International Military Discussion

[Austin]

So what is great about LCD and Thermal Sensors that cannot be fitted or mass produced , check out their A2A system like Pantsir/Sterlets that has EO system and LCD and its used widely where required.

It simply boils down to cost , try to buy a western system minus EO/TI , LCD and GPS and you will find a good percentage of cost is taken care by this expensive but useful electronics.

Like I said it boils down to what customer wants and demands , I do not see great LCD or EO on IA BMP-2 while you would see similar system on UAE BMP-3 , that becuase the IA might consider that as luxury where UAE might consider it as necessity.

[Marut]

Like I said it boils down to what customer wants and demands , I do not see great LCD or EO on IA BMP-2 while you would see similar system on UAE BMP-3 , that becuase the IA might consider that as luxury where UAE might consider it as necessity.

[Surya]

So what is great about LCD and Thermal Sensors that cannot be fitted or mass produced , check out their A2A system like Pantsir/Sterlets that has EO system and LCD and its used widely where required.

Putting it on a couple of systems and taking pictures for a glossy ad so that you go into raptures does not mean that they have the means to provide it in all sorts of vehicles in large numbers.

Cost will be an issue but a relative issue - compared to the cost of the whole vehicle?? and a better industrial base will get it at a lower cost and better quality too.

In other words if the cost of the electronics adds $5 million to a $8 million vehicle then it may not make sense.
But I highly doubt it would in this case.


Regarding IA considering it important

what can I say - after all they did not consider ACs to be important.

But I would consider it defintely useful to have a thermal imaging scan fed into my LCD and being able to remotely ddirect my MG and cannon fire on it.

See clips of Danish troops in afghanisthan

Of course if you are like the ruskies and consider men cannon fodder - not much can be said.

[Austin]

Putting it on a couple of systems and taking pictures for a glossy ad so that you go into raptures does not mean that they have the means to provide it in all sorts of vehicles in large numbers.

So you would consider a serial production of Pantsir with EO and LCD as some gloss pictures for PR , well I have seen cool LCD with GPS maps etc even on Tigr-M vehical doesnt say much beyond that its expensive toy.

Code: Select all

Cost will be an issue but a relative issue - compared to the cost of the whole vehicle?? and  a better industrial base will get it at a lower cost and better quality too.

Yes its a relative issue , if you add EO/LCD/GPS/Stabilised gun on a 4x4 Tigr kind of vehical then its a expensive toy , adding the same on BMP-3 would mean giving better SA and combat capabilities.

All the EO stuff are still very expensive systems and hence its not seen on all kind of vehical , EO too have their own gen.

In other words if the cost of the electronics adds $5 million to a $8 million vehicle then it may not make sense.

It may not but a $ 60 k vehical with $30 k basic EO system would not be affordable to all armies.

what can I say - after all they did not consider ACs to be important.

But I would consider it defintely useful to have a thermal imaging scan fed into my LCD and being able to remotely ddirect my MG and cannon fire on it.

I am sure Danish or NATO troops might be having cool gadgets but thats certainly what the IA thinks is unaffordable for a troop carrier.

Of course if you are like the ruskies and consider men cannon fodder - not much can be said.

Thats just crap

[Surya]

Quote:
Of course if you are like the ruskies and consider men cannon fodder - not much can be said.


Thats just crap

the crappy truth

But I would consider it defintely useful to have a thermal imaging scan fed into my LCD and being able to remotely ddirect my MG and cannon fire on it.



I am sure Danish or NATO troops might be having cool gadgets but thats certainly what the IA thinks is unaffordable for a troop carrier.

cool????


I gave you an example where you are enhancing your protection and safety - and you find that cool????

It may not but a $ 60 k vehical with $30 k basic EO system would not be affordable to all armies.

We were talking of Stykers and BMPs so they are not in the that price category

[Austin]

the crappy truth

True but for you

But I would consider it defintely useful to have a thermal imaging scan fed into my LCD and being able to remotely ddirect my MG and cannon fire on it.

