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.
RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1113
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby RKumar » 10 Apr 2019 18:23

Latest reports of purchase of 464 T-90 MS tanks is really bad. Some decision of MoD are outside of my apprehension, on one side GoI want to promote Made In India and on another side rejecting a superior local product.

If some lighter tank is required on Chinese border than move the damn existing ones and fill the vacuum with Arjuns??

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18400
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 10 Apr 2019 18:56

This is not China border but Pak border. T-90MS is heavier than T-90 by around 2 tons as it carries the superior Relikt armor. And there you have your answer.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7677
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby rohitvats » 10 Apr 2019 19:14

Karan M wrote:This is not China border but Pak border. T-90MS is heavier than T-90 by around 2 tons as it carries the superior Relikt armor. And there you have your answer.


Army had moved tanks from western border for new independent armored brigades raised for Tibetan front. And in lieu of these transfers, it had asked for new tanks. These will fill the void left by moving tanks east from existing formations in west.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18400
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 10 Apr 2019 19:31

Cool! I was guessing the same, we moved some T-72s out (lightest "full MBTs") we have, but could have been T-90s too.

Also about overall # of tank holdings, amazingly IA does not plan to phase out older T-72s but intends to keep them around using further upgrades including engine ones. Huge numbers of T-tanks against a much smaller force of PA tanks. If we start deploying APS systems en masse, I suspect PA will be truly worried.

I am also guessing these T-90s may find their way into whichever formations are intended for a breakthrough role, esp. given the heavier armor & better fire control.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13099
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby negi » 10 Apr 2019 19:38

Arjun has done it's share of 26 Jan parades , now it's time for some other project . Making in India is one thing but using something made in India for war is another, latter may not happen for quite some time . ATAGs too got accepted as it's based on Bofors template , original stuff has trust deficit issues.

Avinandan
BRFite
Posts: 186
Joined: 12 Jun 2005 12:29
Location: Pune

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Avinandan » 11 Apr 2019 12:23

Negi ji,
I thought Dhanush is based out of Bofors Template, ATAGS or Bharat 52 are based out of GC-45 template.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13099
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby negi » 11 Apr 2019 13:15

Dhanush is sort of like enhancements done along with licence manufacture of Bofors the intersection between the two is huge ; ATAGs uses exact same breech type and loading mechanism , exactly similar recuperator layout and even the Muzzle brake . However everything is much bigger on ATAGs and obviously it is electrically steered and might have better ballistic computer etc . I am not aware of GC-45 relation what's the story there ?

On topic of % of indigenous components interesting thing to check would be do we make the breech ourselves or import it for instance on K9 thunder even the guns made here will be sans breech as latter will be imported. Afaik for bofors we had rights to manufacture it here under licence so my theory is we are leveraging that same template for Dhanush and ATAGs (we already know breech is screw type) , K9 is German in many ways (sliding breech , MTU engine etc).

mody
BRFite
Posts: 531
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby mody » 11 Apr 2019 15:28

Karan M wrote:Cool! I was guessing the same, we moved some T-72s out (lightest "full MBTs") we have, but could have been T-90s too.

Also about overall # of tank holdings, amazingly IA does not plan to phase out older T-72s but intends to keep them around using further upgrades including engine ones. Huge numbers of T-tanks against a much smaller force of PA tanks. If we start deploying APS systems en masse, I suspect PA will be truly worried.

I am also guessing these T-90s may find their way into whichever formations are intended for a breakthrough role, esp. given the heavier armor & better fire control.


