Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion
Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion
Any progress in the development of FSAPDS rounds to Arjun and also indigenous rounds for the T90s?
@Rohitvats might know.
The first gen armour piercing rounds for Arjun, aren't really impressive and don't do justice to the excellent gun. The MK2 was supposed to have much better performance.
@Rohitvats might know.
The first gen armour piercing rounds for Arjun, aren't really impressive and don't do justice to the excellent gun. The MK2 was supposed to have much better performance.
Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion
MK2 sabot has cleared trials and Arjun Mk1A has been approved, as per the Chief.
https://defence.capital/2020/01/22/inte ... -naravane/
The chief is still not committed to creating a Indian designed FRCV. IA has Indian built T90, ok with Indian designed Arjun MK1A, but won't commit for FRCV.
If it is a simple case of T Series officers no liking any design other than T series type, an Indian design can easily be of a similar type.
There is more to the story.
https://defence.capital/2020/01/22/inte ... -naravane/
The chief is still not committed to creating a Indian designed FRCV. IA has Indian built T90, ok with Indian designed Arjun MK1A, but won't commit for FRCV.
If it is a simple case of T Series officers no liking any design other than T series type, an Indian design can easily be of a similar type.
There is more to the story.
Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion
" I must state clearly here that the MBT Arjun has met the operational requirements as laid out by the #IndianArmy. "
COAS in an interview to Defence Capital
(From twitter)
link
COAS in an interview to Defence Capital
(From twitter)
link
Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion
Avadi has increased its MBT engine production capacity from 350 to 750 per year at an investment of 148 Crores (Flexible production line)
Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion
Last months news:
http://www.spsmai.com/news/?id=510&q=Bi ... my-dropped
http://www.spsmai.com/news/?id=510&q=Bi ... my-dropped
The biggest Make in India programme for the Indian Army to produce 2,600 Futuristic Infantry Combat Vehicles (FICVs) at an estimated cost of Rs 60,000 Crore ($8.5 billion) under the Make-1 procedure has been dropped.
"Development Agencies could not be shortlisted as the financial and technical criteria were found to be subjective in the selection process," Minister of State for Defence Shripad Naik stated in a written reply to a question in the Lok Sabha on December 11.
But the Ministry refused to "migrate" an ongoing programme to a different procurement process, nor restrict itself to the same set of bidders, and has instead decided to consider the FICV programme de novo, holding that the older process was no longer valid.
This effectively means that the procurement has been pushed back to Square 1, where the case would have to be moved afresh under a different category, and perhaps with revised Army Staff Quality Requirements (ASQRs).
The ASQRs drafted in 2015 while initiating the Make-1 programme sought a compact, tracked and amphibious FICV, not heavier than 18-to-20 tons to enable transport into combat zones. It also specified a requirement of firing anti-tank guided missile at a range of 4 km, and space for a crew of three and eight combat-kitted infantry soldiers.
Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion
But the order still stands at meagerly 118Vamsee wrote:" I must state clearly here that the MBT Arjun has met the operational requirements as laid out by the #IndianArmy. "
COAS in an interview to Defence Capital
(From twitter)
link
Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion
Basically right in 2015 the AQSR was drafted for match fixing the Make in India program.Thakur_B wrote:Last months news:
http://www.spsmai.com/news/?id=510&q=Bi ... my-droppedThe biggest Make in India programme for the Indian Army to produce 2,600 Futuristic Infantry Combat Vehicles (FICVs) at an estimated cost of Rs 60,000 Crore ($8.5 billion) under the Make-1 procedure has been dropped.
"Development Agencies could not be shortlisted as the financial and technical criteria were found to be subjective in the selection process," Minister of State for Defence Shripad Naik stated in a written reply to a question in the Lok Sabha on December 11.But the Ministry refused to "migrate" an ongoing programme to a different procurement process, nor restrict itself to the same set of bidders, and has instead decided to consider the FICV programme de novo, holding that the older process was no longer valid.
This effectively means that the procurement has been pushed back to Square 1, where the case would have to be moved afresh under a different category, and perhaps with revised Army Staff Quality Requirements (ASQRs).
The ASQRs drafted in 2015 while initiating the Make-1 programme sought a compact, tracked and amphibious FICV, not heavier than 18-to-20 tons to enable transport into combat zones. It also specified a requirement of firing anti-tank guided missile at a range of 4 km, and space for a crew of three and eight combat-kitted infantry soldiers.