Sure it would be if you can afford to have it , it boils down to $$

cool????

Yes and NATO can afford it and considering they are perpetually at war they need that more then any body else

We were talking of Stykers and BMPs so they are not in the that price category

Well you look at IA BMP and you will find that it satisfies basic needs of firepower and protection beyond then it boils down to $$$ certainly I would like to see an upgunning for BMP-2 to 57 mm gun and EO sights but thats just me , just looking at BMP-2 pictures it does have what looks like Day Sight optics not sure if it has integrated IR sight but konkurs for sandoff engagement , so its not bad deal.

Just came across one comprehensive option to upgrade the BMP-2 , should be an expensive one as well.
http://www.interarms.ru/arhiv/n1_2010/k ... vehicles1/

[Surya]

Well you look at IA BMP and you will find that it satisfies basic needs of firepower and protection

maybe BUT I have not seen any informed article on IA mech forces especially since exposure to Stryker brigades

Sure it would be if you can afford to have it , it boils down to $$

we can afford it and considering all the crap we spend money. defintely have the money to get a new line of wheeled vehicles with these devices instead of worthless T90s and having to buy expensive western sights

and also get away from BMP fixation - we are talking in generic -

somet

[Singha]

1.the BMP seems to have a basic issue at its back end. the doors to the passenger compartment are infact fuel tanks. any kind of hit and fire there will douse the occupants with burning fuel too...though diesel is not flammable as petrol, I guess explosives or incendiary round would set it alight - NATO trucks bound for af do burn nicely in Pak
2.it does not have composite armour , and no mine protection measures
3.apparently no night fighting thermals in indian service (remember the old defexpo slide about fitting new EO kit ? nothing seems to have come of it)
4.no remotely operated HMG+AGL station with high barrel elevation to take out urban threats (considering this is a much favoured means to deal with urban combat vs sending in a lumbering tank)
5.the konkurs is weak, short ranged and outdated...it can at best be considered for attacking bunkers not a suicide weapon to tag MBTs with...and its loaded manually from inside - neither is it clipped in ready use tubes like western IFVs or has a automatic loader.
6. passenger area is cramped and has no AC - how are people expected to sit in there boiling for a 10 hr march ... I guess long zipped up marches by armour columns are out of question given the lack of AC in all platforms.....another case of foot shooting.
7. no chance of fitting any BMS kit

all in all, the BMP2 is a decent piece of kit - for the 1980s...it has a proven cannon...but....its totally outdated in 2011 and even a hardcore fan will recognize that.

Rus seems to have nothing more modern to replace it with, and we continue to kill ourself by not seriously pushing local projects like Abhay.

[Singha]

imho we should develop the Abbay as our new std infantry carrier (with AC) ...use pvt industry also in parallel to churn up production rate and relegate the BMP2 to just a infantry support and bunker attack role using its cannon and atgm and use the space in the rear for carrying around supplies, water, spares, extra cannon ammo etc..install a meatier cannon if available with lots of spare ammo stashed in the back..put in some decent mine protection and move the fuel tank away from the back door.

can license a cheap version of the stryker and add in desi stuff for the wheeled side. start local work on a smaller 4 wheels scout armoured car like "ferret" of old http://www.tomtownsend-toyland.com/toyland/IMG_0446.jpg

from wiki of BMP3

The vehicle has an unconventional layout. The engine is in the back of the vehicle to the right (unlike in most other IFV which have the engine located forward in the hull). As a result the driver is seated forward in the hull (in the center) together with two infantrymen (one on each side of the driver). The vehicle has a double bottom and the engine is located under the floor of the vehicle (troops enter/leave the vehicle over the engine). In an effort to improve battlefield survivability the fuel tanks are also located in the floor of the vehicle. The remaining five infantrymen are seated aft of the two man turret.

[shiv]

1.the BMP seems to have a basic issue at its back end. the doors to the passenger compartment are infact fuel tanks. any kind of hit and fire there will douse the occupants with burning fuel too.