We deploy both T72 and T90 on the eastern front, at least in Sikkim. T72 have been in Sikkim for quite a while. I saw them about 4-5 years ago.
T90 were also supposed to be deployed there. Temporary additional supports are used on the bridges to transport the T90 tanks. Most bridges in north Sikkim were of the 40 ton category, at least at the time. Some new ones were of the 70 ton category. The T72s could be transported or driven up after stripping off of some of the equipment. For T90s special temporary support was needed.
We also deploy the Bofors guns in the northeast. Have seen them in AP. The Army had also put up banners proclaiming highest deployment of Bofors at 14,000 ft altitude.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18400
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 11 Apr 2019 16:21

negi wrote:Arjun has done it's share of 26 Jan parades , now it's time for some other project .1. Making in India is one thing but using something made in India for war is another, latter may not happen for quite some time . 2.ATAGs too got accepted as it's based on Bofors template , original stuff has trust deficit issues.


First, so far we have used the following "full systems" in combat ops, leaving out stuff like HAPO bags etc.
Pinaka (tests at Kargil in 1999).
3D Rohini surveillance radar (used to detect and track Paki UAVs in particular)
Swathi WLR (used fairly regularly to knock out Paki positions)
Netra AEW&CS (used for Balakote strike)

Many more items would be used in peacetime, but won't be mentioned publicly, like Divya Drishti ESM gear, which would be in ops almost all the time.

So, where is this talk of we won't use made in India stuff for combat ops coming from? The local stuff is often nine times out of ten, more transparent to the user, having been heavily tested than the imported items with user participation.

Arjun obviously can't be used, because how are you going to use tanks in quasi war situation.

Second, ATAGs is more of a clean sheet design, not a complete Bofors derivative - design commonality will be there amongst all guns of this type, but its basically got a lot of changes, enough to be a different unit in its own right.
Dhanush is a Bofors derivative. ATAGs has not yet been fully accepted by IA. Not an issue of trust deficit or anything but weight and size.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7041
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby nachiket » 12 Apr 2019 01:12

Making in India is one thing but using something made in India for war is another, latter may not happen for quite some time

We haven't had a war since Kargil and even that was orders of magnitude smaller than the previous one in 1971. The standard assault rifle used in Kargil was designed and built in India if you remember. The one before that the 1A1 SLR was also built in India although a foreign design.

The 105mm artillery guns which are the most numerous in the IA have also been built in India for a long time. Same for T-72 tanks and I'm guessing the T-55s prior to it. HF-24 Marut's were used in 71 as well.

Since Kargil, like I said there has been no war.

Barath
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 59
Joined: 11 Feb 2019 19:06

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Barath » 15 Apr 2019 20:11

RKumar wrote:Latest reports of purchase of 464 T-90 MS tanks is really bad. Some decision of MoD are outside of my apprehension, on one side GoI want to promote Made In India and on another side rejecting a superior local product.

If some lighter tank is required on Chinese border than move the damn existing ones and fill the vacuum with Arjuns??


Buying two different kinds of new tanks leads to logistics issues. Plus T90 is significantly cheaper at a time when there are innumerable demands on the purse. (even adjusting for the monkeying around with T90 costs). A sane army/procurement should look to standardize and take advantage of economies of scale where they can (other places where the domain and doctrine are immature should have high innovation)

Arjun being a heavy tank, seems less suited outside desert, with lesser strategic and tactical mobility. (a failure of requirements and concept).
T90 has achieved high levels of indigenization (90% IIRC) while Arjun has not and probably will not given small scale orders...

[Strategic mobility = will be fulfilled by ability to transfer using train, road, (sea) and air ...Arjun has now achieved a degree of this with the special bogeys, etc. But it may still suffer. AIr - only the c17 can move the arjun. (India does not worry about sealift much or force projection outside the region for the army, AFAIK/IMO)

Tactical mobility = here if pakistan infrastructure does not support Arjun, it will hurt the concept of a tank & its mobility to keep bringing engineers for fording bridges etc..defeats combined arms mobility]

So there is some logic to MoD here.

Even before I came across some rather nasty stories about Arjun.

Actually,I was initially wondering why the new tanks are in the T90MS config rather than just looking at broader upgrades of existing tanks - I think folks here have answered that.

