with other options. BAE's design even fits inside a C-130 (with 3 fitting on a C-17).

So in the absence of line-by-line requirements on what they are trying to accomplish by inserting these vehicles into the IBCT, we can sort of fill the gaps in terms of why not a 40 mm and a few rounds of anti tank missiles. The requirements gave each competitor a trade space to choose b/w 57 mm, 105 mm and 120 mm. Both current competitors (downselected) chose to go with 105 mm. Given your aviation assets and resupply is going to come under fire and may be delayed or may not arrive at the frequency you desire, this sort of vehicle (in the US context) probably has to figure out which targets it is going to use those anti armor missiles for. So basically optimize your ATGM usage only against the targets the 105 mm cannot defeat and then continue to fight for XX hours required without resupply. The "Light Tank" is specifically for Infantry BCT's and their needs. It isn't going to be a part of the Armor BCT's so any focus on lethality, firepower and survivability would have to be in the context of the infantry requirements for an upgunned, and more survivable vehicle.

Atmavik
BRFite
Posts: 878
Joined: 24 Aug 2016 04:43

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Atmavik » 21 Feb 2021 09:19

Rakesh wrote:https://twitter.com/Mave_Intel/status/1357982061332635649?s=20 ---> Kalyani M-4. Orders Finally...

https://twitter.com/Mave_Intel/status/1 ... 55361?s=20 ---> From What I know it's around 200*



Saurav Jha on youtube claims that no order has been placed. i cannot find any news other than tweets or forum discussions.

Atmavik
BRFite
Posts: 878
Joined: 24 Aug 2016 04:43

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Atmavik » 21 Feb 2021 11:27

Philip wrote:Let me throw some light on the issue.A recent Security Scan prog. on RS TV on the acceptance of Arjun Mk.1A.
Lt.Gen.Sihivanane,former DG Mech.Forces.
Maj.Gen.Ravi Arora.,etc.

Highlights:
The Mk 1A is 68t up from 62.5t for the A-1.
1.This is a "heavytank".
In the Indian context,the need is for medium and light tanks for most of the borders/ terrain.Arjun can be used mainly in the desert.

Now L& T having finished delivering their order for K-9 Vajra SP 155mm howitzers,want more orders or permission to turn it into a light tank. An estimate is that this would bring it down to around 30t,still in the med. category. An idea reg. our AV developent often mentioned is to use a T-90 turret on an Arjun chassis, bringing down the weight substantially,plus only a 3-man crew, ammo would also be compatible with the T-series.
The Arjun chassis ,desi developed,would be far more preferable than the K-9 chassis which is from SoKo. The timf factor taken yo developcan LT vs. an import,will weigh heavily inthf minds of the IA as even though the drawback of forces on both sides appears to be going smoothly, there will be no relaxation of preparedness for combat at any time given the complete failure of trust with the PRC and the LT is a criticalcreq. Since the Nag ATGM has passed all its tests, a number of NSMICA AVs could also be deployed in Ladakh,etc. asap.



here is the link for this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSonEzQ ... q06vtdaD7s

@Phillip what ur suggesting is similar to Tank - EX proposal which was rejected. it will be better to start with a fresh design.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7586
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Prasad » 21 Feb 2021 12:31

Atmavik wrote:
Rakesh wrote:https://twitter.com/Mave_Intel/status/1357982061332635649?s=20 ---> Kalyani M-4. Orders Finally...

https://twitter.com/Mave_Intel/status/1 ... 55361?s=20 ---> From What I know it's around 200*



Saurav Jha on youtube claims that no order has been placed. i cannot find any news other than tweets or forum discussions.

No order has been placed. News of the order is incorrect.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55352
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 21 Feb 2021 12:31


mody
BRFite
Posts: 831
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby mody » 22 Feb 2021 18:04

ramana wrote:https://twitter.com/JaidevJamwal/status/1363365301732007936?s=19

New armored brigade for Sikkim.


Where will it operate? There is already an armoured brigade in North Sikkim and there seems to be hardly enough real estate to deploy two armoured brigades!!
T-72 and T-90 tanks are deployed in North Sikkim.
Don't know if armour can be deployed in eastern Sikkim towards doklam

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21329
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Philip » 22 Feb 2021 21:51

The Sprut was offered to us in Oct. 2020,seriously being considered by the IA as an interim solution.25 or so for 500cr. At 20 cr. a tank, 2/3 the price of a T-90.Same 125mm gun, 18 to 20t,but the armour could have ERA tiles for better protection.

Tank "X" I think was on a T-72 chassis.Here the reverse is being proposed.A T-90 turret,lighter,auto-loader,only a 3- man crew which will reduce weight, give better deployability,superior gun that can fire missiles, and have much commonality with both the Arjun series .Will have the best from east and west.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5376
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby jamwal » 22 Feb 2021 23:16

:|
Arjun can't be inducted because of entirely new logistics and doctrines, but Russian imports of a new category of tanks are OK. Right.

A Deshmukh
BRFite
Posts: 314
Joined: 05 Dec 2008 14:24

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby A Deshmukh » 23 Feb 2021 09:53

Is Silhouette issue that important?
With UAVs hovering at a height, both light and heavy tanks will have same visibility to the enemy.

Hiding a tank will be challenge.
We will need technical solutions to confuse UAV EO sensors, missile seekers.

We will need dummy tanks, that look and run like a main tank, but is cheap, an unmanned dummy target to confuse the enemy.

Future battles may not be tank v/s tank.
A better anti-tank weapon would be LCH with 7km range Helina / Dhruvastra.
After enemy armor is defeated, then our tanks will have to face RPGs, rockets.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8492
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Pratyush » 23 Feb 2021 09:59

jamwal wrote::|
Arjun can't be inducted because of entirely new logistics and doctrines, but Russian imports of a new category of tanks are OK. Right.


Sprut is supposed to be able to fire all 125 mm Ammo. So perversely the logic is justified.

Atmavik
BRFite
Posts: 878
Joined: 24 Aug 2016 04:43

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Atmavik » 23 Feb 2021 11:04

A Deshmukh wrote:Is Silhouette issue that important?


which other tank other than T 90 MS has a low Silhoutee? the tank image posted by brar_w also has a large one. Type 10 come to mind but u know those japaneese..

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1864
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Thakur_B » 23 Feb 2021 11:29

A Deshmukh wrote:Hiding a tank will be challenge.
We will need technical solutions to confuse UAV EO sensors, missile seekers.

We will need dummy tanks, that look and run like a main tank, but is cheap, an unmanned dummy target to confuse the enemy.

.

Check out this year's IDEX contest winners. They have devised a thermal camouflage system for armoured vehicles.

Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3468
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Tanaji » 23 Feb 2021 15:47

As per Wiki only 24 Sprut tanks have been inducted by Russians. Likely a token number.

The usual Russian tactic of getting us to pay for a half developed platform and resolve underlying issues is at play.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 24782
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby chetak » 23 Feb 2021 17:46

Image


The Indian Army contract is believed to be for 200 Kalyani M4 vehicles under emergency procurement protocols. via@livefist

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5376
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby jamwal » 23 Feb 2021 18:28

brar_w wrote:Jamwal, the US itself is moving to a sub 40 ton light tank (with configurations ranging from 28-38 tons depending upon armor) for its infantry brigade combat teams (prototype vehicles from GD and BAE being currently evaluated). The Stryker is mobile, easier to deploy and smaller but probably not that optimal for this sort of usage when factoring in other things like firepower and survivability. You are really trying to balance firepower, mobility, sustainability and survivability against a range of targets and use cases.

https://defence-blog.com/news/army/gene ... hicle.html



Few things:

1. US fights expeditionary wars overseas, so weight is a bigger issue for American Army and Marines. For India, not so much apart from mountains.