That was to make sure that Soviet soldiers would not turn away from the enemy and keep the front end pointed at the front line.

[Singha]

very chankian thought saar.

the BMP3 schematic indicates if the dismounting troops want to use the bulk of the vehicle for cover they need to crawl out over the engine or else open top hatches and clamber out.
http://www.hudi2.republika.pl/Bmp-3/BMP-3cut.jpg

just compare this to how the Namer IFV provides a real proper door and even a ramp for the IDF troopers to march out...protected by the beastly hide of the Merk4 class vehicle...I know I know its apple to banana comparison but still one can dream....

http://www.military-today.com/apc/temsah_l6.jpg

[Surya]

singha

i was going to mention the hump in the BMP floor which would have forced soldiers in worse position in trying to exit out

it is utter garbage of a design and the idiots who purchase it probably will never use it other than to run over their own unarmed civilians

BMP 2 was relatively good and am sure the rear fuel doors were used to make\store moonshine (as I have heard from Russians who have served in the Rodina army.

[Shrinivasan]

just compare this to how the Namer IFV provides a real proper door and even a ramp for the IDF troopers to march out...protected by the beastly hide of the Merk4 class vehicle...I know I know its apple to banana comparison but still one can dream...

Really good design, spacious, low silhouette and optimal protection but it is 60T heavy with a 1200HP engine. Mobility would be poorer than BMP, Abhay is the answer for Desh.

[Singha]

yes I agree the IDF just took it since they had the merk4 chassis line in place...its a bit high in hull (but makes for great interior room) and the absense of a turret keeps it reasonably low. compared to the M113 which they also use, its a vast improvement at all levels.

the ramp seems to be part of the door itself and folds up. likely added to ease the process of getting stretcher wounded in and out.

[Austin]

A 60T vehical as a troop carrier would be bogged down on mobility and amphibious capability , All SU/Russian troop carrier had amphibious capability requirement and hence was restricted tonnage , Israel being a small country the slow mobility and heavy weight with better protection suits them well.

[rohitvats]

Singha, on the modern AFV front, there is a competition between two consortia to come up with competing designs. IIRC, MOD is footing 80% of the R&D bill for the exercise while private players contribute the rest. IA will choose one of the deisgns. Ajay Shukla had mentioned this on his blog.

On the BMP-II front...well, we need to keep in mind that when these systems entered the service, they were the only option we had. And by subcontinent standards, BMP-II is still a very potent system and a true blue IFV..the protection level not withstanding. All the bells and whistles we talk about will come in next cycle of induction of modern AFV.

[D Roy]

When LCD screens and sensors and other gizmos are produced for millions of civilian

where exactly in the United States are LCDs produced by the millions for civilian use?

Most of bells and whistles including the chips that run them are brought in from east asia. Moscow needs to integrate itself much more with East Asian supply chains.

It's already trying to do that in fact. especially with the chinese on the defense electronics side.

[Singha]

would be better if they hooked in with the koreans and japanese rather.

the kind of displays used in military are probably not the consumer grade....in aircraft they need to clearly visible in bright sunlight which normal LCD panels do not.

[D Roy]

yes but use of COTS has been on the rise as well.

HUD is OF course a prime component and the main display(increasingly) as it were. every plane maker boasts of making more information directly available on the HUD.

[Surya]

A 60T vehical as a troop carrier would be bogged down on mobility and amphibious capability , All SU/Russian troop carrier had amphibious capability requirement and hence was restricted tonnage , Israel being a small country the slow mobility and heavy weight with better protection suits them well.

somewhat right althoguh it does keep up with the tanks it cannot dart around the battlefield

and with enough bridging equipment and the pathetic Jordan river as the only major obstacle - fording is the least concern

The Israelis I spoke to do admire the BMP for its speed - but are very confident of cutting it with a TOW.

