Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

arijitkm
BRFite
Posts: 137
Joined: 12 Oct 2009 23:23

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby arijitkm » 19 Jan 2015 15:01

A never ending saga from idrw

Arjun Tank May Miss Date Again

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srai » 21 Jan 2015 04:51

nash wrote:http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/newsrf.php?newsid=21578

Speaking at a seminar 'Gujarat: Preferred Hub for Defence Production' during the Vibrant Gujarat summit, the minister said India cannot afford spending $20 billion on defence procurement, and for this, promoting local manufacturing is must and the country will promote private players in this field. "The government hopes to come up with a document in two or three months on a suitable model for defence manufacturing and procurement...We have listed certain items that are not going to be imported from 2016. These will increase later on. But we are coming up with the document in February-March on modified DPP."


I really hope that alteast MBT and rifles will be in this list.


Well ... since a lot of the major imported items will be licensed produced i.e. "Make in India", that statement may turn out to be a red herring.

sivab
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby sivab » 25 Jan 2015 08:03

DDM reporter...

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/t ... epage=true

DRDO develops indigenous technology for army tanks

The Combat Vehicles Research & Development Establishment (CVRDE), Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), Ministry of Defence, Government of India is currently working on the development of an Unmanned Ground Vehicle (UGV), a new concept in military operations, according to P. Sivakumar, Scientist `H’, Director, CVRDE.

Talking to newspersons on the sidelines of InoVIT 2015, the State Level Science Contest for School Children on the VIT University campus here on Saturday, Dr. Sivakumar said that the UGV would be capable of carrying out surveillance and mine detection, besides operating in nuclear and bio-chemical area.

“We are developing the technologies and have completed all trials. We are asking the Army what it wants”, he said.

The CVRDE Director further added that the DRDO is in the process of developing indigenous technology for Army tanks, repair vehicles and surveillance.

Self-propelled gun


One of the semi-indigenous equipments developed recently by the DRDO is the Arjun Catapult, a self-propelled gun which can fire an object at a distance of 27 km. This has been developed by integrating an imported Russian gun on the chassis of the Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT) Mark-I. Forty such guns are to be developed by the DRDO, he said.

The DRDO has also developed a totally indigenous Carrier Command Post Track (CCPT) vehicle which provides details about a firing operation.

Work is to be commenced soon on an indigenous Armoured Repair and Recovery Vehicle (ARRV) which is to be developed in association with the Bharat Earth Movers Limited (BEML), Bangalore. This vehicle will go and carry out the necessary repairs whenever a military tank develops snag and is struck somewhere.

Dr. Sivakumar said that the DRDO has formulated the plan for the Next Generation Main Battle Tank. It is currently in the process of developing the engine, active and protective systems, electrical and control systems, and the technology for the tank. “If the Army gives its quality requirements, we will go ahead and develop the prototype”, he said.

Asked about the progress in the development of Arjun MBT Mk-II, the DRDO official said that following the pointing out of shortcomings in its features, 53 improvements were made in the design in the first year of the development of the tank, and 85 improvements in the second year.

The maximum trial :rotfl: is over. Following a problem in the missile, the Armament Research and Development Establishment (ARDE), Pune developed an indigenous missile, and the Army has approved it in principle.

The quality evaluation by the Directorate General of Quality Assurance is going on, while the maintenance evaluation has started. The entire evaluation would be completed within six to nine months, he said.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby shaun » 25 Jan 2015 08:39

people in the know, plz tell how long it took us to evaluate tincans interms of quality and maintenance issue? or "that " too was imported along with the tank?

member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_22539 » 25 Jan 2015 11:14

^Apparently the trials were also imported. I read that the tincan was accepted after trials in Russia (or whatever passes for that). This was before the initial order for the tincans. Funny, how they forgot that frozen Russia and burning hot Rajasthan are diametrically opposite to each other. To top it all, the tincans still cant work in the desert heat for long and needs an AC, which ironically has been "requested" from DRDO, since no one else can supply them.

All of this would constitute the joke of the century if wasn't so sad.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby rohitvats » 25 Jan 2015 12:31

Arun Menon wrote:^Apparently the trials were also imported. I read that the tincan was accepted after trials in Russia (or whatever passes for that). This was before the initial order for the tincans. Funny, how they forgot that frozen Russia and burning hot Rajasthan are diametrically opposite to each other. To top it all, the tincans still cant work in the desert heat for long and needs an AC, which ironically has been "requested" from DRDO, since no one else can supply them.

All of this would constitute the joke of the century if wasn't so sad.


Actually, the trials were done in India as well.