Perhaps focus on the next set of designs - though the FMBT requirements seem to be a challenge ... maybe differing concepts, upgrades to the vast amount of equipment India has etc.. It's not as if there is a shortage of examples of improvement abroad ...

Raveen
BRFite
Posts: 590
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 00:51
Location: 1/2 way between the gutter and the stars
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Raveen » 15 Apr 2019 21:44

Less suited to the desert? How on earth? It has lower weight/track area (I forget the specific term) than the T-90

ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2851
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ArjunPandit » 15 Apr 2019 22:38

philip sir pls dont masquerade as barath :P.
In case you're not philip, then please read previous threads. Every excuse in favor of T90 has been debunked on this forums in previous threads. Not sure whats the logic

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2757
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby tsarkar » 16 Apr 2019 14:23

Raveen wrote:Less suited to the desert? How on earth? It has lower weight/track area (I forget the specific term) than the T-90

Ground Pressure

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2757
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby tsarkar » 16 Apr 2019 14:28

ArjunPandit wrote:philip sir pls dont masquerade as barath :P.

Barath is Bharat with a new profile. He was banned earlier for being rude to Ramana.

While he reads up internet DDM data, he misses the detailed analysis done here that is not reported anywhere.

ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2851
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ArjunPandit » 16 Apr 2019 14:46

I think posting rights should be earned in a harder way. A BRF_IIT or BRA-KAAVA mandatory for everyone once every year

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1113
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby RKumar » 17 Apr 2019 01:28

Barath wrote:Buying two different kinds of new tanks leads to logistics issues. Plus T90 is significantly cheaper at a time when there are innumerable demands on the purse. (even adjusting for the monkeying around with T90 costs). A sane army/procurement should look to standardize and take advantage of economies of scale where they can (other places where the domain and doctrine are immature should have high innovation)

Arjun being a heavy tank, seems less suited outside desert, with lesser strategic and tactical mobility. (a failure of requirements and concept).
T90 has achieved high levels of indigenization (90% IIRC) while Arjun has not and probably will not given small scale orders...

[Strategic mobility = will be fulfilled by ability to transfer using train, road, (sea) and air ...Arjun has now achieved a degree of this with the special bogeys, etc. But it may still suffer. AIr - only the c17 can move the arjun. (India does not worry about sealift much or force projection outside the region for the army, AFAIK/IMO)

Tactical mobility = here if pakistan infrastructure does not support Arjun, it will hurt the concept of a tank & its mobility to keep bringing engineers for fording bridges etc..defeats combined arms mobility]

So there is some logic to MoD here.

Even before I came across some rather nasty stories about Arjun.

Actually,I was initially wondering why the new tanks are in the T90MS config rather than just looking at broader upgrades of existing tanks - I think folks here have answered that.

Perhaps focus on the next set of designs - though the FMBT requirements seem to be a challenge ... maybe differing concepts, upgrades to the vast amount of equipment India has etc.. It's not as if there is a shortage of examples of improvement abroad ...


May be IA is still dreaming ... Buying two different kinds of new tanks leads to logistics issues., Arjun is in IA inventory. So there are already two different kinds of tanks there is no new tank. I even dont know if you consider T-56 and T-72 same as T-90 or T-90MS.

Arjun might be costlier because orders are chocked if not killed. Actual costs of T-90 are not disclosed as clever people have made fool of the procurement. Bells and whistles are ordered separately. Even some technologies of Arjun are ported to T-90 to cover its short comings. While we talk regarding capital cost, there is human factor also - It is capability which developed with 30 years of hard work of scientists. And in a particular case, a senior scientist was murdered (officially declared as a road accident) while travelling on duty to participate in Arjun trails.

Ah high level of 90% indigenization, which Russia refused to share and we had to over come ourselves. I can't blame Russians for it as they have to protect their own industry at the expense of India. But problem lies within India, where vested personal interests are above nation. It was not Russians but some Indians who did and doing the sabotage to many local programs. It would have made sense to do the transformation from imported T-90 to Arjun. I am really disappointed to hear our DM comment that she can't force the forces to buy inferior product but she is allowing them to select n promote an inferior imported product and ordering herself.