Not one Russian ex SU soldier I have met in US or Israel would like to ride them inside - all preferred to sit on top

[Shrinivasan]

Not one Russian ex SU soldier I have met in US or Israel would like to ride them inside - all preferred to sit on top

Sitting on top of Desi BMP might not work in the charge across the desert. may be in the colder plains of Punjab... hence the need to have A/C for our future ACVs. We need to get this competition completed ASAP and get them produced in 100s in multiple sites.

[Austin]

The Israelis I spoke to do admire the BMP for its speed - but are very confident of cutting it with a TOW.

No APC in the world has armour that can withstand a ATGM , doubtful any APC can withstand a RPG-29.

Not one Russian ex SU soldier I have met in US or Israel would like to ride them inside - all preferred to sit on top

That would depend on the situation , APC is designed to protect the soldier while they fight their way , I did inquire on BTR/BMP type by some one in VDV and they are just fine vehical good for their job.

[Surya]

Almost all combat pics show them sitting on top. it is just too flimsy


You do not see it with Marders and Bradleys

As singha its now outdated

[Austin]

Almost all combat pics show them sitting on top. it is just too flimsy

So now we are back to combat pics to show that soldiers don't like sitting inside , you should scan mp.net there are many pics that would satisfy if that really proves a point . BMP-2 may be old but it still has good firepower and protection and are good for this part of the world , well when we develop a better APC this decade we would replace it by something better.

[Surya]

>>when we develop a better APC this decade we would replace it by something better.



Well when the 1000s of wheeled APCs I and Rohit want will come in maybe - till then we should hopefully use it more dismounted then mounted or ride on top ans take their chances in todays battlefield

Else like in Rikhye's book the battlefield will be littered with the corpses of blown up BMPs and their inhabitants

[Singha]

well not much secrets here really...

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2011 ... 010607.htm

Global General
WikiLeaks: NATO unimpressed by Russia's military

Updated: 2011-02-15 09:06


BRUSSELS - NATO was not impressed by Russia's military performance after two large maneuvers in 2009 because its forces relied on aging equipment, lacked transport and suffered from manpower shortages, according to a leaked US diplomatic cable.

Russia's armed forces would be able to respond only to a small-to-mid-sized local conflict in the country's western regions, according to a cable from the US mission to NATO released Monday on the WikiLeaks secret-spilling site. The maneuvers demonstrated they would not be able to fight in two small conflicts simultaneously or to mount larger-scale operations, the US cable said, citing a report by NATO's military staff.


The NATO report followed two large maneuvers, codenamed Ladoga and Zapad, in Russia's western regions during 2009. They were intended to test the Russian military after its lightning 2008 victory over Georgia.

The operation, in which Georgia's US-trained army was demolished within a week after it tried to invade the breakaway province of South Ossetia, set off alarm bells in NATO nations bordering Russia.

At the time, eastern European diplomats expressed extreme concern over the Russian army's lightning response to a surprise attack by Georgian forces on the province's capital. The NATO report appeared to be an effort to reassure its allies in eastern Europe.

"The exercises (in 199) demonstrated that Russia has limited capability for joint operations with air forces, continues to rely on aging and obsolete equipment, lacks all-weather capability and strategic transportation means, ... has an officer corps lacking flexibility, and has a manpower shortage," the cable said.

The document was signed off by US ambassador Ivo Daalder.

The report claimed the Russian military still appeared prepared to use short-range battlefied nuclear weapons even in small conflicts. Russia is believed to have over 1,000 tactical nuclear warheads in its arsenal. These are not banned under international treaties.

NATO has condemned the release of the secret diplomatic cables by WikiLeaks. It regularly refuses to comment on their veracity.

Relations between NATO and Moscow hit a post-Cold War low after the Russo-Georgian war. But they have improved significantly since President Barack Obama announced a "reset" of US-Russia ties in 2009.

Today, the two sides cooperate closely in the war in Afghanistan, where Russia provides a vital overland supply link for NATO forces. The alliance and Moscow also work closely on counter-piracy and anti-terrorist operations, and the two sides are considering setting up a joint anti-missile shield.

