Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - 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: 1551
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 13 Jul 2020 18:03

srin wrote:If I look at the different usecases, there is COIN, mechanized infantry, regular/plains infantry and mountain infantry.

And here are my hypothesis:
- For COIN, where you need a round to punch through body armour of insurgents but at close range, an AK203 would be ok.--AGREE
- For mechanized infantry, where the soldier can be resupplied from the IFV, and engagements could be at long ranges, a full power 7.62x51 round is needed. So, Sig 716 or alternatives. --I AGREE WITH YOU ON THE FACT THAT MECH CAN ALSO GO WITH 7.62 HOWEVER I DISAGREE WITH YOUR LOGIC AROUND RESUPPLY. THE INTERIOR OF A BMP PROBABLY DOES NOT LEAVE MUCH ROOM FOR CASES OF AMMO. HOWEVER I CALLED OUT THE MECH INF BECAUSE OF PERCEIVED WEIGHT ISSUES BETWEEN THE SIG AND THE CARACAL. I WOULD GO WITH THE CARACAL BECAUSE IF THAT IS GOING TO BE THE CARBINE THEN I PRESUME THAT WILL ALSO BECOME THE WEAPON ISSUED TO SUPPORTING ARMS LIKE THE ARMR / ENG / ETC. THEN LOGISTICS BECOMES EASIER.
- For mountain or regular infantry, where carrying very heavy rounds could be a problem, either the 5.56x45 or 7.262x39. Since we are looking a humongous 700K AK203s, I presume that we'd just retire the 5.56x45.THIS SHOULD BE 7.62x51 AS WELL OR 5.56 caracal. JUST MAKES LOGISTICS EASIER.

-

Either way the IA has made a meal of it.

Rs_singh
BRFite
Posts: 201
Joined: 21 Jun 2020 23:16

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby Rs_singh » 13 Jul 2020 19:48

Ks_sachin and srin,

On ak203 AND 716 debate - it makes zero operational sense. Myriad of technical reasons can be thought of to justify fancy purchases. Engagement envelope in both CT ops and conventional ops can be adequately met with either/or. Oh the gravy train! You must be so good!

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1551
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 13 Jul 2020 20:38

Rs_singh wrote:Ks_sachin and srin,

On ak203 AND 716 debate - it makes zero operational sense. Myriad of technical reasons can be thought of to justify fancy purchases. Engagement envelope in both CT ops and conventional ops can be adequately met with either/or. Oh the gravy train! You must be so good!


Sir,

I am just trying to reverse engineer some logic into a bizarre decision......

I would not be surprised if the Sig ends up in the hands of the ASC boys!!!!

Rs_singh
BRFite
Posts: 201
Joined: 21 Jun 2020 23:16

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby Rs_singh » 13 Jul 2020 20:44

Good ole Army “supply” corps haha

I’ll do you one better - MES

Also no sir for me please!

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8103
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby nachiket » 14 Jul 2020 01:57

sankum wrote:For 400 Battalions it will come to 360 sig rifles per Battalion or 90 rifles per company.
Rest weapons will be 11 Negev LMG and 35 Caracal Carbines per company of 136 men. The full infantry will be equipped with state of art weapons.

What is the breakdown in number of troops per Battalion? 4 coys of 136 men is 544 troops. I thought IA battalions were around 800 men. Rest are support troops?

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 946
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby sankum » 14 Jul 2020 02:06

35 year old ncc booklet.
136*4+44 ghatak =588 soldiers
Plus mmg section+ medium motor section and other support troops .Total more than 900 men. Just recollecting memory.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54825
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 14 Jul 2020 07:16

sankum wrote:35 year old ncc booklet.
136*4+44 ghatak =588 soldiers
Plus mmg section+ medium motor section and other support troops .Total more than 900 men. Just recollecting memory.



Correct. I too recall 900 in a batallion.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54825
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 14 Jul 2020 07:23

Khalsa wrote:I am so happy for this to happen (Sig purchase). This should hopefully kill the AK 203 JV.
I just hope we have a clear desi rifle contender like the Light Utility Helicopter against the the Russian JV.



I think muh me ghee shakkar.

The way Russians are negotiating in bad faith, the AK-203 will be a non-starter.
The RFI rifle has been adopted by MHA after trials.

144K Sig Sauer works out to be enough for 144000/336 ~400battalions.

Plenty of reserves.

