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.
Post Reply
fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4282
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by fanne »

Btw the armor conclusion comes from Rohit Vats.
Can we transport Arjun to Ladhak?
ragupta
BRFite
Posts: 374
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ragupta »

Then why do IA need light tank if T-90 can be airlifted to Ladhak?
Obviously Arjun can be transported to many areas, replace T-90 in those areas.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

A well designed tank brings the following to the table for the user in no particular order.

1) mobilty.
2) protection.
3) firepower.

These attributes will always be required on the battlefield. With the leathality of the modern battlefield, it's not advisable to trade protection for the other two attributes.

Ukraine is showing that in the absence of combined arm's and APS, the modern battlefield is just too leathel for tanks.

Even with APS good quality and sufficiently thick passive armour will still be required for tanks in order to survive on the battlefield. Because in the heat of the battle the smoke grenades can be used, the active protection system will run out of projectiles. But the passive armour will not run out. In some cases, it's quite possible to survive a hit from a modern missiles with passive armour it self.

The most important question for me is will the Indian army change the way it looks at tanks and there employment?
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

https://twitter.com/alpha_defense/statu ... vXBn6uuVDg ---> Indian Army has released a RFI for Procurement of 50 units of Armoured Earth Moving Equipment (AEME).

Operational Requirements:-
- Temp of -15°C to 50°C Upto 5000m altitude.
- Based on a tracked in service platform
- 45T or Below
- STANAG protection
Maria
BRFite
Posts: 212
Joined: 15 Aug 2020 13:50

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Maria »

ks_sachin wrote:
Maria wrote:
Whether armour here has an auto-cannon, gun or ATGMs is a moot secondary profile pertaining to the mission.

During Stalingrad, the Soviets were forced to churn out tanks without aiming systems and yet they had the requisite effect on Nazi infantry.
Why would you have a tank without a main gun which with its multiple types of ammo is most versatile.

A main gun is Omni role in a way.

This is not WW2 and using the Soviet example does not serve any purpose. We are debating the role / employment of tanks given engagements in UKR and all of us here engaged in this debate appreciate the power projection and offensive capability a tank brings - if employed correctly.
Yes, agreed that the 120 mm cannons on our tanks are omni-role. However in the era of the ATGMs and attack hepters, isn't that advantage nullified Sir?
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

https://mil.in.ua/en/news/poland-and-br ... aNycGzNCOU

Poland and Britain are developing a ground based tank destroyer for the brimstone ATGM.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

Maria wrote:
ks_sachin wrote:

Yes, agreed that the 120 mm cannons on our tanks are omni-role. However in the era of the ATGMs and attack hepters, isn't that advantage nullified Sir?
Not quite, nothing matches the cost effectiveness of the tank gun round for the purpose.

It can engage tanks with AP shots.

Infantry with grapeshot or blast fragmentation warhead. Or modern APAM shots. Or the remotely operated machine guns.

The armour makes the vehicle much more survivable. The tank is cheaper than attack helicopter with an easy to train crew.
fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4282
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by fanne »

ragupta wrote:Then why do IA need light tank if T-90 can be airlifted to Ladhak?
Obviously Arjun can be transported to many areas, replace T-90 in those areas.
Do you realize that we have 100s of T-90 and T-72 in Ladhak with publicly available pictures?

Why light tank - For use cases for places where no 50 tonnes tanks can go, maybe you can airlift a 20-tonne tank - Black top for example.
I hope Arjun can be transported - but have no proof of that so far in public domain on that. In theory C-17 can lift it, but can it drop it at DBO?
Is the road and all bridges to the frontline qualified for 70 Tonne? I doubt it, but I think we are getting there fast.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

fanne wrote: Snip...
Why light tank - For use cases for places where no 50 tonnes tanks can go, maybe you can airlift a 20-tonne tank - Black top for example.
Snip...
I don't understand need for a light tank in Indian context.

If the objective is to airlift armoured vehicles in the battlefield. Then why not airlift NAMICA or a future 4*4 Nag shooter.

NAMICA is a vehicle that already exists as a well settled design in India. With Indian industrial capacity capable of fabricating it.