Regarding "Strategic mobility", as per your own count this topic is addressed. Each equipment will face its own challenges - please dont tell us that T-90 can reach each in every corner of India without any sufferings.

Regarding the "Tactical mobility" - it is not the responsibility of Pakistan to build bridges while IA is on move, in fact they will blow every bridge while withdrawing. So it is upto IA to plan and secure GoI objectives - if we want to capture mainland NaPak.

I don't see any logic in MoD logic into buying T-90MS. Additionally, neither I agree with statements of IAF chief + Modi ji - regarding use of Rafale. IAF chief is trying to milk Modi ji to order more Rafale fighters. These fighters were ordered to use as last resort but IAF would like to use them for bread and butter duty. So if Su-30, Mig-29 and Mirage are not so capable - lets decommission them why IAF wants to buy unused Mig-29 stored in some pens? Why having a force of 272 (may be 300+) Su-30? Why upgrade Mirages for 40+ million? I personally think service decision makers have to answer these questions.

If GoI order these T-90MS, I believe FMBT is again Russian. No one is going to spend their whole lives to develop some stupid product which will not be inducted into services even when its proven superior.

I think, its one of my longest replies in the public domain. Sorry for being raw :((

Barath
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 59
Joined: 11 Feb 2019 19:06

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Barath » 17 Apr 2019 12:29

[quote="RKumar"]on arjun tanks[/Rkumar]

Rkumar, there's nothing raw about what you said, so nothing to be sorry about. What I am sorry to say, is that none of these arguments are new to me. But logistics is a numbers game. It is not tick present or absent. Where the difference is in degree., which I think you do not allow sufficiently for. If you go through all the historical resources of Ajai shukla and of bharat rakshak a few time over with differing stances, (eg devil' advocate for arjun, vs devil's advocate for T90) and so on. Remove all the sunk cost and historical feeling of Arjun being ill done by and revisit the current situation with fresh eye and perspective of user/procurement decider.

Yes, T90 cost was fiddled, with comparison with T72 to allow for a new tank. But it is still cheaper than Arjun, especially since indigenization has already been done, numbers are already there, it is a smaller tank , has fewer crew etc. The 3 german components of arjun alone equate to almost the core cost of T90, as per DRDO. DRDO promise 30% cost reduction on volume orders, after indigenization et cetera. That still doesn't get you to parity. The volume still doesn't get you to parity in logistics. Crew cost never comes to parity.

You cannot say Pakistan will guaranteed blow bridges and thus you must only rely upon Indian engineers to make do. In war, you have to make every chance for yourself. Especially with Cold start, surprise, feints etc, you have to give yourself a chance to capture the bridge not blown,or the overlooked road. And then exploit it, with armor and combined arms. So while you prepare your engineers, you try to give yourself best chance. Ground pressure is all very well, but absolute weight also matters for things like bridges.

No equipment is good unless it is backed by doctrine and use. And the Indian army seems to have made up its mind here for now. eg. Asking for weight reduction on Arjun Mk 2, while simultaneously acknowledging that it will not make a material difference in increased orders or use cases.

Commercial market is replete with examples of excellent products that missed their niche or missed their time.

It is not enough to say "the trials were tilted", we are all familiar with concept of exams and how weakly linked they are to success in professional life in so many cases. Ask "how much" is the technical advantage of the Arjun, in , and how much does the incremental advantage matter. eg what we know of the report says Arjun had good accuracy while T90 had better lethality. (presumably accuracy owes a lot to the electronics, gyro etc, lethality owes a lot to gun and ammunition, one is easier to upgrade than the other). What does 25.x vs 24.x mean in an index. You come away with feeling that there is more complexity to this and a lot of missing info that is not making it into public domain here

It is in things like this, that you would come to the conclusion (like ramana garu and a few others here) , that Arjun project requirements and concept tracking and monitoring were problematical. (After all, Arjun didn't start out as a ~65 tonne tank). But that doesn't help us now.

