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.
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4482
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby JayS » 22 Jan 2020 15:48

Thakur_B wrote:
JayS wrote:There was a Tech Focus issue last year on Composites. IN that there was a section on this composite hull, that picture it from that issue. DRDO claims 40% weight reduction, which is massive. This ICV which is about to be integrated to make the prototypes for testing is 12T class (is this Abhay Mk2..?).


12 ton sounds unrealistic. Kestrel weight is between 18-25 tons depending on the armor modules applied. I am not 100% sure, but iirc it was amphibious till 22 tons. Assuming similar dimensions, prime mover and drivetrain, with composite hull, the IFV can be 2-3 tons lighter, tops. Which could mean amphibious in the most armoured configuration.

Edit: Abhay IFV also weighed 23-25 tons.

I am also perplexted about the weight. Sounds too low. But the tender mentions 12T class. Could be a typo, or could be that they mean something else.

mody
BRFite
Posts: 593
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby mody » 22 Jan 2020 15:58

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.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2882
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby nam » 22 Jan 2020 17:26

MK2 sabot has cleared trials and Arjun Mk1A has been approved, as per the Chief.

https://defence.capital/2020/01/22/interview-india-plans-future-infantry-combat-vehicle-induction-in-2027-says-gen-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.

Vamsee
BRFite
Posts: 560
Joined: 16 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Vamsee » 22 Jan 2020 19:03

" 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

Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2470
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Vips » 22 Jan 2020 19:41

Avadi has increased its MBT engine production capacity from 350 to 750 per year at an investment of 148 Crores (Flexible production line)

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1607
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Thakur_B » 22 Jan 2020 20:11

Last months news:
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.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4402
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby srai » 23 Jan 2020 01:47

Vamsee 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

But the order still stands at meagerly 118 :((

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54023
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 23 Jan 2020 01:49

Thakur_B wrote:Last months news:
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.


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?

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2882
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby nam » 23 Jan 2020 02:27

But the order still stands at meagerly 118


118 Mk1A, probably 118 Mk2. Overall there will be 360 Arjun, almost equal to Pak's best thing after sliced bread AK!

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....

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7444
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Prasad » 23 Jan 2020 08:29

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?

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.

aditp
BRFite
Posts: 440
Joined: 15 Jul 2008 07:25
Location: Autoland

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby aditp » 23 Jan 2020 08:40

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?


So does it mean that specifically the Tata/DRDO WhAP, which is almost fully developed has hit the end of the road?

souravB
BRFite
Posts: 554
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby souravB » 23 Jan 2020 09:43

aditp wrote:
So does it mean that specifically the Tata/DRDO WhAP, which is almost fully developed has hit the end of the road?

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.
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.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1607
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Thakur_B » 23 Jan 2020 11:41

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?


I disagree Ramana ji. I believe MoD was right to issue RFP in Make-1 category. This was the khan chacha approach.
- 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.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54023
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 24 Jan 2020 01:41

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.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7717
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby rohitvats » 24 Jan 2020 02:44

^^^

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.

Raghunathgb
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 93
Joined: 23 Apr 2019 18:16

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Raghunathgb » 24 Jan 2020 03:23

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.

.


On what basis do you say 3000 crores is insufficient money to build prototypes ?

Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2470
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Vips » 24 Jan 2020 21:33

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.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1748
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby sudeepj » 24 Jan 2020 22:46

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.


This tank will be a beast!

Source?

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1748
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby sudeepj » 24 Jan 2020 22:54

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

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.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8343
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 24 Jan 2020 23:04

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.

Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2470
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Vips » 24 Jan 2020 23:06

sudeepj wrote:
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.


This tank will be a beast!

Source?


It is a credible defence related Youtube AV.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1607
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Thakur_B » 24 Jan 2020 23:28

sudeepj wrote:
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.


This tank will be a beast!

Source?


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.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2882
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby nam » 25 Jan 2020 01:39

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.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2882
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby nam » 25 Jan 2020 01:41

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" !

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4927
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Kartik » 29 Jan 2020 02:02

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.


nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7321
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby nachiket » 29 Jan 2020 02:16

Raghunathgb wrote:
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.

.


On what basis do you say 3000 crores is insufficient money to build prototypes ?

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.

aditp
BRFite
Posts: 440
Joined: 15 Jul 2008 07:25
Location: Autoland

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby aditp » 01 Feb 2020 13:24


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.

Link

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11570
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 01 Feb 2020 21:24

The problems could be

1) Physical size dimensions

2) Technical parameters and compatibility with the rest of the Tank.

Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1972
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Kakarat » 05 Feb 2020 12:18


Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1607
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Thakur_B » 05 Feb 2020 13:05

Kakarat 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.

Jaeger
BRFite
Posts: 324
Joined: 23 Jun 2004 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Jaeger » 05 Feb 2020 14:15

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.


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.

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.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2882
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby nam » 05 Feb 2020 15:29

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.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1607
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Thakur_B » 05 Feb 2020 18:14

Tata already have a prototype. There was a recent pic of PM inspecting their prototype.

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1856
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby srin » 05 Feb 2020 20:56

What's wrong with using BMP-2 design as baseline and updating it where required ? I quite like it.

Jaeger
BRFite
Posts: 324
Joined: 23 Jun 2004 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Jaeger » 05 Feb 2020 21:56

srin wrote:What's wrong with using BMP-2 design as baseline and updating it where required ? I quite like it.


Only that using a 70's design as a baseline for a FUTURE Infantry Combat Vehicle is somewhat... odd? Otherwise nothing.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7984
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Indranil » 05 Feb 2020 22:52

What has changed from the 1970s except for suspension and engine tech?

agupta
BRFite
Posts: 267
Joined: 13 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby agupta » 05 Feb 2020 23:02

Indranil wrote:What has changed from the 1970s except for suspension and engine tech?


A few come to mind

_Materials... body, armor (strength and other properties/weight)
_Sensors and sensor fusion/integration (sit. awareness)
_Communications
_Modularity/standardization of interfaces... how fast and easily multiple weapon or other systems can be integrated into platform
_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)


Otherwise we're back to Maruti vs. Ambassador with improved suspension/engine, no ? :wink:

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7984
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Indranil » 06 Feb 2020 02:57

I can tell you that, on this new offering

_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

And these are described in the video.

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 [color=#BF0000]
_manufacturing technologies (cost and quality of end product)

agupta
BRFite
Posts: 267
Joined: 13 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby agupta » 06 Feb 2020 03:56

Has changed... OK, but compared to what ?

From the video (full of platitudes and generalities) I could deduce nothing beyond the BMP2-M/Berezhok capabilities (everything they talked about is off-the-shelf); seems likely we're indigenizing (or) replacing with equivalent or upgraded indigenous analogs, multiple sub-systems (e.g.,EO, Comms, UX, HVAC etc) to upgrade the rest of the BMP-2 fleet beyond the 500-600 of the -M Upgrades we ordered a few years ago (this had all the items covered in the video)

So sure, call it a BMP-2M+ or a BMP-2O (India) upgrade... that is OFB's minimum mission - and will likely be a useful and welcome capability to reduce cost and modernize the rest of the fleet while we keep waiting for FICV to take root.

Calling it FICV, OTOH, is a joke ! All this really means is that the vaunted OFB babudom can write, narrate and make lame Youtube videos now with words like Future, Advanced etc. as well as others

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7984
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Indranil » 06 Feb 2020 04:08

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.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Atmavik, Cain Marko, dhyana, Dileep, Kakarat and 40 guests