The 4*4 vehicle could be the kalyani M4 that the army is buying 1200 in numbers. Remove the armoured aft troop section and fit 8 nag launch tubes and equal reloades on the resulting flatbed. The new version will be well within the all up weight of the existing M4. If the roads are capable of handling the M4, then it doesn't have to be airlifted.
V_Raman
BRFite
Posts: 1379
Joined: 04 Sep 2008 22:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by V_Raman »

wow even M4 is based on some south african TOT !! hat do we really research and make within india then? except the ones by HAL/DRDO that is...
Thakur_B
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2404
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Thakur_B »

V_Raman wrote:wow even M4 is based on some south african TOT !! hat do we really research and make within india then? except the ones by HAL/DRDO that is...
No need to reinvent the wheel. South African designers in the 90s were able to perfect the MPV design. The demand skyrocketed in every country dealing with insurgency just around the same time. Not just Kalyani, OFB, Tata, Sri Lakshmi Defence, Mahindra, Ashok Leyland, they all acquired South African designs. It is kind of a Global phenomenon.
mody
BRFite
Posts: 1362
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by mody »

Apparently the engine performance of the T-72 and T-90 degrades quite a bit a high altitude. I have seen T-72s and T-90s in north Sikkim at upto 17,000 ft altitudes. The T-72s are being upgraded using the 1,000HP T-90 engine, that we now make inhouse. The T-90s might also be upgraded with an indigenous engine of around 1,200 HP. The light tank requirement is puzzling and make no sense. Also, note that the Chinese have deployed their light Type 15 tanks in Ladakh and at the same time, they have also managed to bring in their heaviest Type 99 tanks as well.
Arjun MK1A with the DRDO developed 1,500 HP engine, should be deployable in Ladakh. If IA wants to do it, it most probably can be done. Once the zojila tunnel is ready, they can probably even transport it by road.
All the bridges in border areas have been recently built and generally should be rated for 70T.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

The PLA type 15 is funny vehicle. Has the weight of the old T 55. Is only protected against 30 mm shots. ,105 mm main gun and powered by a 1000 hp power pack.
Atmavik
BRFite
Posts: 1985
Joined: 24 Aug 2016 04:43

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Atmavik »

V_Raman wrote:wow even M4 is based on some south african TOT !! hat do we really research and make within india then? except the ones by HAL/DRDO that is...

I am really impressed by what the South African’s arms industry could produce. Innovation at its best
V_Raman
BRFite
Posts: 1379
Joined: 04 Sep 2008 22:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by V_Raman »

Sorry - what is produced by our private players out of their own R&D? I think the recoil tech for the truck mounted 105mm from Kalyani is imported as well. L/T does screwdriver giri for vajra. Our celebrated private players seem no different from DPSUs in screwdrivegiri. I guess they are efficient at it - that is a definite win from the forces perspective as they get quality h/w consistently.
fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4282
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by fanne »

Pratyush wrote:
fanne wrote: Snip...
Why light tank - For use cases for places where no 50 tonnes tanks can go, maybe you can airlift a 20-tonne tank - Black top for example.
Snip...
I don't understand need for a light tank in Indian context.

If the objective is to airlift armoured vehicles in the battlefield. Then why not airlift NAMICA or a future 4*4 Nag shooter.

NAMICA is a vehicle that already exists as a well settled design in India. With Indian industrial capacity capable of fabricating it.

/quote]
Also, note that the Chinese have deployed their light Type 15 tanks in Ladakh and at the same time, they have also managed to bring in their heaviest Type 99 tanks as well.
Arjun MK1A with the DRDO developed 1,500 HP engine, should be deployable in Ladakh. If IA wants to do it, it most probably can be done. Once the zojila tunnel is ready, they can probably even transport it by road.
All the bridges in border areas have been recently built and generally should be rated for 70T.

[/quote]

If there is chinese infantry assault , or a combined chinese infantry + armor assault on a position where heavy tanks cannot go but light tank can (either through aerial insertion or forward areas where road and bridges are rated under 25 Ton), I don't know what a bunch of Nags can do - you will need an armor from your side as well.
The chinese have both light and heavy tanks and better infra on their side. Why they are deploying light tanks, if they can deploy heavy ones? Because there are still places (in spite of their great infra) where heavies can't go and light will. Btw their light tank in joke in front of both T-72 and T-90 and all are very vulnerables against ATGMs. A light tank is better when the opposite side has no tanks (and still vulnerable to well placed ATGM).

