Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 28 Dec 2008 23:48

Gentlemen, sorry to use the harsh words, but we seem to have got into senseless debate.

@Somanth: Why should NAMICA replace the manportable ATGMs in the IA and especially in case of Parachute Battalions or any other Infantry Battalion for that matter of fact? It is completely different system which will complement the existing systems. In case of Recce regiments with Armored and RAPID Div, it will add to the firepower of the units and allow them to engage in non-LOS engagements. Ability of NAMICA and IFV/JEEP mounted or dismounted ATGM is completely different. Abilities of a BMP-1/2 as ATGM carriers and NAMICA are completely different. Just for example, the British Striker can be fired by a team as far a 50m from the vehicle and NAMICA has LOBL feature.

As for NAMICA being a burden on the Logistic Chain of a Mech. Infantry Unit, apart from carriage and storage od NAG missile what other burden will there be? And how much will this burden be? (though I'm yet to find out any mention of NAMICA being inducted to regular Mech Units but then these are early days). With 3 Armored divisions (+1 new raising/raised) and 4 RAPID Divisions, you've seven recce regiments which will find NAMICA a good addition to their profile.

@RahulM: The Light Tanks have always been part of Recce fomations where their speed and relative superior firepower have allowed them to undertake their assignments. There job is to undertake recce in strength and fight covering battles during the withdrawl of the main elements. Having said that, USA came up with Mobile Gun system (MGS - mounted on same platform as Stryker ICV), to augment and strengthen its Stryker Combat Team. to quote a reference to MGS,

"This is not a tank replacement, but it gives a direct fire capability to support the infantry elements. The principal function of the Mobile Gun System (MGS) is to provide rapid and lethal direct fires to support assaulting infantry. The MGS is a key weapons overmatch platform to ensure mission success and survivability of the Combined Arms Company."

So if the idea is to have a system to ensure "weapons overmatch" for the infantry, then you need a light tank. NAMICA will assist in any such formation. For any tank vs tank, you will need a MBT.

Light tanks and NAMICA are two different systems meant to act as complements to larger formations. They both have their roles and aren't exclusive.

Vikram_S · Post by **Vikram_S** » 28 Dec 2008 23:50

rohit

why is the army buying 28 launchers in follow on order? (if 18 is one regiment)

is it going to be 3 regiment (+ 10 spare launcher)

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 28 Dec 2008 23:54

Well chaps, I have seen the terrain.

Ladakh corridors are boulder strewn in most place and huge ones at that and the TAR plateau once you can get beyond the Indian side with narrow valleys and passes is flat in the East.

Now, what does that mean?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Dec 2008 00:02

the terrain near Chushul appears flat and somewhat sandy with bare brown
mountains in the summer. saw it in a program on a motorcyle expedition there.
a memorial to a unit of Kumaon regiment who lost 114 men there in 1962 is present on a plain below...rezang la.

that area looks like a good bet for wheeled or tracked vehicles of any type.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 29 Dec 2008 00:04

Vikram_S: I have not followed the SMERCH induction thing. But as per BR page, the total order was for 62 units. Which makes for 3 regimets and 8 additional launchers. Only guess can be that some of the additional units will be for Trg role but this is more of a guess.

It is important to understand is that due to their massive firepower, the MRLS are generally alloted at battery level to formations (generaly divisions). Will try and dig up some info on the same.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 29 Dec 2008 07:27

@Somanth: Why should NAMICA replace the manportable ATGMs in the IA and especially in case of Parachute Battalions or any other Infantry Battalion for that matter of fact? It is completely different system which will complement the existing systems. In case of Recce regiments with Armored and RAPID Div, it will add to the firepower of the units and allow them to engage in non-LOS engagements. Ability of NAMICA and IFV/JEEP mounted or dismounted ATGM is completely different. Abilities of a BMP-1/2 as ATGM carriers and NAMICA are completely different. Just for example, the British Striker can be fired by a team as far a 50m from the vehicle and NAMICA has LOBL feature.

