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.
ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1541
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 03 Oct 2020 13:29

Philip wrote:KSS,the T-90 turret has resolved the ammo storage issue.The Army recognition site has good pics,diagrams of the design,inside of the turret, and other details.
===<admin note> misleading information on the L&T venture deleted, it is clearly mentioned the gun is 105mm </admin note>===

So you r saying the ammo in the carousel is protected..
How is the ammo in the turret protected?

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1849
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby sudeepj » 03 Oct 2020 19:28

ks_sachin wrote:
sudeepj wrote:
One more mod is definitely needed on the T72 and T90 series of tanks. Attach a bustle ammunition storage compartment with blowoff panels that can store the non-autoloader ammo stored in the hull and in the turret. An easy mod that can improve survivability of specialist personnel in actual combat.

T90M has bustle storage.
There is no non- autoloader ammo in the hull.
However the carousel feeding the autoloader is the problem and am not sure if the 22 rounds in the carousel are protected.


We dont have that version of the tank. The carousel is the lowest thing in the hull and is naturally protected at least somewhat. It does have some protection, not sure how effective, esp against top attack.

If 72s are to be made relevant again, they need an active protection system, have heavy ERA, ammo in bustle and function in close conjunction with CIWS tunguska type systems that can destroy drones.

This may even be a good idea, considering the sheer numbers we have! In any case, Cavalry role is not to fight other cavalry but to flank the enemy by maneuver and kill its softer war making ability.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21046
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Philip » 05 Oct 2020 11:51

Def News says we are seriously looking at the Sprut given much commonality with the T-series,same gun, easty to induct,etc.
Would require accelerated testing for quick induction. Need felt after operating our larger MBTs ,where light tanks are preferable in some areas. Better armour is needed,ERA tiles/panels ,slat armour could be added without adding too much weight.V.air portable,can be air-dropped too withthe 3- man crew sitting inside.

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2434
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Manish_P » 05 Oct 2020 12:38

Isn't airdropping vehicles with the crew inside a very risky proposition. Doubt if the Russians do it.. i hope we certainly never have to..

Russia plans to Airdrop armored vehicles with crew inside - why it might be a bad idea

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1541
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 05 Oct 2020 15:06

Philip wrote:Def News says we are seriously looking at the Sprut given much commonality with the T-series,same gun, easty to induct,etc.
Would require accelerated testing for quick induction. Need felt after operating our larger MBTs ,where light tanks are preferable in some areas. Better armour is needed,ERA tiles/panels ,slat armour could be added without adding too much weight.V.air portable,can be air-dropped too withthe 3- man crew sitting inside.

Where are you going to air drop these in Ladakh?

Rsatchi
BRFite
Posts: 889
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 22:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Rsatchi » 05 Oct 2020 15:36

ks_sachin wrote:
Philip wrote:Def News says we are seriously looking at the Sprut given much commonality with the T-series,same gun, easty to induct,etc.
Would require accelerated testing for quick induction. Need felt after operating our larger MBTs ,where light tanks are preferable in some areas. Better armour is needed,ERA tiles/panels ,slat armour could be added without adding too much weight.V.air portable,can be air-dropped too withthe 3- man crew sitting inside.

Where are you going to air drop these in Ladakh?[/quote] :lol:
Sachinji only place is on the Blacktop :rotfl: :rotfl:

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21046
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Philip » 05 Oct 2020 20:05

DBO? Depsang Plains? Tibet is a vast plateau.Even behind enemy lines if the turd hits the fan. Anyway,more news of the deal in the ET.Deal being fast tracked under emergency G-to-G acquisitions.First tranche of approx. 24 would cost less than $ 500 crores, within the emergency financial powers vested with each chief. Lots of commonality with the T-series,same ammo,etc.,easy to induct.While T-72s and T-90s have been sent to the Himalayan borders,negotiating them on difficult border terrain has become an issue. Deal expected to be sealed before the year end.