The Russian military is in the process of reforming and cutting its military strength. In 2009, its defense budget of about $50 billion was about one-twentieth of total defense spending by NATO's 28 nations.

[Singha]

ofcourse one can always argue that big powers these days do not fight big powers, instead relative lightweights like georgia, chechnya, libya, iraq, talibs are beaten up. but overall the unopposed run by a russian mech regiment to pristina and the georgia/chechnya ops were "easier" compared to moving major armour forces and logistically heavy tail and fighting deep into iraq, attempting to move from within turkey (turkish govt rejected) and the SF/B52/Nalliance jointwar in afghanistan that routed the taliban conventionally.

we obviously have no such slack or luxury - we need to fight the pakis and chinis at high intensity together - so any defects or weakness in platforms , C4I or training which might overall get covered up in american/russian bush wars and hiding within the "system of systems" matrix will get brutally exposed and exploited.

[VinodTK]

WATERSHED MOMENT

:
Russia is now an important arms purchaser for the first time since the end of the Cold War. One wishes that the Russians had also responded to the recurring Indian plea for the delivery of the old, once-partially-burnt and used aircraft carrier, Gorshkov, without time and cost overrun.
:
The question now is: what is this Mistral ship which Russia cannot build but would love to possess? Mistral is a helicopter carrier and amphibious assault vessel with a storage capacity for 60 armoured vehicles, and 450 fully-equipped troops, which could be doubled during emergencies or evacuations.
:
Since Russia still has the industrial design and construction capacity to build new amphibious ships, why did it go for import? Because it feels that the purchase of ship or ship design from the French would be quicker, cheaper and better. But Moscow wants a large share of the construction workload in order to gain experience of building amphibious ships. Since Russia also wants transfer of technology, it is evident that the present Russian technique, knowledge and skill are not up to the mark. So should India still go for Russian vessels or should it explore the possibility of having fresh vendors for the inventory of its navy?
:
The fact remains that Russia has never been a great naval power. Even during the heady days of Admiral Sergei Gorshkov in the 1970s and 1980s, the Soviet navy failed to develop a true strategic capability despite possessing a large fleet of nuclear submarines. Moscow marine’s French connection started fructifying in all earnest in the 21st century only.

With new enterprise also comes the bad news of Russia’s sacking of senior defence personnel owing to their poor performance in overseeing Moscow’s defence procurement goals. So, although Russia accounted for 77 per cent of India’s arms imports as late as 2005-2009, India cannot be faulted for trying to diversify its production, procurement and purchase sources owing to its own security compulsions. The time and cost overrun for the aircraft carrier, Gorshkov, has also partially dented the otherwise harmonious Delhi-Moscow arms bilaterals so far. In 2009, India and Russia concluded a 10-year agreement on military-technical co-operation under which commitments were made for the “joint development of helicopters, infantry fighting vehicles and a fifth generation fighter aircraft”. Russia may seem down at present but it will be incorrect to presume that it is out of Delhi’s radar just yet.

Hats off to The Telegraph

[NRao]

^^^^^

++++1.

That drunk Russian Prez still casts his shadow today!!!! Amazing what he did not do.

((((((FGFA!!!! shudder to think. Shanakroski where are you when we need you?))))))

[Austin]

Mistral deal is much beyond a deal to buy ship , its more of political and strategic realignment of Russian-French relationship and inspite of opposition from few NATO countries and some US official they went ahead with the deal and Russia too faced pressure from domestic lobby to cancel it , sign of things to come when it comes to relations with old europe l Germany, France , Italy and Russia.

[UBanerjee]

The Mistral-class vessel, two of which thus far have been commissioned in the French flotilla in 2006 and 2007, is virtually an aircraft carrier

It really isn't.

[Shrinivasan]

The Mistral-class vessel, two of which thus far have been commissioned in the French flotilla in 2006 and 2007, is virtually an aircraft carrier

It is an Helo Carrier... Neither does it have a catapult not a inclined Ramp for launching an Aircraft. Incidentally Neither France nor the Bear have a VTOL aircraft currently.