Also Sig Saur kills from a distance. No need for CQB.
Makes the AK-47 redundant.



No need for more haggling.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4008
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby deejay » 14 Jul 2020 14:19

sankum wrote:35 year old ncc booklet.
136*4+44 ghatak =588 soldiers
Plus mmg section+ medium motor section and other support troops .Total more than 900 men. Just recollecting memory.


An Army veteran read these discussions and sent me a message to post his comments here. This not a response to Sankum Ji's post but I have quoted that to keep it as a reference point

Army Veteran wrote: Infantry Battalion has roughly 900 troops and 700 are authorised a rifle each. Rest are authorised carbines., There are no "support troops" in infantry battalions as such, except the pioneer platoon and a handful of cooks etc. In action all of them have been known to use weapons. 40 LMGs authorised in mountains and 75 or so in plains.


Army veteran further wrote: 66,000 Sig Sauer ordered in first batch. Say 2000 kept for training in regimental centers and IMA/ OTA / NDA. Rest 64,000 will be issued to battalions of Northern Command @700 per battalion about 90 battalions will be equipped. That's roughly 10 Divisions. So entire Northern Command. Next batch of 72,000 will equip Eastern Command - 100 battalion plus. Total infantry battalions are 360 odd. Of these, I think 190 will be equipped with Sig Sauers. 60 odd RR battalions will retain their AKs. The plans for balance 170 infantry battalions + 50 Mech are not known. Let's see. But this was a great decision - quick and cheap.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19840
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby Karan M » 14 Jul 2020 14:38

At an estimated $200 Mn for the 144K rifles deal, its indeed a fraction of what we spend on fancier items. I hope ammunition can be sourced from beyond the pathetic OFB combine and we look at SSS Defence or Hughes Precision.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1551
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 14 Jul 2020 15:44

deejay wrote:
sankum wrote:35 year old ncc booklet.
136*4+44 ghatak =588 soldiers
Plus mmg section+ medium motor section and other support troops .Total more than 900 men. Just recollecting memory.


An Army veteran read these discussions and sent me a message to post his comments here. This not a response to Sankum Ji's post but I have quoted that to keep it as a reference point

Army Veteran wrote: Infantry Battalion has roughly 900 troops and 700 are authorised a rifle each. Rest are authorised carbines., There are no "support troops" in infantry battalions as such, except the pioneer platoon and a handful of cooks etc. In action all of them have been known to use weapons. 40 LMGs authorised in mountains and 75 or so in plains.


Army veteran further wrote: 66,000 Sig Sauer ordered in first batch. Say 2000 kept for training in regimental centers and IMA/ OTA / NDA. Rest 64,000 will be issued to battalions of Northern Command @700 per battalion about 90 battalions will be equipped. That's roughly 10 Divisions. So entire Northern Command. Next batch of 72,000 will equip Eastern Command - 100 battalion plus. Total infantry battalions are 360 odd. Of these, I think 190 will be equipped with Sig Sauers. 60 odd RR battalions will retain their AKs. The plans for balance 170 infantry battalions + 50 Mech are not known. Let's see. But this was a great decision - quick and cheap.


deejay Sir that makes sense all of a sudden. Thank your veteran friend. Please do invite him to visit these August pages.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2734
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby darshhan » 14 Jul 2020 16:25

Karan M wrote:At an estimated $200 Mn for the 144K rifles deal, its indeed a fraction of what we spend on fancier items. I hope ammunition can be sourced from beyond the pathetic OFB combine and we look at SSS Defence or Hughes Precision.


As if sss defence is reading your mind. This is their recent tweet.


SSS Defence
@sssdefence
·
5h
Our collab. with leading manufacturers in small & medium caliber #ammunition. CBC Global Ammunition produce around 1.5 billion rounds a year, and are the leading suppliers to #NATO. The SSCBC collab is excited to serve the nation #MakeInIndia #AtmaNirbharBharat #SelfReliance


But I doubt if the procurement guys in MOD and military are even listening.

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2444
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby Manish_P » 14 Jul 2020 17:32

^ which maybe a blessing in disguise in these challenging times, if the recent experience of Tonbo Imaging is anything to go by


by pandyan » 28 Jun 2020 19:51
https://twitter.com/TonboImaging/status ... 5160370177

two issues: defaulting on payments owed to tonbo and mass cancellation of contracts

"With mass cancellations of key defence procurements, @PMO
india's call for #AatmaNirbharBharat isn't quite starting in the govt corridors. Here's our urgent plea and open letter to @narendramodi
@HMOIndia @DefenceMinIndia @SpokespersonMoD @NorthernComd_IA @makeinindia @minmsme"



and


by csaurabh » 28 Jun 2020 23:08

Let me give you guys some perspective on the so called attempts to build domestic military industrial complex in India that I witnessed first hand.