PS: ET says it was the sole outfit that broke the news in July.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby tsarkar » 05 Oct 2020 22:02

Manish_P wrote:Isn't airdropping vehicles with the crew inside a very risky proposition. Doubt if the Russians do it.. i hope we certainly never have to..

Russia plans to Airdrop armored vehicles with crew inside - why it might be a bad idea

You're right. In the 80's we dropped BMP and crew separately from Il-76's. The unpacking of BMP was cumbersome and unrealistic in battle conditions behind enemy lines. Despite the packing, the wear and tear on the BMP was high and the idea was ultimately dropped.

Crew inside exposes them to injuries. :eek:

Group Captain Anant Bewoor explains the uselessness of the idea in the following article

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/histo ... #gsc.tab=0

"I want the Drop Right in Front of their Noses"

This was the demand placed by the APD organising authorities on 44 Sqn. Once again the reader can sense the mood for the dramatic and never before seen capabilities. Which pilot / navigator / flight gunner combination can guarantee a drop at a specific point, and that too from a height of 500 mtrs with a platform carrying a 13 tons BMP? The demand itself is ludicrous and shows total lack of knowledge about heavy platform drops. As usual the organisers had not bothered to consult their own Transport operations Staff, the desire for demonstrating the dramatic rather than the operational had overwhelmed the atmosphere. The disregard for procedural and systematic air dropping exercise was very apparent. I had done quite a few BMP drops with many parachute clusters for each platform. As the platform hits the ground, the parachutes disengage and the canopy collapses, or should collapse. It does not happen always. At Pokhran on 20 Jan 89, I had done for the very first time Two Very Large Platform drops weighing total 43 tons. More about this in another tale. The parachute cluster did not collapse on impact with the ground and dragged for nearly five kilometres to the great annoyance of the Parachute Brigade staff. They had to retrieve it. What was significant was that the dragging parachute cluster uprooted electric poles and wires, and there was nothing that could be done to stop the cluster. It weighs about two tons all put together. Imagine then, two tons of nylon, metal and webbing heading for the VIPs at Tilpat. Our report had been circulated to all Command HQ and Air HQ. But even if the APD Controllers were ignorant about the Pokhran incident, how can anybody with more than 30 years of service ask for drop in "front of their noses". We were not dropping sky divers, this was an uncontrolled 15 ton behemoth.

The standard drill from an IL-76 is to drop BMPs from the rear door and their troopers jump at the same time from the two front doors, this way the platform falls onto an empty ground, devoid of VIPs, followed by troopers who take longer to reach mother earth, though they exited the IL-76 at the same time. It once again fell upon me to refuse to drop with the intention of achieving a touch down in the centre of the DZ. I explained it in great detail so that it would be abundantly apparent that the flaw was not in the crew being unable to try a Centre of DZ touch down, the flaw was in even attempting it. I urge the reader to comprehend the absence of knowledge in conduct of air dropping processes in Feb 1989, and my original story of MGR is of Dec 87 vintage. Some things never change. I refused to attempt a drop for the centre of the DZ, and requested the Controllers of the APD to accept a Touch Down at the farthest corner of the DZ. This way the VIPs could see the huge parachute cluster descending and also the paratroopers who were the crew of the BMP. The troopers would land close to the centre of the DZ and run towards the BMP. Late Wg Cdr Badle and the Flt Gunner ensured a touch down where planned, on 18 March 89, in full sight of the VIPs, but not in front of their noses. The aim of inserting these two unrelated tales, is to tell the readers the lack of interest shown by very senior officers in transport aircraft capabilities, limitations, and utilisation. I later saw the TV replay of the APD. After the first few " strikes" no one could see the targets because of the dense black smoke created by "exploding targets". How many readers remember this sad sight?


Photo of BMP being loaded for drop
Image

Both the Sprut and plans to air drop them are super shit ideas tried in the 80's and miserably failed.

Those days 8 Para was Mechanised and were the Parachute Mechanised Troops.

