Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 25 Feb 2021 10:44

Has the R&D work even begun for this? Some Twitter handles were saying that some of this has started & the DRDO is looking for a production partner

APS is nice in the sense that it can be retrofitted to existing APCs & tin-cans, giving them a quantum jump in survivability. Its a standalone, autonomous unit. Our research in MAWS & EO/IR systems can help us put this together. We can see how it performs against our own Helina.

For many systems, we possess both the sword and the shield, which help improve both

ashishvikas · Post by **ashishvikas** » 25 Feb 2021 10:49

Vishnu Som reports

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 25 Feb 2021 11:54

^^^
Some tidbits

Apparently that tank prototype was driven and evaluated for 7400km!!

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 25 Feb 2021 12:12

Rakesh wrote: 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.

- 820 armored vehicles, assuming all are tanks, translates into ~18 armored regiment @ 45 tanks per regiment.
- And assumption about the number of armored brigades is misleading because armored divisions have 2 armored regiments per brigade while (I) armored brigades have 3 x armored regiments per brigade.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 25 Feb 2021 12:39

- All the discussion about Arjun mobility being an issue is bollocks. Pure and simple.
- The Chinese moved their 50t+ T-99 tank, and I think even 55t+ T-99A opposite to us in southern Pangong Tso.
- If there was a national will, we would've seen an Arjun Mk2 developed.
- Get is new ERA, move the sight-up and put armor + ERA there, and new engine.
- And if possible, upgrade the gun to L/55 standard.
- Best of all, get hold of US or German single round, long rod ammunition (APFSDS)
- With a combination of great FCS, sights, L/55 gun and western long rod ammo, no tank to the east or west will survive a hit by Arjun.
- Sure, it will be a bit expensive, but given our volumes, we can manufacture everything within India.
- And all the money flows in Indian economy.
- If I had my way, I'd convert the entire lot of armored regiments between 12 Corps, 21 Strike Corps and 10 Corps into Arjun tanks. That's 1000+ tanks there itself.
- And add a brigade of Arjun tanks to eastern Ladakh.

nam · Post by **nam** » 25 Feb 2021 15:10

I am resting my hope on MK2, that it will have an autoloader. That is the only way we can close down the "weight" argument. CVRDE has been very silent about MK2. However the project director mentioned, generals want 4 men and they are ready to give 3 or 2, if IA wants.

Here is my list.
-Autoloader, so 3 men crew
-get the 125MM smoothbore gun that we created for T90 , with better pressure handling capability. Because this is our gun, will be easier to manage the FCS.
-a 125MM single piece round. Longer rod, but try to keep the charge length similar. With increased diameter, you get more explosives anyway. Will help to keep the autoloader compact.
-Tonbo's see through armor.
-Move that damn sight to the top.. and end the biggest argument about "weak spot".
-Add more armor to weaker areas, given the savings in weight we get due to 3 men and HNS.

Unfortunately due the whole MK1A induction, nobody bothered to ask CVRDE, what's coming in MK2!

darshan · Post by **darshan** » 25 Feb 2021 19:43

rohitvats wrote: - Sure, it will be a bit expensive, but given our volumes, we can manufacture everything within India.
- And all the money flows in Indian economy.

I'm interpreting that as that it will be bit cheaper if no foreign components involved. Sovereignty from T series has no price. Big order by default would generate other variants.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 25 Feb 2021 20:19

rohitvats wrote:- Sure, it will be a bit expensive, but given our volumes, we can manufacture everything within India.
- And all the money flows in Indian economy.

The most important take away from your post. Needs to be pinned.

Thank You Rohit.

Atmavik · Post by **Atmavik** » 28 Feb 2021 11:55

ramana wrote:
Atmavik wrote:

This has been in news recently. DRDO and L&T have proposed a light tank based on the K9 chassis. this will take a long time to develop and test.

Please keep track of this program periodically here.

Thanks, ramana

trying to figure out what this Tank would look like and Hanwah defense has a medium tank in 25 ton range. https://www.hanwha-defense.co.kr/eng/pr ... k21-105.do

interestingly they have an IFV weighing 40 Tons. AS 21 designed for the Aussies. this fires the Spike ATGM and has some ELBIT systems.

SRajesh · Post by **SRajesh** » 28 Feb 2021 15:57

Atmavik wrote:
ramana wrote:

Please keep track of this program periodically here.

Thanks, ramana

trying to figure out what this Tank would look like and Hanwah defense has a medium tank in 25 ton range. https://www.hanwha-defense.co.kr/eng/pr ... k21-105.do

interestingly they have an IFV weighing 40 Tons. AS 21 designed for the Aussies. this fires the Spike ATGM and has some ELBIT systems.

Just a noob pooch:
As a commonality can we not use the K9 Chassis for : IFV, light tank, APC, medical evacuation variant etc
Get L and T and DRDO or just L & T to get them going
Of course only if the user is ready i.e., IA wants its!

Atmavik · Post by **Atmavik** » 01 Mar 2021 09:31

^^ such experiments have been tried but doesnt make much sense. here is an example of Tank EX. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_EX

its better to start of with a clean-sheet design for a medium-weight Tank.

btw we have been focussing on replacing Mig 21's for the airforce and the road map is clear (LCA MK1, MK1A, MK2. maybe TEDBF and AAMCA). whats the road map for replacing T - 72s ? no news on FMBT or FRCV. even krestel seems to be stuck in endless trials.

Ankit Desai · Post by **Ankit Desai** » 10 Mar 2021 06:22

The article of Business World interview with G. Satheesh Reddy, Chairman DRDO can go to any thread since it covers Light Tank, Missile program and future, AIP, UAV, Tejas-II, AMCA, TEDBF to AI.

Posting here with light tank quote and all questions asked.

What is the USP of DRDO’s proposed light tank for the Indian Army and especially for the mountain corps? Any acceptance and delivery timeline if you could tell us?

The need of light weight tank is felt in today’s scenario especially for the mountainous regions. The configuration is worked out.

The USP of DRDO’s proposed light tank for the Indian Army is that it will be fitted with High Altitude Operable Power pack (Engine + Transmission) of 1000hp and will be capable of firing multiple ammunition. This tank may be called as “highest altitude operable tank in the globe”. The design work has commenced and we will bring out the timelines.

DRDO has had some of the breakthrough moment in delivering and launching critical equipment for our Forces -- among the first few in technology space in the world? Could you talk about such DRDO project delivery under your leadership?

When are we ready for India’s next gen fighter Jets - AMCA prototype and Tejas Mk 2 (Design and Development)?

What is the status of jet engine/aero engine for such program? Are we exploring international collaboration with global OEMs for joint co-design and development?

The budget allocated to DRDO remains as per the last year. In comparison with many emerging and advanced countries with their budget spent ~15-20 % on R&D in defence, India puts as low as about 6% of total defence budget. How does it affect the big-ticket research projects underway? What is expected in terms of budgetary allocations?

It was noted that 40% of DRDO’s budget is spent on maintenance and manpower, leaving a lesser margin for buying critical equipment, testing platforms and project development? What is your take in this?

What stage of development are we as far as AIP systems are concerned for Indian Navy’s critical P75 project? This would be first such strategic partnership which MDL is responsible for submarine projects initiatives based upon AIP.

Could you throw light on India’s next generation UAVs for our forces that might set benchmark capability?

What is the USP of DRDO’s proposed light tank for the Indian Army and especially for the mountain corps? Any acceptance and delivery timeline if you could tell us?

Saras (crane) Mk1 multi-purpose light civilian aircraft, designed by the National Aerospace Laboratories (NAL), which works closely with HAL, DRDO and the IAF--what is the case now?

Artificial Intelligence is the now hugely used in unmanned reconnaissance aircraft, the unmanned ground combat vehicle, the unmanned submersible systems. How India is developing. Should not we lead in such technology with our strong Informational Technology base?

Besides donning leadership role as DRDO’s Chairman, foremost, you are India’s leading aerospace scientist. I would like you to tell us your vision for DRDO as it is to play very vital role in India’s development. Though credited, DRDO is also often criticised for being too large; deliberates and drags too much on unviable projects and sometimes too bureaucratic as a leading R&D organisation for 22nd century India? How do you bring change?

-Ankit

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 10 Mar 2021 08:37

ks_sachin wrote: 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....

It is still better than not buying it at all and then hunting for a counter when the Chinese deploy their light tanks in Ladakh. It is not like we have a plethora of platforms easily available which can be modified for this purpose. Have to work with what we have.

ks_sachin · Post by **ks_sachin** » 10 Mar 2021 09:12

nachiket wrote:
ks_sachin wrote: 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....
It is still better than not buying it at all and then hunting for a counter when the Chinese deploy their light tanks in Ladakh. It is not like we have a plethora of platforms easily available which can be modified for this purpose. Have to work with what we have.

Why not mount it on another platform which has the real estate to carry more missiles.

ks_sachin · Post by **ks_sachin** » 10 Mar 2021 09:19

Atmavik wrote:^^ such experiments have been tried but doesnt make much sense. here is an example of Tank EX. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_EX

its better to start of with a clean-sheet design for a medium-weight Tank.

btw we have been focussing on replacing Mig 21's for the airforce and the road map is clear (LCA MK1, MK1A, MK2. maybe TEDBF and AAMCA). whats the road map for replacing T - 72s ? no news on FMBT or FRCV. even krestel seems to be stuck in endless trials.

The roadmap for replacing the t-72 requires deep thinking on the future of land warfare in our context. A lot of questions need answering...In the meanwhile forget going into Pakistan with tanks...They cannot be the tip of the spear......IMHO....

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 10 Mar 2021 09:38

ks_sachin wrote:
Why not mount it on another platform which has the real estate to carry more missiles.

The vehicle's designed originally was designed to have 8 ready to fire missiles with 4 reloads. I have seen the insides of the BMP2. The vehicle has sufficient space for stowage of enough missiles that it will not be compromised in its mission. The stowage of 2 additional missiles will not add so much weight, or take up so much space that NAMICA will no longer be able to conduct its mission.

Therefore, I don't understand this issue of needing a replenishment vehicle to support NAMICA.

Though I am in favour of having such vehicles in Anti tank missiles by the hundreds and am open to putting them on every vehicle that has the space and capacity to carry them. Such as flat bed Stallion trucks with mast mounted battlefield surveillance radars & electro-optical sights and let them loose.

ks_sachin · Post by **ks_sachin** » 10 Mar 2021 10:33

Pratyush wrote:
ks_sachin wrote:
Why not mount it on another platform which has the real estate to carry more missiles.
The vehicle's designed originally was designed to have 8 ready to fire missiles with 4 reloads. I have seen the insides of the BMP2. The vehicle has sufficient space for stowage of enough missiles that it will not be compromised in its mission. The stowage of 2 additional missiles will not add so much weight, or take up so much space that NAMICA will no longer be able to conduct its mission.

Therefore, I don't understand this issue of needing a replenishment vehicle to support NAMICA.

Though I am in favour of having such vehicles in Anti tank missiles by the hundreds and am open to putting them on every vehicle that has the space and capacity to carry them. Such as flat bed Stallion trucks with mast mounted battlefield surveillance radars & electro-optical sights and let them loose.

Does the new launcher eat into internal space?
The Nag weighs 43 kg. I would hate to be reloading the launcher manually.
The replen vehicle must have a crane of some sorts?

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 10 Mar 2021 11:15

1) No more than the old one.
2) The weight is not so much that only one man has to load it.
3) If the missile loads are transferred from the factory as pallets then you cannot function without a load handling crane of the replenishment vehicle. How the missile will be transported. I have no Idea.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 10 Mar 2021 18:14

ks_sachin wrote: Does the new launcher eat into internal space?
The Nag weighs 43 kg. I would hate to be reloading the launcher manually.
The replen vehicle must have a crane of some sorts?

Will only one BMP2 operator in the theatre? Because I don't see a requirement for BMP2 to carry 32 NAGs (8 Ready to fire + 8*3=24 inside). So I guess the number should be less in a single BMP2 but there should be multiples BMP2 in the theatre to cover various scenarios.

Second, the kind of capabilities NAG offer - it is not a killer to re-load 43 Kg manually by 2 persons in the middle of a war/conflict. It is easier to hit a static supply cum reloading truck in the middle of flying sh*t.

Of course, after BMP2 are empty - they need to be resupplied somehow. But if we have 5 BMP2 and they are all out of NAGs - we have a serious conflict at hand. And flying tanks (LCH) and the likes will be involved. Don't you think?

ks_sachin · Post by **ks_sachin** » 10 Mar 2021 18:20

RKumar wrote:
ks_sachin wrote: Does the new launcher eat into internal space?
The Nag weighs 43 kg. I would hate to be reloading the launcher manually.
The replen vehicle must have a crane of some sorts?
Will only one BMP2 operator in the theatre? Because I don't see a requirement for BMP2 to carry 32 NAGs (8 Ready to fire + 8*3=24 inside). So I guess the number should be less in a single BMP2 but there should be multiples BMP2 in the theatre to cover various scenarios.

Second, the kind of capabilities NAG offer - it is not a killer to re-load 43 Kg manually by 2 persons in the middle of a war/conflict. It is easier to hit a static supply cum reloading truck in the middle of flying sh*t.

Of course, after BMP2 are empty - they need to be resupplied somehow. But if we have 5 BMP2 and they are all out of NAGs - we have a serious conflict at hand. And flying tanks (LCH) and the likes will be involved. Don't you think?

You seem to know the combat tactics of the missile bns..

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 10 Mar 2021 18:44

Mango post -

I do not see NIMCAs think in the action with MBTs of the enemy. With the long range of the Nags they may be used to snipe the MBTs from long range and run away or continue part of the forces as a APC only.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 10 Mar 2021 23:35

ks_sachin wrote:
nachiket wrote: It is still better than not buying it at all and then hunting for a counter when the Chinese deploy their light tanks in Ladakh. It is not like we have a plethora of platforms easily available which can be modified for this purpose. Have to work with what we have.
Why not mount it on another platform which has the real estate to carry more missiles.

Next larger readily available platform would be the T-72. I am sure it will get derided as too heavy, if we go that route anyway.

Rishi_Tri · Post by **Rishi_Tri** » 11 Mar 2021 23:05

Defence Acquisition Council had approved acquisition of Modular Bridges in December 2020. It was also outlined as import substitution decision.

Are there any details on the size of the order and who did it go to? Have searched but without any success.

https://www.livemint.com/news/india/def ... 53684.html

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 12 Mar 2021 02:25

"Generals want a 4 man crew",FCRV.Am I reading right or what? That way the beast will always be obese and unfit to serve multi-theatre! A perfect way to reject it! The DRDO must stop being so naieve. If Herr Generals vont der 4-man krew ja,zen giv zem der A-1A or der A-2!

A lighter,smaller 3-man crew MBT on the lines of the T-14 Armata is the way to go.That beast is only 50+ t,also heavily armoured as the crew is in the chassis with the auto-turret.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 12 Mar 2021 09:56

Groan!!

ks_sachin · Post by **ks_sachin** » 12 Mar 2021 10:44

Vivek K wrote:Groan!!

Groan at the Admiral or the Armata reference or the 4 man crew?

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 12 Mar 2021 10:50

ks_sachin wrote:
Vivek K wrote:Groan!!
Groan at the Admiral or the Armata reference or the 4 man crew?

all the above.

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 12 Mar 2021 11:11

Eh.. I thought Rakesh saar was the Admiral

And Philip sir the Field Marshal

ks_sachin · Post by **ks_sachin** » 12 Mar 2021 11:53

Correct. It’s Friday so pl excuse me...

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 12 Mar 2021 20:24

Never ceases to amaze me! The continuous drumbeat of imports from one particular country is both disappointing and frustrating. One has to be quite deaf to the needs of one's own economy and people to continue to make such claims that are out of touch with the reality of today's India and its technological capabilities. Importing entire systems is a thing of the past. If there is a specific tech one needs to incorporate into an Indian tank, that should be the advice. Importing T-14s, if that were to be happen would be the saddest day for modern India.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 12 Mar 2021 21:32

ks_sachin wrote:Groan at the Admiral or the Armata reference or the 4 man crew?

Folks are getting offended and groaning at what Philip is saying. What about what sachin sirjee just did to me? I should be groaning. There is only one Admiral (who reneged on mithai) on BRF and that is me.

And what people on this forum wish for has no bearing on what the Armed Forces will purchase. So let Philip say what he wants to.

==========================================================

Focus energies on this....

https://twitter.com/DefenceDecode/statu ... 91811?s=20 ---> "DRDO is working on a Light tank for IA, configuration is worked out. It will be fitted with a High Altitude Operable Power pack (Engine + Transmission) of 1000 HP and will be capable of firing multiple ammunition. Design work has commenced and we will bring out the timelines."

Graphic: Representative

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 12 Mar 2021 21:33

https://twitter.com/VinodDX9/status/137 ... 74499?s=20 ---> The K-9 chassis can be used to develop a medium weight tank as well as a modern infantry vehicle. But question is, what will be more suitable for the Indian Army: a 25T light tank or 35T medium weight one? Both will have different features and advantages.

Atmavik · Post by **Atmavik** » 13 Mar 2021 09:00

the japaneese have light wheeled tank. this is designed to be air transported to different islands.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_16_m ... at_vehicle

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 13 Mar 2021 09:25

The army needs to figure out what kind of armoured force structure it needs in the next few decades and come up with a unified staff requirements for itself. In the following categories.

1) Main battle tanks. ( Heavy, medium, light) what catagory they need.
2) Infantry Combat Vehicle ( heavy, medium, light) with or without amphibious capacity.
3) armoured personnel carriers ( heavy, medium, light, wheeled, tracked)
4) self propelled arty( wheeled, tracked)
5) self propelled anti aircraft arty ( wheeled, tracked, missile, pure guns, directed energy)

A start now will result in machines beginning to enter service in the next 10 years.

But the start has to be made now.

venkat_kv · Post by **venkat_kv** » 13 Mar 2021 09:40

Rakesh wrote:https://twitter.com/VinodDX9/status/137 ... 74499?s=20 ---> The K-9 chassis can be used to develop a medium weight tank as well as a modern infantry vehicle. But question is, what will be more suitable for the Indian Army: a 25T light tank or 35T medium weight one? Both will have different features and advantages.

Saar, the K-9 chassis seem to be 6 wheeled one, but according to wiki is longer than Arjun tank, but probably less wide than Arjun. Don't know how accurate are the figures in wiki.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K9_Thunder
12mx3.4mx2.73m (LxWxH)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arjun_(tank)
10.64mx3.95mx2.8m

Obviously the Arjun is about half metre wide, or about 1.6 feet wider than K9 chassis. is K9 that better in driving, suspension to go for it for new series of vehicles or can the Arjun tanks chasis be leveraged fort he same for economies of scale for Indian MIC.

srai · Post by **srai** » 14 Mar 2021 02:50

Pratyush wrote:The army needs to figure out what kind of armoured force structure it needs in the next few decades and come up with a unified staff requirements for itself. In the following categories.

1) Main battle tanks. ( Heavy, medium, light) what catagory they need.
2) Infantry Combat Vehicle ( heavy, medium, light) with or without amphibious capacity.
3) armoured personnel carriers ( heavy, medium, light, wheeled, tracked)
4) self propelled arty( wheeled, tracked)
5) self propelled anti aircraft arty ( wheeled, tracked, missile, pure guns, directed energy)

A start now will result in machines beginning to enter service in the next 10 years.

But the start has to be made now.

IMO, not one size fits all. For instance,

Desert/cross country —> Heavy MBT, Medium/Heavy ICV (tracked), SP A (tracked), SP AA (tracked)
Urban/Infrastructure—> Medium MBT, Medium/Heavy APC (wheeled & tracked), SP A (wheeled), SP AA (wheeled)
Marine —> Medium ICV/APC (wheeled & amphibious)
Mountain—> Light MBT (wheeled), Light APC (wheeled), Light SP A (wheeled), Light SP AA (wheeled)

ks_sachin · Post by **ks_sachin** » 14 Mar 2021 03:14

Pratyush wrote:The army needs to figure out what kind of armoured force structure it needs in the next few decades and come up with a unified staff requirements for itself. In the following categories.

1) Main battle tanks. ( Heavy, medium, light) what catagory they need.
2) Infantry Combat Vehicle ( heavy, medium, light) with or without amphibious capacity.
3) armoured personnel carriers ( heavy, medium, light, wheeled, tracked)
4) self propelled arty( wheeled, tracked)
5) self propelled anti aircraft arty ( wheeled, tracked, missile, pure guns, directed energy)

A start now will result in machines beginning to enter service in the next 10 years.

But the start has to be made now.

Thank you and before that it needs to figure out how wants to fight next wars. Doctrine drives tactics drives equipment...

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 18 Mar 2021 19:46

https://twitter.com/singhshwetabh71/sta ... 72546?s=20 ---> Western Command released this picture, of Vajra Corps apparently in an exercise with Army Aviation. Interestingly there seems to be a T55 also there in the firing exercise.

https://twitter.com/singhshwetabh71/sta ... 53120?s=20 ---> It's a trawl tank.

Stock photo (non Indian Army) of a T-55 trawl tank. A mine roller or mine trawl is a demining device mounted on a tank or armoured personnel carrier, designed to detonate anti-tank mines.

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 19 Mar 2021 18:33

Ordnance Factory Medak to roll out mine-proof BMP tanks soon

:
:
:
Advances in the flagship Sarath BMP 2 armoured vehicles are also made by the factory, which has so far rolled out more than 3,000 armoured vehicles. New BMP will be equipped with night vision capability, which gives the tank driver, commander, and gunman a 360-degree view even at night. Currently, the BMP lacks night vision capability, literally leaving the 14.5-ton metal giant blind after sunset.
:
:
Mr. Prasad said that every year the factory rolls out 125 new infantry combat vehicles, which is high and “with advances in technology, we are planning to increase the manufacturing capacity in the future.”

The Ordnance Factory will start overhauling BMP, apart from producing the new vehicles. “We will be overhauling at least 100 BMP of Indian Army per year, and with this, we can say that manufacturing capacity will be more than 200,” the General Manager said.

According to him, the hull and turret of Arjun Main Battle Tank (MK-1A), which was handed over to the Indian Army by Prime Minister Narendra Modi last month, are manufactured at Ordnance Factory Medak. “Even the first Arjun MBT tank was assembled here,” he said.
:

niran · Post by **niran** » 21 Mar 2021 17:50

Rakesh wrote:https://twitter.com/DefenceDecode/statu ... 91811?s=20 ---> "DRDO is working on a Light tank for IA, configuration is worked out. It will be fitted with a High Altitude Operable Power pack (Engine + Transmission) of 1000 HP and will be capable of firing multiple ammunition. Design work has commenced and we will bring out the timelines."

no recoil space with elevated gun