Very clearly after 5 years its found no one can develop that in India.
The MoD is at fault for not throwing this back in 2016 at least.
The Armoured/Mechanized Corps has not got the memo about no more imports.
Would they like a microwave with that for making chai on the run?
Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion
118 Mk1A, probably 118 Mk2. Overall there will be 360 Arjun, almost equal to Pak's best thing after sliced bread AK!But the order still stands at meagerly 118
Pretty sure all the drama around inducting Mk1A & Mk2 will take around 10 years. When the FRCA is planned to start coming in...
So IA is either wants a planned induction of Indian design: Arjun & then FRCA ... or is just humoring CVRDE....
Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion
The reason given for the shift from Make-1 to Make-2 was that Make-1 would've necessitated govt funding for the project. Indian makers (with foreign tie-ups) were to design the CVs and make prototypes. And the govt baulked at the cost. BMS program has also been scrapped with flimsy excuses. Massive programs like this where a whole bunch of money is to be ploughed into local programs somehow get the shaft.ramana wrote:Basically right in 2015 the AQSR was drafted for match fixing the Make in India program.
Very clearly after 5 years its found no one can develop that in India.
The MoD is at fault for not throwing this back in 2016 at least.
The Armoured/Mechanized Corps has not got the memo about no more imports.
Would they like a microwave with that for making chai on the run?
Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion
So does it mean that specifically the Tata/DRDO WhAP, which is almost fully developed has hit the end of the road?ramana wrote:Basically right in 2015 the AQSR was drafted for match fixing the Make in India program.
Very clearly after 5 years its found no one can develop that in India.
The MoD is at fault for not throwing this back in 2016 at least.
The Armoured/Mechanized Corps has not got the memo about no more imports.
Would they like a microwave with that for making chai on the run?
Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion
WhAP is a different requirement than FICV. WhAP was necessitated from the requirements of UNPK missions as an APC. FICV will be a family of tracked vehicles for different roles.aditp wrote:
So does it mean that specifically the Tata/DRDO WhAP, which is almost fully developed has hit the end of the road?
Recently there was an EOI for tracked vehicles by IA. There are hopes in BRF that might be a ruse to buy WhAP otherwise it'll be a single vendor situation.
Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion
I disagree Ramana ji. I believe MoD was right to issue RFP in Make-1 category. This was the khan chacha approach.ramana wrote:Basically right in 2015 the AQSR was drafted for match fixing the Make in India program.
Very clearly after 5 years its found no one can develop that in India.
The MoD is at fault for not throwing this back in 2016 at least.
The Armoured/Mechanized Corps has not got the memo about no more imports.
Would they like a microwave with that for making chai on the run?
- Fund prototype development.
- Own the IP.
- Since IP is under Govt Control, it gets a say in pricing.
- Try escalation of prices and government walks away with IP to other manufacturers.
- The manufacturer becomes your b*tch.
Bidders slyly started giving proposal in middle of process to fund their own prototypes. Which meant:
- I own the IP (or I tie up with a foreign designer who has already amortised the cost of R&D)
- I decide the pricing scheme over the 30 year production run.
- I will milk MoD dry for even the most minor upgrades.
- The MoD can't approach any other manufacturer without going through decades long procurement.
- The MoD is my b*tch.
It is all being projected as a cost savings exercise.
Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion
So basically the PPP is planning to get US MIC level benefits with out the effort.
US govt owns the IP for the development with their funds.
Too bad its not coming out in the press.
Even with dedicated media reporters.
US govt owns the IP for the development with their funds.
Too bad its not coming out in the press.
Even with dedicated media reporters.
Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion
^^^
How come people forget that the biggest issue with FICV program was OFB muscling in as a vendor?
The whole idea behind FICV program was to involve private sector in partnership with a foreign OEM where two short-listed vendors were to present their design. OFB was not to be involved. But then, how could it miss on the gravy train? It muscled its way into the program and the whole idea of MII and developing parallel expertise in private sector fell flat.
Also, it is given that none of the Indian vendors will be able to develop a de-novo FICV design covering all aspects, irrespective of the money given by the GOI (Rs 3,000 Crore). The foreign partner will plug-in with design inputs from their existing line of tracked AFVs.