Buy guess what? It was done AFTER the army had given the go ahead for T-90 and at the insistence of Price Negotiation Committee (PNC). But the funny thing is, T-90 performance in these tests was far less than satisfactory. And it was done in a manner more in line with mere formality than to evaluate a weapon system.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby shaun » 25 Jan 2015 12:44

where it hurts most, we are allergic to import. Infantry is one such, actually they should be equipped with the best of the best, better assault rifles, body armour, sensors, living conditions at BOPs.

The black hole seems to be the directorate of quality and testing!!

SanjayC
BRFite
Posts: 1557
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby SanjayC » 25 Jan 2015 13:47

[User warned. It has been stated quite explicitly multiple times that freedom to criticize Services does not mean use of such demeaning language - rohitvats]

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Singha » 25 Jan 2015 16:21

If we dig deep enough the ready import of hundreds of arv from Poland could have some angles to it.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19839
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 25 Jan 2015 16:50

That was called out by VK Singh himself.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19839
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 25 Jan 2015 16:54

The ex BEML chief was clearly politically connected.

Sample: http://indiawires.com/9480/news/nationa ... ss-leader/

And the IA insiders + MODs acquisitions wing manipulated this per the guy in charge of procurement.

Shukla writes..

Standard learned during a visit to Avadi last November that the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) had quoted a price of Rs 40-50 lakh per engine for the WZT-3, but BEML rejected this as too high. Consequently, Bumar continues to source the engine from East Europe. The OFB’s quote has also been rejected for the latest order for 204 WZT-3 ARVs, which bodes ill for any prospect of indigenisation.

The ministry of defence has not responded to an emailed request for comments.
June 1, 2012 ·

The outgoing army chief, General V K Singh, claims he scuttled a Bharat Earth Movers Limited (BEML) bid to sell overpriced Tatra vehicles to the Indian Army. But, in February 2012, the army quietly signed a contract with BEML for an even larger and more controversial purchase: a $275-million (about Rs 1,500 crore) contract for 204 armoured recovery vehicles (ARVs).

Last week, the army chief declared in a television interview that he knew the WZT-3 ARV contract was a scam and BEML should be investigated in detail. He called the Tatra deal “a wake-up call for us to start examining other areas where things could have gone wrong”.But in February, BEML was nominated, without bidding, for the lucrative order for additional WZT-3 ARVs. Disregarded entirely was the fact that in three previous contracts for a total of 352 WZT-3 ARVs (44 in 1999; 80 in 2002; and 228 in 2005), BEML had disregarded the contractual stipulation to indigenise the ARV. Instead, the Indian defence public sector undertaking (DPSU) imported fully built ARVs from a Polish company, Bumar, fitted cosmetic Indian components and supplied these to the army.


The WZT-3 ARVs are essentially T-72 tanks kitted for repair and recovery, rather than for fighting. Instead of a gun and turret, the T-72 is fitted with a heavy-duty crane, winch and repair equipment. This allows the ARV to travel cross-country with tank columns, repairing tanks that break down.

The purchase of these essential vehicles has been fraught with controversy. In 2003, Brigadier Inder Mohan Singh was a Deputy Director General in the Master General of Ordnance (MGO) Branch, which handles the procurement of “in-service equipment,” as the WZT-3 was since 1999. He has told Business Standard the tendering process was manipulated to ensure BEML emerged the lone bidder. The tender was sent out to only two PSUs, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd (BHEL) and BEML; only BEML bid. When Larsen & Toubro threw its hat in the ring, the defence ministry’s acquisitions chief ruled it out as an “unsolicited bid”. That left BEML, the single vendor, at liberty to dictate terms.

Top L&T officials verify this happened, though the company has declined to comment officially, since it had not been invited to bid.

Brig I M Singh says Ukraine then wrote in, offering their T-72 based ARV for trials. This was an attractive offer, since Ukraine was willing to use the T-72 chassis and running gear that India was already building near Chennai, while importing only the recovery gear. This, says Singh, would have made their ARV 30-40 per cent cheaper than the WZT-3. He put up an official proposal that the Ukrainian ARV be invited for trials, since this was a Rs 1,000-crore contract that should not go to a single bidder.

That idea was quickly shot down by the MGO himself, Lt General V K Jetley, whose brother, Colonel Virendar Jetley, had been employed by Bumar India, a joint venture between Bumar Poland and the New Delhi-based Chemon Group, headed by prominent Delhi cigar baron, Chetan Seth. “Within days, I was removed from the ARV cost negotiation committee,” says Brig Singh.

Chetan Seth, interviewed by Business Standard, confirms Col Virendar Jetley was his employee. However, he denies any influence was exercised.

Arms dealers have long sought a link with the MGO’s office, which controls a large chunk of the defence budget.

