Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 07 Dec 2011 04:05

Surya wrote:Singha

you forgot the Achzarit - It is a beast. and has rear exit (although narrow) I have clambered over it and it somehow feels larger than the original T 55.
With the Israelis and their subsidies there is no way of knowing whether it was a cost effective soln.
But the soldiers in our office do not like - its a big slow lumbering beast.
Its ok for running into West bank lanes but no one wants in it on open ground.

Surya

I heard similar things about it as well. Quite sluggish. Thats why it will be phased out once the vehicles are run to the ground. They will be sticking to the Mek chasis. Will be an easier exit since the engine is in the front.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 07 Dec 2011 04:29

Singha wrote:what kind of ratio do we want among 'proper' ICV and 'armoured troop carriers'?

by 'proper' ICV I mean one with a turret and a cannon or small gun, with some ATGM tubes - BMP2/CV90/Bradley types
by 'troops carriers' one can go the spectrum from mobile but thin cans like M113 upto the rhino hide azcharit and Nemer types...these would have a HMG and a MG usually, and maybe a remote weapons stn in the new age types.

we dont seem to have any at all of the 2nd type and the Stallion trucks are filling that role. Paki HIT taxila iirc makes the M113 locally so they probably have a lot of them in various roles from pure transport, to anti-tank TOW launchers to mobile 81mm and 120mm mortars.

Now you are talking

I would say a ratio of 1 to 5. One ICV proper to the 5 Troop Carriers.
The current BMP has a heavy ICV type fighting capability so the ratio can even be extended to one ICV to six carriers if need be. But then what is the usual troop strength in a mech regt.

The ICV will have to the super class of its type.
Tank Chassis (t-55 and t-55 please, keep the finances in mind)
Twin HMG type turret.
Automated optical observation turrets with firecontrol built in to them.
2 X quad missile launchers.
Something like the BMP-T shown below

AND also check this out.... WTH

anyone know what calibre these rockets would be and their range. Just wondering if they offloaded the GRAD packet and installed on a T-72 chasis.

Gurneesh · Post by **Gurneesh** » 07 Dec 2011 06:16

^^ That is the TOS-1

According to wiki it has 220mm rockets which puts it in PINAKA class as opposed to GRAD's 122mm rockets.

Would be a good use of the T72 that will be retired or even a Arjun hull (when paired with PINAKA), so that arty can keep pace with fast moving armored thrusts.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 07 Dec 2011 07:21

We're making Ordnance factories future ready, says OFB Chairman Dimri

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/tod ... 494614.ece

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Dec 2011 08:27

imo rather than attempt to repurpose worn out T55 chassis, its better we develop a AIR CONDITIONED new people mover IFV with well protected rear exit door (not a door that holds a fuel tank BMP style

)...its the perfect kind of project where a tata or M&M in collab with their foreign partners like BAE could quickly come up with a soln and make it domestically in large nos will full OEM support and reps locally.

the chassis cost is likely a small fraction of the engine cost, armour pkg, optronic pkg, BMS, the ATGM & HMG remotely operated system etc....so we are better off going with a new system that will stay relevant for 30 yrs service life.

but I will say it again - so far have never heard any IA top brass expressing any desire for such vehicles.

re: the T55 inventory, why not make them Wiesel type mobile mortar carriers? that way they can hang out with the infantry and lend a hand from safe behind covering position. a well trained 81mm mortar team can lay down a murderous volume of fire and being mobile can dart around on demand. or maybe just cut out the turret, weld a round plate there and install a couple of MMG as a mobile pill-box of sorts. the kicker is going to be the cost of spares and engines to keep large nos operational...

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 07 Dec 2011 10:57

Singha +1000 to your idea... Retired T-55s and the to be retired T-72 could be re-deployed as SPH and Mortar Carriers... this would add a solid punch to our armored and mechanized formations

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Dec 2011 11:00

they would need to be automated mortars to justify the cost of running the big engines and spares pipeline though. even a tin can like M113 is enough for that role actually. another option is catch the bull by the horns - what is the cheapest carrier out there - the M113 (!) we could obtain the license rights for pittance probably and churn that out off a pvt sector assembly line

or the IDF could kit us up with a bootleg MKI version with "special" nemer derived mods like a VL pack of brahmos (to satisfy the junta's demands here)

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Dec 2011 11:15

I always thought DRDO Abhay ICV was a good platform and i really do not know why DRDO did not pursued with it , its got every thing that any good ICV would have and they could have made it much better

http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/labs/VRDE/Engli ... chieve.jsp

Now they have some private tender to develop it from players who havent built any thing like that in their life so they would be just upselling from Global Players who make such stuff.