I am NOT suggesting that NAMICA is a replacement for any of the existing platforms, just responding to allusions made at different places that it can be in lieu of various things like light tanks and BMPs. My prime point is that the IA has no operational doctrine for a NAMICA type platform, neither does any other army (barring niche recce roles that you have mentioned). And if the missile type is different from the "usual" for the recce platform, I dont think IA will be terribly enthusiastic about it.

In any case, I think now we are all shooting in the dark. As of today, there is no ops requirement for NAMICA as we know, and in that light, unless the HELINA version comes out pretty soon, unfortunately NAG does not seem to have a very bright future.

That is the limited point.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Dec 2008 10:04

tv was showing a testfire of smerch in Raj desert. scared the crap out of me - the rockets are big as a house. a group of 6 TELs unloading all their tubes will take out a small town.

Vikram_S · Post by **Vikram_S** » 29 Dec 2008 12:54

rohitvats wrote:Vikram_S: I have not followed the SMERCH induction thing. But as per BR page, the total order was for 62 units. Which makes for 3 regimets and 8 additional launchers. Only guess can be that some of the additional units will be for Trg role but this is more of a guess.

It is important to understand is that due to their massive firepower, the MRLS are generally alloted at battery level to formations (generaly divisions). Will try and dig up some info on the same.

thank you

Vikram_S · Post by **Vikram_S** » 29 Dec 2008 12:56

Singha wrote:tv was showing a testfire of smerch in Raj desert. scared the crap out of me - the rockets are big as a house. a group of 6 TELs unloading all their tubes will take out a small town.

http://in.youtube.com/watch?v=cqdajSyyXlk

http://in.youtube.com/watch?v=2GRSL1Ya5-w

Vikram_S · Post by **Vikram_S** » 29 Dec 2008 13:07

somnath wrote:
@Somanth: Why should NAMICA replace the manportable ATGMs in the IA and especially in case of Parachute Battalions or any other Infantry Battalion for that matter of fact? It is completely different system which will complement the existing systems. In case of Recce regiments with Armored and RAPID Div, it will add to the firepower of the units and allow them to engage in non-LOS engagements. Ability of NAMICA and IFV/JEEP mounted or dismounted ATGM is completely different. Abilities of a BMP-1/2 as ATGM carriers and NAMICA are completely different. Just for example, the British Striker can be fired by a team as far a 50m from the vehicle and NAMICA has LOBL feature.
I am NOT suggesting that NAMICA is a replacement for any of the existing platforms, just responding to allusions made at different places that it can be in lieu of various things like light tanks and BMPs. My prime point is that the IA has no operational doctrine for a NAMICA type platform, neither does any other army (barring niche recce roles that you have mentioned). And if the missile type is different from the "usual" for the recce platform, I dont think IA will be terribly enthusiastic about it.

In any case, I think now we are all shooting in the dark. As of today, there is no ops requirement for NAMICA as we know, and in that light, unless the HELINA version comes out pretty soon, unfortunately NAG does not seem to have a very bright future. That is the limited point.

nobody is going to come out and tell anyone exact role for NAG as it is critical system.

key thing is to do research on NAG capability (of system) that gives clear view of how NAG is used.

NAG can be used as recce asset but it primary purpose is tank killer. it is designed around critical function of detecting tank at long range and kill them using fire and forget missile.

NAG missile system can destroy any pakistani-chinese tank (using top attack + tandem warhead).

indian army has only limited number of upgraded T-72 and T-90 for night attack capability. this mean system like NAG has very valuable role for strengthening any group against pak armour.

it is fully night capable and most potent system available to india.

if india feel any formation is potentially weak against Pak armour or chinese armour, NAG will be deployed in such role ASAP. it offers defensive capability = tank and is more deploy worthy than tank ( NAG is light weight system if compared) and is better than using wire guided missile which have single launcher (low rate of fire with wire guided system). troop of NAG offer higher defensive capability than equivalent BMP/JEEP with SAGGER/MILAN/KONKURS system

In Army has asked for NAG type capabilty for specific reason. otherwise it would ask for cheap wire guided system.

this is why indian army has stated initial order amount for minimum 13 NAMICA + 443 NAG missile.

satya · Post by **satya** » 29 Dec 2008 13:19

Can someone pls clarify Smerch in battery role will have 4 /6/8 launchers ?