A year back, we were finalists in the first IDEX (innovations for defense excellence ) startup challenge. Our product was good. We had a good potential for making a niche indigenous technology and were asking for a very small sum. However, it wasn't exactly what the army wanted. Hence we were not selected. (At least this is what I think happened, as they never deigned to actually tell us why we were not selected and entertained no questions ).

At that time, I was unhappy about this turn of events. However I did meet many of the companies there (including Tonbo ) and have kept in touch with some of them who were actually selected.

After the lapse of one year I will gladly admit that I am hugely relieved that we were not selected and tangled up with this stuff. As I had suspected at that time (and can confirm now ), we were indeed being set up to fail. Those who were selected, after a ton of bureaucratic procedures were handed a mere 10% of the money promised as the 'first installment' for developing the product, and the second installment was never approved to my knowledge. What do they care about whether the product is developed or not? Doesn't seem like they do.

As for our company we have now steered clear of defense industry and concentrated our efforts to space sector and civilian manufacturing.

Rsatchi
BRFite
Posts: 892
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 22:03

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby Rsatchi » 14 Jul 2020 17:49

deejay wrote:
sankum wrote:35 year old ncc booklet.
136*4+44 ghatak =588 soldiers
Plus mmg section+ medium motor section and other support troops .Total more than 900 men. Just recollecting memory.


An Army veteran read these discussions and sent me a message to post his comments here. This not a response to Sankum Ji's post but I have quoted that to keep it as a reference point

Army Veteran wrote: Infantry Battalion has roughly 900 troops and 700 are authorised a rifle each. Rest are authorised carbines., There are no "support troops" in infantry battalions as such, except the pioneer platoon and a handful of cooks etc. In action all of them have been known to use weapons. 40 LMGs authorised in mountains and 75 or so in plains.


Army veteran further wrote: 66,000 Sig Sauer ordered in first batch. Say 2000 kept for training in regimental centers and IMA/ OTA / NDA. Rest 64,000 will be issued to battalions of Northern Command @700 per battalion about 90 battalions will be equipped. That's roughly 10 Divisions. So entire Northern Command. Next batch of 72,000 will equip Eastern Command - 100 battalion plus. Total infantry battalions are 360 odd. Of these, I think 190 will be equipped with Sig Sauers. 60 odd RR battalions will retain their AKs. The plans for balance 170 infantry battalions + 50 Mech are not known. Let's see. But this was a great decision - quick and cheap.

Deejayji
A noob pooch : can the rest of the commands not be equipped with the same if cost-saving and be done with it??

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1551
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 14 Jul 2020 18:11

darshhan wrote:
Karan M wrote:At an estimated $200 Mn for the 144K rifles deal, its indeed a fraction of what we spend on fancier items. I hope ammunition can be sourced from beyond the pathetic OFB combine and we look at SSS Defence or Hughes Precision.


As if sss defence is reading your mind. This is their recent tweet.


SSS Defence
@sssdefence
·
5h
Our collab. with leading manufacturers in small & medium caliber #ammunition. CBC Global Ammunition produce around 1.5 billion rounds a year, and are the leading suppliers to #NATO. The SSCBC collab is excited to serve the nation #MakeInIndia #AtmaNirbharBharat #SelfReliance


But I doubt if the procurement guys in MOD and military are even listening.


I don't think this is a procurement issue from the Army Head quarters.
MoD and others have to facilitate the breaking of the OFB stranglehold.

You remember when Kalyani wanted access to ranges to test their guns. The army was okay but MoD rapped some in AHQ on the knuckles!!

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1551
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 14 Jul 2020 18:16

Rsatchi wrote:
deejay wrote:
An Army veteran read these discussions and sent me a message to post his comments here. This not a response to Sankum Ji's post but I have quoted that to keep it as a reference point




Deejayji
A noob pooch : can the rest of the commands not be equipped with the same if cost-saving and be done with it??