BTW, T90 is from the same family as t72 etc (at one point, T90 was named T72 BU), so the additional logistics benefits there would simply not apply to Arjun.

All I am saying is that you should give leeway to MoD and army here; there are arguments for T90 as there are arguments for more Arjuns;
(I didn't bother to make those as it is already made/known.Plus it gets into problematical territory, for argument and sources and discomfort or personal interaction)

Ideally, the indigenous industry should have moved on to the more futuristic MBT ; but we know the problems that have happened there. But some good concepts,prototypes, improved systems etc can also help induce more demand.

Re : Rafale - I agree with your point that AF likely wishes for more for everyday use rather than the original intent for more limited strategic use.
Let us see, there are lots of forces at play.

Re: murder of a senior scientist - can you refresh my memory ? I have vague recall there;may have discounted it as one of those conspiracy theories at the time.

Re: RM - I think we appreciate those RM who help push and make folks accept a different mindset or reality.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1595
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Khalsa » 17 Apr 2019 16:31

holy the moly ... Phillip is now bharath or barath ?

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2499
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby abhik » 17 Apr 2019 17:55

If weight was really the issue with Arjun, a clean sheet design could have been commissioned in 2014 and we could have prototype by now (all the building block technologies are already there or can be bought). Instead we spent 5 years on time pass updates to Arjun and put out futuristic armoured importgiri strategic BS tenders.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2133
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Vivek K » 17 Apr 2019 18:54

I hope the IA buys a lot of tank recovery vehicles - seeing how the T-90s performed at the Tank biathlon, they probably need to be carried back home from war. At the biathlon, the advantage of the similarities between the tincans was on display - with the lineage of the shop queen, derelict T-72s clearly visible as the T-90s broke down in true, glorious tribute to their lineage.

And without airconditioning, it makes it easier for the crew to cook their food on the move during summers - the real reason that they cannot fire on the move.

IA likes heavier tanks onlee that is why they asked for the 58 ton Mk1 (with superior armor that improved crew survivability) to be bulked up into the Mk2 weighing in at 62 tons plus.

Barath bhai is correct - it isn't the lower ground pressure of the Arjun that is important, it is the lower weight of the T-90 that allows it to move around on bridges that PA will ensure are only blown up for Arjuns and kept intact for T-90s. IA will let them know in advance which tanks they will be using sot that PA can decide to blow up their bridges or not.

Also, it isn't important to consider fatigue failure of bridges - per the Barathi theory, bridges fail the moment they sense a load heavier than their capacity. Actually if you whisper to the bridge that the Arjun is coming, it collapses immediately.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1113
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby RKumar » 18 Apr 2019 15:18

India Looking for Substantial Make in India Content in T 90 Tanks

Moscow. India and Russia are working to finalize the Make in India content in the next lots of T 90 Main Battle Tanks (MBTs).

Discussions have been held for some time in both the countries, the last round on March 18-19 in New Delhi. India is looking at 464 MBTs in addition to some 850 the Indian Army already operates. The deal is reportedly around $ Two billion, and will involve upgrades of the existing tanks at the Heavy Vehicles Factory of the Ordnance Factories Board (OFB) at Avadi in Tamil Nadu.

But this time, Transfer of Technology (ToT) will be a key component any agreement as per the Indian Government’s new Make in India policy to derive some offset gains for big purchases. The state-run Sputnik news agency has given some indications of the ongoing talks but officially, representatives of Uralvagonzavod (UVZ), which makes the tank, and Rosoboronexport (ROE), which handles the arms trade and exports, declined comment.

It may be noted that on March 18-19, the two countries held a Military-Technical Conference covering a comprehensive exchange of views on upgrades of various Russian origin systems in India, from aircraft to vehicles and ships.

