Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21231
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 10 Jun 2015 09:29

The Chinese can't wait to get their hands on a single Armata to strip it and copy it.They've been doing that for the last few decades,especially in the last 2. The Russian "expectation" is for at least 1000" T-14s to be built by 2020. I doubt that they will export the same to any country until their requirement is first met in part,given the neo-Cold War situ in Europe despite Mr.Putin's comforting words about a European war being madness. Russia may not want it but madness is what started off WW1 and WW2 and a host of conflicts around the world. NATO is conducting aggressive mil exercises on Russia's borders and when you have the disgraced Georgian "leader",Shaky Willy being made a UKR Governor,general whatever,and the country led by a chocolate soldier,anything can happen.

I seriously doubt the capability of the Chinese MBTs against the latest western,Russian and Arjuns.Their armour is an unknown qty. and the design has some flaws,like the one below:

To accommodate more equipment and ammunition, the Type 98's turret is slightly larger than that of the Type 90, resulting in a gap between the turret and hull in the front. This could be a major disadvantage in battle, as it acts as a shot trap and exposes the turret ring, increasing the likelihood of hits from the front jamming the turret. Norinco has since provided armor upgrades to the Type 99,
to avoid a shot trap.,


However,I do believe that the good Kremlin spokesman ,aide,is enjoying watching rival nations wanting to get an edge over the other as salestalk. If both India and China are seriously squaring off for first peck at the Armata,we are going to be entertained.

PS:Keep the vodka flowing:rotfl:
PPS:Some NATO xpts. on the topic.
http://www.defencematters.org/index.php ... &art_id=32
Armata tank: Should NATO be worried? What the experts say

Andrej Matisak

With the unveiling of new weapons like the T-14 Armata tank two questions prevail: to what extent is it just a show of force for Russia and should NATO be worried and why? Below are a few comments from the experts.

Johan Norberg, Senior Analyst at the FOI (Swedish Defence Research Agency)

On the T-14 main battle tank (MBT). First, context.

The reason Europe should worry is not because this (or any other) new Russian weapons platform is displayed in parades. The plans seem to be to introduce an unknown number of them in units in the coming years. The BIG reason to worry is that Russia’s government is increasing oppression at home and aggression abroad and has for at least five years prepared its military, and partly society as a whole, to wage a large scale war. Europe has not taken the same steps. I see these new platforms as signs that Russia invests heavily in developing and modernizing its armed forces´ equipment, rather than just the actual tank per se.

Second, the new tank’s role in military capabilities.

One new platform does not automatically mean new capabilities. Military capability is the ability to do operations. Platforms are a part of this, but more importantly is that personnel are well trained, units cohesive and command and control systems well exercised. Here, a new tank as such means little. It is more important that Russia’s annual strategic exercises, despite all the talk about “anti-terrorism” etc, actually are about preparing the armed forces to carry out big joint inter-service operations in large scale wars.

Third, numbers matter.

How many MBTs does Russia have? The quick answer: probably some 2,500 MBTs in active units, but with a potential of 18,000 more available for modernization. Both figures matter for military capabilites, the lower in the short term perspective (up to six months) and the higher beyond that, since it is likely to require mobilization. Military Balance used to roll the same figure forward (around 18,000 in storage; some 2,800 in active service), if I remember correctly for the past few years. (see Military Balance for exact figures).

Regarding short term military capability I used to discard stored tanks, since there would be available units to actually use only after mobilization. That was wrong. Old T-64s seem to have been sent to the Russian forces in Donbas and although not formally a part of an army unit, they are a military capability that works to further Russia’s aims. As a Russian analyst once told me “Old tanks also kill”!

We assessed in 2011 that some 2,550 MBTs were needed for the new brigade based Новый Облик-structure launched in 2009. (See p. 325 in http://www.foi.se/ReportFiles/ foir_3404.pdf In Swedish - The table was not translated into the English version). The bulk of the MBTs is actually not for the tank brigades, but for the tank battalions in each of the around 35 Motor Rifle Brigades (MRB). 2550 is in line with the Military Balance figure for the number of MBTs “in active service”. A few months later, in February 2012, in his pre-election manifesto about defence in Rossiiskaia Gazeta, Putin talked about producing “more than 2,300 modern tanks”. There is a lack of clarity about the term ”modern” (современный, а не новый) when it comes to the State Armaments Program (GPV 2020). Thus, 2,300 “modern” MBTs does not necessarily mean newly developed and produced such as the T-14 or newly produced pieces of existing platforms (e.g. T-72s). It could also include modernizing existing MBTs. Ironically, the GPV-2020 will doubtlessly reach the “70% modern equipment” goal by 2020. Russia probably gets more “modern” MBTs (and actual tank capability in the field) by quickly upgrading T-72s. Having fewer platforms makes sense since each platform (T-64, 72, 80, 90 and now T-14) has its own logistics/maintenance “tail”. Thus, upgraded T-72 for the bulk of the tank battalions in the MRBs and T-14 for selected tank units seems reasonable. Upgraded T-72s is probably the most efficient gap-filler until new tanks are delivered.