Igorr
BRFite
Posts: 619
Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Igorr » 06 Oct 2020 14:31

Philip wrote:DBO? Depsang Plains? Tibet is a vast plateau.Even behind enemy lines if the turd hits the fan. Anyway,more news of the deal in the ET.Deal being fast tracked under emergency G-to-G acquisitions.First tranche of approx. 24 would cost less than $ 500 crores, within the emergency financial powers vested with each chief. Lots of commonality with the T-series,same ammo,etc.,easy to induct.While T-72s and T-90s have been sent to the Himalayan borders,negotiating them on difficult border terrain has become an issue.

You're right, Philip, one can imagine a variety of situations when a quick transfer of amphibious armored vehicles is needed, and not always - behind the front line. During a conflict, airfields can be destroyed, so airborne landing may be the only way out. India's plans to deploy rapid reaction forces overseas also cannot be discounted. Also, Sprut is a good basis for the future developments of its own Indian developments on this platform, since the BMP-2 platform is significantly outdated. On the SPRUT platform, I see the creation of a series of amphibious and airborne vehicles in the interests of the Indian Ministry of Defense is possible, from anti-aircraft systems to new light amphibious infantry fighting vehicles to replace the BMP-2, if modular armor added. It should be noted that with additional modular armor, vehicles on the SPRUT platform may lose their ability to airborne landing, but they can still remain light and floating.
As far as can be understood, the 7-rolls SPRUT platform in Russia is now the most suitable for the development of light armored vehicles on it, and I do not think that there is anything better in the world today.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1541
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 06 Oct 2020 15:16

Igorr wrote:
Philip wrote:DBO? Depsang Plains? Tibet is a vast plateau.Even behind enemy lines if the turd hits the fan. Anyway,more news of the deal in the ET.Deal being fast tracked under emergency G-to-G acquisitions.First tranche of approx. 24 would cost less than $ 500 crores, within the emergency financial powers vested with each chief. Lots of commonality with the T-series,same ammo,etc.,easy to induct.While T-72s and T-90s have been sent to the Himalayan borders,negotiating them on difficult border terrain has become an issue.

You're right, Philip, one can imagine a variety of situations when a quick transfer of amphibious armored vehicles is needed, and not always - behind the front line. During a conflict, airfields can be destroyed, so airborne landing may be the only way out. India's plans to deploy rapid reaction forces overseas also cannot be discounted. Also, Sprut is a good basis for the future developments of its own Indian developments on this platform, since the BMP-2 platform is significantly outdated. On the SPRUT platform, I see the creation of a series of amphibious and airborne vehicles in the interests of the Indian Ministry of Defense is possible, from anti-aircraft systems to new light amphibious infantry fighting vehicles to replace the BMP-2, if modular armor added. It should be noted that with additional modular armor, vehicles on the SPRUT platform may lose their ability to airborne landing, but they can still remain light and floating.
As far as can be understood, the 7-rolls SPRUT platform in Russia is now the most suitable for the development of light armored vehicles on it, and I do not think that there is anything better in the world today.

Ignore the problem is our reliance on Russia. On its own it may be a good platform. Does it make it right for us in the longer run.
I am not convinced that the conditions of employment that you have mentioned apply to us.
We have to put in the hard yards.
The Spurt is based on the BMP4 hassis.
The turret is based on the T series.
What prevents us from thinking outside the box?

Igorr
BRFite
Posts: 619
Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Igorr » 06 Oct 2020 17:05

ks_sachin wrote:
Ignore the problem is our reliance on Russia. On its own it may be a good platform. Does it make it right for us in the longer run.
I am not convinced that the conditions of employment that you have mentioned apply to us.
We have to put in the hard yards.
The Spurt is based on the BMP4 hassis.
The turret is based on the T series.
What prevents us from thinking outside the box?