Rsatchi I think that will happen. The army would love a free hand in spending the money but there are a number of conflicting priorities no.
After this crisis, our troops will be permanently forward-deployed across the Chinese border. I much rather Army HEad Quarter spend money on proper clothing and winter equipment for them than rush to equip inf battalions in SW / S / C commands where there is little threat.
Northern and Eastern Commands are in the hot seat.

kvraghav
BRFite
Posts: 968
Joined: 17 Apr 2008 11:47
Location: Some where near the equator

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby kvraghav » 14 Jul 2020 18:23

I don't think this is a procurement issue from the Army Head quarters.
MoD and others have to facilitate the breaking of the OFB stranglehold.

You remember when Kalyani wanted access to ranges to test their guns. The army was okay but MoD rapped some in AHQ on the knuckles!!


Are you sure about the MOD rapping some people in AHQ because it was mostly reported that the Army is not providing the range? I think Army and the MOD both have equal share of blame because when it comes to going for an all imported assault rifles for the soldiers, both seems to be breaking the strong hold of OFB very well.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1551
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 14 Jul 2020 21:11

kvraghav wrote:
I don't think this is a procurement issue from the Army Head quarters.
MoD and others have to facilitate the breaking of the OFB stranglehold.

You remember when Kalyani wanted access to ranges to test their guns. The army was okay but MoD rapped some in AHQ on the knuckles!!


Are you sure about the MOD rapping some people in AHQ because it was mostly reported that the Army is not providing the range? I think Army and the MOD both have equal share of blame because when it comes to going for an all imported assault rifles for the soldiers, both seems to be breaking the strong hold of OFB very well.

I heard different but then who am I.
See the privatisation of some of the defence production sits with MoD.
Perhaps if the MoD after repeated complaints by the forces had given the INSAS to a private party to produce things could have improved iteratively.
It is easier to import for the Army than to fight the OFB perhaps. Who knows....All I know is that until we fix our Mil Ind complex we will be remain reactive and increase the post count in BR on the same thing over and over again...

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4057
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby nam » 14 Jul 2020 21:24

A PSU whose sole customer is it's boss, cannot be broken.

There are ways where OFB's share can be reduced. But MoD will not do it. MoD babus will ask the OFB guys to strike, ask their pet reporters in media to blow up the issue and politicians are forced to stop any such steps.

srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2033
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby srin » 14 Jul 2020 21:49

The same OFB that made INSAS is also going to make AK203, no ? How will it be different - will they get QA from Russia ?

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1551
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 15 Jul 2020 00:44

srin wrote:The same OFB that made INSAS is also going to make AK203, no ? How will it be different - will they get QA from Russia ?

The Russians will specify the mettalurgy and perhaps even provide the Tooling for MFG.
We did not do too bad with the manufacture of the FNSLR etc.

MeshaVishwas
BRFite
Posts: 564
Joined: 16 Feb 2019 17:20

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby MeshaVishwas » 15 Jul 2020 01:04

New ballistic helmets for the Army-Sandeep Unnithan
On June 23, the army’s Infantry Directorate kicked off the process by issuing a Request for Information (RFI) on Indian and global helmet manufacturers. The directorate also conducted a preliminary meeting with a handful of helmet manufacturers in New Delhi on July 13. The Request for Proposals will be issued in February next year. The budget for the procurement is not known but assuming each helmet costs Rs 50,000, the army could be looking at a Rs 500 crore order. The new helmets will replace the ‘bulletproof patka’ that has been in service since the 1990s and the stopgap helmet supplied by the Kanpur-based MKU in 2018.
.
.
.
When the army was inducted to fight the insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir in the early 1990s, its soldiers were equipped with the Model 1974 fibreglass helmets, which offered inadequate protection against bullets and splinters. An improvised low-cost solution, the ‘bulletproof patka’ helmet was designed by Major General V.K. Datta in the early 1990s,(Great Trivia!) and is still the standard issue in counterinsurgency operations. It is a circular sheet of armoured steel wrapped in canvas. While it protected the soldier from the bullet itself, it was less successful in protecting the wearer from the trauma of the bullet’s impact. Additionally, bullets ricocheting from the helmet could also injure soldiers standing near the wearer.