About the actual Armata-platform, I know only that it has been discussed for years and that the Russian military press has done the usual Ура-reporting about it (as with all new Russian weapons systems). New MBTs will probably, after state trials, be delivered to the tank battalions in key motor rifle units and to the four tank brigades in the Novy Oblik-structure (2 in Western MD, one in Central and Eastern MD respectively). One brigade in the Western MD has been relabeled as a division (4th Tanks), but it is yet unclear to what extent that has actually changed its organization or way to fight.

Stephen Cimbala, Distinguished Professor of Political Science, Penn State Brandywine

During and after the annexation of Crimea by Russia, Putin has followed a strategy of unconventional warfare/political warfare (UW/PW) emphasizing the use of proxy forces, deception and disinformation and other covert means. His objectives appear to include:

(1) keeping parts of eastern Ukraine under de facto Russian control or in a state of turbulence that denies effective control to Kiev; (2), preventing Ukrainian accession to NATO, and limiting Ukraine’s involvement with, and commitment to the EU; (3), making it impossible for Ukraine to serve as a template or a springboard for an Orange revolution in Russia, threatening the political survival of Putin and his regime; (4), reassertion of Russia’s role as a great power after, in Putin’s view, the post-Cold War humiliation of the 1990s, and moving toward international acceptance of a multipolar world and away from expectations of U.S. hegemony or primacy.

Toward that end, Putin seeks to reinforce Russia’s claim to privileged interest in former Soviet space, especially with regard to military and security issues. As well, Putin’s strategy in Europe is accompanied by efforts to improve economic relations with China and to reinforce Russia’s already strong influence in Central Asia, although his larger dream of a Russia-conceived alternative to OSCE has as yet found difficulty catching fire.

NATO’s response to Putin’s actions in Ukraine and in Europe more broadly should be one of alliance cohesion, political steadfastness and military preparedness. Alliance cohesion means that, despite differences of emphasis among member states about various security issues, NATO must speak with a singular diplomatic stance and public voice on the issue of Russian military behavior in Ukraine. Political steadfastness means that NATO must insist that all states in Europe, including Russia, adhere to the principles of state sovereignty, territorial integrity, and negotiation rather than the use of force as a means of settling disputes. Military preparedness means that NATO must support its Article V commitments to the entirety of its membership, including those countries in Eastern Europe formerly part of the Soviet Union and now feeling threatened by the shadow cast by Russian military power.

Even if the Minsk II agreement holds and is implemented, dangers remain. The first danger is that Russian-controlled or Russian-supported separatists in eastern Ukraine disconnect from de facto Russian control, operating as autonomous terrorists, militias or other formations not accountable or responsible to higher authority: a forest of “loose cannons” roaming New Russia and looking for targets of opportunity or engaged in destabilization and chaos as ends in themselves. The second danger is that, faced with stronger political opposition at home and a weakening national economy, Putin moves to use military adventurism in and around Ukraine as a distraction from Russia’s domestic problems. This second danger involves the possibility of escalation from a local conflict in or near Ukraine into a larger conflict possibly between one or more NATO members and Russia.

Dmitry Gorenburg, Senior Research Scientist, CNA Corporation

The tank has some important improvements to crew survivability when compared to previous Russian tanks. Unlike any other tank presently deployed the Armata will have an unmanned turret operated by remote control from the main compartment, which will greatly reduce the danger to the crew. It will use a new type of armor that is supposedly able to withstand fire from most types of artillery presently in the field. Furthermore, the armor is said to be able to maintain its defensive qualities in extremely low temperatures, making the tank potentially useful in the Arctic. In addition, the Armata is to be equipped with active anti-missile and anti-artillery defenses that will protect the tank from both ground-based and aerial attacks. The ammunition, fuel, and crew are to be separated in order to increase survivability in the event of a successful enemy hit. All of these features will greatly improve crew safety.