I agree that the best path for a nation is self-sufficiency. It's always like that. However, in this case, I proceed from the fact that India's interest in SPRUT is not accidental. It seems to be driven by finding a worthy replacement for the PT-76 light amphibious tank, which has proven to be a very successful concept for Indian conditions. It is also obvious that those attempts, in terms of indigenization, which are being undertaken by DRDO based on the BMP-2 chassis, would have been more successful if they had the SPRUT chassis at hand, which is much more advanced in engineering and technological terms. I don’t know about you, but for me this is a sufficient reason to consider SPRUT not only as a one-time acquisition, but as a candidate for at least a much longer-term development. Reading the train of thought of the IA command I can assume that they would not have fiddled with the 24 SPRUT units, which clearly would not have made the weather on the battlefield if they had not seen the prospects in these efforts.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1541
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 06 Oct 2020 17:24

Igorr wrote:
ks_sachin wrote:
Ignore the problem is our reliance on Russia. On its own it may be a good platform. Does it make it right for us in the longer run.
I am not convinced that the conditions of employment that you have mentioned apply to us.
We have to put in the hard yards.
The Spurt is based on the BMP4 hassis.
The turret is based on the T series.
What prevents us from thinking outside the box?

I agree that the best path for a nation is self-sufficiency. It's always like that. However, in this case, I proceed from the fact that India's interest in SPRUT is not accidental. It seems to be driven by finding a worthy replacement for the PT-76 light amphibious tank, which has proven to be a very successful concept for Indian conditions. It is also obvious that those attempts, in terms of indigenization, which are being undertaken by DRDO based on the BMP-2 chassis, would have been more successful if they had the SPRUT chassis at hand, which is much more advanced in engineering and technological terms. I don’t know about you, but for me this is a sufficient reason to consider SPRUT not only as a one-time acquisition, but as a candidate for at least a much longer-term development. Reading the train of thought of the IA command I can assume that they would not have fiddled with the 24 SPRUT units, which clearly would not have made the weather on the battlefield if they had not seen the prospects in these efforts.

Point taken Igorr.

ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 944
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ParGha » 06 Oct 2020 17:44

Igorr wrote:It seems to be driven by finding a worthy replacement for the PT-76 light amphibious tank, which has proven to be a very successful concept for Indian conditions.

The PT-76s were great light tanks in 1960s and 1970s; Lt. Col.(later Brig.) Mehta's 45CAV was able to pull of many surprises because they could go where the enemy least expected tanks in the river-crossed and marshy East Bengal. However, the BMP-2s killed the need for light tanks in 1980s.

I can do almost everything that the SPURT can do by welding a 106mm RCL on an oscillating-hinge onto a BMP-2, and I can do a dozen other things with a BMP-2 that you can't do with a SPURT -- carry infantrymen into battle, carry out wounded men, perform as a command vehicle, etc. The SPURT is a solution looking for a problem. Even the Russians didn't order more than a "sample-size".

Igorr
BRFite
Posts: 619
Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Igorr » 06 Oct 2020 18:12

Manish_P wrote:Isn't airdropping vehicles with the crew inside a very risky proposition. Doubt if the Russians do it.. i hope we certainly never have to..

Russia plans to Airdrop armored vehicles with crew inside - why it might be a bad idea

As you well understand, the comparative risk of such a drop in combat conditions is not at all the same as the comparative risk in the context of military exercises. Landing equipment with personnel inside was worked out back in the USSR, but it was never used in training conditions. As for real combat operations, when the enemy may be waiting for you on the ground, then of course landing in armor is incomparably safer.

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2434
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Manish_P » 06 Oct 2020 20:09

^ Very interesting. In wars desperate situations have called for desperate measures. Can you share some links of such combat drops?

I remember reading about a drop of a BTR-MDM armored personnel carrier with crew inside, during a demo.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1541
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 07 Oct 2020 00:16

Igorr wrote:
Manish_P wrote:Isn't airdropping vehicles with the crew inside a very risky proposition. Doubt if the Russians do it.. i hope we certainly never have to..

Russia plans to Airdrop armored vehicles with crew inside - why it might be a bad idea

As you well understand, the comparative risk of such a drop in combat conditions is not at all the same as the comparative risk in the context of military exercises. Landing equipment with personnel inside was worked out back in the USSR, but it was never used in training conditions. As for real combat operations, when the enemy may be waiting for you on the ground, then of course landing in armor is incomparably safer.