The owner of Vectra, Ravi Rishi, now under the CBI scanner in the Tatra case, employed two successive MGOs soon after they retired: Lt Gen R I S Kahlon, from the time he retired till his death last year; and Lt Gen S J S Saighal, who hit the limelight when Eurocopter, which employed his brother, Lt Gen H S Saighal, won a massive Indian contract for 197 light helicopters. The defence ministry overturned that decision after rivals protested.

With the contract for 228 WZT-3 signed in 2005, Bumar Poland began sending shiploads of ARVs to Mumbai. While BEML was supposed to indigenise these quickly, Brig I M Singh says BEML did absolutely no work on the ARVs.

“The Bumar ARVs did not even go to the BEML plant. When the ship from Poland reached Mumbai, we would send drivers to unload the ARVs. They would load the ARVs onto a train to Ordnance Depot, Kirkee, from where the frontline units would collect them,” says Brig Singh.

Chetan Seth admits the ARVs never went to BEML but claims some Indian parts would be fitted onto the ARVs in Ordnance Depot, Kirkee. “It took some time, but we indigenised drivers’ periscope sights; drivers’ adjustable seats; periscopes; and radios. We had a team of five Polish engineers in Kirkee,” avers Seth.

Approached for comments, BEML chief, V R S Natarajan, said he would respond in a press conference once the army chief retired. When pressed for answers, he asked for an emailed list of questions, to which he has not responded.

Meanwhile, another Chetan Seth company, Optic Electronics, was providing an illustration of how “indigenisation” worked in the WZT-3.

According to a senior Chetan Seth employee, Optic Electronics functioned from ab SEZ in Noida, importing surplus parts from East Europe depots, touching these up, and then re-exporting them at a 500 per cent profit.

“Optic Electronics would import the day sights for each WZT-3 ARV for $5,500. These stained, often rusty, parts would be cleaned up and re-exported to Bumar Poland for around $25,000. These would then be fitted onto the WZT-3,” says the Seth employee on condition of anonymity.
:rolleyes:

Chetan Seth says he built day sights in partnership with a Polish company called PCO. He admits providing day sights for the WZT-3, but denies they were surplus parts from junkyards.

Ironically, the “indigenisation” of the WZT-3, which never crossed even 20 per cent, was being done through low-tech routes like ploughs, driver sights, towing ropes and seats, even as India was running a full T-72 tank manufacturing line at Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi, and building T-72 engines at the Engine Factory, Avadi.

Business Standard learned during a visit to Avadi last November that the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) had quoted a price of Rs 40-50 lakh per engine for the WZT-3, but BEML rejected this as too high. Consequently, Bumar continues to source the engine from East Europe. The OFB’s quote has also been rejected for the latest order for 204 WZT-3 ARVs, which bodes ill for any prospect of indigenisation.


The ministry of defence has not responded to an emailed request for comments.

..

Another here
http://www.firstpost.com/india/bemls-27 ... 83182.html

devesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5129
Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby devesh » 25 Jan 2015 20:36

there seem to be, to put it mildly, "incongruous" interests among the various sections of the Indian Mil-Ind complex.

if we model the complex as a system, it is not entirely implausible to imagine why - except for Naval tech - almost all indigenous projects seem to run into delays.

I don't think it's an issue of capabilities...more like an issue with different sections tugging in different directions and the sum total of these vectors effectively delaying and sinking the projects.

I hope Parrikar is serious about sending the bureaucrats to the borders and battle zones to give them a taste of what the soldiers go through. This is a step in the right direction. it won't fix everything, but it is a good start. if the Babudom can be rectified, I suspect, many other issues will fall into place sooner than later.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19839
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 25 Jan 2015 21:44

You are right about multiple heads all working in different directions.
But its not about babus alone - there are many vested interests in different parts of our structure who have ensured local MIC is not developed, to feather their nests.

eklavya
BRFite
Posts: 1872
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby eklavya » 26 Jan 2015 00:16

As General VK Singh is now a part of the ruling party and the government, he should be candid in advising the Defence Minister about the rot in the system.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21053
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 26 Jan 2015 19:14

The demands for changes in the Arjun Mk-2 is so exhaustive and requirements not frozen,will ensure that the tank never enter service with the IA in any meaningful manner. Both the IA and DRDO appear to be responsible for the fiasco. Here is some classified info.