In 2018, the army placed a Rs 170-crore order for 158,000 helmets from Kanpur-based firm MKU. The helmets were, however, found to offer inadequate protection against the AK-47 bullets commonly used by militants. :shock: A stop-gap AK-47 protector—a modular ceramic add-on plate produced and designed by another manufacturer—was then issued to troops.

https://www.indiatoday.in/india-today-i ... 2020-07-14
That explains why no additional orders for the MKU Mukut.
[Although I remember reading that the requirement was limited to protection against 9mm direct fire from a close distance, when the orders were given]

MeshaVishwas
BRFite
Posts: 564
Joined: 16 Feb 2019 17:20

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby MeshaVishwas » 15 Jul 2020 01:12

Shook Law from 2015 gives us the PoV of MKU
MKU's first substantial army order is impending: a Rs 300 crore contract for 158,000 helmets. In trials concluded last year, MKU's helmet was the only one to pass every test, says Gupta. A key problem that MKU faces is that Indian government buyers do not frame requirements precisely. Tenders usually demand either Level-III protection (against nine millimetre bullets) or Level IV protection (against a 7.62 millimetre armour piercing rifle bullet). However the Terminal Ballistics Research Laboratory, Chandigarh finds that the same Ordnance Factory ammunition has a velocity varying from 345 metres per second, to 790 metres per second. "With such a divergence, how can we offer a tailored product? The army would get the product it wants if it specifies precisely the velocity of the bullet it wants to protect against," says Gupta.

https://www.business-standard.com/artic ... 016_1.html

Shook Law from 2017
Fifteen years and hundreds of dead soldiers later, the army last month finally signed a Rs 175 crore contract for 158,000 ballistic helmets. Had Govind been wearing one of these Rs 10,000 helmets, he would probably be alive today.

Unlike the bulletproof patka, the ballistic helmet covers the sides and rear of a soldier’s head, and the upper part of his forehead. It is built to US specification NIJ 40, which means it can withstand the impact of a 9 millimetre (mm) pistol or carbine bullet from close range and a 5.56 mm rifle bullet from further. It also protects soldiers’ heads from flying shrapnel from grenades and artillery shells.

Supplying this first batch of ballistic helmets for regular soldiers (a small number were bought earlier for Special Forces) will be Kanpur-based firm, MKU. The company has supplied 200,000 ballistic helmets to foreign armies, but has only now been selected to protect the Indian Army.

The contract is for about 100,000 ballistic helmets weighing 1.3 kilogrammes, and some 50,000 helmets for commanders, with integrated radio headphones. Delivery must be completed within three years, i.e. December 2019.

https://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2017/01 ... lmets.html
So they are Level 3 Ballistic Helmets!

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2734
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby darshhan » 15 Jul 2020 01:43

ks_sachin wrote:
srin wrote:The same OFB that made INSAS is also going to make AK203, no ? How will it be different - will they get QA from Russia ?

The Russians will specify the mettalurgy and perhaps even provide the Tooling for MFG.
We did not do too bad with the manufacture of the FNSLR etc.



Exactly. But the question is what exactly AK 203 brings to the table that TAR and Ghatak assault rifles don't? And if the answer is nothing substantial then the next question is for how long do we keep on paying protection money to foreign countries because that is what this is.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1551
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 15 Jul 2020 04:27

darshhan wrote:
ks_sachin wrote:The Russians will specify the mettalurgy and perhaps even provide the Tooling for MFG.
We did not do too bad with the manufacture of the FNSLR etc.



Exactly. But the question is what exactly AK 203 brings to the table that TAR and Ghatak assault rifles don't? And if the answer is nothing substantial then the next question is for how long do we keep on paying protection money to foreign countries because that is what this is.

Build quality hopefully...
We will keep on paying till our Mil-Ind complex shapes up. This is one area Modi sarkar has not shown me anything...

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54825
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 15 Jul 2020 05:17

Deejay, Thank the veteran for his information. I asked a veteran on twitter and he got hot under collar. I didn't have the NCC handbook of younger days!

Rsatchi eventually all except RR willhave the Sig Sig Sauer 716. Makes sense. I dont see the rationale for the AK-203 and the Russians blew it thinking they can extort at this time.

Also note RFI, OFB cleared trials for MHA and they ordered for CAPF in batches.

If I were to advise I would just buy two more tranches and restore the combat ability to full 7.62x51 mm.

And stop the nightmare of three bullet types.