Igorr what are the Russian Army plans for the Spurt?

I would have thought they would have procured these in greater numbers.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8096
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby nachiket » 07 Oct 2020 00:51

The Russians only operate 24 of them. They canceled a follow on order for them after one of them caught fire during a parade due to a fuel or oil leak. That should tell us something about the tank by itself.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8096
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby nachiket » 07 Oct 2020 01:07

This sudden interest in the Sprut after encountering Chinese light tanks reminds me of another sudden procurement made back in 1983 - the Mig-23MF by the IAF when pakis received F-16s. It looked like a decent aircraft on paper but turned out to be not so reliable and a maintenance hog in practice and wasn't a good counter to the F-16's anyway. We had to go ahead and buy M2k's and Mig-29's for that later. IAF retired all the MF's just 24 years after the first one arrived which is minuscule by modern IAF standards.

Igorr
BRFite
Posts: 619
Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Igorr » 07 Oct 2020 03:23

ks_sachin wrote:
Igorr what are the Russian Army plans for the Spurt?
I would have thought they would have procured these in greater numbers.

After the first experimental batch of SPRUT-SD (little more than 36) was delivered to the troops in late 00, the military demanded that the SPRUT-SD be improved in terms of providing common logistics with the BMD-4M, which used to be actively adopted in the next years. This meant the use of BMD-4M chassis elements on SPRUT, a unified engine UTD-29 for the entire family and compatible vitronics. In addition, the military paratroopers asked to install an additional machine gun turret 7.62 mm. An unknown number of other improvements were also made, which were not specified to the press for obvious reasons. In this updated form, the SPRUT-SDM-1 has now completed state tests, and a decision is expected to produce it in a large batch in the interests of the Federation airborne forces. In addition, on the same 7-roller chassis, which is considered the most suitable, a series of armored landing vehicles for the airborne forces is being created. For example, it is known that a landing amphibious anti-aircraft gun is being developed on this chassis.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21046
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Philip » 07 Oct 2020 04:22

Right now we,thanks to babudom and political neglect- and we've had the NDA-2 now for 6 years, zilch from the desi sector as far as a light tank is concerned. We have various ICV designs from Tata's,etc.,the DRDO fiddling with the venerable BMP-2, but since the retirement ofthe PT-76, no replacement for it. Right now,with the yellow peril at the mountain gates, it's either the Sprut or "Shank's pony."

Leaving aside the PRC shennanigans in the Himalayas, in the context of amphib ops in the IOR itself, there is a requirement for a light amphib. tank for the same.We have a requirement for 4 amhib LHPDs and therefore need to have in place a specialist fledgling marine corps ( IMC) initially under the IA or even IN,which could grow into an independent force like the CG at some future date.With its own "battle hymn of the republic."...
" From the mountains and valleys of Himalaya,to the shores of Karachi".....

ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 944
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ParGha » 07 Oct 2020 16:59

Rahul M wrote:How to fight a tank war under an opfor UAV umbrella. Very good points made here. Worth a read
https://rusi.org/publication/rusi-defen ... t-shooters
The Key to Armenia’s Tank Losses: The Sensors, Not the Shooters
Jack Watling
RUSI Defence Systems, 6 October 2020
Amid a lively debate about the viability of the UK’s heavy armour, the loss of over 42 Armenian T-72s to Azerbaijani forces in Nagorno-Karabakh requires further analysis.


Very timely article, and highlights many of the main challenges for armor. VBIEDs are another challenge for distributed maneuver group when they are trying to avoid long-range munition attacks.

Given the triple threat of UAVs, VBIEDs and ATGMs, the distributed maneuver groups will essentially have to become more like medieval knights or Mughal-era mansabdars -- small combined-arms units with light-cavalry/mech screen, mobile mortars and SHORADS at the sub-unit level.