Future changes demanded by the IA might include a mini-bar fridge /cool compartment for stocking up Kingp*sser beer,lassi,chilled drinks,to beat the heat in he desert summer.A DVD player with a detachable wide screen monitor has also been demanded so that tankers can have electronic manuals for all eqpt. ,plus sat commns to relay the latest Bollywood/Hollywood movies when "resting". An receptacle for a plant holder as was fitted to old Beetles is considered an absolute necessity to make the tank "green" and ecofriendly. The plant could be say a popular kind of weed very much in vogue during the '60s! Animal lovers say that a kennel is also a must as trained mutts can sniff out minefields very well,thus saving tanks and lives.Plus extremely useful in chewing the enemy where it hurts most! Tanks equipped with mini/micro UAVs would be a world first.Swarms of "wasps" unleashed by the "total tank" would sting the butts of enemy soldiers and if hallucinogens are used ,utter chaos would take place in the ranks of the ungodly. Fitting an Israeli aerostat would give the tank a terrific surveillance capability harking back to the days of WW1,when balloons were similarly used.see how old ideas come around!

A compact loo is also being considered,no Indian Railway "hole-in-the-floor" system,a proper chem toilet which will also be environmentally friendly.One worthy has suggested that every tank comes with an attached trailer with a kitchenette so that tankers can get at least one hot meal a day! A "train of tanks/trailers" is another novel idea going the rounds,the massive cloud of dust thrown up by such an armoured train would create panic in enemy ranks.It would also defeat enemy lasers and IR sensors and if windmills are also attached to elements of the train,the dust clouds could blind the eyes of the enemy.

The DRDO/CVRDE has said that all these features are eminently feasible and a prototype can be developed by 2020. The IA is also delighted that the DRDO has "come aboard". It will of course cost about a $billion a tank,more expensive than firang alternatives with samller crews.As an interim measure,the IA has suggested that more T-90s,95s,Armatas,etc. are easily available from a friendly Moscow merchant! The DRDO is also very pleased as the R&D budget for developing the "total tank" is expected to be several hundred billions and the best foreign tech for "make in India" (not "made in India") is to be sourced with top boffins ready with their bags packed for extensive visits to all the tank and allied component manufacturers from both east and west.They are expected to return to India within a couple of years.

saje
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 89
Joined: 08 Oct 2010 16:28
Location: Bangalore

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby saje » 26 Jan 2015 22:21

[A completely idiotic post deleted, user warned and banned for 01 months. While this was the first warning earned by the user, considering the absolute drivel in that post, a 01 month ban has been enforced. - rohitvats]

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby shaun » 26 Jan 2015 22:55

^^^^
Pure baloney !! the post made by saje.

Y. Kanan
BRFite
Posts: 812
Joined: 27 Mar 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Y. Kanan » 28 Jan 2015 12:14

Good demonstration of what even semi-modern anti-tank missiles can do to a T-72 or T-90:




Scary stuff. Imagine having to crew one of these tanks in combat.

d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby d_berwal » 28 Jan 2015 13:38

@ Y.Kanan ^^

The Missile in above vdo is not semi-modern or the normal Tow Missile.

Its BGM-71F TOW 2B Aero
Range: TOW 2B: 2.33 miles (3.75 km); TOW-2B Aero: 2.80 miles (4.5 km)
Guidance System: Optically-tracked, wire-guided
Warhead: Two Explosively Formed Penetrator (EFP) warheads - forward/aft

The BGM-71F TOW 2B Aero is an extended range version of the TOW 2B anti-tank missile. This missile is used against enemy armor and has a range of 2.8 miles (4.5 km). Compared to earlier TOW versions, the TOW 2B is designed to fly over enemy tanks and armored vehicles and hit them from above, where the armor is thinner.

The effect of BGM-71F TOW 2B Aero in a successful TOP attack mode will be similar to above vdo on ANY fully loaded MBT.

The scary part is why are you spreading wrong information.

ravip
BRFite
Posts: 270
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby ravip » 28 Jan 2015 13:58

d_berwal wrote:@ Y.Kanan ^^

The Missile in above vdo is not semi-modern or the normal Tow Missile.

Its BGM-71F TOW 2B Aero
Range: TOW 2B: 2.33 miles (3.75 km); TOW-2B Aero: 2.80 miles (4.5 km)
Guidance System: Optically-tracked, wire-guided
Warhead: Two Explosively Formed Penetrator (EFP) warheads - forward/aft

The BGM-71F TOW 2B Aero is an extended range version of the TOW 2B anti-tank missile. This missile is used against enemy armor and has a range of 2.8 miles (4.5 km). Compared to earlier TOW versions, the TOW 2B is designed to fly over enemy tanks and armored vehicles and hit them from above, where the armor is thinner.

The effect of BGM-71F TOW 2B Aero in a successful TOP attack mode will be similar to above vdo on ANY fully loaded MBT.

The scary part is why are you spreading wrong information.



Do paki army have this missile?