70T qualified roads and bridges at extreme end of LAC is recent phenomenon (if it is that is, to me visually the Galwan bridge does not look like it can take heavies, but eye is always deceiving). Maybe it cannot take T-90 either, but can take a 20T light tank. That at the confluence of Shyok and Galwan should help us.
shaun
BRFite
Posts: 1385
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by shaun »

fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4282
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by fanne »

Sure, Modi government is building 70 ton road and bridges. I hope we see some Arjuns deployed soon at LAC (and more orders). But again there will be be some areas, where none of the heavies can go, the choice there is to then defend it just with infantry, mechanized infantry, ATGMS....or have some light armor also to go with it. We need only few of these - for only few places. I am trusting that army is ordering it - not for safari at LAC or not just for kickbacks, they have a reason for it. Most people who are opposing this - it has nothing to do with is it needed or not, they are just unhappy that army is importing it (instead of making it in India) along with all the assumptions of sold-out OR they are seeing RUS/UKR fight and concluded (in my opinion wrongly) tanks are useless, light tanks more so.
sajaym
BRFite
Posts: 315
Joined: 04 Feb 2019 09:11

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by sajaym »

https://theprint.in/features/in-ukraine ... em/970777/
The Army’s requirements state that the FRCVs should be able to defeat not just enemy tanks and armoured vehicles, but also unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), and capable of destroying or deterring attack helicopters. The FRCV will thus be equipped with multiple kinds of anti-aircraft weapons, and also possess remotely controlled weapon stations.
From this description of the FRCV, it appears that the moron who has drawn up these requirements is expecting a battleship...not a tank. This buffoon totally disregards the concept of 'IFG' and instead expect one tank as the 'be all' 'do all' solution.

I would like to suggest a befitting name for this new tank...it should be called 'Rambo'!

FRCV my foot, it's more like Fantasy Ready Combat Vehicle. :rotfl:
Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4513
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Tanaji »

This buffoon totally disregards the concept of 'IFG' and instead expect one tank as the 'be all' 'do all' solution..
But that’s where you are wrong. The person is no buffoon and the requirements are very much deliberate and on purpose. Everyone knows that no one meets it and don’t make sense, but that will be the bar set for Avadi and DRDO to meet. Meanwhile, the DGMF will issue an order under emergency purchase requirement category for foreign vendors that has a quarter of the requirements and actually meets a tenth.

Do not make the mistake of thinking they are fills, it’s a well organised and intelligent cabal.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

sajaym wrote:https://theprint.in/features/in-ukraine ... em/970777/
The Army’s requirements state that the FRCVs should be able to defeat not just enemy tanks and armoured vehicles, but also unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), and capable of destroying or deterring attack helicopters. The FRCV will thus be equipped with multiple kinds of anti-aircraft weapons, and also possess remotely controlled weapon stations.
From this description of the FRCV, it appears that the moron who has drawn up these requirements is expecting a battleship...not a tank. This buffoon totally disregards the concept of 'IFG' and instead expect one tank as the 'be all' 'do all' solution.

I would like to suggest a befitting name for this new tank...it should be called 'Rambo'!

FRCV my foot, it's more like Fantasy Ready Combat Vehicle. :rotfl:
Who are you calling a buffoon? Have you spoken to the officers in Armd Corps Directorate who have come up with these requirements? Are they asking for all of this on one hull or variants?

Let's break this down.

- Defeat enemy tanks and armoured vehicles - missiles on the turret like the BMP and the Stryker to name a few
- UAV and Anti Aircraft -- Most of the most modern Remote Weapons Stations can field a variety of weapons from MGs to even AT missiles. Heavy MGs are capable of taking out heptrs.

So all in all not unobtanium I would say although If it is unobtanium please feel to give us facts and figures on how these are not feasible on a single hull. I have read the RFI and it does not seem unreasonable but then I am not a professional tankman.

However the RFI does acknowledge;

"Many new/futuristic technologies have been sought and the prospective OEM/Integrator may not have them as these systems/sub-systems being the preserve of other OEMs. However, provision for integration and its incorporation into the platform sought can/should be confirmed.
4. In addition to above, the prospective OEMs can state higher performance parameters, new generation technologies and other design configurations. "


Perhaps you should also read this:

"the FRCVs are expected to have different variants: air-defense gun/missile system; artillery observation post vehicle; engineer reconnaissance vehicle; tracked main battle tank; tracked light tank; wheeled version; bridge layer tank; trawl tank; mine ploughs; armoured recovery vehicle; self-propelled artillery gun/howitzer; and armoured ambulance role."
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

Tanaji wrote:
This buffoon totally disregards the concept of 'IFG' and instead expect one tank as the 'be all' 'do all' solution..
But that’s where you are wrong. The person is no buffoon and the requirements are very much deliberate and on purpose. Everyone knows that no one meets it and don’t make sense, but that will be the bar set for Avadi and DRDO to meet. Meanwhile, the DGMF will issue an order under emergency purchase requirement category for foreign vendors that has a quarter of the requirements and actually meets a tenth.