Vikram_S · Post by **Vikram_S** » 29 Dec 2008 13:42

see rohit post

1 regiment = 3 battery --> each battery has 6 launcher

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 29 Dec 2008 13:45

Vikram_S wrote:
somnath wrote: I am NOT suggesting that NAMICA is a replacement for any of the existing platforms, just responding to allusions made at different places that it can be in lieu of various things like light tanks and BMPs.... .

You are spot on boss, I think the NAMICA will be very efficient at night on the prowl, shoot and scoot ability.

Given the nature of the system itself I think the Thermal/Night vision capability of the NAMICA will be better than a traditional MBT.

I am just getting high on the thought that a group of Namicas ambushing paki/chini tanks and bugging out before they know what hit them

Vikram_S · Post by **Vikram_S** » 29 Dec 2008 13:58

also, elevated launcher of NAMICA with thermal and LRF is by nature more capable than turret thermal/LRF of regular tank. it can be used in ambush situations very effectively

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 29 Dec 2008 14:13

Vikram_S wrote:also, elevated launcher of NAMICA with thermal and LRF is by nature more capable than turret thermal/LRF of regular tank. it can be used in ambush situations very effectively

Which also means that they can in theory be used in the same way as the tanks with the hull down position in the pits.

Also these babies can just lie in wait either from a elevated position or in hull down and camoed waiting for the right moment to pounce and then make a mad dash to safety.

I wonder what kind of R/F signature would the Namica have as compared to a traditional tank just out of curiosity?

Oooohh me fingers are getting all tingly at the thought of seeing a bunch of al-gooses coming in from the border only to get shahidized by Namicas such a beautiful thought

Vikram_S · Post by **Vikram_S** » 29 Dec 2008 14:59

Amitabh wrote:Man, is that one ugly beast, compared with Israel's Achzarit, the original T-55 conversion. Maybe you do need more top protection in an urban combat environment, but it sure won't win any design awards (and I am not sure about the "first rate human engineering" bit either).

ISRAEL uses NERA armor, but OFB TAMOR clearly shows it uses kanchan (look at flat side and armor arrangment)
i would not underestimate TAMOR armor protection or first rate human engineering comment ---> KANWA report on ABHAY demonstrator rated it high and better than Russian/Chinese IFV in human factor/ergonomic design

Vikram_S · Post by **Vikram_S** » 29 Dec 2008 15:01

andy B wrote:
Vikram_S wrote:also, elevated launcher of NAMICA with thermal and LRF is by nature more capable than turret thermal/LRF of regular tank. it can be used in ambush situations very effectively
Which also means that they can in theory be used in the same way as the tanks with the hull down position in the pits.

Also these babies can just lie in wait either from a elevated position or in hull down and camoed waiting for the right moment to pounce and then make a mad dash to safety.

correct! only launcher with thermal/lrf + missile is visible

I wonder what kind of R/F signature would the Namica have as compared to a traditional tank just out of curiosity?

should be same/lesser-->smaller IFV than tank, smaller engine

Vikram_S · Post by **Vikram_S** » 29 Dec 2008 15:12

1.
EXAMPLE of merkava NERA

http://www.defense-update.com/images/me ... rontal.jpg

compare to ACHZARIT
http://www.military-today.com/apc/achzarit_l2.jpg

2.
example of composite armor- KANCHAN
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... t-pic1.jpg

compare to:
http://www.military-today.com/apc/tarmour.jpg

I would say TARMOUR is definitely very heavy armoured

rahulm · Post by **rahulm** » 01 Jan 2009 09:40

See my preamble in the "Is our military ready for quick action against Pakistan?" thread.

The Arjun is in trouble. The IA hates it. Almost lost a friendship with my friend on this topic. He had high praise for the FCS. Hydropnuematic suspension is great when it works but the seals break often.

I recall this problem has since been fixed but could not press the point and complete the discussion due to lack of time.

Trust with the INSAS is also low.

On querying why the IA + DRDO realtionship is not a partnership like IN + DRDO he mentioned that future products are taking this direction and was optimistic about the Indra II.