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Singha » 28 Jan 2015 14:03

afaik around 2007 they got some 3300 TOW2A radio guided missiles to replace older rounds.

so not yet is my guess.

Y. Kanan
BRFite
Posts: 812
Joined: 27 Mar 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Y. Kanan » 31 Jan 2015 07:17

d_berwal wrote:@ Y.Kanan ^^

The Missile in above vdo is not semi-modern or the normal Tow Missile.

Its BGM-71F TOW 2B Aero
Range: TOW 2B: 2.33 miles (3.75 km); TOW-2B Aero: 2.80 miles (4.5 km)
Guidance System: Optically-tracked, wire-guided
Warhead: Two Explosively Formed Penetrator (EFP) warheads - forward/aft

The BGM-71F TOW 2B Aero is an extended range version of the TOW 2B anti-tank missile. This missile is used against enemy armor and has a range of 2.8 miles (4.5 km). Compared to earlier TOW versions, the TOW 2B is designed to fly over enemy tanks and armored vehicles and hit them from above, where the armor is thinner.

The effect of BGM-71F TOW 2B Aero in a successful TOP attack mode will be similar to above vdo on ANY fully loaded MBT.

The scary part is why are you spreading wrong information.



Don't be stupid. Questioning someone's patriotism because they point out our tanks' vulnerability to anti-tank missiles? Want to beat your chest and brag go to Pakdef or china-defense.com.

Pakistan already has thousands of TOW-2A (since 2006) and many thousands more of the Chinese HJ-8 (similiar performance), both of which are effective against T-series tanks even without top-attack capability. And they've been talking about purchasing the Chinese HJ-12 top attack ATGM for at least the last couple of years (maybe longer). Pakis might have already done so for all I know. And we have every reason to believe they'll be acquiring TOW-2B in the very near future as well. It's not like Pakistani top-attack ATGMs are some distant vague possibility; they're already in the process of getting them if they haven't already.

So yeah, this is relevant. And by the way, you're wrong that a top-attack ATGM like TOW-2B would do the same thing to a real MBT like M1A2, Merkava-series or Challenger II. They'll be damaged, possibly knocked out of the fight but not catastrophically destroyed as shown in that video.

I can only hope that Indian T-90's are going to be equipped with some kind of ERA on the top of their turrets (not sure how practical or feasible that is, but apparently the Russians have equipped some of their T-90's in that fashion).

Anyway the good news is our Nags will do the exact same thing to Paki T-80\55\Al-Khalid\Type-88. Armor protection hasn't kept up with firepower for either side. Apparently the tank forces of both countries are going to be utterly decimated if we actually go to war.

d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby d_berwal » 31 Jan 2015 10:42

Y. Kanan wrote:Don't be stupid. Questioning someone's patriotism because they point out our tanks' vulnerability to anti-tank missiles? Want to beat your chest and brag go to Pakdef or china-defense.com.


Can you point out without calling names, where did i question your patriotism? I questioned your motive behind deliberate wrong caption for your post.

there can be multiple motives to your deliberate post without compromising your patriotism but if you feel one way i cant help.


Pakistan already has thousands of TOW-2A (since 2006) and many thousands more of the Chinese HJ-8 (similiar performance), both of which are effective against T-series tanks even without top-attack capability. And they've been talking about purchasing the Chinese HJ-12 top attack ATGM for at least the last couple of years (maybe longer). Pakis might have already done so for all I know. And we have every reason to believe they'll be acquiring TOW-2B in the very near future as well. It's not like Pakistani top-attack ATGMs are some distant vague possibility; they're already in the process of getting them if they haven't already.


pure speculation and too much generational. I dont get you logic!! (an ATGM is an ATGM .. top attack or not, wire guided or IR guided or optics guided all are same.... Tow or HJ series are same ...)

well Pakistan is already in the process of getting lots of stuff from foreign land and you have inside information on their future purchases... you should go to IB or RAW to provide such info.. not come to a public forum to put such claims in open.


So yeah, this is relevant. And by the way, you're wrong that a top-attack ATGM like TOW-2B would do the same thing to a real MBT like M1A2, Merkava-series or Challenger II. They'll be damaged, possibly knocked out of the fight but not catastrophically destroyed as shown in that video.

well any fully loaded MBT will meet a similar fate as shown in the vdo... if the missile is successful in flying on top of MBT, why a similar fate is beyond your comprehension.

care to explain how will fully loaded MBT like M1A2, Merkava-series or Challenger II survive a Top attack ATGM without getting catastrophically destroyed

I can only hope that Indian T-90's are going to be equipped with some kind of ERA on the top of their turrets (not sure how practical or feasible that is, but apparently the Russians have equipped some of their T-90's in that fashion).

well the above is really cherry on the cake... you have no understanding of anything, you are not even doing basic research before posting. What you are hoping for, the answer to that is available on internet and it doesn't even take 5 min to find that out.