In the Indian context, I think squadron commanders (Majors) can handle the complexity. I have low confidence that the troop leaders among the Lieutenants and Captains have the experience or the maturity to handle such a complex force. India's best option is to create a better and longer career-path, training and support for the JCOs, and give them more mid-career technical and leadership training.

PS: Also, the distributed maneuver group will require a high-level of unit-autonomy (or is it sub-unit-autonomy). This means, high electro-mechanical reliability of all the AFVs and Vs in the group. There is no regimental Light Repair Workshop or Armored Recovery Vehicles when you are distributed dozens or scores of miles from each other. This is perhaps the #1 reason the senior Russian armored officers dislike T-14 Armata -- low unit autonomy compared to T-72 or T-90s.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9773
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 23 Oct 2020 21:38

https://twitter.com/strategic_front/sta ... 56131?s=20 ---> CVRDE has developed the MUNTRA family of UGVs using the BMP-II as a base vehicle. The project is meant to be a tech demonstrator for future UGVs. CVRDE plans to make an unmanned version of the NAMICA, which is also based on the BMP-II. A BMP-II based UGCV that has been proposed.

Image

Image

Image

Image

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4042
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby nam » 23 Oct 2020 23:51

If we have tested Muntra with UGV tech, we are better off creating a unmanned light tank with 120/125MM gun.

The protection level's won't matter and we can keep it really light.

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 1177
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby shaun » 11 Nov 2020 06:57

https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense_news_october_2020_global_security_army_industry/indian_army_awards_oshocorp_contract_for_t-72_and_t-90_tank_apu.html

Indian Army awards OshoCorp contract for T-72 and T-90 tank APU

OshoCorp Global is selected by the Indian Army after nearly four years of selection process for development & supply of Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) under Make II guidelines of Ministry of Defence, Government of India, and project sanction order is issued to OshoCorp, ESDPA reports.

Ashutosh Khate, CEO of OshoCorp Global, explained that T-72M1Ajeya and T-90S Bhishma Tanks are the mainstay of the Indian armored forces. The Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) is an alternate source of power for the Fire Control System of the Tank and ancillaries, to cater for power requirements, while deployed in surveillance mode during a lull in battle, and during training, with a view to conserve the life of main engine of the Tank.

Initially, the competitors were required to develop four APUs (two each for T-90 and T-72 tanks) for trial . The project will help India to become self-reliant in APU manufacturing technology for tanks.

Col. PK Juneja, Head of Special Projects at Osho, said that the present contract has a huge potential to generate future domestic and export business which can be many times more than the current procurement of APUs requirement, keeping in mind the present inventory of T-72M1, T-90S, Arjun tanks and BMPs deployed by the ndian armed forces and expected new tank supplies in the coming years. In the export market, the countries using Russian-made T-72 and T-90 tanks can benefit from India’s development of APUs.

OshoCorp Global Pvt Ltd is a DIPP certified Defence & Aerospace StartUp with ISO 9001:2015 certification, having NCAGE No. 1691Y (NATO). OshoCorp is in receipt of multiple Defence Industrial License’s (DIL) from the Government of India for manufacturing Restricted & Sensitive Defence Systems, Weapon platforms & Ammunitions including Auxiliary Power Units (APU) & Environmental control units (ECU) for Tanks.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19836
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 11 Nov 2020 11:06

Question is what experience do they have of making these items?

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8308
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Pratyush » 11 Nov 2020 12:07

I have visited the company site and they have not listed any of the products that they are in business of. Nor have they listed the production facilities where they can produce the orders.

csaurabh
BRFite
Posts: 842
Joined: 07 Apr 2008 15:07

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby csaurabh » 11 Nov 2020 14:00

There are many companies which are sort of a backdoor for global companies . They will be 'making in India' (ie assembly technology) under the guise of 'collaboration' with a foreign company. I think we need to watch out for it. That said, I don't know the details of this case.

Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3609
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Paul » 11 Nov 2020 16:02

Their contact email address listed on website is a yahoo address.

This contract must be a coup for them.