Vikram_S · Post by **Vikram_S** » 01 Jan 2009 14:38

rahulm

i have been currently talking to many people from central police force, In Army and cisf whenever chance is available --- who are using INSAS ---> soldiers are generally happy with the rifle, it is accepted as accurate, and usable than earlier SLR for army needs

Also interestingly ARMY officers said that OFB has offered newer version of INSAS with full auto feature to army but ARMY officer are not interested as it is not required

so i think your friends view is personal and not fully spread out as general

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 01 Jan 2009 14:53

Vikram_S wrote:rahulm

i have been currently talking to many people from central police force, In Army and cisf whenever chance is available --- who are using INSAS ---> soldiers are generally happy with the rifle, it is accepted as accurate, and usable than earlier SLR for army needs

Also interestingly ARMY officers said that OFB has offered newer version of INSAS with full auto feature to army but ARMY officer are not interested as it is not required

so i think your friends view is personal and not fully spread out as general

The army will never be interested in a fully auto mode. It goes against the concept "One Goli, Ek Dushman".

Auto fire encourages firing indiscriminatingly. It aslo ruin the psychology to be perfect and to kill with one bullet. Not bad to kill the enemy if one is to waste ammunition. Who will replenish? Replenishment is not an assembly line!

In the mountains, who will lug up the ammunition? Understand the mechanics.

It is all fine for people to think the foreign armies are fab, and we should follow them. May I mostly humbly state that our experience in conventional war and unconventional war is unparalleled and that ''fancy'' armies, that you all so glibly quote as the acme, are the ones who are using our expertise, be it CIJW or HAW. For once, may I request you to be proud that we lead the way?

One must realise one must cut the cloth as per the coat! The fact that the US is using the CIJW School extensively and undergoing training in High Altitude Warfare should indicate we are not totally greenhorns.

It is time for all those who feel that everything foreign is great to calm down. We are not perfect, but we know our onions!

Vikram_S · Post by **Vikram_S** » 01 Jan 2009 16:49

agreed sir, i was just saying that INSAS appears pretty ok rifle for indian need.

thank you for your answer about AUTO FIRE mode.

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 01 Jan 2009 18:36

One of the biggest problem in the design concept of INSAS is that the sights are located on a hinged cover. Though other nations have used this design (FN-FNC, Israel-Galil etc) but it is not ideal and rifle is prone to loosing Zero. Evidentaly, the optics have the same problem when mounted on the rifle.

Preferably, the sight and optics should be mounted in manner that they are rigidly attached to barrel with no moving part between them. One option is M16-Sig-G36 style where the barrel is attached to upper receiver as are the sights/optics. For field stripping the rifle the lower portion of receiver falls away/hinges. Other option is SCAR where the barrel is attached to lower portion of the receiver but the front lower portion of the receiver is one part with upper portion of the receiver, for field stripping the back portion of lower receiver opens up. Third option is off course bull pub like TAVOR.

More than One million INSAS have rolled out being more than the envisaged production run for army. It is high time that design now evolves further rather then just quick fixes.

ParGha · Post by **ParGha** » 01 Jan 2009 19:31

Brig Ray,

Ironically what I most admire about Indian Army's approach to small arms these days is the doctrinal open-mindedness to operational needs! Amongst other things, what we observe in pictures where regular troops use the INSAS (a good concept for conventional battle) and counter-insurgency troops use (full-auto and heavy bullet) AKMs (based on their operational needs). Many foreign soldiers engaged in close-quarters combat report that they would love to adopt such a compromise, but right now their dogmatic superiors will not allow it. It is the same case with issuing standard rifle to company- and field-grade officers; India has been much more responsive in allowing them to ditch the pistol and the SMGs than many others until recently.

PS: Please don't read too much into read too much into Indo-US joint training exercises, because in any given day the US is always conducting a couple of joint exercises somewhere on the globe. Militarily it is an easy recruiting tool ("Join the Marines, see the World"), keeps the morale up (as one of my friends, an USAF TSgt, succinctly put it "74 Countries, 16 girls, 350+ types of beer") and the men might just learn something useful.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 05 Jan 2009 18:17

Any media reports about the TV piece that 100 Arjuns will shortly be inducted into the Army?