Before ordering I believe they checked OFB still is making the 7.62x51 mm bullet in large quantities. So no ne imports or vendors.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54825
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 15 Jul 2020 05:19

MeshaVishwas wrote:New ballistic helmets for the Army-Sandeep Unnithan
On June 23, the army’s Infantry Directorate kicked off the process by issuing a Request for Information (RFI) on Indian and global helmet manufacturers. The directorate also conducted a preliminary meeting with a handful of helmet manufacturers in New Delhi on July 13. The Request for Proposals will be issued in February next year. The budget for the procurement is not known but assuming each helmet costs Rs 50,000, the army could be looking at a Rs 500 crore order. The new helmets will replace the ‘bulletproof patka’ that has been in service since the 1990s and the stopgap helmet supplied by the Kanpur-based MKU in 2018.
.
.
.
When the army was inducted to fight the insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir in the early 1990s, its soldiers were equipped with the Model 1974 fibreglass helmets, which offered inadequate protection against bullets and splinters. An improvised low-cost solution, the ‘bulletproof patka’ helmet was designed by Major General V.K. Datta in the early 1990s,(Great Trivia!) and is still the standard issue in counterinsurgency operations. It is a circular sheet of armoured steel wrapped in canvas. While it protected the soldier from the bullet itself, it was less successful in protecting the wearer from the trauma of the bullet’s impact. Additionally, bullets ricocheting from the helmet could also injure soldiers standing near the wearer.

In 2018, the army placed a Rs 170-crore order for 158,000 helmets from Kanpur-based firm MKU. The helmets were, however, found to offer inadequate protection against the AK-47 bullets commonly used by militants. :shock: A stop-gap AK-47 protector—a modular ceramic add-on plate produced and designed by another manufacturer—was then issued to troops.

https://www.indiatoday.in/india-today-i ... 2020-07-14
That explains why no additional orders for the MKU Mukut.
[Although I remember reading that the requirement was limited to protection against 9mm direct fire from a close distance, when the orders were given]


So despite knowing jihadis are using AK-47 they ordered inadequate Level III helmets.

Mujhe mund chahiye of the persons responsible for this.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1739
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby Thakur_B » 15 Jul 2020 07:33

ramana wrote:
MeshaVishwas wrote:New ballistic helmets for the Army-Sandeep Unnithan

https://www.indiatoday.in/india-today-i ... 2020-07-14
That explains why no additional orders for the MKU Mukut.
[Although I remember reading that the requirement was limited to protection against 9mm direct fire from a close distance, when the orders were given]


So despite knowing jihadis are using AK-47 they ordered inadequate Level III helmets.

Mujhe mund chahiye of the persons responsible for this.


Ramanna ji, nobody is using level III helmets. The helmets procured are Level IIIA which are rated for handgun fire.

The safety offered by Patka would be missed by soldiers, for it is the only helmet solution which offered level III protection.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9813
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 15 Jul 2020 07:56

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/128 ... 78529?s=20 ----> So, another emergency import is on the way. This time it is going to be a second tranche of some 72,400 SiG_Sauer 716 (American) assault rifles (7.62 x 51mm).

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1551
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 15 Jul 2020 08:15

Rakesh wrote:https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1282339354573078529?s=20 ----> So, another emergency import is on the way. This time it is going to be a second tranche of some 72,400 SiG_Sauer 716 (American) assault rifles (7.62 x 51mm).


Good. And there should be a follow order of another 100,000 so that all the infantry bns are covered.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1739
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby Thakur_B » 15 Jul 2020 11:28

Sig 716 is good buy. Coupled with optics they will make a huge impact in single shot kill probability. Ammunition is also not an issue because ofb has been making it for 60 years now.

IA should look into AK308 to standardise the ammunition, and fulfill carbine order with ARDE carbine.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54825
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 15 Jul 2020 11:48

Good assessment.
What's AK 308 for?

Russians blew it.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54825
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 15 Jul 2020 11:56

Thakur, Tell me what's going on with the helmet? The 2015 report says price for 158000 helmets is 300 crores. In 2018 the price is 170 crores for same 158000 helmets.

Was there a quality difference that led to price reduction?

Why would MoD order helmets with Level 3A for handgun protection despite knowing jihadis have AK-47s since 1988?

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1739
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby Thakur_B » 15 Jul 2020 13:37

Ramanna ji, no country has fielded level III helmets so far and the feasibility of same in near future is also low. From what I can understand, Army is looking for basically level IIIA helmets with options for ceramic inserts, sort of like a modern Patka.

10/10 for vision. 2/10 for the pipedream chronic bronchitis.