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 07 Dec 2011 11:27

Talking abut this, what is the staus of FICV? There was supposed to be a competetion on the lines of the khan model. Any news on that?

On another note, ppl say involve the pvt sector; when they are involved, others say they dont have required exp. What to do sir

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 07 Dec 2011 11:31

Correct singha, one of the biggest drawbacks of any such change is the running costs per year.
A stock standard maintenance of a T-55 or a Vijyanta needs 49 kilos of grease so before you know it starts to build up.

Hence I am only keen on adding a armoured component to a mechanised regt where they already have experience of similar machinery and the lines of maintenance and logistics are existing.
I believe the T-55 people mover concept was looked and a prototype was even built however due to the design of the T-55 it never offered any major advantage when compared to the BMPs. I don't think IA picked it up.

regarding the mobile pill box, thats exactly what I am talking about. Something that lays down murderous volume of fire when asked for. As regards to upkeep, I think the best way is to start small. Since our Mech regts have a 4 of 5 troop formation (not sure how many ICVs) I am thinking just having 1 T-55 ICV per troop and one in reserver with the HQ company.

Here is interesting read
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/I ... subra.html

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 07 Dec 2011 11:35

P Chitkara wrote:Talking abut this, what is the staus of FICV? There was supposed to be a competetion on the lines of the khan model. Any news on that?

On another note, ppl say involve the pvt sector; when they are involved, others say they dont have required exp. What to do sir

what do you mean Khan model ?

by the way check this out.
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2009/07/dr ... ailed.html

waiting for the Abhay to get into the IA indeed

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Dec 2011 11:43

P Chitkara wrote:Talking abut this, what is the staus of FICV? There was supposed to be a competetion on the lines of the khan model. Any news on that?

On another note, ppl say involve the pvt sector; when they are involved, others say they dont have required exp. What to do sir

Its good to involve private players in production activities and to produce thousands of parts and components , most private players do not have the experience in developing stuff like FICV ....so they simply upsell foreign products , like we have seen with Light Vehical competition. Some Private players like TATA and few others have niche experience in other areas where we can make use of it.

For most part R&D , Experience are concentrated with DRDO , so it better they make prototypes meeting GSQR involve private players depending on their capabilities and then let them involve in production and post production activities

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Dec 2011 11:45

>> ppl say involve the pvt sector; when they are involved, others say they dont have required exp.

in areas like new missiles , radars, fighters the pvt sector would be quite lost for expertise. but in areas like EW systems or esp automotive stuff like new x-terrain vehicles or ICVs, the presence of people like BAE or KMW or GDLS could be a ready source of building blocks and mix-n-match stuff to come up with acceptable solns quickly...Tata, AL and M&M are in the 'core' automotive area. Tata and MBT have sw expertise. L&T is into mechanicals and infotech also. wipro has made entry into aerospace parts making now.

its time IA ordered the Abhay through proper trials, souped it up with any missing blocks and deployed it...BMP2 has just about run its course.

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 07 Dec 2011 12:30

Well, one can argue that. Even when the private players may be upselling foreign designs, it is in the direction of building inhouse capability. A case in point can be Hyundai from the automotive sector. They started with designs from auto majors of that time and today they are completely independent - it will take time but eventually the inhouse capability will come.

All govt owned research labs also started with very little inhouse capabilities but today they have come a long way. Inhouse competition is always good - I don’t think anyone will argue that.

Another way is to attach the private players with the labs which is the current setup. The problem here is, will the govt labs ever allow them to venture into core, hi-tech areas and help them graduate from being just the suppliers of sub-systems to builders of complete setup?

This is where conflict of interest comes in. It simply won’t be in the interest of these or for that matter any such entity to keep the private players take the lead in building the complete systems and they simply guiding them. It is simple, everyone needs to protect their interests – nobody can blame them for that.

I have gone significantly OT now. Back to the main discussion.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 07 Dec 2011 15:06

P Chitkara wrote: I have gone significantly OT now. Back to the main discussion.

which was to jointly come up with a way to use those T-55s

to create something that will help IA Mech dominate PA Mech or any other OppFor in battle.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Dec 2011 18:11

how good are chini helicopter gunships ? pakis are unlikely to get large nos of cobras anymore...and we can produce as many WSI and LCH as we want, with a ghee-sugar mix of apaches on top. thats quite a bad situation for PA armour to be facing a potentially 100s of night capable gunships with UAVs doing the spotting. each one can throw minimum 8 ATGMs of latest mark - with apaches throwing the kitchen sink with 16.

so naturally they will look to china. if the chinese can kit them up with something akin to the bandar which they can produce and service in good quantity, that base will be covered for them.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 07 Dec 2011 18:54

(not a door that holds a fuel tank BMP style

I think people have learnt their lessons watching burnt out BMPs - I have heard its no longer used to store fuel.

