Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

srai · Post by **srai** » 08 Dec 2019 14:25

^^^

Economics of scale comes into play. Piecemeal orders hinders production. Lead time is 24-36 months from order to first lot deliveries. It also takes time to scale production. Then continued long-term production of spare parts. Next R&D iteration can take place which gives sufficient time for it to be ready for production when old one gradually finishes.

Look at the gap between Arjun MK1 and Mk1A. Production gap of 8-years. no way to build up Indian MIC.

nam · Post by **nam** » 08 Dec 2019 14:53

Thakur_B wrote:^^ No T90MS have been ordered.

This is something I find fascinating. IA is not ordering upgraded T90, but is heavily updating Arjun.

We have Mk1,MK1A and MK2.

No such roadmap for T90.

nam · Post by **nam** » 08 Dec 2019 15:11

https://twitter.com/RaveenKr/status/1203339602280341504

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 08 Dec 2019 21:57

As I said recently, an officer who's served in various border terrain said that the Arjun was not viable for the riverine, canal crossed terrain , but better suited to the desert. Many bridges can't manahe the A series. Weight is 20t more than a T-90 The cost is also around $ 1.5 to 2M more than a T-90. There is no report so far indicating the the extra 480+ T-90s has been cancelled. With over 1500 planned, economy of scale will kick in with extra acquisitions.

sarabpal.s · Post by **sarabpal.s** » 09 Dec 2019 16:58

Philip wrote:As I said recently, an officer who's served in various border terrain said that the Arjun was not viable for the riverine, canal crossed terrain , but better suited to the desert. Many bridges can't manahe the A series. Weight is 20t more than a T-90 The cost is also around $ 1.5 to 2M more than a T-90. There is no report so far indicating the the extra 480+ T-90s has been cancelled. With over 1500 planned, economy of scale will kick in with extra acquisitions.

And i heard it lot of blah blah from inside who not authorised to speak about that few blah blah had tendency to pick blah blah

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 09 Dec 2019 22:12

Exactly, economy of scale will kick in with acquisitions of 600 Arjun MK1A

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Dec 2019 04:44

Cost per unit and terrain capability factors one cannot ignore. Production of extra Mk-1As will unfortunately not be 600. The huge amt. of money also required to replace local infra to accomodate the much larger A series would beggar the bank.
It's why the IA has asked for the future MBT to be a desi version of the Armata, around 45t, plus a 3- man crew, etc. Such an MBT would be able to fight in any theatre.

Another crying need is to improve the mechanised columns.The Sov. era MICVs require upgrades and a new ICV is sorely needed.Pvt. entities like Tatas, etc. have come out with designs but nothing has fructified.Yet again inordinate delays here. In comparison the IA is far better off in the MBT fleet compared to ICVs.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 10 Dec 2019 05:15

nam wrote:A thought on effect of M1A1's induction by Pak on Arjun.

Given the weight related issue raised by IA, it is obvious IA would have been aware of it, quite early. The same weight issue would have effected M1A1, if it was inducted in PA.

So M1A1 cannot go where Arjun cannot. Looks like Arjun was always a niche solution of the M1A1 problem, rather than for mass induction. I don't think IA expected PA induct M1A1 in large numbers, given the cost. So fundamentally M1A1 had the same issue as Arjun: cost & weight.

M1A1 went away, so did interest in Arjun. Despite our wishes, I don't think IA intended to induct Arjun in large numbers.

So do you think USA would use T90 type is place of M1s? I mean replace it with something that offers less crew protection and costs the same as the M1?

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 10 Dec 2019 12:37

Vivek K wrote:So do you think USA would use T90 type is place of M1s? I mean replace it with something that offers less crew protection and costs the same as the M1?

Yes. Even worse. Stryker. More than 10 years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stryker#Service_history

In 2009, it was announced that two Heavy Brigade Combat Teams (equipped with M1 Abrams and M2 Bradleys) will be converted to Stryker Brigade Combat Teams by 2013.

The US Army when introducing Stryker had the same argument like IA - mobility and accessibility.

Tanks need a lot of engineering support to access the battlefield, consume a lot of fuel that requires tankers that can be targeted (remember Jessica Lynch?), more maintenance, take time to assemble at Forward Areas that is incompatible with cold start.

I wrote an article here mentioning how Army men consider tanks obsolete with Attack and Transport helicopters being considered the tip of the spear than tanks.

Also Artillery and Rockets have improved in range and accuracy to give close support to infantry for which tanks were required earlier.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 10 Dec 2019 21:27

^^^US Brigade Combat Teams based on Stryker were not created as an alternative to any existing format.