VKumar · Post by **VKumar** » 05 Jan 2009 18:20

Today a TV newschannel (NDTV 24 x 7, I think, beacuse I was also busy in a meeting) reports that 100 Arjun tanks expected to be inducted in a few days.

aditp · Post by **aditp** » 07 Jan 2009 17:32

rahulm wrote:It takes time for perceptions to wash out of institutions and trust of Indian weapon systems will get better as the newer generations replaces the older.

I wish I had been able to spend more time with him.

With Whom?

rahulm · Post by **rahulm** » 07 Jan 2009 19:51

It takes time for perceptions to wash out of institutions and trust of Indian weapon systems will get better as the newer generations replaces the older.

I wish I had been able to spend more time with him.

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 08 Jan 2009 11:56

thanks aditp, rahulm

a) Dhruv's Shakti engine at 1400shp is suitable then? if one were to add a hybrid version (even an IC based one) that renews using braking motion, turret recoil? I know this is tangential, however it can be seen as a spin off too ...

b) Between Arjun, T-72 and T-90, is there a significant difference in their survivability staying x km from nuclear ground zero? since the impact is a function of weapon kT, keep the kT same. if there is no study involved on this can we take Israeli or American tanks as a reference?

c) what is the difference between the fire control system of a Bofors kind of howitzer vs a Tank? range?

d) if one were to build a precision munition with diameter dimension that of a tank shell and folded fins, once fired the fins come out (much like a missile exiting a canister) and the gps is switched on after its reaches a preset altitude, would that achieve good stand off range? does this have economic sense for selective targets?

aditp · Post by **aditp** » 08 Jan 2009 14:55

vasu_ray wrote:thanks aditp, rahulm

a) Dhruv's Shakti engine at 1400shp is suitable then? if one were to add a hybrid version (even an IC based one) that renews using braking motion, turret recoil? I know this is tangential, however it can be seen as a spin off too ...

b) Between Arjun, T-72 and T-90, is there a significant difference in their survivability staying x km from nuclear ground zero? since the impact is a function of weapon kT, keep the kT same. if there is no study involved on this can we take Israeli or American tanks as a reference?

c) what is the difference between the fire control system of a Bofors kind of howitzer vs a Tank? range?

d) if one were to build a precision munition with diameter dimension that of a tank shell and folded fins, once fired the fins come out (much like a missile exiting a canister) and the gps is switched on after its reaches a preset altitude, would that achieve good stand off range? does this have economic sense for selective targets?

a.) Shakti engine : theoritically yes. But complicated and highly undesirable. IA is extremely averse to GT propulsion for very rational reasons.

Hybrid tech : largely experimental, yet to mature in civilian automobiles. Ability to withstand rigours of off-road driving not clearly established. Totally ineffective in reducing fuel consumption in sustained high speed motion (like charging across the Thar desert), heavier weight actually becomes a liability due to reduced size of diesel engine / GT for the same overall power output. Electric motor based hybrid systems are suitable only for start stop motion.

OTOH, a heavy high speed flywheel based kinetic energy reservoir type hybrid booster may be employed in next gen tanks. The flywheel is conceptually used to absorb KE during braking and make it available again during acceleration, thus reducing fuel consumption during accelerating. Engine size is not reduced. More suitable for heavy vehicles. doesnt require batteries and complicated cooling. Being experimented in mountain railway systems (diesel locomotives). Maybe DRDO should comission Kirloskar / Tata / L&T to come up with such a system for tanks.

b) will never find any reliable info in open literature.

c) Tank FCS optimised for line of sight targetting. Now a days must also include gun stabilization and optionally the ability to handle missiles

d) may search the net - open to others.