2. Of course vehicles like Stryker, Kestrel are not the best solution. Yet if you need mobility, light weight, ease of deployment and quick inductions, Kestrel is perhaps the only choice India has.

3. There are barely 2-3 in sectors in Laddakh and 1-2 in Sikkim where tanks or similar vehicles can be deployed. Buying a new light tank is not cost effective for this. On the other hand, Kestrel platform can be used for multiple roles as APC, light artillery and a light tank just like Stryker and BMP.
Last edited by jamwal on 23 Feb 2021 18:31, edited 1 time in total.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8492
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Pratyush » 23 Feb 2021 19:06

An alternative solution could be to mount Namica missile firing turret on the flatbed back of Kalyani M4 vehicle. Or the Stallion truck flatbed.

That will be a quick and ready solution for any armoured thrust from the PRC.

They will both be lighter than the Namica. And can be driven to most of the battlefields where the Indian Army will have to fight.

The Turkish Kaplan ATGM vehicle comes to mind.

Shekhar Singh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 34
Joined: 16 Sep 2018 14:55

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Shekhar Singh » 23 Feb 2021 22:30


John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2590
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby John » 23 Feb 2021 22:54

Tanaji wrote:As per Wiki only 24 Sprut tanks have been inducted by Russians. Likely a token number.

The usual Russian tactic of getting us to pay for a half developed platform and resolve underlying issues is at play.

There were some issues with orginal sprut and they moved onto sprut-sdm1 which is based on bmd-4 chassis. It is still in development so I think only the older Sprut is being offered.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7586
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Prasad » 23 Feb 2021 23:44



Emergency order is for a small number of these. A larger order would bring down the costs.

S_Madhukar
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 41
Joined: 27 Mar 2019 18:15

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby S_Madhukar » 24 Feb 2021 00:49

In a terrain like Ladakh wouldn't we have many hilly areas from which anti-tank units can work ... if we proliferate Nag etc like sausages (well sev and gathia) that should be enough of a disincentive for tanks.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1326
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby RKumar » 24 Feb 2021 00:53

For Arjun, the wait continues.... contract end of this year, 6 in next 2.5 year, ~4 years to complete the order ... so all in all (1+2.5+4) 7.5 years under Modiji nose. Even he will be retired by then ...

MoD clears 118 'improved' Arjun tanks among Rs 17,000 crore

...
The contract for the “improved” Arjuns, which will be inked later this year after the Cabinet Committee on Security’s final nod, will be the second such mega-deal for home-grown weapon systems in recent times.
.....

The 118 Arjuns, which will add to the first 124 such tanks inducted by the Army well over a decade ago, have 71 “upgrades” for better firepower, mobility, protection and endurance
...

The main takeaway, however, was the nod for the 118 Arjun Mark-1A tanks. The Army for long has resisted induction of the “extra heavy” Arjun tanks, and has instead banked upon the Russian-origin T-90S `Bhishma’ tanks. The force has so far inducted 1,200 of the 1,657 T-90S tanks being licensed produced by the Heavy Vehicles Factory (HVF) at Avadi.

Given that the Army also has 2,400 older T-72 tanks and is now looking for “futuristic” tanks, this order for the 118 Arjuns is likely to be the last. :rotfl:

The DRDO, on its part, has worked hard to “satisfy” the Army by largely resolving “all maintenance, spares and other issues” as well as carrying out 14 major and 57 minor “refinements” in the Arjun Mark-1A tanks, all of which have been proven in extensive field trials. The only major upgrade left is the cannon-launched guided missile (CLGM), which too can be later fitted on the tanks, as was earlier reported by TOI.

Delivery: HVF has promised to produce the first five Arjun Mark-1A tanks within 30 months of the indent being placed. Once these are approved by the Army, HVF will deliver 30 tanks per year.
.....
On Tuesday, the defence acquisitions council (DAC), chaired by minister Rajnath Singh, also issued directions that all capital procurement contracts, other than design and development cases, should be concluded in two years.
....
8 `Arudhra’ medium-powered radars (Rs 2,800 crore)
13 `Namica’ tracked carriers with `Nag’ anti-tank guided missiles (Rs 500 crore)
A large number of `armour piercing fin stabilised discarding sabot (APFSDS)’ practice ammunition (Rs 270 crore),



The DAC also approved a Rs 5,300 :eek: crore project to develop on-board “protection and counter-measures” for 820 armoured fighting vehicles (AFVs) against guided missiles, rockets and other projectiles. This “Make-II” category project will see companies develop prototypes at their own cost for the final selection.

The Army, incidentally, has now also ordered emergency procurement of 27 M4 wheeled armoured vehicles under a Rs 178 crore contract inked with the Pune-based Bharat Forge company of the Kalyani group.

Interestingly, the M4 vehicles and a few others were earlier tested in Ladakh, during the military confrontation with China, for their ability to swiftly transport troops in high-altitude conditions.


ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1613
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 24 Feb 2021 06:59

13 Namicas?

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4876
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby srai » 24 Feb 2021 07:39

^^^
Original intent from many years ago (more like a decade ago FWIR) was for the initial lot to be 13 NAMICA & 443 NAG Missiles. Looks like the IA hasn’t changed that stance.

Total requirement was for 200 NAMICA and 7000 NAG missiles.

Nag waits for sweetheart NAMICA
...

The wait has put Hyderabad-based Defence Research and Development Laboratory (DRDL) into an emotional spin, considering that the Indian Army had earlier placed its Acceptance of Necessity (AON) for 443 Nag missiles 13 NAMICAs in 2005. The Army had made it clear then that a firm commitment will only be given once all trials are successful and the system is fit for induction. The Army also projected in their perspective plan the need for 7000 Nag missiles and around 200 NAMICAs.

...


Most likely part of Mechanised Infantry Tracked Reconnaissance & Support Battalion (Recce & Support-R&S).

‘NAG’ ANTI-TANK GUIDED MISSILE: INDUCTION
...
Even in 2012 the army had budgeted to buy 443 Nag missiles and 13 NAMICA, to equip Reconnaissance and Support (R&S) Battalions of Mech Infantry. Mechanised Infantry has 10 R&S battalions, 5 based on tracks and 5 based on wheels. The present sanction is for 01 company of tracked R&S Bn to carry out the user trials. Each NAMICA is authorized 12 NAG, however, only 6 NAG Missiles of the present version can be carried on it due to its heavy weight and length, the remaining will be carried in a separate vehicle. Once the user trials are successful, the same will then be inducted into the Indian Army. It is still a long way to go before it is inducted.
...


Quick cal:

200 total NAMICA / 13 NAMICA per tracked R&S company = 15 companies

15 companies / 5 tracked R&S Bn = 3 companies per Bn

3 companies x 13 NAMICA = 39 NAMICA per Tracked R&S Bn

——
443 NAG per R&S company * 15 companies = 6645 NAG

443 NAG per R&S company * 3 companies = 1329 NAG per Tracked R&S Bn

443 NAG per R&S company / 13 NAMICA per company = 34 NAG per NAMICA

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1613
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 24 Feb 2021 08:41

srai wrote:^^^
Original intent from many years ago (more like a decade ago FWIR) was for the initial lot to be 13 NAMICA & 443 NAG Missiles. Looks like the IA hasn’t changed that stance.

Total requirement was for 200 NAMICA and 7000 NAG missiles.

Nag waits for sweetheart NAMICA
...

The wait has put Hyderabad-based Defence Research and Development Laboratory (DRDL) into an emotional spin, considering that the Indian Army had earlier placed its Acceptance of Necessity (AON) for 443 Nag missiles 13 NAMICAs in 2005. The Army had made it clear then that a firm commitment will only be given once all trials are successful and the system is fit for induction. The Army also projected in their perspective plan the need for 7000 Nag missiles and around 200 NAMICAs.