In short, foreign OEM/partner will end-up supplying its IP to GOI for less than USD 200 Mn!!!
The reason OEM have proposed to fund their own development cost is because they don't want to pass the IP to GOI at such 'LOW' price. Now, they can present their existing design as 'customized' for Indian environment. And control the IP. OFB will have to sign follow-on contracts for everything with the OEM.
How come people forget that the biggest issue with FICV program was OFB muscling in as a vendor?
The whole idea behind FICV program was to involve private sector in partnership with a foreign OEM where two short-listed vendors were to present their design. OFB was not to be involved. But then, how could it miss on the gravy train? It muscled its way into the program and the whole idea of MII and developing parallel expertise in private sector fell flat.
Also, it is given that none of the Indian vendors will be able to develop a de-novo FICV design covering all aspects, irrespective of the money given by the GOI (Rs 3,000 Crore). The foreign partner will plug-in with design inputs from their existing line of tracked AFVs.
In short, foreign OEM/partner will end-up supplying its IP to GOI for less than USD 200 Mn!!!
The reason OEM have proposed to fund their own development cost is because they don't want to pass the IP to GOI at such 'LOW' price. Now, they can present their existing design as 'customized' for Indian environment. And control the IP. OFB will have to sign follow-on contracts for everything with the OEM.
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 149
- Joined: 23 Apr 2019 18:16
Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion
On what basis do you say 3000 crores is insufficient money to build prototypes ?rohitvats wrote:^^^
Also, it is given that none of the Indian vendors will be able to develop a de-novo FICV design covering all aspects, irrespective of the money given by the GOI (Rs 3,000 Crore). The foreign partner will plug-in with design inputs from their existing line of tracked AFVs.
.
Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion
Arjun MK 2 currently under development will be 3 tons lighter and have 90 improvements over Arjun Mk1A, It will have a 1800 HP indigenously developed engine replacing the 1400 HP German MTU Engine and will have an 'improved and redesigned hull and turret' designed and developed by Reliance.
Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion
This tank will be a beast!Vips wrote:Arjun MK 2 currently under development will be 3 tons lighter and have 90 improvements over Arjun Mk1A, It will have a 1800 HP indigenously developed engine replacing the 1400 HP German MTU Engine and will have an 'improved and redesigned hull and turret' designed and developed by Reliance.
Source?
Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion
Here is an old story about Mk2 progress. Its been kept pretty quiet, unlike the tomtomming the Mk1 received. Some lessons were learnt perhaps about underpromising and over delivering!
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/co ... 936545.ece
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/co ... 936545.ece
Reliance Infra is planning to deliver prototypes of the hull and turret for the Arjun Mark II main battle tank (MBT) to the Combat Vehicle Research and Development Establishment (CVRDE) six month ahead of the deadline. The prototypes are being manufactured at the company’s facility in Silvassa.
The Mark II version developed by the CVRDE was based on the Army’s recommendations following comparative trials of the Arjun Mark I and Russia’s T-90.
One of the main requirements, according to experts, was to reduce the weight of the tank as well as incorporate an anti-tank missile firing capability. The weight of Mark II has been reduced to less than 50 tonnes.(!!!!!!) The updated model has over 90 improvements over the previous version. Also, it largely relies on indigenous components.
Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion
sudeep: Can you please reproduce this post again in a new thread on the Arjun that I am starting. I can move the post, but the time stamp will move your post above the first post of the new thread. I am starting a thread along the lines of the Tejas threads. When you see the thread, please repost in that thread. Thanks.
Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion
It is a credible defence related Youtube AV.sudeepj wrote:This tank will be a beast!Vips wrote:Arjun MK 2 currently under development will be 3 tons lighter and have 90 improvements over Arjun Mk1A, It will have a 1800 HP indigenously developed engine replacing the 1400 HP German MTU Engine and will have an 'improved and redesigned hull and turret' designed and developed by Reliance.
Source?
Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion
The 1800 hp engine was to be developed for FMBT(ॐ शान्ति) and arjun. The requirements were 1500 hp, but an extra 300 hp design margin was kept for weight creep.sudeepj wrote:This tank will be a beast!Vips wrote:Arjun MK 2 currently under development will be 3 tons lighter and have 90 improvements over Arjun Mk1A, It will have a 1800 HP indigenously developed engine replacing the 1400 HP German MTU Engine and will have an 'improved and redesigned hull and turret' designed and developed by Reliance.