The Russians store hooch in it

- at least thats what they tell me

Mihaylo · Post by **Mihaylo** » 07 Dec 2011 19:14

Surya wrote:
(not a door that holds a fuel tank BMP style
I think people have learnt their lessons watching burnt out BMPs - I have heard its no longer used to store fuel.

The Russians store hooch in it - at least thats what they tell me

Still flamable. Besides, their 'hooch' is so strong, it can be used as fuel

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 07 Dec 2011 21:26

Gurneesh wrote:^^ That is the TOS-1

According to wiki it has 220mm rockets which puts it in PINAKA class as opposed to GRAD's 122mm rockets.

Would be a good use of the T72 that will be retired or even a Arjun hull (when paired with PINAKA), so that arty can keep pace with fast moving armored thrusts.

simple Q, what is the trouble in mounting the 122mm rockets on quad launchers on a Mi-17? when 127mm rockets are said to be mounted on Cobra gunships

the recoil from a large caliber rocket shouldn't be different from a ATGM launch

Added Later:

a direct shot gives a lower range while a indirect shot like below from an angled position provides a longer range, not sure if a heli be able to handle recoil

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-sxXlU-ILojA/T ... 600/58.jpg

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 07 Dec 2011 21:36

Increasing number and quality weapons is important. Increasing either one would not look good for IA. Be it INSAS, Tanks, guns, infantry vehicles or munitions. That is the only way we can be on par with or better than the best.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Dec 2011 21:56

makes an interesting read ,use translator

T-72 - survival in battle

Hobbes · Post by **Hobbes** » 08 Dec 2011 06:54

rohitvats wrote:
Austin wrote:India's Arjun Tank In Army's Biggest Wargame
From the above link:

For now, let me tell you what 21 Corps commander Lt Gen Sanjiv Langer said when I asked him if the regiment under his formation was happy with the Arjun: "It is not our job to be happy. We have objectives, and we have to make do. Nothing is everything you want it to be. I can say that the Arjun has matured. It has gone beyond the point of being in incessant trials. It is inducted and operational now, as you saw in the exercise. But what we are really waiting for is the Arjun Mk.2."
That has to be the best praise I've heard from the army on Arjun. This is a sign of good things to come.

But there is something that does not makes sense - Arjun Regiment is with 12 Division (RAPID) which is under XII Corps. So, what is Mr. Shiv Aroor taking about here? Or, may be, just may be, there has been switch of formations between 12 and 21 Corps? Hmmm...interesting if the above is true or, Shiv Aroor is being DDM onleee.

Hmm, seems a bit of a backhanded compliment to me. It seems as if the good General is implying that the Army is not very happy with the Arjun, but will take what it is given to operate with.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 08 Dec 2011 07:16

It seems as if the good General is implying that the Army is not very happy with the Arjun, but will take what it is given to operate with.

Not happy with the Mk I. They seem to be looking forward to the Mk II.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 08 Dec 2011 17:47

NRao wrote:
It seems as if the good General is implying that the Army is not very happy with the Arjun, but will take what it is given to operate with.
Not happy with the Mk I. They seem to be looking forward to the Mk II.

Hmm, I wonder which feature of Mk II they really want.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 08 Dec 2011 18:09

merlin wrote:quote="NRao"]
It seems as if the good General is implying that the Army is not very happy with the Arjun, but will take what it is given to operate with.
/quote]

Not happy with the Mk I. They seem to be looking forward to the Mk II.
Hmm, I wonder which feature of Mk II they really want.

Commander and Driver night vision for night time operations

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 08 Dec 2011 22:42

Surya wrote:
canonical prowess of T-90S
and rohit calls me evil!!!

Ha! It will take more that this to atone for your sins of doubting the 'canonical' prowess of all thigs from fatherland...nothing short putting a pic of T-90 on your mantle and giving agarbatti in morning and evening as you chant, 'Om T-90aye namah' 108 times will do. And as a proof, please to send the vid of the same to Philip with CC to Austin and Sanku....

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 08 Dec 2011 23:06

merlin wrote:Hmm, I wonder which feature of Mk II they really want.

For one ability to fire missile and Thermal vision for both commander/gunner ( CITV ) would be great , something they could do it in Mk1 albeit it would be expensive. For the rest its fine and it would need an Mk2 to justify major changes.