Do not make the mistake of thinking they are fills, it’s a well organised and intelligent cabal.
THe RFI has not been set only for Avadi and DRDO. The RFI has gone to the market. Please do not shoot from the hip. Also the RFI implies that the DRDO can use of the OEMs for specific parts of the FRCV for example if it wants to integrate a Kongsberg RWS etc..
Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4513
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Tanaji »

Ah we have the same arguments every time this comes up and it will go on predictable lines….

Suffice to say: RFI will be out, they will find no one will meet the requirements. CVRDE will kick off a project to meet these requirements and will eventually come up with something in Mk 1 that is around 80% but will be rejected. Meanwhile GSQR will be diluted citing emergency purchase or not enough testing done to ensure compliance.

This is not shooting from the hip; each step has taken place before. We have seen this movie before and know how it goes. Am I being cynical, yes but there is precedent for it.

Please name one precedent where DGMF has come up with realistic GSQRs and nurtured the product iteratively to what it needs. You may argue that it’s not their job, but then that’s the crux of the matter: these days Security of the realm is not limited to fighting the physical enemy, but also making sure that we have the capability to do so considering the sanction based environment we have been living under for last 30 years. Everyone needs to play their part and having an attitude of an aloof customer that comes along in the end and says “we don’t accept it” is being highly immature and irresponsible. Those airs and attitudes should have been let go long ago.

No one is saying that the AF should ask for a reduced set of requirements to help local industry ( although one can even justify this) , all one is saying that if you are so sure about your GSQRs you dont then basically dilute them for foreign manufacturers.

Again same old arguments that have been rehashed 1000 times on this board.. so I am bowing out.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

The latest GSQR was released in the aftermath of the Armenian defeat due to the use of different types of drones. I found it to be a well balanced document at that time. It's surprisingly down to earth and more realistic then I thought they were capable of coming up with.

The belief that a tank needs to protect itself against small UAV is the correct one. Ideally if the tank has a machine gun for defence against low flying aircraft, then the same machine gun can also be used to kill the drone provided that the drone can be seen by the tank.

A stabilised remote weapon with high elevation capacity provides an excellent opportunity to the tank for killing such drones relatively cheaply. A .50 calibre machine gun provides excellent capabilities against such drones.

Coupled with APS capable of defending the tank against ATGMs. Tanks becomes a lot more survivable on the battlefield.
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5383
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Manish_P »

^ It might not be the elevation angle but rather the range (and height) which will be the issue. A very small (mini) UAV will carry only small ordnance which might not be able to damage a MBT sufficient enough for a mission kill. A medium size UAV with tank killing capability ordnance will typically fly at heights which will be out of range for MMGs (pintle mounted or on RWS).

In either case it is the detection (well in time) which is a big challenge then the engagement.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

The type drone i am expecting a tank to kill is the switchblade. For any thing that flies higher and is larger, I am thinking in terms of a light missile with a range between 10 to 30 KM.
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5383
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Manish_P »

What is the detection, tracking and counter measure for a switchblade type munition
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

Manish_P wrote:What is the detection, tracking and counter measure for a switchblade type munition
Thats what I am interested in finding out.

If the radar set of a Trophy type APS can identify a standard ATGM. Then it should be possible for it to identify such munitions comming from above as well. The challenge then is to make the RWS accept targeting data form the APS and fire the machine gun in order to kill the munition. The identification range of 200 to 300 meters should be quite sufficient for self defence applications.

It should not be an insurmountable problem for people who know how to make different systems speak to one another.
John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by John »

Pratyush wrote:
Manish_P wrote:What is the detection, tracking and counter measure for a switchblade type munition
Thats what I am interested in finding out.

If the radar set of a Trophy type APS can identify a standard ATGM. Then it should be possible for it to identify such munitions comming from above as well. The challenge then is to make the RWS accept targeting data form the APS and fire the machine gun in order to kill the munition. The identification range of 200 to 300 meters should be quite sufficient for self defence applications.