It was introduced to give mobility to infantry formations which were not mechanized. This was US Army's effort to create motorized infantry. As for how many heavy infantry, armor or Stryker BCTs to have, that was/is a function of overall ORBAT of US Army based on their assessment.

On Stryker BCT (from Wikipedia):

- The Stryker brigade combat team (SBCT) is a motorized infantry force structured around the Stryker eight-wheeled variant of the General Dynamics LAV III.

- A full Stryker brigade was intended to be C-130 Hercules air transportable into theatre within 96 hours, while a division-sized force is expected to need 120 hours.

- The Stryker brigade is an organic combined arms unit of lightly-armored, medium-weight wheeled vehicles, and is organized differently from the infantry or armored brigade combat teams.

- The Stryker brigades are being used to implement network-centric warfare doctrines, and are intended to fill a gap between the United States' highly mobile light infantry and its much heavier armored infantry.

When we talk of higher mechanization for the Indian Army, we can also look at using relatively cheap wheeled AFV like DRDO's Wheeled APC/Kestral to mechanize more infantry.

Pakistan Army has relatively higher mechanization percentage because it relies on the M-113 APC (brought from US or many times more purchased 2nd hand from European nations).

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 10 Dec 2019 22:13

My question was - is it ok to buy 1000s of an inferior product costing as much as as the other say from two competing Indian vendors?

nam · Post by **nam** » 11 Dec 2019 01:44

The simple fact is : based on the threat perception(the most important part), IA finds T90 is good enough to do the job. Adding a western design does not give a revolutionary edge, given the differences in training, ammo & logistics. If we were facing M1A2, then it would have been a different story.

DRDO is doing a wild goose chase in reducing Arjun's weight. Weight is the excuse used for covering above fact.

This is fundamentally the issue what was faced by Germany & Russia in WW2. Should you go for superior, heavy, but difficult to built Tiger(Arjun) tank or inferior, decent protection and easy to build T34(T90)?

DRDO needs to come up with a sub 50 ton revolutionary design. If a design is just better than T90, there is no good excuse to induct it.

Tanks are not a priority over gunships. DRDO should have a design good enough to change this priority.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 11 Dec 2019 02:02

tsarkar wrote:
Vivek K wrote:So do you think USA would use T90 type is place of M1s? I mean replace it with something that offers less crew protection and costs the same as the M1?
Yes. Even worse. Stryker. More than 10 years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stryker#Service_history
In 2009, it was announced that two Heavy Brigade Combat Teams (equipped with M1 Abrams and M2 Bradleys) will be converted to Stryker Brigade Combat Teams by 2013.

That is not a very accurate conclusion. Stryker BCT was a new capability that allowed for a more mechanized force to slot in between the Infantry and Armor BCT's. The higher mobility and deploability mattered and was important because the US no longer pre-positioned troops and equipment (to the same degree) in Europe or elsewhere as it once did which put higher importance on expeditionary deployment. The exact ratio of IBCT, ABCT, and SBCT is constantly looked and re-looked to have a balanced force structure within a desired Army end-strength and budget. In fact, as recently as a few months ago, the US Army has begun to "Upgun" a Stryker BCT to an Armored BCT, and transitioned an Infantry BCT to fill the void left in the SBCT loss.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 11 Dec 2019 05:35

nam wrote: DRDO is doing a wild goose chase in reducing Arjun's weight. Weight is the excuse used for covering above fact.

......

DRDO needs to come up with a sub 50 ton revolutionary design. If a design is just better than T90, there is no good excuse to induct it.

Tanks are not a priority over gunships. DRDO should have a design good enough to change this priority.

Aren’t you contradicting yourself? If weight is the “excuse” today, tomorrow imported content will be the excuse for a lighter tank! Perhaps IA will then throw a fit that the lighter tank does not offer protection like the heavier tank.

This corrupt, unpatriotic behavior will never end! Entities that do not serve the national interest need to be cut down to size so that their actions are brought under control’

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 11 Dec 2019 21:42

rohitvats wrote:It was introduced to give mobility to infantry formations which were not mechanized.

Rohit I'm speaking from memory here, but US Army was completely mechanized in the 1980's with M113. Approx 80,000 M113 APCs were produced with production continuing in the 2000's and the Bradley entered service in early 80's.

The only non mechanized infantry in US was Airborne (parachute), Air Assault (Helicopter landed), Rangers (who come under special forces). Later Light Infantry was carved out of Mechanized infantry given their experience in South American wars in the 80's.

To the best of my knowledge, most of the Stryker force was carved out of Mechanized Infantry.

rohitvats wrote:^^^US Brigade Combat Teams based on Stryker were not created as an alternative to any existing format.

I remember US white papers in the late 90's arguing for better mobility lesser maintenance, support & logistics of the Stryker vis-a-vis M113 & Bradley. Stryker was an alternative for these reasons to the M113 and Bradley.

brar_w wrote:Stryker BCT was a new capability that allowed for a more mechanized force to slot in between the Infantry and Armor BCT's. The higher mobility and deploability mattered and was important because the US no longer pre-positioned troops and equipment (to the same degree) in Europe or elsewhere as it once did which put higher importance on expeditionary deployment.

Proves my point on the need of not just battlefield mobility but expeditionary mobility. For example move strike corps from Mathura and Bhopal to the front, which during Parakram in 2002 was abysmally slow.

In the Indian context, helicopters - attack (Mi-25/35, Apache, Rudra), utility (Dhruv, Mi-17) and transport (Chinook) are seen as a better solution of mobility and firepower vis-a-vis tanks and ICVs.

During exercises,

Attack Helicopters and ICV's with Konkurs M target enemy tanks 4 km away before tank guns engage at 2 km and lower ranges.

For Infantry Support, long range artillery, 120 mm mortars, BMP-30 mm, Infantry fired Konkurs and some Spike LRs, as well as bunker busting weapons like Russian RPO, Spanish C90 and Israeli Matador are extensively in service.

Tanks have two roles - Anti Tank and Infantry Support and both roles have multiple solutions minus the extensive engineering support, fuel & logistics, maintenance and other overheads demanded by tanks.

Rohit had posted earlier on the glacial pace of Pakistani Tank modernization, that in 50's and 60's was the cream of the Pakistani Army with Pattons.

While Pakistanis are moving slow on tank modernization, they are sucking up helicopters from everywhere -

1. New build T-129 from Turkey & Italy
2. New build AH-1W from US
3. Old AH-1S donated by Jordan who got then from Israel for their war on terror

4. New Mi-35 from Russia
5. Z-10 from China

In the past decade Pakistanis is inducting helicopters from 5 sources growing their helicopter arm 2x & 3x. They haven't inducted tanks beyond the 300 T-80Us and 300 Al Khalids.

The Pakistanis are smart warfighters and these datapoints indicate the shift of power and focus from tanks to helicopters.

You read it first on BR and you heard it first from me, and I'm willing to wager my Rum & Cola on this - Indian Theater Commanders consider tanks obsolete.

The new darlings are Attack Helicopters and UAVs.

Avinandan · Post by **Avinandan** » 11 Dec 2019 23:55

But tsarkarji, this is ok for a defensive posture. What about offensive operations, we would need tanks to hold the fort once the enemy area is captured (after defeating tanks via gunships and UAV), infantry would not survive alone.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 12 Dec 2019 00:44

Avinandan wrote:hold the fort once the enemy area is captured

Artillery and Gunships can hold the fort and destroy counterattacks from afar. Tanks also have the drawback of line of sight fire unlike helicopters or artillery plunging on targets behind reverse slopes.

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 12 Dec 2019 00:47

Tsarkarji thats also because of following reasons
1. they dont plan to launch an serious offensive against India. they have learnt their lessons after '71 (a bit of hyperbole here). Most of their plans would defensive or offensive defense and to certain extent by use of tactical nukes
2. they dont have money..in the end how many helis they have inducted? ...to my surprise based on the google search right now they have quite a few
Cobra: 45
TAI: 30 on order
Viper 21 planned, 12 on order
Mi 35: 5 on order 4 more planned
Not counting their LUH and other ones, which knowing them might be converted.(for all we know they might put mujahids with RPGs) .i doubt they would wait for infinite summer winter trials ....
~80

compare that to indian no.s
1. Apache: 22 on order (~10 to be delivered soon)
2. LCH: 4 mostly PT , ~100 for IA, 65 for IAF
3. Mig 35: 17
4. MI 24: 17
5. Rudra: 50 IA, +~20 more on order, ~10 IAF

Current situation looks more around 50-75.

Not sure if i missed something. Please correct

In future obviously the situation would improve drastically but
it doesnt look nice right now, esp given their huge inventory of ATGMs

...this is what the UPA decade did to us..amongst others...the saving grace is PAF v/s IAF number asymmetry.

nam · Post by **nam** » 12 Dec 2019 01:12

The Pakistanis are smart warfighters and these datapoints indicate the shift of power and focus from tanks to helicopters.

I can understand the need for non-armor solution to take on armor offensive, be it heli, CAS or drones. However in terms of firepower tanks have the advantage of quantity.

At 20M doller LCH, we can get 4-5 T90. i.e. 140 to 175 rounds available, able to virtually hit and destroy any target.

In return 1 LCH will have 4 or 8 ATGM, 30-40? 80MM rockets. Needless to say, in terms of area domination, at a given cost tanks provide more bang for buck.

An tank can dominate an area until it runs of round, could be for hours. Can an LCH fly that long? Also the fuel consumption of tank is much less than of heli.

The advantage of heli is the speed of response. At that logic, a fighter jet is quicker at action than a heli!

nam · Post by **nam** » 12 Dec 2019 01:15

I am actually quite supportive of Pak buying helis instead of tanks. One they cannot buy lots of it.

Second, I like to see how their heli perform, when our IBG are send with air cover.

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 12 Dec 2019 01:18

nam wrote:I am actually quite supportive of Pak buying helis instead of tanks. One they cannot buy lots of it.

Second, I like to see how their heli perform, when our IBG are send with air cover.

I would expect them to use anti tank missiles and rpgs extensively...and i think that's why IA wants ~200 troop carriers..

ashishvikas · Post by **ashishvikas** » 14 Dec 2019 23:31

Biggest Make in India programme for Indian Army dropped

The biggest Make in India programme for the Indian Army to produce 2,600 Futuristic Infantry Combat Vehicles (FICVs) at an estimated cost of 60,000 Crore ($8.5B ) under the Make-1 procedure has been dropped.

"Development Agencies could not be shortlisted as the financial and technical criteria were found to be subjective in the selection process," Minister of State for Defence Shripad Naik stated in a written reply to a question in the Lok Sabha on December 11

http://www.spslandforces.com/news/?id=2 ... my-dropped

nam · Post by **nam** » 15 Dec 2019 04:51

At 4:27, is that a T72? upgraded with T90 like ERA

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 17 Jan 2020 22:54

REmember the composite hull for ICV from CVRDE? I tried to search for a picture of the same. I could not. May be, Srai sahab can help.

It is going for integration and then tests at VRDE and R&D(E). It will sport a 400 Hp engine.

nam · Post by **nam** » 17 Jan 2020 23:19

srai · Post by **srai** » 18 Jan 2020 18:27

This one?

srai · Post by **srai** » 18 Jan 2020 19:10

Anyone know about the Missile Carrier Armoured Vehicle (MCA)?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 18 Jan 2020 19:16

Srai saheb, Nam got it.

nam · Post by **nam** » 18 Jan 2020 23:01

The composite hull is an interesting concept. Providing it can replace steel in ballistic resistance, we can actually use it in our future tank designs.

3 men crew, autoloader, unmanned/ manned turret, light weight composite would provide the dream 45(or less) ton full fledged MBT that IA has been .. well dreaming about.

IA has a good opportunity to really go for overmatch by replacing older T72 with atleast 300-400 next gen tank in form of 3 man crew, unmanned turret.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 18 Jan 2020 23:22

There was a Tech Focus issue last year on Composites. IN that there was a section on this composite hull, that picture it from that issue. DRDO claims 40% weight reduction, which is massive. This ICV which is about to be integrated to make the prototypes for testing is 12T class (is this Abhay Mk2..?).

nam · Post by **nam** » 19 Jan 2020 01:06

The 40% reduction is only from the hull. Not the overall vehicle weight. If I take the example of Arjun steel shell (hull & turret shell), it might be around 15 tons or may be a little more. That gives you reduction of 6 tons.

It would be very expensive compared to High Nitrogen steel. Hight Ni steel provides similar ballistic characteristics, little less weight and cost half of RHA!

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 19 Jan 2020 01:54

srai wrote:Anyone know about the Missile Carrier Armoured Vehicle (MCA)?

Could be the design used for one of the earlier Namica's.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrodTmC5QWQ

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 19 Jan 2020 05:19

L&T delivers over half of K9 Vajra SPHs to Indian Army ahead of schedule

India's private-sector defence contractor Larsen & Toubro (L&T) has delivered ahead of schedule more than half of the 100 K9 Vajra-T 155 mm/52 cal tracked self-propelled howitzers (SPHs) ordered by the Indian Army (IA).

The company handed over the 51st Vajra-T, which is a variant of the Hanwha Defense K9 Thunder SPH, to Indian Defence Minister Rajnath Singh on 16 January at L&T's Armoured System Complex (ASC) facility in the western coastal town of Hazira in the state of Gujarat.

In an official statement L&T claimed that the SPH, like the 50 howitzers before it, was delivered to the IA before the stipulated schedule in keeping with the INR43.66 billion (USD615.70 million) contract awarded by India's Ministry of Defence (MoD) in mid-2017.

The contract requires L&T to complete delivery of all 100 K9 Vajra-Ts to the IA by the end of 2020: a deadline that company officials said will "in all likelihood" be met ahead of schedule.

The contract also includes an engineering support package comprising spares, documentation, training, and maintenance transfer of technology to IA workshops to support the SPHs for their entire service life.

The K9 Vajra-T formally entered service with the IA in late 2018.

Company officials said the SPH incorporates 50% indigenous content that involved sourcing about 13,000 components per howitzer from some 500 local manufacturers.

The Mumbai-based company claims to have developed 14 systems for the K9 Vajra-T, including its fire- control, direct -fire, and ammunition handling systems, as well as its auxiliary power packs, air-conditioning, and nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) protection gear.

Powered by a German-made 1,000 hp MTU MT 881 Ka-500 V8 water-cooled diesel engine and driven by a fully automatic US-origin Allison transmission, the 47-tonne K9 is operated by a five-man crew and is capable of firing assorted projectiles to ranges between 18 and 40 km.

I really hope there'll be a follow-on purchase of more K9 Vajras from L&T given the performance of the type and as an incentive to L&T for delivering it ahead of schedule. In the Indian scenario, this is nearly unheard of.

Thakur_B · Post by **Thakur_B** » 19 Jan 2020 07:48

JayS wrote:There was a Tech Focus issue last year on Composites. IN that there was a section on this composite hull, that picture it from that issue. DRDO claims 40% weight reduction, which is massive. This ICV which is about to be integrated to make the prototypes for testing is 12T class (is this Abhay Mk2..?).

12 ton sounds unrealistic. Kestrel weight is between 18-25 tons depending on the armor modules applied. I am not 100% sure, but iirc it was amphibious till 22 tons. Assuming similar dimensions, prime mover and drivetrain, with composite hull, the IFV can be 2-3 tons lighter, tops. Which could mean amphibious in the most armoured configuration.

Edit: Abhay IFV also weighed 23-25 tons.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 22 Jan 2020 07:27

https://twitter.com/IndianDefenceRA/sta ... 3789858819 ---> Picture from Army Day 2020 of Arjun Mk1 MBT.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 22 Jan 2020 07:29

Didn't Arjun Mk2 (shown below) become Arjun Mk1A?

https://twitter.com/VinodDX9/status/1216376214706720768 ---> For providing speedy and focused repair to vital assemblies of the Arjun MBT, an Arjun Hub is inaugurated at Jaisalmer. Till now 124 Mk1s have been ordered. 118 Mk1As are expected. When Mk 2 comes, some orders will be placed. But I hope we see additional orders of Arjun series.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 22 Jan 2020 07:36

Drag and Drop that picture into a window for full size image....it's worth it. You will be in love

India's indigenously designed Arjun Mk-1A clears trials, ready to go into production
https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation ... 73023.html
08 December 2019

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 22 Jan 2020 07:40

https://twitter.com/indiandefence11/sta ... 0175597569 ---> Arjun MBT driving simulators developed by CVRDE-DRDO. It helps to meet the various levels of training required to familiarize the gunner, commander and driver on hardware controls and switches present in their respective compartment and also in a cost effective way.

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 22 Jan 2020 09:43

^ Super.

(Request you to please post the above 2 posts in the Arjun thread too, sir)

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 22 Jan 2020 15:48

Thakur_B wrote:
JayS wrote:There was a Tech Focus issue last year on Composites. IN that there was a section on this composite hull, that picture it from that issue. DRDO claims 40% weight reduction, which is massive. This ICV which is about to be integrated to make the prototypes for testing is 12T class (is this Abhay Mk2..?).
12 ton sounds unrealistic. Kestrel weight is between 18-25 tons depending on the armor modules applied. I am not 100% sure, but iirc it was amphibious till 22 tons. Assuming similar dimensions, prime mover and drivetrain, with composite hull, the IFV can be 2-3 tons lighter, tops. Which could mean amphibious in the most armoured configuration.

Edit: Abhay IFV also weighed 23-25 tons.

I am also perplexted about the weight. Sounds too low. But the tender mentions 12T class. Could be a typo, or could be that they mean something else.