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 1177
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby shaun » 11 Nov 2020 16:47

They are listed as Traders ..bagged some order for CBRN Individual Protection Equipmentand and supplied to BEL and other PSUs . They got order for APU based on Defence Procurement Procedure‘s industry-funded ‘Make II‘ category,

“Initially, we are required to develop four APUs – two each for the T-72 and T-90 tanks – for trials. Once approved, we have to subsequently produce 3,257 APUs for both the battle tanks,” Khate said.

Regarding Make-II category http://makeinindiadefence.gov.in/admin/writereaddata/upload/Make_-II_Procedure_final.pdf

A new sub-category‘Make-II (Industry Funded)’ was introduced under this procedure with primarily focus upon development of equipment/system/platform or their upgrades or their subsystems/sub-assembly/assemblies/components with focus on import substitution. In this
subcategory, no Government funding is envisaged for prototype development purposes but has assurance of orders on successful development and trials of the prototype.

The ‘Make-II’ procedure, outlined in this chapter, seeks to address the objectives of wider participation of Indian industry, impetus for MSME/start-ups sector, simplified implementation, and timely induction of equipment into Indian Armed Forces.


Ashokk
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Ashokk » 15 Nov 2020 01:40


Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21046
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Philip » 15 Nov 2020 23:42

https://www.defenceaviationpost.com/2020/11/why-india-desperately-needs-the-russian-aquatic-tank-killer-the-sprut-against-china/

Reasons why we need the Sprut in the interim until a desi LT surfaces.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2480
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Vivek K » 16 Nov 2020 01:59

Question comrade - can a desi solution emerge if a Roosi import is brought in? Or should this urgency be used to develop a quick Indian solution and press it into service. Do we value Indian jobs?

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8308
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Pratyush » 16 Nov 2020 11:59

Vivek K wrote:Question comrade - can a desi solution emerge if a Roosi import is brought in? Or should this urgency be used to develop a quick Indian solution and press it into service. Do we value Indian jobs?


Do you seriously expect an answer??

In a seperate note, I don't really understand this focus on light tank.


I think that a light vehicle with a modern ATGM will be better. Get 10 thousand of these things and any tank force can be beaten.

Cyrano
BRFite
Posts: 694
Joined: 28 Mar 2020 01:07

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Cyrano » 16 Nov 2020 15:43

Nice report but very high-level. Would have been nice to see production stages, testing etc. From the images, Avadi factory looks determined to remain in the 60s in terms of shop floor organisation and layout. It appeared as if there were no separate production lines for each type and each tank was made ground-up like an aircraft, perhaps thats normal for tanks. Dust and rust seem everywhere. Not sure precision systems, modern electronics & optical systems like that.

Can anyone who visited Avadi share their on the ground impressions?

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5206
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby jamwal » 16 Nov 2020 17:13

:rotfl:

Are fanbois of Sprut like that trash defenceaviationpost.com (which copied it from even stinkier trash eurasiantimes) asking for it's induction because of it's water fording capability?

Where do you see water bodies on Indo-Tibet border where this feature can be utilised? Do you expect to raid Chinese positions by sending these tanks in a single Pangong Tso lake sector or fast flowing mountain streams like Shyok?

Assuming the Russians have catered for problems related to cold weather, have they solved issues that plague vehicles at high altitude? Even OFB had manufactured a BMP based light tank fitted with 105mm gun in 2011. If it's weight is it's selling point, then why not use OFB product instead of importing yet another piece of Russian trash which even their own military has refused to induct pending improvements?

Even if orders are placed today, when do you expect deliveries to start and completed considering that it's Russians we are dealing with? 3 months, 3 years ? 5, 6? They can't be trusted to follow even signed contracts in peace time and fanbois are asking for this purchase as emergency purchase.

Then how do you expect to train troops to use these machines optimally? Just call in some from existing formations which use T-series tanks and expect them to fight a war? Indian army wouldn't induct Arjun citing it's heavy weight and problem of creating yet another chain of logistics for a new machine. Yet they'll magically find resources and will for Sprut. Do these people even think beyond looking at pictures and reading 2 line tweets before posting here?