Source?
Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion
I doubt there will be a 1800hp engine. We should wait for confirmation from DRDO.
Regarding MK2, i am hoping against hope that CVRDE adds a auto loader and removes the need for the 3rd man. This is the only way to reduce the overall weight.
Tinkering with Hi NI steel and composite to reduce the weight by 3 tonne is a pointless exercise. We will probably see more Arjuns now been inducted.
Nothing to do with the increase performance. The simple fact is the last batch of T90s have been ordered. There is no fear of T90 being blocked.
The path is clear for more Arjuns.
Regarding MK2, i am hoping against hope that CVRDE adds a auto loader and removes the need for the 3rd man. This is the only way to reduce the overall weight.
Tinkering with Hi NI steel and composite to reduce the weight by 3 tonne is a pointless exercise. We will probably see more Arjuns now been inducted.
Nothing to do with the increase performance. The simple fact is the last batch of T90s have been ordered. There is no fear of T90 being blocked.
The path is clear for more Arjuns.
Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion
By the way, the chief has openly announce that MK1A has meet the QSR.
Ironically it is now much heavier than MK1, which was not inducted for being "heavy" !
Ironically it is now much heavier than MK1, which was not inducted for being "heavy" !
Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion
IA seeks tank APUs from local producers
The Indian Army (IA) is seeking expression of interest (EOI) responses from indigenous vendors by 4 March to its plan to locally design and manufacture 3,257 auxiliary power units (APUs) for its fleet of T-72M1 and T-90S main battle tanks (MBTs). The value of the work has been put at INR13.25 billion (USD195.9 million).
In an EOI request issued on 27 January the IA’s Directorate General of Mechanised Forces (DGMF) enumerated its requirement as being for 1,657 APUs for the army’s T-90Ss and 1,600 for its T-72M1s, with each unit priced at INR3 million. The IA’s T-90S and T-72M1 MBTs currently operate without APUs.
Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion
That is not what he said. He is saying that no Indian vendor can design and develop a de-novo FICV from scratch without foreign help, which is understandable since no private (or indeed govt.) firm has any such experience. Problem is lack of expertise not that the money provided by the govt. isn't enough.Raghunathgb wrote:On what basis do you say 3000 crores is insufficient money to build prototypes ?rohitvats wrote:^^^
Also, it is given that none of the Indian vendors will be able to develop a de-novo FICV design covering all aspects, irrespective of the money given by the GOI (Rs 3,000 Crore). The foreign partner will plug-in with design inputs from their existing line of tracked AFVs.
.
Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion
Why not just use the Arjun APU? Will provide commonality of pats across the supply chain and easier maintenance. I think its assembled by MAK Controls and powered by Kirloskar Air cooled engine.Kartik wrote:IA seeks tank APUs from local producers
Link
Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion
The problems could be
1) Physical size dimensions
2) Technical parameters and compatibility with the rest of the Tank.
1) Physical size dimensions
2) Technical parameters and compatibility with the rest of the Tank.
Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion
Looks like Abhay FICV reborn. The gun looks like derivative of 40mm Bofors gun. ARDE had developed fsapds ammunition for it. The 4 km missile neither seems to be milan nor kornet. Overall seems to adhere to KISS philosophy.Kakarat wrote:
Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion
Not like Abhay sir. This honestly seems more like a late 1980s Warsaw Pact satellite evolution of the BMP-1/2... like the Romanian MLI-84 ( http://www.military-today.com/apc/mli_84m.htm ). That gun is definitely not the 40mm, it looks more like an evolution of the 30mm Medak - which is basically the BMP-2's 2A42 30mm cannon. With a new turret + an added TI capability. Also this 'F'ICV doesn't seem to have carried forward the BMP's door-mounted fuel tanks.Thakur_B wrote: Looks like Abhay FICV reborn. The gun looks like derivative of 40mm Bofors gun. ARDE had developed fsapds ammunition for it. The 4 km missile neither seems to be milan nor kornet. Overall seems to adhere to KISS philosophy.
I remember the concepts Tata & Mahindra had shared for this requirement. Why was this thrown open to OFB? Totally shooting ourselves in the foot here.
Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion
I am not sure if I should be happy that OFB has finally decided to modify the BMP or be sad that they have taken the easy route of modifying the BMP and call it FICV.
So while GOI was dilly daylling with procedures, it allowed OFB to modify a BMP and present it as FICV prototype. While the private guys are still waiting to see if GoI is going to fund the development or allow them to spend their own money to create a prototype.
The private guys now have only hot air to present. While OFB will say they have a prototype. MoD babus nicely played the private contenders.
So while GOI was dilly daylling with procedures, it allowed OFB to modify a BMP and present it as FICV prototype. While the private guys are still waiting to see if GoI is going to fund the development or allow them to spend their own money to create a prototype.
The private guys now have only hot air to present. While OFB will say they have a prototype. MoD babus nicely played the private contenders.
Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion
Tata already have a prototype. There was a recent pic of PM inspecting their prototype.
Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion
What's wrong with using BMP-2 design as baseline and updating it where required ? I quite like it.
Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion
Only that using a 70's design as a baseline for a FUTURE Infantry Combat Vehicle is somewhat... odd? Otherwise nothing.srin wrote:What's wrong with using BMP-2 design as baseline and updating it where required ? I quite like it.
Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion
What has changed from the 1970s except for suspension and engine tech?
Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion
I can tell you that, on this new offering
I don't know of these latter two. There must be improvements for sure.
And these are described in the video._Materials... body, armor (strength and other properties/weight) has changed
_Sensors and sensor fusion/integration (sit. awareness) has changed
_Communications has changed
_Modularity/standardization of interfaces... how fast and easily multiple weapon or other systems can be integrated into platform has changed
I don't know of these latter two. There must be improvements for sure.
_Reliability and maintainability of systems - and how much or many Design for Service/Reliability principles used in design of full system
_manufacturing technologies (cost and quality of end product)
Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion
I agree with you. I won't call it FICV either.
But I have been waiting for FICV for the past 10 years. Nothing has materialized even from the private sectors, even when most of them offered license production. A cost-effective and meaningful engineering solution like this is much better than hot air.
But I have been waiting for FICV for the past 10 years. Nothing has materialized even from the private sectors, even when most of them offered license production. A cost-effective and meaningful engineering solution like this is much better than hot air.
Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion
Finally some figures for MBTs.In a report about the improved Arjun still waiting for IA orders, the costs of T-90s (28cr. ) and Arjun (37cr.) are given.This apart from weight ( 68t) is probably why the IA keps preferring T-90s. More numbers at lesser cos,approx.25% cheaper a pop. With 480+ more T-90s on order in kit form and budget woes,emphasis on increasing the arty. numbers with desi built types,the future of A-1A/2 looks bleak.
The need for better ICVs is long pending.One can't understand why there has been little movement on this subject as some desi models too have been unveiled. The Rus are even moving from BMP-3s to the new Armata T-15. Upgrading old Sov. era ICVs is only an interim job,the IA needs a new design plus a light tank for the mountains.
The need for better ICVs is long pending.One can't understand why there has been little movement on this subject as some desi models too have been unveiled. The Rus are even moving from BMP-3s to the new Armata T-15. Upgrading old Sov. era ICVs is only an interim job,the IA needs a new design plus a light tank for the mountains.
Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion
So T90 with 1600+ in numbers is only 25% cheaper than a heavily upgraded and only 125 Arjun?
Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion
Given that the T-90s (best of the best) sent to the Tank biathlon couldn't even complete the course, leave alone compete for top 3 positions, 25% is a small price to pay. And the more important weight parameter is ground pressure. Gross weight is used for crossing bridges - bridges don't fail the first time they are overloaded. Every civil engineering structure is designed with a factor of safety of at lease 2.0. Therefore, the gross weight would not cause problems in battle, it would be the savior for the crew inside (unlike the T-90). With its superior armor and ERA its amazing suspension and the ability to fire on the move, built in crew comfort, the Arjun would destroy a T-90 (like it did in trials).
The IAF is paying 4-6 time the price of a LCA for the Rafales, (2 times the price of a MKI) because of 0.5 gen advancement in tech. Here we have at least 1.0 gen advancement and the IA balks at 25% increase? And can we have a source for the price of the two machines please?
The IAF is paying 4-6 time the price of a LCA for the Rafales, (2 times the price of a MKI) because of 0.5 gen advancement in tech. Here we have at least 1.0 gen advancement and the IA balks at 25% increase? And can we have a source for the price of the two machines please?