The Indian Army plans to have nearly 1700 T 90 tanks by 2020. On offer from Russia now is the advanced T 90MS variant which incorporates some of the turret features of Next-Gen Armata tank developed for the Russian Army, Director of Moscow-based Centre for Analyses of Strategies and Technologies (CAST) independent think tank, Dr Ruslan Pukhov, told India Strategic.

According to him, it was high time for India and Russia to increase cooperation, but as for Make in India involving deep transfer of technology, a lot would depend upon the capabilities of Indian companies to absorb cutting edge technologies.

“Take for example the case of older Konkurs anti-tank wire-guided missiles, Russia has given full technology to India, but it could not absorb it. Some of your defence labs and facilities are world class, some are lingering in the past,” Dr Pukhov said.

The first India-Russia Military Technical Conference held in New Delhi on March 17-18 was co-chaired by Defence Minister Arun Jaitley and Russian Industries and Trade Minister Denis Manturov. It was attended by 100 Russian and 150 Indian companies, both from public and private sectors.

Signing of a long term agreement on lifecycle support and maintenance of the Sukhoi Su-30MKI air dominance fighters between HAL on the one hand and Russia’s United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) and United Engines Corporation (UEC) on the other was a key highlight of the conference. It was organised by the Department of Defence Production.

Russia is expected to supply spares and other equipment to the tune of US$ 300 million under the Su-30MKI MRO deal.

“Russia is ready to set up centres of competence across India for maintenance of Russian-origin military hardware,” Denis Manturov said, and called for the creation of five platforms to manage defence cooperation between Russia and India: helicopter building, aircraft building, shipbuilding, armour and anti-aircraft weapons.

Once details on specific arrangements are worked out, the two countries should be signing inter-governmental agreements to facilitate requirements of various platforms with the Indian armed forces.


It is myth that T-90 are 90% locally produced, here is interesting article. Like I mentioned, if above contract is signed FMBT will be Russian, to keep a single tank type to manage logistics issues :rotfl:

neeraj
BRFite
Posts: 302
Joined: 12 Jun 2001 11:31
Location: UK

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby neeraj » 19 Apr 2019 23:36

http://www.indiandefensenews.in/2019/04 ... local.html

India wants Uralvagonzavod to increase local production of the tanks from 40 percent to 80 percent, said a senior MoD official.... The OFB does not produce engines or transmissions, which are approximately 40 percent of the cost of a T-90MS tank. Another Army official noted the lack of a robust technology transfer deal.


Wasn't there news that T-90 and T72 engines are now 100% indigenous. :-?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18400
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 20 Apr 2019 04:26

Defense News usual crap. We make the engines.

mody
BRFite
Posts: 531
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby mody » 20 Apr 2019 15:15

I hope they don't come with the argument that the T90MS has a uprated 1130 HP engine, as opposed to the T90S 1,00 HP engine.
We are now making the 1,000 HP engine completely in house and hopefully quite a few T72 tanks should get upgraded with this engine, replacing the old 780 HP engine. They can add additional Kanchan armour etc. to go with the new engine.


The russians are entirely capable of saying that the they will offer full ToT for the new 1130 HP egine, as that is mandatory to make use of all the new electronic systems and increased weight of the T90MS tanks. The old 1,000HP engine, just won't cut it. Like fools, we might even pay for this kind of ToT for say 300 off engines, after importing 164 fully built ones from Russian.... :(

Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2082
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Vips » 21 Apr 2019 17:41

Are we still importing artillery rounds for T90s from Russia? The Army has today under the financial power given to Army Chief made emergency purchases of IGLA's, Smerch Rockets and Armour piercing ammo for T90 tanks.

