http://www.indiandefencereview.com/news ... UU.twitter
By Lt Gen Prakash Katoch
- a former Lt Gen Special Forces, Indian Army

NewsUKHome News
Ministry of Defence 'turns down German tank deal for fear of negative press’
'They made that offer to us and we should have taken it but there was an arrogance: we invented the tank, we have to have a British tank'
Lucy Pasha-Robinson @lucypasha Thursday 5 January 2017227 comments
German offer would have equipped the UK with tanks for a further three decades for roughly the same price as an upgrade to the Challenger 2 Reuters
Britain declined the opportunity to buy a fleet of German tanks due to “worry about negative press headlines,” a defence source has claimed.
German manufacturer Krauss-Maffei Wegmann offered to sell between 100 and 400 second-hand Leopard 2 tanks to the Ministry of Defence in 2015, but despite it being allegedly the best deal, the offer was turned down.
The German proposal was one of several being considered for a £700 million contract to upgrade Britain’s Challenger 2 battle tank fleet.
“They made that offer to us and we should have taken it but there was an arrogance: we invented the tank, we have to have a British tank,” a defence industry source told The Times.
“There was a worry about negative press headlines.”
Hesitation around the deal also came from a reluctance to retrain British tank operators to use a new model, and the potential impact on the support chain, which is built around the Challenger 2.
The German offer would have equipped the UK with tanks for a further three decades for roughly the same price as an upgrade to the Challenger 2 fleet, which would have extended its life by 20 years.
However, one defence source told The Times the idea had not been ruled out entirely, despite the Government selecting two other companies, BAE Systems and Germany’s Rheinmetall, to complete the Challenger 2 upgrade.
“If it turns out that buying second-hand would work out cheaper overall then finance is king,” the source said. “If it is cheaper they will go that way.”
One offer that still stands would involve a deal of 200 second-hand models of the Leopard 2 for roughly £2 million each.
US sends tanks to Europe amid rising Russian aggression
A further £500,000 per tank could then be paid to upgrade the vehicles to a common standard, and then up to a further £1 million to be upgraded to an A7V variant with increased firepower.
However, one industry source said it would be unlikely for the MoD to retrofit the Challenger 2 with new technology, and that it would be more likely they would buy the second-hand tanks.
Another senior military source disagreed telling The Times he did not believe buying second-hand would be the way forward: “I don’t think that is in the race at the moment.”
The Independent has contacted the MoD for comment.
That is not the Tata FICV but a german Wiesel 2, its a 5 ton Infantry support vehicle with recce and ATGM variants among others.Philip wrote:Seriously,what manner of beast is that TATA ICV? It appears to resemble a WW2 half-track!
To be developed under the ‘Make category’, the FICV is a high mobility armoured battle vehicle, for infantry men to keep pace with new advancements in weaponry system. The FICV needs to be compact, tracked and amphibious, no heavier than 18-20 tonnes, so that it can be air-portable and transportable by other means, onto combat zones. The vehicle must fire anti-tank guided missiles, to ranges beyond four kilometers, with a capability to carry a crew of three and eight combat-kitted infantrymen. The FICV will replace the Indian army's fleet of 2610 Russian-designed BMP (Sarath BMP-II) series armed vehicles, that are in operation since 1980.
The FICV is mobility oriented and is established by the fact that 3 of the 5 core technologies and 19 of the 34 critical technologies are mobility related, such as engines, transmission and running gear, which are core to Tata Motors, which as a lead of this consortium, has demonstrated years of experience of integrating key technologies needed in the armoured mobility segment. With around 14 Tata companies engaged in providing cutting edge solutions in the defence and aerospace sector, the group has the capability and ability to deliver on the FICV programme.
No comments on army but would have loved had they had gone for a tranche based approach to keep the Arjun alive evolve into a beast that we all want it to beThe grounded fleet of indigenously made Arjun Mark-I tanks is soon to be operationalised as the Army has found the required imported components and addressed snags in the tanks.
About 75% of the 124 tanks with the Army were grounded one-and-a-half-year ago.{Seriously!!!, is it that bureaucratic to get items}
Major General P Dixit, Commandant of Armoured Corps Centre and School (ACC&S), an institute which carries out various courses for Armoured Corps officers, said: "The snags in the tanks were identified thoroughly. The fleet was grounded as we were not getting imported components for the tanks. Now we are getting the components and the fleet will be operationalised in the coming months."
The Army has inducted around 125 Arjun tanks developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation and manufactured by state owned Heavy Vehicles Factory at Avadi in Chennai.
A senior official from HVF, Avadi, said: "The entire fleet of the tanks was grounded for more than a year which was a major setback for the Army. However, the ministry of defence had set up a special committee comprising experts from DRDO, HVF and senior Army officers to find foreign manufacturers who could supply the spare parts." The parts are coming from various countries, including Germany. Because of the tedious procurement process, it is getting delayed eventually affecting repairs of the tanks, the official added.
Speaking on the progress of Arjun Mark-II, Maj Gen Dixit clarified that the prototype of the tank has been developed. "But it is yet to come to a formidable stage."
Interestingly, two months ago, the government had hinted at buying advanced T-90 tanks from Russia, sidelining DRDO's Arjun Mark-IIs.
Sources in Armoured Corps said the Arjun Mark-I was affected by a range of snags in its transmission system, thermal imaging sights and accuracy, among others. "As a result, the Army is not showing much interest in Arjun Mark-II. The Army has already suggested over 70 improvements in the tank," they added.
When asked on the induction of advanced T-90 tanks, Maj Gen Dixit welcomed the development and said, "As our roles are expanding so any induction of new equipment as per government policy is beneficial for us. And, T-90 is the state-of-the-art tank".
About 75% of the 124 tanks with the Army were grounded one-and-a-half-year ago
When you order a complex system in penny packets, it is tailor made for a situation where the economy of scale for support would not exist, and troubles with maintenance and upkeep will persist.affected by a range of snags in its transmission system, thermal imaging sights and accuracy, among others.
Thanks for posting. I enjoyed thatsudeepj wrote:Seeing the snorkel equipment on an Indian T90 for the first time. Watch from time stamp 38:00
https://youtu.be/qgq29QAjhfw?t=2280
PS:ABsence of an APS system is crucial from this report,why the T-90s being acquired must have their APS.Here again babudom is doing its best to harm the IA,as from earlier posts about T-90s not coming with any APS ,reason babudom's procurement protocol.Inefficiency of US Tanks Used in Mosul Leaves German Magazine Uneasy © AP Photo/ Hadi Mizban
German Journalist Gernot Kramper compared two videos showing the US-made M1 Abrams tank and the Russian-made T-90 being hit by anti-tank missiles. He found that the Russian-made military vehicles demonstrated much better resistance and a higher level of armor protection than the American one. The recent military operation in Mosul shows that the US-led coalition is superior in the air, but its land operations leave much to be desired, Kramper wrote for German magazine Stern. One of the videos released by Daesh fighters shows how an anti-tank missile hit an American M1 Abrams tank and turned it into a "ball of fire." "The tank, weighing more than 60 tons, was supposed to protect its crew from something like that. The M1 Abrams is a combat armor tank of the US forces that is still in use. It was introduced for the first time in 1979, and since then it has been modernized several times. The Iraqis, however, have only reclaimed older versions available. The main problem is that the tanks have obviously not been reequipped with modern defense features," the journalist wrote. ©
Apparently, a rocket hit the most vulnerable part of the tank — the compartment with ammunition. However, the 60-ton tank was still supposed to provide protection for the crew. Obviously, the tank in question did not possess active defense systems. There was also no reactive armor on the vehicle that could have reduced the damage, Kramper stated. The author also noted that in contrast to Iraqi troops equipped with the old US military vehicles, the Syrian Army was provided by Moscow with the new efficient tanks. To prove his opinion, Kramper published a video depicting the US-produced TOW missile hitting the Russian-made T-90 tank in Syria. The machine turned out to have an active protection system that didn't let the missile to penetrate the armor and enabled the crew to get out of the cab.
Read more: https://sputniknews.com/military/201611 ... -us-tanks/
The Indian Army (IA) plans to deploy about 464 newly ordered T-90MS main battle tanks (MBTs) along India's western and northern borders with Pakistan, military officials told IHS Jane's on 19 January.
The T-90MS MBTs, which are being acquired in kit form from Russia for INR134.80 billion (USD2 billion), will in the coming years supplement around 850-900 Bhishma MBTs currently deployed in the Indian states of Rajasthan and Punjab, both of which border Pakistan.
Bhishma is the designation for the Indian variant of the T-90S MBT, the export model of the T-90 MBT in use with the Russian Ground Forces.
As someone who is at a leadership role in the India studio of one of the world's largest video game companies, I have to regretfully say that this animation is woefully subpar. Infact, in India itself there are multiple production houses capable of infinitely better quality of both animation and storyboarding.rohitvats wrote:True. Finally we have the glossy brochure for our an Indian product.Karan M wrote:<SNIP>stop trolling
that animation is top notch
This is the first level of marketing a product - something like a pic on a matrimony website. If the pic is attractive, the interested party starts looking at other details!
This is not animation but a CAD modelnits wrote:Expect more better animation from Tata; Marketing is a important Key to ensure your products stands out or may be i am expecting too muchIndranil wrote:Was surfing through Tata's website yesterday. Came across another light armourmed vehicle that they are producing called the Light Support Utility Vehicle or LSUV.
http://corp-content.tatamotors.com.s3-a ... ery-01.jpg
http://corp-content.tatamotors.com.s3-a ... ery-02.jpg
Let me have my say. Perceptions at first glance, and remarks made off the cuff that say something is beautiful or not beautiful are like racism - black is ugly, blue eyes are beautiful, slanteye is bad. Perceptions matter, but so do attitudes. Looking at something and judging that it is ugly is everybody's prerogative, but not necessarily the right thing to do. People will disagree with you and tell you so. That's the way the world works too.maxratul wrote:And this is the mistake that we do - thinking that a product will sell itself merely by being good, despite much evidence to the contrary. Really dont want to go OT here, but bad, sub-par animation is bad, sub-par animation, intended/required or not, and as such damages the perception and brand value of whatever it is associated with. It has got nothing to do with actual capabilities of the product, but has a lot to do with how the public/viewer makes a mental judgement about it. Unfair, yes - but that is how human beings in the real world are. When we talk about shiny brochures this is what we are talking about - anyways this is my final post on this issue here.
I could not figure out what the racks at the back are for - they look like racks to carry cylinders of some sort .I found a pdf at the site below that gives the features but no explanation of the racksIndranil wrote:Was surfing through Tata's website yesterday. Came across another light armourmed vehicle that they are producing called the Light Support Utility Vehicle or LSUV.
![]()
didn't thought a normal casual remark without any bias towards Indian products ( i am one of the biggest supporter of Desi stuff) will create so much discussion... I am not trying to be racist or looking bad on them. Apologies if my remark came badly - Deleting themnits wrote:Sorry Sir; what i meant is overall a more better finishing \ quality. Unless its not possible in CAD