[UBanerjee]

Right, and the mission design of the Mistral is in fact nothing like an AC whatsoever. It could be uncharitably be described as a very capable and very expensive ferry.

[Singha]

but operating under aircover, it can and will get a good sized force into the fight. same for the juan carlos ship of spain. or the tarawa class of usn.

I am less certain about the smaller fry like hms ocean or dutch rotterdam class.

[UBanerjee]

^ The Wasp & Tarawa are more along the lines of "mini-aircraft carrier + ferry" in that they operate the VTOL Harriers and have significant self-defense systems. They can be configured for sea control type ops as well as amphibious landings. The Mistral is thus very modular as well (ferrying/hospital/amphibious landing/c&c/evacuation) but performing AC like ops isn't one of those capabilities. Also, the Mistral needs a carrier-like escort to operate in "risky" (or worse) waters while providing none of that functionality. I think they finally deployed one in Libya with the ample escorts there protecting their other assets.

As a result it seems mainly to be used for humanitarian relief type efforts, loading/unloading supplies, vehicles, peacekeepers etc. Which was a large part of its design goal anyway, it was touted as a hospital + command & control ship along with its ferrying capabilities.

From what I read on the matter it seems Russkies want it for Black Sea ops and cited Georgian conflict as an example where it'd be useful. But the purchase seems more geopolitical (re-integration into Europe) than anything else.

[Singha]

imo the SAM and harrier capabilities of the tarawa class is very limited. a couple of RAM/ESSM launchers, couple Phalanx are not going to stop determined ASM or worse torpedo attacks in hostile areas. in USMC config it is mentioned as 6 harriers only ... even 20 harriers is not enough against competent enemies given the harriers known limitations...and in that config it has no helicopters bar asw.

so they would never operate outside the air cover of a CVN airwing when going in against someone like Iran or Noko who can unleash a good sized attack.

yes , they have a better armament than Mistral but good enough only against Libya types.

Mistral also definitely needs aircover and a AAW DDG to protect its hide going in harms way....might as well focus on carrying stuff than a muscular self-defence that eats up space for planes and airwing...imho.

[UBanerjee]

imo the SAM and harrier capabilities of the tarawa class is very limited. a couple of RAM/ESSM launchers, couple Phalanx are not going to stop determined ASM or worse torpedo attacks in hostile areas.

Well the point is not to provide the overwhelming anti-missile/air umbrella of a CBG but simply to deal with asymmetric threats (not determined attacks). The Mistral is a very large & expensive target that they would be very reluctant to risk to a single/few projectiles.

in USMC config it is mentioned as 6 harriers only ... even 20 harriers is not enough against competent enemies given the harriers known limitations...and in that config it has no helicopters bar asw.

True, but consider that loadout approaches what the Viraat manages, while doubling as an amphibious assault ship in other cases.

so they would never operate outside the air cover of a CVN airwing when going in against someone like Iran or Noko who can unleash a good sized attack.

True enough.

yes , they have a better armament than Mistral but good enough only against Libya types.

Mistral also definitely needs aircover and a AAW DDG to protect its hide going in harms way....might as well focus on carrying stuff than a muscular self-defence that eats up space for planes and airwing...imho.

Well the French themselves are considering upping the self-defence component on the Mistral. It is not that the Mistral is ill-conceived, it's just that it's very expensive for what it does, the price approaches/exceeds the Wasp class (in the Russian deal). It is certainly a superior medical/humanitarian relief ship to be sure.

[Singha]

what do you think about the spanish juan carlos class?

[Shrinivasan]

what do you think about the spanish juan carlos class?

In the Indian context, would a Mistral Class ship be better than a Jalashwa class LPD?

[UBanerjee]

what do you think about the spanish juan carlos class?

I don't know that much about the Juan Carlos but looking it over on wiki it seems more similar to the Wasp than the Mistral (albeit also lacking defenses), although this is just the technical characteristics of the ship itself; who knows about the actual operational capacities of the Spanish Navy with the vessel.