VikramA
BRFite
Posts: 158
Joined: 29 Aug 2018 15:41

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby VikramA » 21 Apr 2019 17:55

Vips wrote:Are we still importing artillery rounds for T90s from Russia? The Army has today under the financial power given to Army Chief made emergency purchases of IGLA's, Smerch Rockets and Armour piercing ammo for T90 tanks.


it was reported in a CAG report few years ago that OFB has not been able to produce a particular type of APFSDS sabot fired by the t-90s

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18400
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 21 Apr 2019 18:19

This is the same BM42 Mango FSAPDS being TOTed at OFB, IA just wanted more rounds quickly.

Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2082
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Vips » 26 Apr 2019 05:49

Future Ready Combat Vehicle: South Korean ready to build FRCV armoured vehicle under Make in India.

South Korea based Hyundai Rotem is ready to produce $ 5 billion Future Ready Combat Vehicle (FRCV) for the Mechanised Forces in compliance with `Make in India’ policy, if it is awarded the contract to build more than 2000 units.

An FRCV, not to be confused with Future Infantry Combat Vehicle (FICV) is an armoured platform that will be used primarily for the Main Battle Tank (MBT). The Indian Army as part of its modernisation plans is keen on replacing its old fleet of 2,414 Soviet-origin T-72 tanks. If all goes as per the schedule, the FRCVs are expected to enter service between 2025-27.

According to top company executives, “The Company is now waiting to have second round of meeting with the Directorate General Mechanised Forces (DGMF), which is expected to take place next month in New Delhi.”

The company has already responded to the RFI (Request for Information) issued by the DGMF in November 2017, which specified the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) should offer technology transfer, the platform should have 40 percent indigenous content, and create ecosystems, life cycle costs and upgrade plans to build.

The South Korean Company attended its first meeting in New Delhi last August. The OEM has to tie up with a Strategic Partner to produce the units in India.

The RFI for the FRCV issued in 2017 is under the ‘Make’ category and the provisions of the Armoured Fighting Vehicle segment of ‘Strategic Partnership’ model route as per Chapter – VII as per the Defence Procurement Procedure—2016.

The vehicle is supposed to be medium weight (45-50 ton) and with a platform which can operate in various terrains including developed, desert terrain and in high altitude areas across the wide spectrum of conflict. “Keeping in mind the changing scenarios of the battlefield which will be technology driven, the FRCV platform must not only be fit for future wars but should have the capability to be used on other specialised fighting vehicles,” explained a senior officer.

Indian Army is keen on a FRCV which is similar to the Russian T-14 Armata, Ukrainian Oplot, French LeClerc and South Korean K2 Black Panther main battle tanks. Since the German Leopard and the American M1 Abrams are weighing heavy, they don’t fit the specifications laid down in the RFI for the FRCV.

Besides South Korean company, there are other global companies who responded to RFI include, UK based BAE Systems of the UK., General Dynamics of the US, Krauss-Maffei Wegmann of Germany, Nexter of France, Polski Holding Obronny of Poland, Rosoboronexport of Russia, and Ukrainexport of Ukraine.

Major Indian private companies ― including Mahindra Group, Bharat Forge, Punj Lloyd, Tata Power SED, Tata Motors, Reliance Defence and Engineering Limited, Titagarh Wagons, and Tractors India ― are keen on participating in the manufacturing of FRCVs in a joint venture with foreign OEMs.

The contest for the programme includes a design competition in which major defence companies involved in tank building will be participating through RFP and the best design will be chosen and given to an appointed developing agency for production of the prototypes.

The FRCVs will have multiple variants: The primary variant of tracked main battle tank; tracked light tank; wheeled version; bridge layer tank; trawl tank; mine ploughs; armoured recovery vehicle; self-propelled artillery gun/howitzer; air-defense gun/missile system; artillery observation post vehicle; engineer reconnaissance vehicle; and armoured ambulance role.

ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2851
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ArjunPandit » 26 Apr 2019 21:35

rohitvats wrote:
Karan M wrote:This is not China border but Pak border. T-90MS is heavier than T-90 by around 2 tons as it carries the superior Relikt armor. And there you have your answer.