...


Most likely part of Mechanised Infantry Tracked Reconnaissance & Support Battalion (Recce & Support-R&S).

‘NAG’ ANTI-TANK GUIDED MISSILE: INDUCTION
...
Even in 2012 the army had budgeted to buy 443 Nag missiles and 13 NAMICA, to equip Reconnaissance and Support (R&S) Battalions of Mech Infantry. Mechanised Infantry has 10 R&S battalions, 5 based on tracks and 5 based on wheels. The present sanction is for 01 company of tracked R&S Bn to carry out the user trials. Each NAMICA is authorized 12 NAG, however, only 6 NAG Missiles of the present version can be carried on it due to its heavy weight and length, the remaining will be carried in a separate vehicle. Once the user trials are successful, the same will then be inducted into the Indian Army. It is still a long way to go before it is inducted.
...


Quick cal:

200 total NAMICA / 13 NAMICA per tracked R&S company = 15 companies

15 companies / 5 tracked R&S Bn = 3 companies per Bn

3 companies x 13 NAMICA = 39 NAMICA per Tracked R&S Bn

——
443 NAG per R&S company * 15 companies = 6645 NAG

443 NAG per R&S company * 3 companies = 1329 NAG per Tracked R&S Bn

443 NAG per R&S company / 13 NAMICA per company = 34 NAG per NAMICA



SO basically the Namica is not fit for purpose. I don't see the weight of the missile or the vehicle coming down. And adding another replen vehicle to a R&S company structure is a PITA...
WE talk about reducing the tooth to tail ratio but add to the tail....

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21329
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Philip » 24 Feb 2021 08:57

Unless Avadi,and other AV capable DPSUs can build a minimum of 50 to 150 MBTs/ AVs a year, the goal of indigenisation as envisaged by the govt. will be a sick joke. 50 MBTs and 100AVs should be the production goal from DPSUs,with extra AV production,both tracked and wheeled from the pvt. sector giants.
Tatas,Mahindra,AL,etc. are quite capable of manufacturing AVs,transporters,mine-proof trucks and specialised AVs like Namica,mobile chassis for SAM systems,radars,etc.

Arjun is a good tank for the last century and the last 2 decades of the 21st. The future is smaller MBTs,even unmanned AVs, smaller crews, and longer ranged weaponry and ammo. The advent of drones on the battlefield is changing the conduct even of armoured warfare. One musn't forget that tanks will go into battle,or should, with a full supporting cast of mobile SAMs, Pantsir type AA systems, ATGM equipped tank destroyers and BMP/BMD mechanised forces,SP arty,etc. The "full Monty". These in today's scenario will also have in the air, attack helos,loitering drones/munitions, and GA/ CS aircraft to do the business. The establishment of theatre commands will hopefully integrate these combined assets from the 3 services in a seamless mailed fist.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10964
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 25 Feb 2021 08:28

https://twitter.com/TheWolfpackIN/statu ... 89795?s=20 ---> Indian Army to equip 13-14 armoured regiments with Active Protection Systems (APS) with hard kill capability. Sufficient for 7 armoured brigades.

https://twitter.com/TheWolfpackIN/statu ... 21953?s=20 ---> Initial batches will likely be for the armoured regiments with the IBGs on Pak border.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10964
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 25 Feb 2021 08:31

https://twitter.com/rahulsinghx/status/ ... 44000?s=20 ---> Protection & countermeasure systems for 3,000 AFVs was a long-standing demand of the army. Upgrade to cost Rs 5,300 cr. It will equip tanks & ICVs with the capability to defeat threats from missiles, rocket-propelled grenades & tank ammunition.

https://twitter.com/Firezstarter1/statu ... 97856?s=20 ---> DAC included approval for an APS project.

Image


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BALAR025, Dennis, RajD, rkhanna and 41 guests