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8096
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby nachiket » 17 Nov 2020 10:00

^^And keep in mind that there are *still* no orders for the NAMICA which is a light vehicle with a fire and forget anti-tank capability. To describe our procurement situation as pathetic would be a euphemism at this point.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5206
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby jamwal » 17 Nov 2020 16:18

https://twitter.com/ReviewVayu/status/1 ... 5021830146
JUST IN

Indian Army awards Rs 2300 Crore to OshoCorp Global Pvt Ltd for 125mm APFSDS tank ammunition

"Initially we will develop upto 250 rounds each for T-72, T-90 tank platforms for trial and approval, subsequently produce 85,000 rounds of ammunition".


This OshoCorp seems a strange company to say the least.
Main website has multiple sections of which following are active:

http://vsalute.com/
"vSalute" is a Weapons and Ammunition division of OshoCorp Global Pvt. Ltd.

http://www.oshodefence.com/
OSHODEFENCE IS LAND SYSTEMS DIVISION OF OSHOCORP GLOBAL PVT. LTD.
OshoCorp Global Pvt Ltd is a premier Indian Defence company providing security solutions to improve sustainability and self-reliance of the Indian Armed Forces. As a reliable partner, OshoCorp supports their client base with pioneering conceptual Defence solutions.

Lists http://cbrnesolution.com/ as a related company
CBRNe Solution is a premier defence company in the country. It is an affiliation of CBRNe (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, Explosive) domain expert professionals who are available to support you and be part of your organisation’s team. Our team of elite experts consists of members from a Defence, Homeland Security or Emergency Response background and have vast experience in delivering CBRNe solutions to the Military, Government agencies and Corporate / Industrial organisations.

http://vcamouflage.com/
OshoCorp Global is a premier defence company in India, providing security solutions to improve survivability of armed forces. Our range of equipment includes:
Synthetic Camouflage Nets (SCN)
Multi-spectral camouflage nets (MSCN)
Multi-spectral Personnel Camouflage Equipment (MSPCE)
Multispectral mobile camouflage System (MMCS)
Anti IR Paint for mobile & static assets
Inflatable Decoy



MD of OshsoCorp seems to be this man Ashutosh Khate who is also CEO of cbrnesolution
https://in.linkedin.com/in/ashutosh-khate-ba935628

All except a handful of pictures are screenshots of video games, generic stock images and pictures of foreign defence forces.
Yet they claim to be manufacturer of pistols, grenade launchers, rifles, sights, ammunition and a lot more. Yet all images are CGI or foreign weapon systems. Section for missiles is empty though :lol:
Single company manfacturing so much, yet not one person I know has heard a thing about them. Even the office location is kind of shady.

Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3043
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Vips » 17 Nov 2020 20:08

Now that Oshocorp has bagged some big contracts it will be interesting to see who is going to acquire it - Kalyani or Adani or Mahindra or TATA or some other big player.

Another future buy/takeover target will be Eastern Explosives/Solar Industries.

ashishvikas
BRFite
Posts: 560
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ashishvikas » 17 Nov 2020 23:50

jamwal wrote:https://twitter.com/ReviewVayu/status/1328573455021830146
JUST IN

Indian Army awards Rs 2300 Crore to OshoCorp Global Pvt Ltd for 125mm APFSDS tank ammunition

"Initially we will develop upto 250 rounds each for T-72, T-90 tank platforms for trial and approval, subsequently produce 85,000 rounds of ammunition".


This OshoCorp seems a strange company to say the least.


https://twitter.com/iyermkk/status/1328 ... 53410?s=19

First such an order has not been awarded. This is a Make 2 pgme and few firms have been shortlisted. The firm mentioned here is also probably in the list like others. All have to make 500 rounds and trials done. Then L1 process. Reporting is partial

Yes Sir, seems like it.
https://twitter.com/ReviewVayu/status/1 ... 67493?s=19


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BALAR025, Devendra, Rakesh, uskumar and 76 guests