Hobbes · Post by **Hobbes** » 09 Dec 2011 09:34

NRao wrote:
It seems as if the good General is implying that the Army is not very happy with the Arjun, but will take what it is given to operate with.
Not happy with the Mk I. They seem to be looking forward to the Mk II.

I don't really see why they should be unhappy with the Mk 1. It isn't as if they have anything better; the Arjun vs. T-90 trials made that abundantly clear. The most charitable interpretation I can assign to the General's statements is that he dislikes both the T-90 and the Arjun, and that the Army is stoically making the best of two bad deals.

Brando · Post by **Brando** » 09 Dec 2011 09:39

NRao wrote: Not happy with the Mk I. They seem to be looking forward to the Mk II.

Just like how they'll be looking forward to the FMBT once they get the MKII.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 09 Dec 2011 09:51

^^which is fine if they get 200 of them each versions. keep it coming.. and have an agile agreement that a minimum purchase of 200 is required after user trials.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 09 Dec 2011 10:15

Hobbes wrote:Hmm, seems a bit of a backhanded compliment to me. It seems as if the good General is implying that the Army is not very happy with the Arjun, but will take what it is given to operate with.

Why this Kolaveri D?

aditp · Post by **aditp** » 09 Dec 2011 10:40

chackojoseph wrote:
Hobbes wrote:Hmm, seems a bit of a backhanded compliment to me. It seems as if the good General is implying that the Army is not very happy with the Arjun, but will take what it is given to operate with.
Why this Kolaveri D?

The good General must be envious of the younger chaps! During his days as tank commander, surely he must have missed the comfort, safety and combat performance of the Arjun.

Surely, the committed soldier that he is, he had to make do with what he had.

Ahhh the Kolaveri D

Oops.

/rant off

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 09 Dec 2011 11:03

Actually, that is a huge praise for Arjun Tank, while wading out of a potential mine field (You will understand this only if you are a journalist and has experience how these folks stone wall the question). He said that very professionally. He is also looking forward the MK II, as MK II is what they require. MK I was inducted as the gen said "it is now a workable tank and not perennially testable." It worked as MK I of Teja's , which I keep telling you.

Now, it means, that the basic version is ok with Army and they are looking at features and not if the tank has to be inducted or not.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Dec 2011 11:11

Chacko do you know if the basic slab sided turret will be retained in Mk2 and a wedge of era added on, or the turret shape and size itself will change or increase?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 09 Dec 2011 11:17

I thought it would be NERA:

http://www.india-defence.com/reports-3162 A new honeycomb design Non-explosive and non-energetic reactive armour (NERA) armour is being tested on the Arjun and is reported to be working perfectly.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 09 Dec 2011 12:14

Singha wrote:Chacko do you know if the basic slab sided turret will be retained in Mk2 and a wedge of era added on, or the turret shape and size itself will change or increase?

I will reply in few minutes. I am typing an article.

srai · Post by **srai** » 09 Dec 2011 12:14

SaiK wrote:^^which is fine if they get 200 of them each versions. keep it coming.. and have an agile agreement that a minimum purchase of 200 is required after user trials.

Just nitpicking, the minimum purchase would need to be in increments of 62 tanks (as seen from the Mk.1 order of 124 Arjuns for 2 regiments).

Looking at the past MBT orders placed by the IA, here are some potential quantities for the Arjun Mk.2:

124 -> 2 regiments (as seen in the Arjun Mk.1 orders)
248 -> 4 regiments (one batch of 124 units agreed; possible second batch of 124 units)
310 -> 5 regiments (as seen in the T-90S 1st order & 347 2nd order)
496 -> 8 regiments (as desired by the DRDO)

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 09 Dec 2011 13:29

Missile firing capability for Arjun Mk II tank to be demonstrated by January 2012

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 09 Dec 2011 13:39

(Forward looking statement)

When next lot of 500 units will be ordered (this is what DRDO is asking for), it will come nearer to my estimate of (earlier) 750 tanks : 500 + 124 + 124 = 748.

Another lot of 500 will be 748 + 500 = 1248 tanks, which is my latest estimate. Since, there is a tardy progress in FMBT SQR, I expect Arjun tank to be in production till 2030.

pandyan,

The first firing was with laser designator outside the tank. Since, then the missile and technology has been upgraded. This time, the demonstration might be with the actual loading and firing as done with any missile firing tank. IMO, these will be few difference. Also, DRDO will add some add'l request from the user.

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 12 Dec 2011 12:37

Hidden inside a news report:

CVRDE director P Sivakumar said trials of MBT Arjun Mark-II would commence from October 2012.