Anyway the good news is our Nags will do the exact same thing to Paki T-80\55\Al-Khalid\Type-88. Armor protection hasn't kept up with firepower for either side. Apparently the tank forces of both countries are going to be utterly decimated if we actually go to war.


If a normal ATGM will do to T-90 what you claim, then why do we need nags for Pak armour we have enough of ATGMs to do the same!!!

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby rohitvats » 31 Jan 2015 12:15

d_berwal wrote:<SNIP>


You don't need to be abrasive when replying to someone. If a poster has written something which YOU think is factually incorrect, please go ahead and provide the right explanation. Everyone will learn something this way. Don't fly off the tangent and get into a slug-fest, something you've been doing recently. Take this as a caution.

You of all the people should know that no ATGM in our inventory will not do something like in the video to PA tanks; there is a reason IA wanted a new ATGM with tandem warhead and top-attack capability.

And coming to Pakistan Army and ATGM - it is a well known fact that PA relies heavily on ATGM to counter Indian superiority in armor and free up its own armor for launching attack on India. It has Heavy and Light ATGM battalions for this very purpose.

Pakistan has taken delivery of 3,000+ TOW-2A missiles; and many amongst these are not wire-guided ones but with RF link. While internet tells you that TOW-2B Aero RF is the ATGM with RF links, Raytheon has developed RF versions for other TOW versions as well.

d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby d_berwal » 31 Jan 2015 12:57

^^ Rohit

will take up your advice.

TOW weapon system : TUBE-LAUNCHED, OPTICALLY-TRACKED, WIRELESS-GUIDED (TOW) FAMILY OF MISSILES

Types of TOW RF family of Missile:
1) Tow 2B Aero RF (only one with 'flyover shoot down' top attack mode)
2) Tow Bunker Buster RF/ Tow BB RF
3) Tow 2A RF/ Tow 2RF

As per the available info on internet deliveries of Tow family to PA
- Tow 2A : Numbers 4790 (Delivered between 2006 - 2008 and 2008 - 2011)
- Tow 2RF ( its either Tow BB RF or Tow 2A RF) : Numbers 422 (Delivered between 2008 - 2011)


(422 is a small number is primary give as bunker busters or busting fortified locations around Pak-AF border, 2,776 Tow 2A -RF are for their cobras to be used on Pak-AF border)

Assuming TOW-2B Aero RF is the ATGM with RF link given to PA is pure speculation, since internet also gives you other data. Look at the armscontrol.org link, it clearly states : Proposed sale to PA : 2,776 Radio Frequency (RF) TOW-2A Missiles, 422 RF Bunker Buster missiles, and associated equipment.

References:
- http://www.msl.army.mil/Documents/Brief ... 0Brief.pdf
- SIPRI arms transfer database
- https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/ ... rmsexports
- - Wiki PA page gives 4790 No for Tow 2A

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby rohitvats » 31 Jan 2015 13:30

http://defense-update.com/newscast/1206/news_101206.htm#tow


Pakistan is also planning to modernize its TOW missiles, fielding radio-frequency TOW 2A to replace current wire-guided TOW (BGM-71) systems. The total order is expected to cost about U.S. $185 million. The order is expected to include 2,769 Radio Frequency (RF) TOW 2A Missiles and 415 RF Bunker Buster Missiles. The order will also include modifications for 121 TOW launchers, introducing the RF guidance system. Some of the missiles are expected to field with Pakistani Army AH-1S Cobra attack helicopters, enabling employment of new tactics, techniques and procedures that have already proven highly effective against terrorists.


So, PA does not seem to have the Top-Attack TOW-2B version.

d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby d_berwal » 31 Jan 2015 19:43

rohitvats wrote:[

You of all the people should know that no ATGM in our inventory will not do something like in the video to PA tanks; there is a reason IA wanted a new ATGM with tandem warhead and top-attack capability.


rohit of all the people i didn't expect you to take something out of context you are a moderator. (and rohit as a moderator are you ok with some one calling some one stupid as allowed behavior on BR)

this is what i had said (If a normal ATGM will do to T-90 what you claim, then why do we need nags for Pak armour we have enough of ATGMs to do the same!!!)