As far as cost of helmets is concerned, there is bound to be economy of scale kicking in now with Army and CAPFs kitting up.

As far as AK308 is concerned, it is good enough for rear echelon troops. Helps cut down on ammunition circus and Russians would be more than happy to make it in India. It's got the improvements of AK12 series. Gives a good alternative to DI SiGs.

Chinmay
BRFite
Posts: 222
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 07:25

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby Chinmay » 15 Jul 2020 20:39

Army wants 360000 carbines

Significantly, the army appears to be trying to control damage after a handful of irritated vendors either stayed away from the earlier contest for 93,895 carbines or walked out. The army has declared now that it has extended the search to ‘ensure maximum participation’ in the new contest for 360,000 carbines. Last year, U.S. firm Colt and Italian firm Beretta walked out mid-way from the contest that was finally won by Caracal. Other prominent weapon makers like Belgium’s FN Herstal and Germany’s Heckler & Koch didn’t even bother to enter the contest in the first place, owing mostly to the notoriously whimsical, ad hoc and unpredictable manner in which the Indian MoD has so far acquired firearms for the army.


Acquisition of basic firearms like carbines have been beset with troubles at every step. Even the imminent deal for 93,895 carbines with Caracal stands on something of a razor’s edge in the face of a formal protest by Thales, which has contested the result, and a protest by Korea’s S&T Motiv on charges that it was wrongly declared non-compliant in the contest. The contest, if it finally results in a contract soon, leaves many frayed tempers in its wake. Nominally, this wouldn’t matter to the army, which has a priority to follow due process to choose and procure weapons on a fast-track. On the other hand, the bad blood drummed up in the contest makes the army’s hope for ‘maximum participation’ a big ask. Sources told Livefist that the size of the order, as always, will be the big carrot.


Can the gurus here explain why a new tender is even necessary after selection? Why go through the delays of again evaluating contenders?

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2734
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby darshhan » 15 Jul 2020 21:12

ks_sachin wrote:
darshhan wrote:

Exactly. But the question is what exactly AK 203 brings to the table that TAR and Ghatak assault rifles don't? And if the answer is nothing substantial then the next question is for how long do we keep on paying protection money to foreign countries because that is what this is.

Build quality hopefully...
We will keep on paying till our Mil-Ind complex shapes up. This is one area Modi sarkar has not shown me anything...


Build quality? Really. We are talking about a kalashnikov version and not some "Accuracy International" sniper rifle.

souravB
BRFite
Posts: 580
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby souravB » 15 Jul 2020 21:54

ramana wrote:Why would MoD order helmets with Level 3A for handgun protection despite knowing jihadis have AK-47s since 1988?

Ramana garu, weight of the helmet is a factor. It becomes too heavy to be kept on for a long duration.

Thakur_B wrote:Gives a good alternative to DI SiGs.

Only if the mags are compatible. AFAIK it doesn't seem to be.

Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3059
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby Vips » 16 Jul 2020 01:14

Order with Caracal for 94,000 Carbines to be 'placed this week'.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1551
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 16 Jul 2020 01:36

darshhan wrote:
ks_sachin wrote:Build quality hopefully...
We will keep on paying till our Mil-Ind complex shapes up. This is one area Modi sarkar has not shown me anything...


Build quality? Really. We are talking about a kalashnikov version and not some "Accuracy International" sniper rifle.

Well we could not get the INSAS right could we?
Hopefully the AK will be an improvement

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1553
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Small Armaments & Infantry Equipment - News & Discussion

Postby Gyan » 16 Jul 2020 21:35

MeshaVishwas wrote:New ballistic helmets for the Army-Sandeep Unnithan
On June 23, the army’s Infantry Directorate kicked off the process by issuing a Request for Information (RFI) on Indian and global helmet manufacturers. The directorate also conducted a preliminary meeting with a handful of helmet manufacturers in New Delhi on July 13. The Request for Proposals will be issued in February next year. The budget for the procurement is not known but assuming each helmet costs Rs 50,000, the army could be looking at a Rs 500 crore order. The new helmets will replace the ‘bulletproof patka’ that has been in service since the 1990s and the stopgap helmet supplied by the Kanpur-based MKU in 2018.
.


MKU when ordered were state of Art. Now Ceramics for helmets is established, so protection has improved. But anyway Army is not in hurry, to issue tenders, it needs umpteen months, years


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aditya G, brar_w, milindc and 44 guests