Also, by comparison with previous Russian tank models, it has a revamped engine, new transmission and improved chassis strength. Russian media have argued that its capabilities are 25-30 percent superior to its main foreign competitors. The problem with the tank is that it is going to be very expensive. Russian officials say the cost is 2.5 times greater than budgeted, which will limit procurement in the foreseeable future. It is unlikely to become a wholesale replacement for the T-72 and other older Soviet-era tanks. Instead, the Russian military is modernizing some of these older models.

So the overall takeaway is that if it does what the reports say it does, it will be quite a good tank, but it is unlikely to enter the Russian military in the kinds of numbers needed to make NATO worry.

Konrad Muzyka, Europe and CIS Armed Forces Analyst, IHS Jane’s

We need to look at short and long term perspectives. In the case of the former, the T-14 does not pose a threat to NATO or any other countries in the region. What we are seeing in Moscow are vehicles, which fall somewhere between prototypes and series production vehicles (One T-14 broke today during parade rehearsal).

In the long run, new weapons are to improve serviceability, survivability, and sustainment of Russian armoured capability. Modular design will also enable the same baseline chassis to be used for a wide range of battlefield roles and missions and will thus decrease costs associated with military procurement.

These are rational decisions, which in the longer perspective will improve overall combat capabilities of the Russian land forces.

One more thing as far as the T-14 goes. Despite the fact that presently the T-14 does not possess combat capacity, its future capabilities, weapons employed, and unique design should force NATO to start working on a new generation tank, kinetic energy penetrators, armor-piercing shells, and anti-tank missiles. The T-14 seems to possess active protection system against top attack missiles such as BGM-71F TOW and FGM-148 Javelin. This is concerning.

Stephen Blank, Senior Fellow for Russia, American Foreign Policy Council

Much of these exhibitions of new weapons are a show of pride in the achievements of the Russian defense industry and an attempt to intimidate the West with Russia’s great military capability. There is no doubt NATO should be concerned because Russia does not respect the sovereignty or integrity of any European state east of Germany and insists on being utterly unaccountable in its actions. But while its military capability has undoubtedly improved, by its aggressiveness it has begun to turn European thinking on defense around and defense budgets will continue to rise throughout NATO as long as Moscow continues to behave this way.

Paul Robinson, Professor, University of Ottawa

I don’t think that NATO has any reason to be worried, for two reasons. First, Russia has no intention of attacking NATO. Second, NATO’s military power far exceeds that of Russia, even with the addition of new weapons such as the Armata.


From a NATO perspective therefore,despite the UKR rhetoric,Russia has no plans to wage war with NATO,so whatever happens with their MBT development,NATO/Europe is safe.

In the Indian context,as was quoted,"numbers matter".Our goal is to possess approx. 4500 MBTs by 2020,of various types,T-72UGs,T-90s,and Arjuns.The task on hand is to see what ails Avadi which is reportedly behind schedule on almost every programme. Right now to my mind the Armata is a topic of debate until the IA gets a good hard look at it ,where it can evaluate it against Arjun Mk-2 ,helping finalise its FMBT requirements/specs.

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 » 10 Jun 2015 09:41

the chinese military r&d budget has far outstripped russia.
their manufacturing industry is far more globalized , integrated and equipped with latest tools.
many of their cos have achieved global success not just on cost but features and quality also

russia does not lack brains but lacks the booming civilian side industry and opportunity of china to use and hone these brains. the best brains of russia are being lost to the west for lack of much opportunity.

russia needs to smell the coffee and stop depending on just being a natural resources superpower and build a sophisticated commercial economy to bankroll and support the military side. else they will end up as another australia or canada...rich but toothless to stop the continuous nibbling and pressure on their sphere of influence.

nato will not let them do this, so their only hope left is china......it will take humility to play second fiddle to the dragon but for survival they have no other way.

this means whatever technologies china wants from russia, it will get right away...the J20 and J35 will likely get the saturn 5th gen engine right away by 2020....russia has no cards left to play with a weak economy and danger on all fronts.

we better plan for the huge increase in range and loiter the 5th gen engines will give to their VLO planes.

again we see the decades long planning by western deep state to destabilize and control russia.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21231
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 10 Jun 2015 10:16

