Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

tejas · Post by **tejas** » 07 Jul 2011 06:24

Rahul boss, if Tank-Ex is still problematic than lets just order more Arjun mkIIs. Whatever we do no more T-incans. I especially cannot understand throwing more good money after bad on obsolete T-72s. Plus to boot most of the money is being spent on foreign parts.The T-90 purchase was suspect to say the least. Upgrading the T-72 is insane IMHO.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 07 Jul 2011 06:40

tejas wrote:Rahul boss, if Tank-Ex is still problematic than lets just order more Arjun mkIIs. Whatever we do no more T-incans. I especially cannot understand throwing more good money after bad on obsolete T-72s. Plus to boot most of the money is being spent on foreign parts.The T-90 purchase was suspect to say the least. Upgrading the T-72 is insane IMHO.

Tejas, We committed a blunder by ordering these Tin-Cans... let us not complicate these by leaving them as death traps for our brave men & women (we have a good # of women tankers now)... let us make them better by our desi Jugaad.. and not oder ANY MORE OF THESE... the only tanks which should get added to IA should be Arjun and its sibling and projeny

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 07 Jul 2011 06:47

if it was up to me I would ramp up arjun production to at least 2 regiments/year, cap T-90 production at 1000 and use the T-72 chassis to build self propelled point defence vehicles like tunguska, fire support vehicles like BMPT and other support vehicles.

but, we don't make the decisions.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 07 Jul 2011 06:50

http://www.financialexpress.com/news/au ... r/813925/0
Auto cos, L&T vie for Army’s $10-bn combat vehicle order

good to see huma siddiqui writing after a long time.

~~but where are the wheeled APC ??~~

According to sources, the FICV is expected to be half-tracked and half-wheeled, and a combat vehicle ready for inland warfare.

sounds odd. we need that number for the mech inf alone and many more if we want to motorize the infantry.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 07 Jul 2011 07:05

Rahul M wrote:if it was up to me I would ramp up arjun production to at least 2 regiments/year, cap T-90 production at 1000 and use the T-72 chassis to build self propelled point defence vehicles like tunguska, fire support vehicles like BMPT and other support vehicles.

but, we don't make the decisions.

A newbie poonch. Could it be that the rate of Production of Arjun is low because it has to depend upon the rate of production of logistic support? I mean, no use producing 2x Arjuns in t years when the rate of production of required carriers,bridges etc can only support x Arjuns for that time. Could that also explain the 2 yr gap b/n end of mk1 production and start of mk2 production?
My understanding of this subject is negligible at best so please reply in newbie thread if needed.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 07 Jul 2011 07:30

The production is low as the IA up till now is not really interested in the Arjun. They have already committed to 1800+ T 90s that is why the production of the tin cans is on overdrive.

Let the IA place order for for 1000 + arjuns and fix a timeline for it. You will see it build in number as well.

PS is it not interesting that the Tin can is perfect as it exists and the Arjun needs improvements from day one.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 07 Jul 2011 07:46

gaur ji, me no guru but IIRC we absorbed the T-72 at a much higher rate when it came along, with no prior experience on the type. the assault bridges IA has now(T-72 BLT) can already take the arjun. in raj anyway you won't face the ditch cum bund defences of punjab and this is where the arjun is at its best.
I don't think IA would have any problems absorbing even 4-5 regiments of arjun per year

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 07 Jul 2011 08:03

regarding the tie-ups, they can tie up with a foreign company "if they want" sounds little emphatic than one that would say, DRDO labs will specify and provide technical know how if they want, and private companies can employ their own.

I am not sure, if anything on these combat vehicles now DRDO can't make. the middle-men still rules at the helm, if I read this correct.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 07 Jul 2011 08:11

Rahul M wrote:gaur ji, me no guru but IIRC we absorbed the T-72 at a much higher rate when it came along, with no prior experience on the type. the assault bridges IA has now(T-72 BLT) can already take the arjun. in raj anyway you won't face the ditch cum bund defences of punjab and this is where the arjun is at its best.
I don't think IA would have any problems absorbing even 4-5 regiments of arjun per year

Thanks Rahulji. If logistics is not an issue then IA seems to be showing a lot of pig headedness in this case.

vic · Post by **vic** » 07 Jul 2011 08:13

srai wrote:I think it's 124 MK1 + 372 MK2 (124 MK2 + 248 MK2) = 496 Arjun MBTs. Apparently according to Chacko J, the second order of 124MK1 were converted into MK2 as the order was placed too late (i.e. requires a lead time of 2.5 years before production can begin delivering new tanks) and the MK2 would be ready by then.

Now with the second order of 248 MK2 imminent it is likely production capacity will be increased at HVF. I would think the production capacity would be doubled progressively to around 100 units/year from the current 50 units/year.

I think that it is 124 Mk-1

64 Mark-2 Phase-1
64 mark-2 Phase-2

248 additional Mark-2 is what DRDO wants but Army is still considering

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 07 Jul 2011 08:32

Army's Future Main Battle Tank (FMBT) project likely to be delayed
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 132824.cms

Army's futuristic tank programme is likely to be delayed, with the military still procrastinating over its requirements, more than six months after it was scheduled to hand it over to the country's defence research establishment.

"The draft PSQR finalised by a former DGM is now being refined by the newly-appointed DGM. Nothing has been finalised yet, and we have not even started any discussions on it," said P Sivakumar , director of Combat Vehicles Research and Development Establishment.

Gurneesh · Post by **Gurneesh** » 07 Jul 2011 08:40

According to sources, the FICV is expected to be half-tracked and half-wheeled, and a combat vehicle ready for inland warfare.

Does that mean half of the vehicles produced will be tracked and the other wheeled or will the FICV be half-track ?

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 07 Jul 2011 08:43

sounds odd. we need that number for the mech inf alone and many more if we want to motorize the infantry.

That's because this will be no 'a la ' WW2 half track. The writer has "optional" confused here in the sense that this a modular design where both wheeled and tracked versions will be developed.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 07 Jul 2011 08:54

I didn't say odd thinking it will be a half-track (obviously not

) we need 2600 ICV's for the mech inf alone and these have to be tracked IMO in order to keep up with the MBT's cross country.
and if we want a wheeled version for motorizing the infantry we need many more, more than 10,000 easily.
having 1300 tracked and 1300 wheeled ICV's doesn't make sense.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 07 Jul 2011 08:55

tejas wrote:Rahul boss, if Tank-Ex is still problematic than lets just order more Arjun mkIIs. Whatever we do no more T-incans. I especially cannot understand throwing more good money after bad on obsolete T-72s. Plus to boot most of the money is being spent on foreign parts.The T-90 purchase was suspect to say the least. Upgrading the T-72 is insane IMHO.

Saar, those tin cans are going to be with us for a long time (2025-2030 is my guess). Remember that the T-90s are basically replacing the T-55 i.e. the process of replacing 1900(?) odd T-72s has not even started.

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 07 Jul 2011 10:59

Philip wrote:Whatever type we induct in the mountains,the key to their success will be the logistic support.If tanks are to be permaently based there (lLadakh),then it would require permanent support too! One can't be flying them up and down on joyrides everytime there is a technical problem!

i believe the logistic backbone is getting ready, IA now is operating ek puri tank regt. from there. Is development ke koi publicity nahi hui hai.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Jul 2011 12:30

Some how i am not too confident Indian Private Industry will deliver on FICV for the very simple fact that all private industry lacks the experience to develop such capable FICV and experience from design house is the key to succeed in such project , without experience they would probably end with depending on phoren consultant thats not going to bring any innovation to the project.

A better approach would have been to involve and let DRDO take a lead in this project since it has better experience compared to any private players and let the private player do the manufacturing of FICV and take a secondary role. Just becuase they are private players does not mean they will end up doing good job in an area where they really have ZERO experience.

Let see how this shapes up in coming years

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Jul 2011 12:31

involving pvt players or pvt consultants does get around the pay problem and personnel retention issues that any Govt body has to bear. so lets them work for tata or mahindra but do the same work

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 07 Jul 2011 13:19

Singha wrote:involving pvt players or pvt consultants does get around the pay problem and personnel retention issues that any Govt body has to bear. so lets them work for tata or mahindra but do the same work

There will be a steep learning curve, but we need to start, choosing the FICV project and that too having 2 vendors manufacture these babies de-risks it in a big way for IA. It success would allow MOD to replicate this model in other projects. It will be magic moment for the winning bidders!!!

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 07 Jul 2011 17:17

private eyes can focus on project management, product engineering, process improvement, media etc.. while govt institutions can focus on r&d, know how, technology, regulations, records keeping, quality control, inspector raj, etc. Now, people can switch roles between private and govt jobs easily. The regulations and rules must be such made a nice blend is possible.

niche areas of course can be a shared responsibility rather giving out to firangs, jmt.. and we should try this out for LCA, MCA, Arjun too.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 07 Jul 2011 17:58

anyway 2610 pretty much confirms the BMP-1 + BMP-2 holdings i.e 700 + 1900. of course die hards will keep saying India has 1200 BMP-2 onleee and 750 M-46 onleee.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 07 Jul 2011 18:16

ajai shukla has more than once confirmed those numbers, down to the last digit.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 07 Jul 2011 18:31

Rahul M wrote:I didn't say odd thinking it will be a half-track (obviously not ) we need 2600 ICV's for the mech inf alone and these have to be tracked IMO in order to keep up with the MBT's cross country.
and if we want a wheeled version for motorizing the infantry we need many more, more than 10,000 easily.
having 1300 tracked and 1300 wheeled ICV's doesn't make sense.

It will be good to learn more on the issue of tracked versus wheeled especially in light of all the advances that wheeled now has with advanced suspensions, flat tyre, etc which will allow wheeled to go cross country and be able to take the pains so to speak.