It should not be an insurmountable problem for people who know how to make different systems speak to one another.
Has a gun based APS even been proven effective vs using MEFP, I can’t see machine gun having the ability to destroy a missile. Nothing short of Gatling gun can get that job done.
Kakarat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2223
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Kakarat »

Do anyone know the link to where these RFPs are posted?

https://twitter.com/alpha_defense/statu ... W2pLl0vx4g
BREAKING
VRDE, DRDO has released a RFP to collaborate with an Indian Industry for the Development of Advanced Armoured Platform
(AAP-Tr) and Development of Crewless Turret.
https://twitter.com/BlackIAdder/status/ ... W2pLl0vx4g

Image

Image

Image
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

Kakarat wrote:Do anyone know the link to where these RFPs are posted?
Saar, if you put your question at the bottom of your post...it may get lost. I moved it to the top, where everyone will see it.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

Who are the realistic candidates for development of this vehicle?

1) L&T
2) TATA
3) Kalyani?
4) Mahindra?

Is there anyone else?
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »



Rinemettal has launched a new tank with 130 mm gun. KF51.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

So two things will happen;

1) China will xerox copy this tank and mass produce it.
2) India will invite the tank for trials under the aegies of FMBT (Future Main Battle Tank) program.

https://twitter.com/lfx160219/status/15 ... pZqkr08LSg --->

Image

Image

Image

Image
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

The Indian army will ask the gun to be fitted in a 40 ton tank and ask it to have protection of a 60 ton tanks. To be produced by the DRDO.

When DRDO says that it cannot be done. They will give concessions and import it.

Domestic tank design and build capacity be damned.
jaysimha
BRFite
Posts: 1696
Joined: 20 Dec 2017 14:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by jaysimha »

I think we should refrain from blaming Army and other forces for this kind of ****.
What ever they say/do will be in consent with the Baboons and ultimately the mantris who need to blamed.
.
what if we as a country is held hostage by foreign country by saying .. if you want support for A B C matters in international affairs and support for other high value defence platforms, you have to keep importing XYZ platforms for n number of years, even though Indian MIC can develop and deploy them with ease. May be to hide these they are not stopping from development and subjecting it to trails / testing
.
if army can accept helicopters designed and built by HAL and deployed by numbers, no logic can explain issue regarding armored vehicle. That too helicopters are always piloted by officers unlike a tank.
.
JMT..
.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

Guys can someone link the FRCV document for reference. I would like to compare the IA requirements with the capacity the KF51 is supposed to have.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

Pratyush wrote:Guys can someone link the FRCV document for reference. I would like to compare the IA requirements with the capacity the KF51 is supposed to have.
https://www.ddpmod.gov.in/sites/default ... 0%20hr.pdf

Finding the link and going through the pages 5 onwards, the Indian army is stuck on the concept of a medium tank. You remove that from the FRCV RFI, it's a document for a contemporary vehicle. The KF51 can fit the criteria, if the IA was open to heavy combat vehicle.

Having said that, KMW has launched a tracked version of a vehicle they are still calling Boxer which has been demonstrated as a vehicle fitted with a 120 mm gun. That vehicle will fit the criteria for the FRCV as well.

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/land ... -mobility/
The Boxer Tracked shown at Eurosatory is fitted with an RCT120 remote-controlled turret armed with a 120mm rifled gun, which fires standard ammunition and is fed by a bustle-mounted autoloader.

The turret carries 15 rounds of ready-use ammunition. Gun control equipment is all-electric with elevation from -10 to +20°.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/n ... l-dynamics
A dedicated website for the Next Generation Abrams is now online. This same website teases a slate of other "next generation" designs from General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS), including a new base configuration for the company's Stryker 8x8 wheeled armored vehicle and another planned variant in that family equipped with the Leonidas high-power microwave directed energy weapon, the latter of which you can read more about here. Various unmanned ground vehicle offerings from GLDS, including a variant of the TRX tracked design armed with dozens of loitering munitions, which is now called Razorback, and the company entry into the U.S. Army's Small Multipurpose Equipment Transport (SMET) program, are featured on the site, as well.
Cyrano
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5461
Joined: 28 Mar 2020 01:07

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Cyrano »

Rakesh saar
Please put a "Highly infectious Brochuritis Pathogen" hazard warning before posting such stuff :D
Post Reply