This does not mean i dont know why NAG is required or how advanced it is or why IA wanted a new ATGM with tandem warhead and top-attack capability.

what i said was in response to some one barging that "what even semi-modern anti-tank missiles can do to a T-72 or T-90"

the same person also claims that "And by the way, you're wrong that a top-attack ATGM like TOW-2B would do the same thing to a real MBT like M1A2, Merkava-series or Challenger II. They'll be damaged, possibly knocked out of the fight but not catastrophically destroyed as shown in that video."

Rohit you of all people know that the part in Bold in above sentence is not true.

Lets see the below vdo's (my apologies if they have been posted before)

Al Jazeera- Merkava Tank - Part I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3CuDbbr5tA

Al Jazeera- Merkava Tank - Part II
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTU3QeKDc8Y

we can clearly see what can be done by trained ATGM crew with rusty Russian ATGM. (only the parts where Mk3 & Mk4 are hit)

The list of Russian ATGM's we have is available on wiki.

Y. Kanan
BRFite
Posts: 812
Joined: 27 Mar 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Y. Kanan » 01 Feb 2015 02:48

d_berwal wrote:
rohitvats wrote:[

You of all the people should know that no ATGM in our inventory will not do something like in the video to PA tanks; there is a reason IA wanted a new ATGM with tandem warhead and top-attack capability.


rohit of all the people i didn't expect you to take something out of context you are a moderator. (and rohit as a moderator are you ok with some one calling some one stupid as allowed behavior on BR)

this is what i had said (If a normal ATGM will do to T-90 what you claim, then why do we need nags for Pak armour we have enough of ATGMs to do the same!!!)

This does not mean i dont know why NAG is required or how advanced it is or why IA wanted a new ATGM with tandem warhead and top-attack capability.

what i said was in response to some one barging that "what even semi-modern anti-tank missiles can do to a T-72 or T-90"

the same person also claims that "And by the way, you're wrong that a top-attack ATGM like TOW-2B would do the same thing to a real MBT like M1A2, Merkava-series or Challenger II. They'll be damaged, possibly knocked out of the fight but not catastrophically destroyed as shown in that video."

Rohit you of all people know that the part in Bold in above sentence is not true.

Lets see the below vdo's (my apologies if they have been posted before)

Al Jazeera- Merkava Tank - Part I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3CuDbbr5tA

Al Jazeera- Merkava Tank - Part II
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTU3QeKDc8Y

we can clearly see what can be done by trained ATGM crew with rusty Russian ATGM. (only the parts where Mk3 & Mk4 are hit)

The list of Russian ATGM's we have is available on wiki.


You're quite right; the "stupid" remark was unwarranted. I apologize. You bring up good points, actually. I understand that video was an extreme example of our tanks' vulnerability to ATGM's, and that we don't know how many top-attack ATGM's Pakis have (if any). But still, I think it's a very real concern, considering how easily Pakistan can acquire these types of missiles if they haven't already.

By the way, I've never actually seen footage or heard of real-life incidents in combat where M1-Abrams or Merkava series tanks exploded catastrophically from an ATGM hit. I've only heard of a handful of incidents where M1 or Merkava crews were completely wiped out in one hit, but those were from larger warheads (like Maverick air-to-ground ATGM) striking the top of the turret, or from enormous IED's being set off directly under the tank as it drove over (a blast so powerful the tank was flipped over).

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_26622 » 01 Feb 2015 04:30

To Summarise above -

1. Their are two classes of MBT tanks. Light MBT is basically the T-series (72,80,90) and Heavy 'Western' series (M1, Challenger,Merkava)

2. Anti tank missiles have improved significantly through innovation (tandem warhead, top attack, RF cuing...) while MBT protection has been languishing (composite armor was last significant breakthrough, active defense is still maturing)

3. Light MBT will be toast against recent PAK aquisitions while heavier MBT will be disabled with crew survival (with high probability?). Odds will get worse as anti tank missiles are cheaper to acquire and it is a defensive weapon from export clearance perspective.

Finally- If you are going to war better suit up in a heavy MBT instead of Light MBT, if you want to come back

None of above is 'new' news worthy material really. The billion dollar question is why are we 'still' procuring Tin cans while having a heavy MBT for same/similar price? Most countries will have a light/heavy combo due to budgetary constraints but we are getting both for same price. Where did the 'value' of life/money quotient vanish?

Please correct above as needed. Until then Jai Ho Delhism!

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby NRao » 01 Feb 2015 05:23

Active protection - Trophy - is an option right now. It seems to have worked rather well.

d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby d_berwal » 01 Feb 2015 12:37

@ Y.Kanan

I had posted 2 vdo documentary links... please have a look at them.

Part 1 see around 7:55 onwards for 10-15 sec you can see what you dont wanna see

Part 2 see around 10:15 or so, Then at 11:00 or so and then 13:30 there is enough visual evidence in these two documentary's.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17050
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Rahul M » 01 Feb 2015 13:05

nik, light tanks are more in the ~20 ton range e.g CV-90, some stryker versions etc.

t-series are called MBT, same as arjun and abrams. I guess we could call them medium MBT (40-50 t), as opposed to the heavy ones (55 ton +).

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby rohitvats » 01 Feb 2015 19:33

d_berwal wrote:<SNIP>what i said was in response to some one barging that "what even semi-modern anti-tank missiles can do to a T-72 or T-90"


It is what you said is that I called out - I know the other poster was factually incorrect and rather than use the language you did or the way you responded, you could have presented the correct picture.

The same person also claims that "And by the way, you're wrong that a top-attack ATGM like TOW-2B would do the same thing to a real MBT like M1A2, Merkava-series or Challenger II. They'll be damaged, possibly knocked out of the fight but not catastrophically destroyed as shown in that video."

Rohit you of all people know that the part in Bold in above sentence is not true.


Correct. And hence, I expected you to correct this notion. Which you finally did in your previous post.

<SNIP>

we can clearly see what can be done by trained ATGM crew with rusty Russian ATGM. (only the parts where Mk3 & Mk4 are hit).The list of Russian ATGM's we have is available on wiki.


Correction - the success of Hezbollah was not because of some 'rusty' Russian ATGM but the very latest and heavy Kornet ATGM. The documentary you linked says as much. It was serious enough situation for Israelis to raise objection with Russians - Russian
had supplied the same to Syria and from there, they landed up in Hezbollah hands.

Further, the success of Hezbollah was also due to use of very good tactics - they ambushed the Israeli tanks and fired from concealed positions at more vulnerable areas. Considering the geography of the area from where Israelis were advancing into Lebanon, even a mobility kill was enough to hold up Israeli movement for hours.

With the proliferation of ERA on tanks, requirement of an ATGM with tandem warhead, top attack profile and more modern F&F guidance is a must. Even a man-portable missile like Javelin carries a huge warhead for its range, almost same as our Nag.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17050
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Rahul M » 01 Feb 2015 20:15

also, in urban env atgm crews have a better line of sight to the top of tanks even with older non-top-attack missiles.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby shaun » 01 Feb 2015 22:20

Image

Credit goes to twinblade.
Last edited by shaun on 01 Feb 2015 22:49, edited 1 time in total.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby RoyG » 01 Feb 2015 22:33

Can all the tin-can supporters comment on the above? I hope Parrikar is working on inducting the Arjun and completely replacing this T-series junk. Those, who are involved in this scam should get capital punishment b/c ultimately it is our armored guys which will face the devastating impact of their decision.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1694
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Khalsa » 02 Feb 2015 04:23

My God My God :eek: :eek: :eek:

this is great. Can more of these be released into the public domain ?

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby PratikDas » 02 Feb 2015 04:38

Khalsa wrote:My God My God :eek: :eek: :eek:

this is great. Can more of these be released into the public domain ?


Has already been discussed on page 10. Not sure what is being done about it at MoD.

member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_26622 » 02 Feb 2015 05:08

^ Something of this scale cannot be pulled off easily. No one wants to say the obvious here but this will have to run deep and wide to happen in the first place and then be sustained for a decade. At the minimum, this calls for a reset in our relationships with our so called friends.

I like 'commonality' usage in procurement process for Tincans. Extend it further and one can conclude that we should re-instate British raj as it will maintain commonality with prior 300 years of slavery. We should import defense equipment as it maintains commonality with past practices. We should stay weak as it maintains commonality with past. Our economy should grow at below 5 % and inflation above 10% to maintain commonality. We should stay poor ....

Commonality is another pseudonym for maintaining status quo. India elected Narendra Modi - a change leader to junk commonality. Government services (MOD, Armed forces, ...) need to get the memo or risk been voted out.

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby uddu » 02 Feb 2015 09:23

Made in India, Made for India :)
India's battle tank Arjun mark II is all set to hit the grounds


The news mentions the following details
Arjun outgunned the T-90 tanks produced by Russia
Anbhazhagan the tank commander:
This tank is very important, very significant in the border areas of Punjab and Rajasthan. Do have many features that's not available in other tanks. The firepower of this tank is very accurate.
Satish from DRDO:
We use the rifled bore gun because of the need to fire multiple types of rounds.
The APFSDS round is fired at 1600 m/s. Also fires HESH round...Also grenades and whatever is required for the soldiers in war.
Then explains features of Mark-II
We were not able to export any defence equipment even though there were requirement from customers abroad.
Even for Arjun MK-I there were request but could not export because government (UPA) did not provide permission. :evil:


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests