Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 13 Dec 2013 09:27

chackojoseph wrote:rohitvats,

I have not replied to you.

As added later in the above post

On the technical part, when a DRDO speaker offered that they can write a SQR for FMBT, since the army is in the dark, the awrmywalas were up in arms.

Thank you very much for qualifying your statement - it would be great if you can do that more often than make blanket statements. And not use one example to make over-arching generalization across the board.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 13 Dec 2013 09:38

I would like to continue in a manner I want to discuss until I have broken board rules.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 13 Dec 2013 09:56

chackojoseph wrote:I would like to continue in a manner I want to discuss until I have broken board rules.

OK. Let me expand on my statement earlier. And take this as a request.

When a senior poster with credentials like yours makes a post or comment, it is taken at face value. And becomes a basis for forming an opinion by lesser informed posters.

So, if you comment on a subject, it would be great if you can present a case for your comment(s) with some bit of data points. This will do two things - (a) It will allow someone reading your post to understand the basis of your assertion and make an informed opinion. (b) If someone wants to present a counter-point, he will do so by presenting data-points/factoids which are contrary to ones presented by you. And we can have a more informed debate which helps everyone learn something from it. Otherwise, it will degenerate into 'I-Say-You-Say' kind of nonsense.

I hope you will consider this request.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 13 Dec 2013 10:26

Thank you for the politeness.

Normally, points are backed up, when possible. In this case, I have summed up the general feeling on what the armour conference gave to its attendees, known to me, which is quite a number. I can't post entire speech of the people, but there was less cohesiveness between the army speakers, leading to the observations above. Secondly, it was evident that the T-90 purchase, which initially without some features (we know the story - t-90 vs arjun cost) and later proposals for upgrade appeared backfiring. The thermals for t-72's are in a mess too, because of indecision of the establishment, which includes technical and decision making. It was sort of grouping in the dark. Thirdly, "the Arjun has to prove and we are not happy, kind of talk," was in the air. Known people admit that there was no conclusion what Army wanted. One quipped, it was easier to deal with navy as it takes a stand and lives with it. The same issue with other two purchases, but were not officially discussed (arty and small arms).

On the FMBT sqr impasse, the DRDO speaker said that we understand technology and we can write that SQR for you. This made army furious. The bottomline is that FMBT sqr is not there and continues to be an issue, which will lead to delays. People pointed out that even IAF is asking DRDO on the technologies that are available and how it can be used. One other point that was mentioned by a gent (not while officially) was on Arjun catapult. He mentioned, how army would have got few such pieces if it had to be trialed and imported.

Army speakers appeared more pro to private sector.

I have no idea how to make it data points.

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 13 Dec 2013 10:29

Ajeya ne ithayas banaya "fire in the hole @ chaudah hazāra ft"

srai · Post by **srai** » 13 Dec 2013 10:33

chackojoseph wrote:...

On the FMBT sqr impasse, the DRDO speaker said that we understand technology and we can write that SQR for you. This made army furious. The bottomline is that FMBT sqr is not there and continues to be an issue, which will lead to delays. People pointed out that even IAF is asking DRDO on the technologies that are available and how it can be used. One other point that was mentioned by a gent (not while officially) was on Arjun catapult. He mentioned, how army would have got few such pieces if it had to be trialed and imported.

Army speakers appeared more pro to private sector.

...

I think it was on NDTV where there was a discussion on FMBT between 3 or 4 former generals from the IA armour corps. The point to be taken from that discussion was that they all had a different viewpoint as to what a FMBT should be. It just shows why the IA is having a hard time figure out the SQR for its FMBT.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 13 Dec 2013 11:48

d_berwal wrote:Ajeya ne ithayas banaya "fire in the hole @ chaudah hazāra ft"

Kahan? Aur kaise pahuncha wahan?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 13 Dec 2013 11:53

chackojoseph wrote:Thank you for the politeness.

Normally, points are backed up, when possible. In this case, I have summed up the general feeling on what the armour conference gave to its attendees, known to me, which is quite a number. I can't post entire speech of the people, but there was less cohesiveness between the army speakers, leading to the observations above. Secondly, it was evident that the T-90 purchase, which initially without some features (we know the story - t-90 vs arjun cost) and later proposals for upgrade appeared backfiring. The thermals for t-72's are in a mess too, because of indecision of the establishment, which includes technical and decision making. It was sort of grouping in the dark. Thirdly, "the Arjun has to prove and we are not happy, kind of talk," was in the air. Known people admit that there was no conclusion what Army wanted. One quipped, it was easier to deal with navy as it takes a stand and lives with it. The same issue with other two purchases, but were not officially discussed (arty and small arms).

On the FMBT sqr impasse, the DRDO speaker said that we understand technology and we can write that SQR for you. This made army furious. The bottomline is that FMBT sqr is not there and continues to be an issue, which will lead to delays. People pointed out that even IAF is asking DRDO on the technologies that are available and how it can be used. One other point that was mentioned by a gent (not while officially) was on Arjun catapult. He mentioned, how army would have got few such pieces if it had to be trialed and imported.

Army speakers appeared more pro to private sector.

I have no idea how to make it data points.

CJ - my apologies if I appeared to be curt in previous post.

And thanks for making the effort to expand. It is good enough. We know the mess with respect to FMBT and how it was used a red-herring to lead DRDO away from Arjun. Can you expand on the Arjun-Catapult point? Couldn't understand the message.

I'm perfectly fine with IA/Services being in favor of private companies - as long as they are Indian. And if we can create a strong and innovative 'make' category.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 13 Dec 2013 11:56

rohitvats wrote:The benefit of your approach - using DRDO for R&D and Private sector for manufacturing - is that the knowledge base will be developed within a government organization. Which to a large extent will not be subject to business case considerations as with private companies. And knowledge which can be used for further development.

The knowledge base developed within DRDO can be accessed by the pvt. firm and actually is accessed by them. No foreign OEM is going to transfer any amount of knowledge to an Indian firm which will jeopardize their future business plans and this means that only lower tech (relative to the system) will be transferred to Indian firms. Also it's not like the pvt. firms are totally in the dark while working with DRDO but instead are kept in the loop all the time right from the conception stage. The knowledge thus gained can be used by the pvt. firm to develop products on there own but Indian pvt. companies (barring a top few companies, even their money spent on R&D is chillar only) are maha kanjoos when it comes to investing in R&D and we have heard many DRDO chiefs asking pvt. sector to invest more in R&D. MoD also whines about it from time to time.

All in all the pvt. R&D in India is at a pretty low level unlike what people here dream of/believe in, that's the cold truth and no amount of foreign JV is going to teach them to invest in R&D other than they themselves plunging into it.

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 13 Dec 2013 12:01

merlin wrote:
Kahan? Aur kaise pahuncha wahan?

Kahan is for all to guess, (hint: Ajeya ab whahan per he rahega)
kaise pahuncha whahan: chal ke pahuncha whahan

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 13 Dec 2013 12:04

See the Arjun Catapult order was just 40. DRDO has a good chasis and could be done within the country and fielded. Had it be done with a foreign supplier, we know what results it would have brought in terms of time, cost, availability, serviceability etc. The point being the hostility towards DRDO .

Another issue will be that private sector won't tie up with DRDO if it brings predictive results with customer Army.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 13 Dec 2013 13:51

d_berwal wrote:
merlin wrote:
Kahan? Aur kaise pahuncha wahan?
Kahan is for all to guess, (hint: Ajeya ab whahan per he rahega)
kaise pahuncha whahan: chal ke pahuncha whahan

Then it must be Leh and not North Sikkim.

And if chal ke pahuncha then aur bahut saare wahan chal ke jaa sakte hain. That is good news indeed.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 14 Dec 2013 12:50

Gov't Turns to Indian Firms To Untangle T-90 Missile Woes

NEW DELHI — A dispute with Russia over technology transfer for the Invar anti-tank missile has prompted India’s Bharat Dynamics Ltd. (BDL) to contact domestic companies to help develop the missile’s critical guidance electronics.

The Russians refused to give India the technology for the guidance system for the missile, which will be fired from India’s Russian-made T-90 tanks, despite agreeing to the transfer for licensed production of the missiles, according to a BDL official.

The Indian government approved an Army proposal in October 2012 to acquire 20,000 Invar missiles, but the contract had to wait until August because the government insisted on technology transfer.

The Russians agreed to grant a license for production of the missile and the transfer of technology in August, when a US $470 million contract was signed, the BDL official said.

State-owned BDL, which will manufacture the Invar missiles, has not been given the key technology for the missile’s laser beam-riding guidance system, the official said.

“Usually, the contract with the Russians, or for that matter the French Milan anti-tank guided missiles, includes transferring the production process, including the details like chemical composition and process for propellant and warhead,” the official said. “However, in the case of the Invar missile, no technology transfer has been given for the laser beam-riding guidance.”

But according to a diplomat at the Russian Embassy here, “The technology for the guidance system was not part of the agreement.”

BDL has decided to approach domestic industry to develop the critical guidance electronics for the Invar. Domestic private sector companies, including Larsen & Toubro, Tata Power SED and Godrej, will be asked to collaborate with BDL to develop the laser beam-riding guidance system.

India signed the contract to buy the Invar missiles for the T-90 because the Army said there was a critical missile shortage, an Indian Ministry of Defence source said.

The Invar has a range of five kilometers and a tandem warhead that penetrates a tank’s armor up to 35 inches before detonating.

Fired from the 125mm gun of the T-90 tank, the missile is guided along a laser beam that can be controlled by the tank gunner. BDL has been manufacturing the Invar under technical collaboration with Russia’s Rosoboronexport, but it wants the technology for the laser guidance.

India fast-tracked the purchase of ammunition, including the Invar, after former Army Chief Gen. V.K. Singh warned the MoD in 2011 of a critical shortage of ammunition.

India placed its first order for 310 T-90s in 2001, and thereafter began licensed production of the tanks at the state-owned Heavy Vehicles Factory.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 14 Dec 2013 13:47

So far....

Armor TOT- nyet!
Gun TOT - nyet!
FCS TOT - nyet!
INVAR TOT- nyet!

Is good deal, da?
Thank goodness the T-90 team wasn't involved in our other deals with the Russians. Would have given the Russians more ideas.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 14 Dec 2013 16:06

Good for us in the long run.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 14 Dec 2013 16:11

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 14 Dec 2013 16:18

Seems like the Ruskies are pushing IA to go for Arjun in far greater quantity.

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 14 Dec 2013 17:35

[quote="pankajs"]Gov't Turns to Indian Firms To Untangle T-90 Missile Woes[quote]

Clearly BDL's fault just like T-90 gun barrel ToT issue was HVF, Avadi's.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 14 Dec 2013 17:36

Will the Indian Army take the message that the arjun is good enough as is.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 14 Dec 2013 21:39

CVRDE is trying to come up with a Air Defence Weapon Station (ADWS) on Arjun. Click.

They want the NSVT 12.7 mm machine gun to be remotely operate-able (electrically) from inside the crew compartment along with the current 'head-out' manual mode as back-up. The ADWS is to come with a Muzzle Bore Sight (MBS) for the NSVT 12.7 mm machine gun and a Laser Range Finder with range of 50 m to 4000m. It will be stabilized in both elevation and azimuth axes. It will be able to move from -5 to +60 degrees in elevation and traverse the full 360 degrees. It will come with a HD CCD camera with optical zoom and a recognition range of 4km against a NATO target. It will also have a thermal imager with a recognition range of 2 km against a NATO target.The images will be streamed to an 12 inch LCD monitor and the operator will use this system with the help of a joystick.

TOT or MTOT is not part of this tender, but willingness for the same for future requirements is being sought.

Tentative diagram.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 14 Dec 2013 21:49

If completed this also has the potential to become the RWS for arjun, allowing, the crew to engage dismounted infantry while buttoned up inside the tank.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 14 Dec 2013 21:51

I am surprised, they can't make this themselves.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 15 Dec 2013 05:24

CVRDE is an integrator and not a subsystem manufacturer unless it absolutely has to.
Optics for a RWS could be IRDE plus FCS. Overall responsibility ARDE.
Here looks like time and limited production numbers are an issue.. sigh.

vic · Post by **vic** » 15 Dec 2013 09:10

Interestingly Isrealis have been pushing a very similar systems for a long time hmmmm

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 15 Dec 2013 12:40

Doesn't the Arjun Mk 2 already have the OFB(?) RWS?

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 15 Dec 2013 14:09

abhik wrote:Doesn't the Arjun Mk 2 already have the OFB(?) RWS?

You big beauty !!

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 15 Dec 2013 16:12

Tomorrow, I will tell you the truth about the Lahat and mk2 test issues.

Dekhna na bhuliye.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Dec 2013 18:29

Is there something called "truth"? And if so what is it?

Will · Post by **Will** » 15 Dec 2013 19:26

Sagar G wrote:
rohitvats wrote:The benefit of your approach - using DRDO for R&D and Private sector for manufacturing - is that the knowledge base will be developed within a government organization. Which to a large extent will not be subject to business case considerations as with private companies. And knowledge which can be used for further development.
The knowledge base developed within DRDO can be accessed by the pvt. firm and actually is accessed by them. No foreign OEM is going to transfer any amount of knowledge to an Indian firm which will jeopardize their future business plans and this means that only lower tech (relative to the system) will be transferred to Indian firms. Also it's not like the pvt. firms are totally in the dark while working with DRDO but instead are kept in the loop all the time right from the conception stage. The knowledge thus gained can be used by the pvt. firm to develop products on there own but Indian pvt. companies (barring a top few companies, even their money spent on R&D is chillar only) are maha kanjoos when it comes to investing in R&D and we have heard many DRDO chiefs asking pvt. sector to invest more in R&D. MoD also whines about it from time to time.

All in all the pvt. R&D in India is at a pretty low level unlike what people here dream of/believe in, that's the cold truth and no amount of foreign JV is going to teach them to invest in R&D other than they themselves plunging into it.

And what incentive does the private sector have for investing in R&D? The govt doesn't have any clear cut policies. There have been instances of the private sector doing all the work and the final order going to one of the public sector units which only puts the paint on them. The govt needs to fund part of the R & D with assured orders if milestones are met. Which private company in its right mind is going to invest millions of dollars in R & D when there is not even a hope that it might be considered for an order. Take the case of Tata's Howitzer. They have been looking for a testing range within India. Don't think the govt has even bothered about thinking of providing them with a facility.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 15 Dec 2013 19:27

NRaoji our Rushi, Muni are all seeking that only. But problem is there are some Natasha dancers stopping them getting there.

Seems we both have same name.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 15 Dec 2013 19:31

NRao wrote:Is there something called "truth"? And if so what is it?

oh. Just being dramatic after hearing similar stuff on TV.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 15 Dec 2013 20:01

I am sure it is Arnab who spoiled you guruji.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 16 Dec 2013 00:59

abhik wrote:Doesn't the Arjun Mk 2 already have the OFB(?) RWS?

Thats for the prototypes. They may be looking for a definitive one for the SP Mk2s hence usual RFP process

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 16 Dec 2013 09:04

Narayana Rao wrote: I am sure it is Arnab who spoiled you guruji.

I watch Bigg Boss instead of Arnab.

Israel to modify LAHAT Anti-Tank Missile for use on Indian made Arjun Tank

Ideally, this tank should have gone into production, but Army's usual slow down tactics.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 16 Dec 2013 10:32

That israeli jammer is so god damn ugly. They couldn't find another spot to put it. The tank is also vulnerable in that area.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 16 Dec 2013 18:12

Karan M wrote:
abhik wrote:Doesn't the Arjun Mk 2 already have the OFB(?) RWS?
Thats for the prototypes. They may be looking for a definitive one for the SP Mk2s hence usual RFP process

But why change if a locally made(assuming that it is) system is already available?

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 16 Dec 2013 20:03

pankajs wrote:Seems like the Ruskies are pushing IA to go for Arjun in far greater quantity.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 16 Dec 2013 21:27

is the big green thing the proposed RWS?
while it might be useful for combat in urban areas to fire at high angles, against helicopters etc from cover, while freeing up the main gun (not having to use the coax MG), is it really a big req for a MBT like arjun expected not to fight for prolonged time in urban areas?

I was thinking RWS is a more useful add to our ICV fleet.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 16 Dec 2013 21:31

Singha wrote:is the big green thing the proposed RWS?
while it might be useful for combat in urban areas to fire at high angles, against helicopters etc from cover, while freeing up the main gun (not having to use the coax MG), is it really a big req for a MBT like arjun expected not to fight for prolonged time in urban areas?

I was thinking RWS is a more useful add to our ICV fleet.

From the pics of the new Mk2, it seems that the IA in an ill-advised effort to further delay and eventually cancel the Arjun asked for everything including the kitchen sink to be added to it in the Mk2 model. Now they are in a quandary since the DRDO seems to be on course to deliver everything.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 16 Dec 2013 22:51

Actually, I am of a different opinion.

1. They want it against air targets. So it is not supposed to be meant for only urban warfare. They just want to keep the soldier as safe as possible.
2. The ADWS can be removed and added based on the mission (was part of the tender which I had skipped). The system will have the ability to maintain the zeroing (no need for calibration every time it is added back).
3. This is not a very difficult thing to do. I used to see some series on TV of some American gun-maker called Red Jacket Firearms. They had made a similar project for the US Army for Humvees in Afghanistan. Took them a month or a couple of months to do it. In fact the ADWS tender stipulates 3 months for building two prototypes, followed by a few months for integration, followed by training and trials.
4. There is no news till now that the Army is holding back the Mk2 because of this. In fact Chacko sir's report suggests the opposite.

What I do agree is that orders for Mk2 should be placed now. Looks like they are going to change the LAHAT missile system rather than the anything in the tank. So, why hold back now?