What advantages does tracked still hold over wheeled?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 07 Jul 2011 18:38

cross country mobility. which is why all ICV's meant for accompanying tanks are still tracked.
wheeled vehicles till date can't match that, in spite of all the advances.
bottomline is we need tracked and wheeled both. tracked for the mechnanized infantry that would be part of armoured brigades and wheeled for giving much needed mobility and protection to the infantry.
wheeled are cheaper to operate too.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Jul 2011 18:52

Rahul M wrote:ajai shukla has more than once confirmed those numbers, down to the last digit.

So what is the closer to reality numbers of BMP and other ICV we operate ?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 07 Jul 2011 18:58

can't seem to find the article in a cursory search. the number was between ~~2600 and 2650~~ 261x.

hmm, why do I get the feeling it was in his FICV articles and those mention just '2600 FICV to replace BMP' now. retroactive editing ?

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 07 Jul 2011 20:36

Rahul M wrote:can't seem to find the article in a cursory search. the number was between ~~2600 and 2650~~ 261x.

Desh is bereft of wheeled armored vehicles, this is why IA had a collective 0rga$m when they saw stryker... former Warsaw pact countries have converted many of their existing platform as armoured platforms and exporting them like samosas. We need to induct a good number of wheeled APC, howitzers etc as we augment our road network in the NE and mountainous areas.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 07 Jul 2011 21:05

^^^^

I was under the impression that the IA operated 900+ Tatra SKOT 8*8 APCs.

These ought to be due for replacement any time now.........

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 07 Jul 2011 21:39

Rahul M wrote:can't seem to find the article in a cursory search. the number was between ~~2600 and 2650~~ 261x.

hmm, why do I get the feeling it was in his FICV articles and those mention just '2600 FICV to replace BMP' now. retroactive editing ?

are you referring to this - You got it! Now deserve it

he mentions 2600.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 07 Jul 2011 21:52

What happened to the Abhay ICV BTW? This new tender makes no mention of it.

A Sharma · Post by **A Sharma** » 07 Jul 2011 22:44

Abhay was a Technology Demonstrator.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 08 Jul 2011 02:17

Rahul M wrote:ajai shukla has more than once confirmed those numbers, down to the last digit.

Rahul, OFB Medak has an annual capacity of 125 BMP-IIs, so the numbers should have been increasing progressively and not static @ 19xx. IA converted older BMP-Is into SP Arty and also Tracked Mortar Carriers.
other than this I think the BMP-IIs were only used for field ambulance, so we should have upward of 2500 BMP-IIs in IA inventory.

vic · Post by **vic** » 08 Jul 2011 07:51

Are we sure that "wheeled" vehicles are included in FICV or it is just conjecture based on a possible typo by Huma Siddiqui express article??

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 08 Jul 2011 09:30

Pratyush wrote:i was under the impression that the IA operated 900+ Tatra SKOT 8*8 APCs.
These ought to be due for replacement any time now.........

Skot and another APC are listed in different sources as being operated by IA, no photographic evidence though, Paging gurus for confirmation.

BTB, does Desh operate an Arty mounted on a TATRA truck?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Jul 2011 09:57

the SKOTs are probably long retired. one was hit by a RPG way back during BlueStar. seen no hide or hair of them on the range thereafter.

no arty on tatra truck. the bofors archer would have been the first for us, if we could undeadlock the artillery plan.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 08 Jul 2011 10:46

So no wheeled APCs remaining in IA inventory, man we need couple of thousand wheeled APCs to leverage the roads we are laying on our borders with the lizard.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 08 Jul 2011 10:58

Shrinivasan wrote: Rahul, OFB Medak has an annual capacity of 125 BMP-IIs, so the numbers should have been increasing progressively and not static @ 19xx. IA converted older BMP-Is into SP Arty and also Tracked Mortar Carriers. Other than this I think the BMP-IIs were only used for field ambulance, so we should have upward of 2500 BMP-IIs in IA inventory.

The production of BMP-2 stands at 200 per annum. The order was split between OFB Medhak and Jabalpur with Medhak getting the number you've quoted. Also, there are BMP mounted SP Guns in IA's inventory that I'm aware of.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 08 Jul 2011 11:03

Rahul, OFB Medak has an annual capacity of 125 BMP-IIs

Rohitvats got his post in before. cool.

BMP mounted guns in the anti-tank role were tested by DRDO with 90 mm in the nineties. Now a 105 mm GIAT turret is being brought in for your light tank.

105 mm howitzer mounted on BMP-2 exists. Its an OFB product.

As far as wheeled APCs go both the Skots and the BTR-60s have been mothballed. Yes, we did operate 800 + BTR-60s at one point of time.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 08 Jul 2011 11:05

The mechanization in IA is very lop-sided and even our Strike Corps are unbalanced with respect to that. I mean, II Corps has one Armoured, one RAPID and one vanilla infanty division. So, the whole Corps cannot move at one pace. While, it may be such, that IA feels the same is not required, but to me prima facie, we need to to mechanize the balance of RAPID and the infantry division. While these may not become classic Mechanized Division, may be, something like light Mech. Division is quite doable.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 08 Jul 2011 11:12

II Corps has one Armoured, one RAPID (partially mechanized) and one vanilla infanty division

We don't know for sure. May have changed.