I seriously doubt that Russia will sell China its Czarist "crown jewels". Two deals mentioned a year ago haven't taken off.transfer of sqds. of Tu-22 Backfires and the SU-35 deal isn't mentioned anywhere. Even the Amur sub deal never took off.China has been forced to build cloned Kilos with Swedish Striling engine AIP systems and its own missiles in its latest conventional AIP Yuan class,being sold to Pak,supposedly with German engines(?). Russia,or any other nation for that matter,will never sell China engine /stealth tech which will allow China to operate its own birds at the same time as its T-50,etc.
Russian arms exports to other nations are in a healthy mode. The latest deal for MIGs to Egypt is a new market being exploited,as more countries are relying less upon the US alone for milware. France has benefited from this too.

However,it will certainly sell to China what it thinks will not hurt its interests. The US is also doing the same,huge business with China,arms sales to Pak,etc. Even Israel allegedly sold the Lavi designs to China!

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 » 10 Jun 2015 14:14

certain aspects of platforms have become kind of commoditised like say the mediatek and broadcom reference designs in the cellphone industry.

china can build a good LO airframe, the associated hydraulic and electric systems, fuel system, cockpit avionics.
they can build a moderately good AESA radar to go with it.
they are hamstrung in engines and have not been successful to reach even the AL31 level, which is behind the GE414, not to speak of the EPE and EDE back ported stuff.
they can make moderately good A2G and A2A weapons and these are already fielded in the J10, su27 etc.

so to complete the J20 and J35 as useful birds and scare everyone , the only key piece they need is the engine.
nobody will sell them such engines except russia. selling engines does not hurt russia, they can still do what they want with the pacha...but its a big src of revenue if china can be persuaded to license build the 117 engine a few 100 units and royalty payments while accepting they will try to steal whatever they can (has not worked so well thus far as the real secrets are in the materials and manufacturing process not in electronics which they can x-ray or decode)

right now only the big daddy has
- ELO airframes in development
- onto 3rd gen of aesa featuring gaN modules
- a vast new family of next gen weapons
- 5th gen engine already in use on raptor for 2 decades and 6th gen work in progress

hence overall , no manned platform in near future will approach the sophistication and fit-n-finish(iphone6 style) of the JSF.

wrt to tanks china has control over the entire food chain upto 1200hp engines which they must have bought the design from ukraine off the t80 family. and they have access to better electronics via their vast civilian industry and industrial espionage ops.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9637
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby brar_w » 10 Jun 2015 14:30

The latest deal for MIGs to Egypt is a new market being exploited,as more countries are relying less upon the US alone for milware. France has benefited from this too.


Egypt is not a 'new market' for either the Russians or the French. They have long purchased military equipment from both. The operated the Dassault Mirage 2000 and were natural candidates for the Rafale to replace the M2K and perhaps even the F-16 given that until March of this year the US had a ban on arms sale to them (placed in 2013).

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21231
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 10 Jun 2015 15:05

Post Cold War and after the Camp David agreement,Egypt bought mainly from the US and western countries,eschewing Russian eqpt. In any case after the collapse of the USSR,all countries that relied upon Soviet eqpt. found spares,support,etc. difficult as the Soviets had spread out there def. industry across the republics.

The main attraction for buying Soviet.Russian eqpt. has been the price factor. Very robust eqpt. with good performance,equal or almost equal to western systems but at much lower prices. In the case of the case of MKIs,arguably better than western fighters barring the F-22. The T-14/Armata does look expensive though. It isn't going to be easy to procure in large numbers like T-72s,etc.,for most nations barring the Russians who are requipping their armour with the Armata family. It could cost perhaps 25%-35% more than a T-90,given its larger size and added features. That is going to be a drawback to large-scale exports as was possible with the T72/90s.

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 » 10 Jun 2015 16:17

problem sire is that unless you want a ISIS style militia war or human wave irani tactics, weapons for conventional war are all quite expensive even small arms and unit level weapons.

the days of cheap mass produced kit like T55, or AK47 or even the SA6 wrecking havoc on the field are over.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9637
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby brar_w » 10 Jun 2015 20:20

@ Phillip, my views and opinion on the matter -

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5092&p=1854142#p1854142
Last edited by brar_w on 11 Jun 2015 03:45, edited 6 times in total.

Picklu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2115
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Picklu » 10 Jun 2015 20:24

Ar-jun should be renamed to ar-pita and then IA will order it in large no to complement ar-mata.

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 » 10 Jun 2015 20:39

one of the F-15C A2A Fighting cocks won best squadron a few yrs ago, they are the gold std in usaf for a2a as thats all they do full time
awesome HD video as they fight , refuel , then fight again

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSCdvj4tAFg

watch with sound...afterburner use at night seems visible from way far out...a deadly advantage for supercruisers.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9637
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby brar_w » 11 Jun 2015 03:47

Singha wrote:one of the F-15C A2A Fighting cocks won best squadron a few yrs ago, they are the gold std in usaf for a2a as thats all they do full time
awesome HD video as they fight , refuel , then fight again

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSCdvj4tAFg

watch with sound...afterburner use at night seems visible from way far out...a deadly advantage for supercruisers.


Replied in the international military thread..

niran
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5465
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 16:01

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby niran » 11 Jun 2015 13:38

Singha wrote:one of the F-15C A2A Fighting cocks won best squadron a few yrs ago, they are the gold std in usaf for a2a as thats all they do full time
awesome HD video as they fight , refuel , then fight again

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSCdvj4tAFg

watch with sound...afterburner use at night seems visible from way far out...a deadly advantage for supercruisers.

that is old video had watched it around a decade ago

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21231
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 11 Jun 2015 15:01

Tx Brar,will go through it.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9637
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby brar_w » 11 Jun 2015 17:40

niran wrote:
Singha wrote:one of the F-15C A2A Fighting cocks won best squadron a few yrs ago, they are the gold std in usaf for a2a as thats all they do full time
awesome HD video as they fight , refuel , then fight again

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSCdvj4tAFg

watch with sound...afterburner use at night seems visible from way far out...a deadly advantage for supercruisers.

that is old video had watched it around a decade ago



From the video
This video was created to commemorate the 67FS winning the 2011 Raytheon Trophy for outstanding aerial achievement, given to the top air-to-air squadron in the USAF.

The footage was shot over 1 year of flying with a Sony HD Handycam and GOPRO Hero. The footage was shot entirely by pilots, no combat camera personnel were used. The video was edited with Sony Vegas Movie Studio HD over 2 weeks by Jersey. Footage includes flying and aircraft from both the 67FS "Fighting Cocks" and the 44FS "Vampire Bats", entirely on location at Kadena AB, Japan. Most of the over water footage was filmed while we were raging like demons from hell in the skies over the pacific ocean like our brothers did 70 years before us.

Credits.
-All Tower footage filmed by Jersey
-Unrestricted Climb ground view camera: Wreck and Switch
-Backseat Unrestricted climb pilot: Egg
-GO Pro captains: Blue, Hozen,Egg
-Go Pro Majors: Jersey, Lips, Crusher
- 2 ship BFM footage pilots: Jersey, Hozen, Snizzler, Trip, Wreck
- Large Force Engagement Radio Voices: Cock 1: Jersey, Cock 2: Match, Cock 3: Flash, Cock 4: Blaze
- BFM radio voices: Guano and Jersey

All editing by Jersey.

Disclaimer: I do not own any right on this video. Just reuploaded it for all the world to see.
Original ideo at Vimeo: http://vimeo.com/40935850

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 » 11 Jun 2015 17:54

in those T shaped intercepts the red force flashes by so fast....STR , big control surfaces and brutish engine power sure helps.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19875
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 13 Jun 2015 16:27

Ok guys fire away!! Indian Armys FRCV program, one program to rule them all (includes the MBT)

http://indianarmy.nic.in/writereaddata/ ... %20RFI.pdf

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1840
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Thakur_B » 13 Jun 2015 17:39

http://thumkar.blogspot.in/2015/06/brea ... -army.html
Indian Army Seeks its Own Armata - Future Ready Combat Vehicle (FRCV)

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16963
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby NRao » 13 Jun 2015 18:10



Searched for:

* Weight. And found:

The FRCV platform should enable creation of variants for employment in various operational roles in all terrain by varying its configuration and/or
weight/armour envelopes


Should have adequately high power - to - weight ratio to enable all on - board systems to be run simultaneously, without disrupting the agility and mobility of the vehicle


* Bridge: Found:

The FRCV should be in the `Medium Tank’ category whose physical dimensions should facilitate transportability over existing terrain, in - service military bridges and major civilian infrastructure (including bridges) in the border areas (on either side of the Western border).


Medium tank?

And, major civilian infrastructure?

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17066
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Rahul M » 13 Jun 2015 18:14

too vague IMO.

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1885
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby uddu » 13 Jun 2015 18:20

Brochuritis cant be cured. The Army is in a big mess. Need massive changes restructuring and they be told that no more imports.

srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2074
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srin » 13 Jun 2015 18:31

What cannot be cured must be procured :D

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 » 13 Jun 2015 18:32

they want a tank to be like a reconfigurable cellphone
photo below is google project ARA which still has not produced anything commercially..is highly inefficient when space , complexity and cost is an issue to make things so reconfigurable...you got to go in low and tight and specialize a system to the bare metal which is what all modern smartphone designs do whether broadcom or mediatek.

Image

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 » 13 Jun 2015 18:33

the same fetish to an extent made the LCS ships so costly..this when seasoned navy officers know the modules will seldom if ever be changed outside of MLU drydocking.....ASW, AAW,medical, ASuW....one class of ship with plug n play modules

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby RoyG » 13 Jun 2015 18:47

Bull$hit. Arjun chassis fits all roles. As for mbt it is a world class platform. Major clean up is needed. Bhim project should have been revived as well. Its not competing in the mobile artillery tender. We need a uniform standard.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4823
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srai » 14 Jun 2015 05:47

Karan M wrote:Ok guys fire away!! Indian Armys FRCV program, one program to rule them all (includes the MBT)

http://indianarmy.nic.in/writereaddata/ ... %20RFI.pdf


The IA expects this new tank within 10 years :roll:
That would only mean one thing, import ... probably Armata since the specs has come about after the recent unveiling.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8429
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Pratyush » 14 Jun 2015 06:05

I guess that the army is ok to pay the Russians to fix the tanks once procured by India. That too through the nose.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby vina » 14 Jun 2015 10:29

The Army plans for FICRV or whatever that moniker , is sorry to say, sucks dead rats.

1. The have made the process into three parts.
a. A "design" phase, where they call for a design competition and pick and choose a winning design against a "reward" for a winner. Why would anyone spend time and money on this is moot, without even covering fixed costs, but the Army thinks that there are enough suckers out there to come to such a contest

b. Once the "Design" contest is over, then there will be a development agency that does the prototype development and limited series production.

c. Finally a "nominated" production agency will do the final series production

All very soviet style with "Design Agency" , development agency and production agency. Frankly idiotic and unworkable anywhere outside a totalitarian set up.

For eg, what will b . do and why ? And finally what if there are design issues during production. The "production agency" will have no clue of what to do about it. The design guys have already pocketed their winnings "prize" and gone for good!

The only positive I can think of is the DGMF/ Army guys thinking they are supermen and then going to design a tank themselves, sort of like a mountain going in to labor and delivering a mouse, like Huffy and Tuffy.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8296
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Indranil » 14 Jun 2015 11:25

I think DRDO should not meddle with this at all. Let Army get this unobatianable from wherever they want. It will be very evident why all contemporaries of Arjun from the west (and now Russia) cannot be of medium-weight.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_22539 » 14 Jun 2015 11:49

^The Army DGMF is becoming an embarrassment with their cluelessness.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21231
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 14 Jun 2015 14:01

Given the Arjun experience of designing just one MBT,and the time taken for getting that beauty accepted by the IA, this vainglorious "future" whatever ,ultra-ambitious programme by the IA,copying the Russian Armata programme will arrive long after I am "6ft. under"! Good luck to those following the "campaign" .The IA is stepping into the "future" where no (Indian) armyman has gone before ! It is going to long and arduous,like hunting for the "missing link","Big Foot",the "Yeti","Loch Ness Monster" whatever!

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4823
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srai » 14 Jun 2015 18:18

vina wrote:The Army plans for FICRV or whatever that moniker , is sorry to say, sucks dead rats.

1. The have made the process into three parts.
a. A "design" phase, where they call for a design competition and pick and choose a winning design against a "reward" for a winner. Why would anyone spend time and money on this is moot, without even covering fixed costs, but the Army thinks that there are enough suckers out there to come to such a contest

b. Once the "Design" contest is over, then there will be a development agency that does the prototype development and limited series production.

c. Finally a "nominated" production agency will do the final series production

All very soviet style with "Design Agency" , development agency and production agency. Frankly idiotic and unworkable anywhere outside a totalitarian set up.

For eg, what will b . do and why ? And finally what if there are design issues during production. The "production agency" will have no clue of what to do about it. The design guys have already pocketed their winnings "prize" and gone for good!

The only positive I can think of is the DGMF/ Army guys thinking they are supermen and then going to design a tank themselves, sort of like a mountain going in to labor and delivering a mouse, like Huffy and Tuffy.


The IA chose that model because they are planning on outsourcing the design, development and production to the Russians ;)

sankum
BRFite
Posts: 1003
Joined: 20 Dec 2004 21:45

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby sankum » 14 Jun 2015 20:03

From the RFI it seems IA wants a three crew tank, while in 10 years time autonomous driving will be a reality and IA should insist on a 2 crew 40T MBT just as the Americans were developing as their future MBT which can later evolve in a robotic tank.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2620
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Vivek K » 15 Jun 2015 03:02

IA probably needs DRDO to make Optimus Prime. From Russia, it is ready to accept the T34 with a fresh coat of paint.

Mera Bharat mahaan!

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21231
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 15 Jun 2015 13:23

The last official report on the IA's FMBT (now with new alphabets!),was a 3-man MBT of approx. 50T with a larger main gun and a lot of bells and whistles,which the DRDO chief said "was not possible",probably referring to the weight constraint. The Russians have spent over a decade of R&D to reach this far with a family of AVs based upon the Armata concept. Given the long gestation period for the Arjun,why we never explored creating a family of AVs based upon the Arjun beats me.

Like the LCA at its inception,the planned advanced tech and features in the new tank must be within reach of our desi manufacturers,not "a tech too far" as was seen with the LCA. It's going to be a long and hard process,as we do not make our own tank engine,some of the bells and whistles,active anti-air/missile defence systems,etc.,and a barrel-fired ATGM. The robotic element is another tech to be mastered. An overambitious timescale for the same to meet the same fate as other prestigious programmes have suffered is unacceptable.

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 880
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Mihir » 15 Jun 2015 18:11

Philip wrote:The last official report on the IA's FMBT (now with new alphabets!),was a 3-man MBT of approx. 50T with a larger main gun and a lot of bells and whistles,which the DRDO chief said "was not possible",probably referring to the weight constraint.

No, it was because the Army asked for ridiculous tech, such as:

The new tank necessarily needs to espouse hybrid electric vehicle technology and incorporate digital vehicle electronics (vetronics) . . .

. . . For mobility, in order to achieve ‘extraordinary’ acceleration, the Army observes that it is necessary to couple the conventional diesel engine of the proposed tank to a turbine. The ‘Hyberbar’ engine will be able to accelerate from zero to full power at 1,500 hp in 2.8 seconds, while a conventional diesel engine requires 8-12 seconds . . .

. . . an active suspension system with sensors, control units, and a hydraulic power source in combination, to automatically alter the suspension characteristics to more closely match the speed of the vehicle and the terrain profile, especially in Indian terrain conditions . . .

. . . Explosive Reactive Armour Now . . .

. . . Infra Red (IR) detectors, target identification systems, laser warning systems, radar warning receivers and devices to coordinate their signal and instantaneously control a countermeasures suite . . .

. . . electronic guns . . . high velocity KE missiles with heavy-metal, long-rod penetrators . . . high/medium-energy level (100 kJ) vehicle-mounted laser . . .

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 » 15 Jun 2015 18:43

sounds like they want the suspension of a BMW, the engine of a ferrari, protection of a merkava, and firepower of a abrams...at the cost of a T90 :rotfl:

this is akin to any of the poor 'state of the field' survey papers that Btech students write and present in their campus seminars...on things like quantum computing and cold fusion that are decades out from realization...no shade of engineering realism goes into any of it.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19875
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 15 Jun 2015 18:51

Mihir, so another 5 years wasted on this new MBT? What say?

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2527
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Manish_P » 15 Jun 2015 19:04

Fair enough if the army asks for the best there is (and a bit of what there could be)... their service to the nation has earned them the right to do so!

but will they ensure that they do not accept (embrace) imports which fall short of their stated requirements.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Surya » 15 Jun 2015 19:08

simply embarrassing

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16963
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby NRao » 15 Jun 2015 19:18

Past is past.

Here on out, it would be a travesty if the rest in India do not put some sense into their heads. Rest of the Army, Armed forces, MoD, GoI, public need to get involved to stem this level of stupidity. Perhaps start a FB/Twitter campaign? Something needs to be done to arrest this from progressing further.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests