Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 May 2015 09:24

^^ you said it. india is the only export customer with huge volumes for this product line.

cheen has no interest in russian armour anymore, they are after better engines and sensors.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 May 2015 11:20

Excellent live coverage on RT of the V-Day celebs in Russia covering sev. cities..The St.Petersburg/Leningrad review of the fleet,etc. showed many Russian warships,Slava,Kashin,Ivan Rogiov,Nanuchka,Natya,Grisha,etc.,with a flypast of RuAF. Still going on.Don't miss the coverage,first time so many Russian mil systems are on display.Lovely waterfront views of St.Petersburg.

PS:Sorry,review at Sevastopol in the Crimea. Making a not too subtle point about it "returning to Russia!"

Red Sq. Parade to take place now.Watch our Grenadiers!
AAVs coming now.

vaibhav.n · Post by **vaibhav.n** » 09 May 2015 12:30

It has to be looked at comprehensively.....

Lighter IFV's are preferred by the IA because of all the DCB and Canal breaching it has to conduct just to secure the far-bank on the western sector. Russian designs also benefit from being amphibious albeit at the expense of being much less protected.

This has been one of the reasons for the stalled FICV project. IIRC, Canal departures can only be made by tracked vehicles not wheeled IFV's. Possibly why they have gone in for the BMP upgrade.

However these T-15 or whatever by the looks of it, possibly have been significantly up-armoured to modern levels and in all possibility lose their amphibious capability so crucial to the IA. The likelihood of these newer roosi designs in IA service is unlikely.

DCB Defences:

Running parallel to the IB, the DCB is an anti-tank barrier, tough to breach. To cross the deep water-filled ditch, the enemy has to deploy BLT's and infantry. The high bunds bordering the ditch is sited with bunkers and anti-tank teams. Several kms behind is the secondary DCB, with identical bunkers. Between the two are a series of scattered underground bunkers, barely visible even from ground level, completely invisible from air.

Seasonal rains and canal headworks create another natural barrier by flooding the paddy fields running between the IB and DCB lines. Armoured vehicles find it tough to negotiate fields where even infantrymen sink knee-deep into slush making them vulnerable. Tall elephant grass and dense treeline can also be used to break up observation by the enemy.

DCB also act as natural chokepoints till the primary bridges can be secured by own troops. At the same time, making own logistic elements prone to local counter-assaults. Thus, necessitating an larger and more secure bridgehead.

Pakistani Bund lines in the ravi corridor

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 May 2015 13:09

Any idea of the weight of the Aramata and the other new AVs? What are the fording capabilities of the T-90 and Arjun too?

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 09 May 2015 13:31

Fixed defenses are monuments for human stupidity.

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 09 May 2015 14:07

Are they really ?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 May 2015 15:37

in my opinion if we had a properly invested mechanized army with ample artillery, we could have prohibitively raised the cost of TSP to secure and maintain its borders. while punjab has water to fill these ditches and canals, Sindh has very little and there aint no rivers east of the indus which is quite 200k from the border.

a couple of heavy US army style corps could strike deep and hard in the barmer jaisalmer belt, but as it stands, with poor quality tanks & IFVs, 10 days of ammo, severe shortages in artillery and no SP guns, with minuscule number of pinakas, no SOCOM, no airborne brigades, insufficient helicopters of all types, very little stock of PGMs...the only one sleeping soundly is the TSPA not us.

this is what the old soviet union was doing upto the mid 80s. the US mainly was forced to invest massively on all fronts to hold the line...including fleets of aux ships in the east coast ready to ship more tank units to europe at drop of a hat. no CBM business there except in nuclear and icbm tests..

Khan is cheaply keeping them at 60% of our level to act as a solid detterent. china missiles is the additional 10%.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 10 May 2015 12:47

New Russian armor – First analysis Part II: Kurganets-25
New Russian Armor – First analysis – Armata

Added later

New Russian armor – Part III: Boomerang 8×8 AFV

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 May 2015 13:14

Forget our armour and arty. The deplorable state of the ammo across the board has come in for the severest criticism by the CAG.We,(the IA) do not have ammo to fight beyond 10 days!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 May 2015 13:34

Nah. I would not worry. Imports are there just for that purpose. Safety net is the technical term.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 10 May 2015 17:24

So what, the doodh se dhula IA procurement can pay billions extra for emergency purchases!! Brilliant!!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 10 May 2015 18:31

People actually need a "CAG" to tell them that the IA has only 10 days worth of ammo?

I would like to think that every guy at the top would be aware of a dumb parsed, stupid stat like that.

The LCA did not meet the ASR!!!!!

WOW what a revelation.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 10 May 2015 18:34

Singha wrote:^^ you said it. india is the only export customer with huge volumes for this product line.

cheen has no interest in russian armour anymore, they are after better engines and sensors.

thats probably the plan. get India/DGMF to sign up for this and to use our tax money to fund this, whilst the usual suspect/s can salivate, OMG guys see russian armor is marching oh wow oh wow oh wow.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 10 May 2015 18:35

NRao wrote:Nah. I would not worry. Imports are there just for that purpose. Safety net is the technical term.

It is better any day to have logistical chain set up for war with enough ammunition and spares over ad-hoc purchases and unplanned expenditure; along with no handle to punish invaders very hard just because invaders are terror munnas of powers that sell ammo and that talk of world peace and that will not allow the IA to punish their terror munnas beyond a point under some fancy nomenclature.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 May 2015 21:49

Austin wrote:New Russian armor – First analysis Part II: Kurganets-25
New Russian Armor – First analysis – Armata

The turret must be turned sideways to enable the gunner to open his hatch. It is likely that in emergency he can escape from the driver’s hatch

^^ did not like that. But nice work on the hard and soft kill systems and active anti mine systems...all new arjun mk2 requirements now

Hobbes · Post by **Hobbes** » 11 May 2015 07:56

The Atlantic Council's take on the Armata: http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/na ... 8c.twitter

Key extract:
Unlike the T-90 and T-72B3, the Armata's design and capabilities mirror the threats it is intended to face. The Armata incorporates modern principles of survivability, such as being built around a fully automated turret, sealed away from the crew, which reduces the danger posed by the detonation of ammunition. Like its Western counterparts, the Armata is a high-profile tank, relying on heavy layers of composite and reactive armor. This is unlike the T-90 and T72B3, which relied on a low profile for slower hit probability. Anti-missile countermeasures, are also integral to the Armata's design.

Western tank designs, built upon similar principles, have demonstrated significant crew survivability against insurgency tactics in low-intensity conflicts. The Israeli Merkava, the Armata's direct inspiration, is particularly exemplary of Western tank design and has boasted exceptional performance against asymmetric threats. It features a high profile and composite armor, built from the ground up prioritizing crew survivability, much like the M1 Abrams, Leopard 2, and other modern Western designs.

If this is true, the Armata is built along the lines of a Western heavy, and anyone who champions its induction will have to explain his way around why a 60 ton plus Armata is acceptable, while the Arjun is too heavy. I'm sure the dalal spin doctors are already working on this - shades of four legs good, two legs better!

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 11 May 2015 09:02

I wont be surprised by Western expert would queue up and say Armata is inspired by West after all success has many fathers , one just need to ask these western expert how much of 3 man crew operating in isolated chassis and remotely controlled guns do they operate atm and if any one of their armour still have implemented the Universal Concept Platform as Armata does. The T-95 never had universal concept but was more standalone design , Universal simbly means standard chasis , modular design and maximum commonality between all platform reducing mechanical/logistics footprint

The only thing Armata concept faithfully copies is the T-95 tanks but downgunned to 125 mm Gun from 152 mm , the Armata itself can be upgunned to 152 mm in future if required according to its designer.

The Kuragnets too its based on the same Universal Concept platform and at 25T is still an amphibious vehical able to operate up to Sea State 3.

Only Boomerang Wheeled platform is the one that closely resembles is the Finninsh Patria AFV they were quite impressed and Fins gave then a close overview of their vehical hence Boomerang closely resembles the Patria AFV is design and protection levels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patria_AMV

Interview of the designer for Armata and Boomerang its in Russian so use translator

Kuragnets http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/1954916?page=3
Armata http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/1954916?page=2

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 May 2015 09:28

Tx. Austin for that v.informative link.

The weight saving of the Armata design with its turretless 3-man crew,has meant that it has utilised the extra weight for accommodating more defensive systems like the active anti-tank projectiles,active mine countermeasures,and extra armour.60t is still 8t lighter than the Arjun-2,68t with its 4-man crew,supposedly the heaviest tank in the world!
(http://www.military-today.com/tanks/arjun_mk2.htm).

Anyway,this is not an Arjun vs Armata spat,but examining the new tech,features on the Armata which make it special. As Austin said and reports for over ayear too,the Armata programme is not just a single tank design,but is a family of AVs,with modular design and elements that make it cheaper to build,easier to train,maintain and support logistically,and able to be built in large numbers at speed.2000 Armatas are supposedly planned to be built by 2020. That's 400 a yr.Huge figure.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 11 May 2015 09:52

^No one has tested this garbage tin can and yet we have people ready to tout it as the next best thing since bread. Do you ever stop touting for the russians? What happened to the size objections about Arjun? What about the Railway wagons and platforms that are unable to accommodate it, will they magically shape-shift for the new tincan? What about the backward comparability with tincan-72 and its infrastructure, wasn't that one of the "selling points" of the tincan-90? Will that also magically become useful for tincan-14?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 11 May 2015 10:47

Philip wrote: Anyway,this is not an Arjun vs Armata spat,but examining the new tech,features on the Armata which make it special. As Austin said and reports for over ayear too,the Armata programme is not just a single tank design,but is a family of AVs,with modular design and elements that make it cheaper to build,easier to train,maintain and support logistically,and able to be built in large numbers at speed.2000 Armatas are supposedly planned to be built by 2020. That's 400 a yr.Huge figure.

I guess there the spat is just created by you for reason best known to you

The discussion on Armata is just technical and not it versus other tank , Needlessly you tend to bring Arjun into the debate when its not really about it.....its called trolling

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 11 May 2015 10:58

Frankly I do not know why we are discussing Armata for Indian forces. No one is saying that it is even under consideration by us. In fact no one even knows much about it and how it has/had done any testing etc. Rest assured we are not going to purchase it in any time future. Not with Arjun and MII is around.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 11 May 2015 11:19

Yagnasri wrote:Frankly I do not know why we are discussing Armata for Indian forces. No one is saying that it is even under consideration by us. In fact no one even knows much about it and how it has/had done any testing etc. Rest assured we are not going to purchase it in any time future. Not with Arjun and MII is around.

Exactly the point !

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 11 May 2015 11:21

To those who are claiming that it is a brand new concept. I urge you to look at the TTB concept based on the M1. Dated the late 1980s.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 May 2015 14:10

Truly,I was not bringing it in.I was responding to other posts. This is the first new tank concept for a decade at least and needs to be examined in detail.Comparisons with other MBTs worldwide,including Arjun -1/2 to look for similarities and differences are inevitable.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 11 May 2015 14:30

No one in the west are developing any Tank as of now sir. So what new concepts we can expect in near future from West? Nothing. What kind of land invasion Russia is expecting as of now? May be from Latvia ?

If China invades Russia in near future they will make Nazis look like football hooligans and teach a lesson or two in trust and friendship to Russians.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 May 2015 21:11

lying in some scrapyard is the unmanned turret ttb abrams proto from the 1980s
http://i.imgur.com/UsQ2aam.jpg

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 11 May 2015 21:25

Yagnasri wrote:Frankly I do not know why we are discussing Armata for Indian forces. No one is saying that it is even under consideration by us. In fact no one even knows much about it and how it has/had done any testing etc. Rest assured we are not going to purchase it in any time future. Not with Arjun and MII is around.

Some time back the Russians released a new version of the tin can (T90 MS?), and like clockwork, there were reports of importing 300 of them for the Mountain corps.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 May 2015 21:34

that and the anders light tank of poland is hopefully dead with just 50% of allocation possible for the MSR as spelt out by GOI.

GOI will get far more votes investing in border roads and infra instead.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 11 May 2015 21:43

Frankly I do not know why we are discussing Armata for Indian forces. No one is saying that it is even under consideration by us.

An expert from JNU proposed it about 6 months ago (Want to say a few weeks before Putin visited India) To strengthen ties.

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 12 May 2015 13:39

abhik wrote:
Yagnasri wrote:Frankly I do not know why we are discussing Armata for Indian forces. No one is saying that it is even under consideration by us. In fact no one even knows much about it and how it has/had done any testing etc. Rest assured we are not going to purchase it in any time future. Not with Arjun and MII is around.
Some time back the Russians released a new version of the tin can (T90 MS?), and like clockwork, there were reports of importing 300 of them for the Mountain corps.

@ abhik

just because media reports start surfacing without any GOI or IA official word does not justify taking the discussion to such extreme. (as is the case of single liners in this forum since armata has come out)

My 2 cents:

- The next big buy of 1000+ MBT for IA is about 10 years away (some where around 2025 Armoured corps will get change for next big buy) this is when the replacement of T-72 will come up.

- The current IA will be dominated by T-90 till 2025 as is was accepted as Main Battle Tank when the last BIG purchase of MBT was considered.

- the reports of 300 T-90 MS is a media spin and nothing else.

- the 300 number is actually part of already ordered T-90 for IA, the talk is to ask for direct import of CKD kits as AVADHI is struggling to even reach 50% of its production capacity and this is hurting IA plan for ARMOURED corps. (If any one will look into last 4 years IA has been raising 1-2 new regiments every year, but AVDHI is not able to supply vehicles to these new regiments thus delaying every thing) the CKD kits will allow IA to keep up with its plan of new raising plus replacement of older MBT fleet.

- Why AVADHI is unable to reach its production capacity is different question and has nothing to do with IA. The plans for new regiments are not decided in isolation it requires at-least 3-4 years of prior planning because huge logistics are involved.

- ARJUNs will keep on coming in lots of 100+ in mk2, mk3, mk4 versions Till the next BIG MBT purchase comes up.

- T-72 is already under upgrade for last many-many years and the story is a mess and we should learn from it because T-90 is coming up for upgrades as per schedule. (T-90 is nearing 15 yrs in IA)

- What shape T-90 upgrades will take no one knows till IA does not make it public. (but we all can say technologies developed for ARJUN mk2, T-90MS, and even ARMATA will find its place when IA makes upgrade plans public)

kit · Post by **kit** » 12 May 2015 15:12

The Russians probably envisage wars (read invasions) in their near abroad rather than expeditionary wars like americans , so tank wars ..but what happens if americans let loose their hellfires for those countries ?! not so sure whether the armatas can weather hits by hellfires with depleted uranium warheads !

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 12 May 2015 16:21

Philiphosky, how much you dream, there is not going to be another tank import. The days of imported tanks are over. Arjun MK-II may be delayed, but eventually will be mass produced.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 12 May 2015 16:36

the 300 number is actually part of already ordered T-90 for IA, the talk is to ask for direct import of CKD kits as AVADHI is struggling to even reach 50% of its production capacity and this is hurting IA plan for ARMOURED corps. (If any one will look into last 4 years IA has been raising 1-2 new regiments every year, but AVDHI is not able to supply vehicles to these new regiments thus delaying every thing) the CKD kits will allow IA to keep up with its plan of new raising plus replacement of older MBT fleet.

- Why AVADHI is unable to reach its production capacity is different question and has nothing to do with IA. The plans for new regiments are not decided in isolation it requires at-least 3-4 years of prior planning because huge logistics are involved.

- ARJUNs will keep on coming in lots of 100+ in mk2, mk3, mk4 versions Till the next BIG MBT purchase comes up.

If Avadi is in such a mess and cannot produce the huge orders it has on its plate,then the IA will eventually suffer the same fate as the IAF. Most of the key the DPSUs like Avadi,HAL,etc.,seem incapable
of delivering the goods and this is resulting in the inventory and capability of the armed forces declining to critical levels in certain areas. Imports like the Rafales will be inevitable unless someone kicks butts and fires incompetent DPSU heads. With backlogs for even upgrades of legacy tanks in alleged shambles,fat chance of new tanks even Arjuns rolling off the lines even at walking speed!

Wait for a couple of years hence,we will again see the clarion cry for "urgent imports"

Uddu, (the name is Philipov!)The new features one sees on the Armata and concept of a remote-controlled mechanised turret are revolutionary.One wishes that the IA gets its FMBT specs in order asap,so that the same may one day be seen on an indigenous tank.

After the unveiling of the Armata,one is sure that our cavalry buffs,who have been used to riding Russian steeds over the last few decades,will want some of the features on their desi breed in the future!

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 12 May 2015 17:32

Has the I A released the GSQR for the FM BT. Or will it be an English translation of the T 14 specification.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 12 May 2015 20:06

Viv S wrote:Apparently the T-15 (soon to be our FICV) also stalled mid-stride -

Viewers found its loading on a transporter at least as entertaining as the parade itself.

Imagine this had been a desi product at the Republic Day parade..the equipment would've been pilloried and our own people would've made fun of it's designers and DRDO..

Remind the IA not to include loading on a transporter into its list of criteria to evaluate when this thing arrives in India for trials.

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 12 May 2015 20:49

Kartik wrote: Imagine this had been a desi product at the Republic Day parade..the equipment would've been pilloried and our own people would've made fun of it's designers and DRDO..

Remind the IA not to include loading on a transporter into its list of criteria to evaluate when this thing arrives in India for trials.

first of all we in INDIA do not have gut or culture or an appetite to put untested systems in IA to any kind of parade.... leave alone the REPUBLIC DAY PARADE!!! (IA has come out with its testing criteria based on the knowledge it has, if any one can prove the criteria is wrong please enlighten us all)

second why do you think loading on a transporter in not into a list of evaluation criteria?

and please don't make it a ARJUN vs ARMATA !!!

do you know why practice run is carried out?

do you know why people in army practice DRILL (individual or with equipment)?

kartik one liners are good to grab attention on NDTV and TIMESNOW but what purpose dose it serve on a forum which for the last decade has been a serious forum devoid of recent trend of one liners!!!

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 12 May 2015 21:13

d_berwal: Relax man

At this rate, you will have an myocardial infarction aka heart attack.

vaibhav.n · Post by **vaibhav.n** » 12 May 2015 23:37

Berwal.....These 2 new regiments/annum that you mention are the 6 which were supposed to be raised for MSC or otherwise??

AFAIK, Hvnt read any other accretions post the 63 odd Regiments that we already have.....

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 May 2015 06:23

Russia's T-14 Armata Tank May Feature a Fatal Flaw

This seems to be the IL-476 redux.

Russia is building a supertank -- if the nation can afford it.

Last month, we introduced you to Russia's new Armata main battle tank. Weighing in at 55 tons, and featuring multilayered armor, an independent crew capsule, and a fully automated 125 mm main gun firing both cannon rounds and laser-guided missiles, Armata is designed to be Russia's answer to General Dynamics' (NYSE: GD ) M1 main battle tank built for the U.S. Army and Marine Corps. We also described how Russia is using Armata ("Армата") as a core chassis upon which it will build an entire family of armored personnel carriers, anti-aircraft missile launchers, armored self-propelled artillery, flame throwers, bridge-layers, and minesweepers -- some operated as robots.

But as high-tech and powerful as all this sounds, the Armata contains one potentially fatal flaw: its cost.

Trouble in Putin's paradise

Late last year, a controversy broke out between Russia's Ministry of Defense (MinOboron) and UralVagonZavod (UVZ), the military contractor responsible for building Armata. As described on Russian-language website gazeta.ru, MinOboron blasted UVZ for offering a tank that it describes as overpriced and incomplete.

To date, Russia has invested 15 billion rubles ($239 million) in developing the Armata tank, and budgeted 39 billion ($622 million) more. But MinOboron is demanding UVZ both complete its design and lower its price. Unless UVZ complies, "MinOboron will not extend the contract for delivery of Armata to the [armed] forces, and will refuse serial purchase. ... We'd rather buy the latest version of the T-90 while they finish up the Armata," said the Defense Ministry.

To date, the Russian army has taken delivery of only 12 prototype Armata tanks, bought in 2013. A contract is in place for production through 2017. But at last report, no long-term contract had been signed.

That's just the problem. According to UVZ, mass production is key to reducing the unit price of the Armata. The tank is expected to be complete and ready for mass production this year. (Indeed, it is scheduled to make its debut at the May 9 Victory Day Parade on Red Square.)

But according to gazeta.ru: "MinOboron must buy no fewer than 40 Armata tanks in 2016, 70 in 2017, and 120 annually beginning in 2018" in order to maintain stable, affordable production of the tank. Even then, it would take more than 20 years to produce Russia's desired force of 2,300 Armatas -- pushing the deadline for completion into 2035, while the target date had been 2020.

How much does Armata cost?

Nonetheless, it appears UVZ and MinOboron are getting closer to reaching terms. According to Russian-language website lenta.ru, the sides agreed to a price last month, which will permit UVZ to build the tank in sufficient numbers, and at sufficient speed, to satisfy both parties.

Neither UVZ nor MinOboron are publicly revealing what that price is, however. To the contrary, lenta.ru quoted Russian army reserves Col. Victor Murakhovsky as saying "the tank currently doesn't have a price," but only "a cost of the work, including such things as development cost and the cost of building prototypes."

In Murakhovsky's view, "the first few machines will be 'gold-plated'" due to these costs. UVZ, however, insists that with mass production, it can produce a tank like no other for roughly half the cost of a Western tank. Lenta interpreted this as meaning Armata will cost "roughly 4-5 million dollars" each, or "a little bit more expensive than a T-90 tank."

What it means to investors

Naturally, all this fascinates Kremlin watchers. But what does it mean to investors? On the one hand, the fact that Russia is spending upward of $9.2 billion to build 2,300 high-tech main battle tanks doesn't quite fit the definition of "good news." We'd much rather Russia spend that money on unicorns and rainbows.

But as investors, we have to live in the real world -- and Russia's arms buildup in general, and its Armata tank program in particular, have real-world implications. Specifically, if Russia is building an army of 21st century robotic supertanks, then chances are the Pentagon will want to upgrade its own tank force -- budget constraints or no.

Budget constraints, of course, are what torpedoed the Pentagon's last transformative effort to remake its armored forces -- the Future Combat Systems project. FCS would have invested $160 billion (or more) into creating a whole new family of weapons systems -- tanks, armored personnel carriers, and more, not unlike what Russia is now attempting to do with the Armata system. Fears that this budget could morph into a $300 billion megaprogram forced the Pentagon to shutter the FCS project in 2009. But Russia's resurgent military spending could bring it back to life.

After all, currently, the Army's tank force centers on an M1 Abrams tank first designed in 1972, to match it. Subsequent iterations of the M1, all the way through the latest "M1A2 SEPv2" design, have added better optics, communications gear, and armor to the basic package. General Dynamics is also working up an M1A3 variant expected to go operational in 2018 or 2019. But by then, Russia's new Armatas should already be in the field, and even the M1A3 might then look a bit stodgy (and at a list price of $9 million or more, expensive).

Result: If UVZ delivers the Kremlin's new supertank on time and on budget, it could spark a new arms race in tank technology. And with General Dynamics now being America's only major tank producer (at 15% operating profit, according to S&P Capital IQ data; armored vehicles are also its second-most-profitable product), the U.S. company would likely be the top beneficiary domestically of such an arms race.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 May 2015 06:32

Russian Invasion Of Ukraine Spurs New German Tank Design

The Leopard 3, a brand new tank.