Army had moved tanks from western border for new independent armored brigades raised for Tibetan front. And in lieu of these transfers, it had asked for new tanks. These will fill the void left by moving tanks east from existing formations in west.

are these part of MSC 1 & 2 or separate as the name suggests?

MeshaVishwas
BRFite
Posts: 300
Joined: 16 Feb 2019 17:20

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby MeshaVishwas » 28 Apr 2019 19:35


Awesome video!

Atmavik
BRFite
Posts: 640
Joined: 24 Aug 2016 04:43

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Atmavik » 03 May 2019 06:28


Sandrokottos
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 34
Joined: 19 Feb 2019 01:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Sandrokottos » 09 May 2019 15:19

<POOF>

Are any of this guy's "criticisms" really valid? He is a fanboy of Russian stuff, so can hardly be expected to be objective.

Admin Note: Want a ban immediately for posting shyte links?
Last edited by hnair on 09 May 2019 15:23, edited 1 time in total.

Sandrokottos
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 34
Joined: 19 Feb 2019 01:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Sandrokottos » 09 May 2019 18:42

Not an attempt at trolling, was honestly curious, but if admins feels it is inappropriate...

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7767
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 09 May 2019 20:46

https://twitter.com/IndianDefenceRA/sta ... 1788381185 ---> T-72 of the Indian Army's Armoured Corps

Image

Image

Image

Image

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2133
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Vivek K » 10 May 2019 07:21

Nyet!!!!!!!!!! Ack thoo!

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Manish_P » 10 May 2019 10:26

Rakesh wrote:https://twitter.com/IndianDefenceRA/status/1123576341788381185 ---> T-72 of the Indian Army's Armoured Corps

Image



Deep rumbling echoes in the mountains
"Earthquake, Sir?"
"No"
"Avalanche, Sir?"
"No. Battle Formations!"

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2757
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby tsarkar » 10 May 2019 10:59

Avinandan wrote:Negi ji,
I thought Dhanush is based out of Bofors Template, ATAGS or Bharat 52 are based out of GC-45 template.

ATAGS and Bharat 52 are completely different systems. ATAGS is completely ground up DRDO development being proposed to be built by Tata & Kalyani. Bharat 52 is a private venture of Kalyani.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7677
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby rohitvats » 10 May 2019 15:39

All those tanks pics are from north Sikkim. IA had set-up an armored brigade there to counter the Chinese aggression in northernmost part of Sikkim. That part is an extension of Tibetan Plateau and flat as a pancake.

Those interested can explore the general area around these coordinates: 28°03'16.7"N 88°43'55.7"E

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7767
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 23 May 2019 08:14

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1127223572663918593 ---> The way the Arjun MBT has been treated is appalling. You keep a production line for a flagship project idle for almost a decade and then complain about why serviceability is low. Forgetting conveniently that you ordered only 124 units to begin with.

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1127223881226379266 ---> What is now called the Arjun Mk1A, passed 14 out of 15 requirements during trials in 2015 itself, when it was still the Arjun Mk-2. The only thing left to demonstrate was missile firing capability. But that was good enough to put off placing orders for another 4 years.

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1127227215186239488 ---> Missiles can be fired from the Arjun's gun. The Israeli LAHAT was chosen for that. But it failed the Army's minimum engagement envelope requirement during tests. Right now, DRDO is developing the cannon-launched guided missile to fulfill this need.

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1127221378644471810 ---> The tendency in India is: 'This is our design, so let us tack on as many new requirements on it as possible before we push it into production.' This tendency is killing domestic weapons development. This ain't scope creep, it's dung heap.

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1127224782406074368 ---> For indigenous weapons it is 'Agni Pariksha' while for imported ones it is 'relaxed parameter'. What an evolved testing methodology we have. India is a Vishwaguru in this indeed.

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1127223025164644358 ---> BTW, fancy imported weapons often come up short during trials in India. But you won't hear people complaining too loudly about it.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: rakall, yensoy and 57 guests