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 09 Jan 2009 12:56

thanks aditp,

a) hopefully a fly wheel hybrid comes up. With a heli rotor piece adapted such that anti aircraft guns take the position of blades and blade tilt mechanism is adapted to push the gun in azimuth angle, when this adapted rotor whirs coupled with a weapon locating radar, can we derive a battlefield 'Phalanx'? specs and variants could be different depending on the tech sophistication. By rotating they can deal with multiple targets simultaneously such as aircraft delivered bombs, ATGMs etc... protecting certain perimeter. These systems mounted on a tank chassis for stabilization become part of a formation? Shakti now?

b) An armored formation with the x*2+ distance between vehicles gives sufficient protection against nuke warheads? if behind the vehicle armor, we have a heat shield maybe the x can be reduced? At least the strike formations that are isolated from direct TSP engagement and hence potential battlefield nuke targets should be equipped thus.

c) & d) light weight howitzers made of composites can be air lifted to mountains terrains and artillery precision munitions with large stand off ranges help alleviate the need for heavy artillery up there and the amount of ammunition?

nikhil_p · Post by **nikhil_p** » 10 Jan 2009 18:26

vasu_ray wrote:thanks aditp,

a) hopefully a fly wheel hybrid comes up. With a heli rotor piece adapted such that anti aircraft guns take the position of blades and blade tilt mechanism is adapted to push the gun in azimuth angle, when this adapted rotor whirs coupled with a weapon locating radar, can we derive a battlefield 'Phalanx'? specs and variants could be different depending on the tech sophistication. By rotating they can deal with multiple targets simultaneously such as aircraft delivered bombs, ATGMs etc... protecting certain perimeter. These systems mounted on a tank chassis for stabilization become part of a formation? Shakti now?

b) An armored formation with the x*2+ distance between vehicles gives sufficient protection against nuke warheads? if behind the vehicle armor, we have a heat shield maybe the x can be reduced? At least the strike formations that are isolated from direct TSP engagement and hence potential battlefield nuke targets should be equipped thus.

c) & d) light weight howitzers made of composites can be air lifted to mountains terrains and artillery precision munitions with large stand off ranges help alleviate the need for heavy artillery up there and the amount of ammunition?

Meet me halfway here...PHALANX??? did you actually mean that? Do well...let me bring you upto the mark...phalanx is a CIWS system which uses a gun (the good ol' gatling design-which incidentally is a 6 barrel weapon which uses an electric motor instead of the original crank).
Hmm...though i smell that you have a wonderful idea...A FLYING TANK anyone...the helicopter engine...ahem...still retains the rotor...the blades are stored in the space meant for the snorkel (T ser). As soon as the tank has to move, the commander and gunner come out...attach the blades and the helitank armed with helinag flies inverted (so that the gun can be pointed down and takes out enemy tanks (WHOOPPPEEEEEEE)...
And yes, if we use it like a CIWS...we should not have infantry, friendly helos,(oops we dont need helicopters...we have helitank) or APC's within the range of the guns mounted on the PHATANKA (Phalanx-Tank-attach) :

: ...so we have a 1000 yard distance (.50 cal range subsonic round).

Hmmm...regarding the Nuke...nothing...repeat...nothing will survive a direct nike attack...the heat generated is not a 100 degrees but a lot lot more...metal fusing heat...what NBC protection means (please please please read)...is that a vehicle can enter into an area which has been nuked and can survive in the radiation environment (again this is a relative term).

The weight of a gun is mainly because of the barrel and the breech. The breech has to be heavy mainly to sustain the immense pressure generated during sustained firing. We do have the Light field arty (105 mm) made by the OFB which is a mountain arty gun. When you say Large stand off range, what do you imply...in the mountains it doesnt matter much what range you can achieve but mainly what azimuth you can achieve. To achieve longer range you dont need a PGM. have you ever thought of how much power you would require to shoot out a 155 mm projectile at ranges greater than 35 kms).

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 10 Jan 2009 22:52

I think I have an old score with you, you had trouble accepting JDAM-ER, SOW-142 concepts and you just ejected then.

and frankly you miscomprehend all the time,

a) I know what a PHALANX is and referred it to drive home the concept, here the keyword is ADAPT, go ahead have a IC engine who cares if you can impart the rotary motion, btw, this need not be the same as the vehicle engine

as for friendly fire, the WLR will have an IFF and the rotating gun will not just spray bullets, it times the shots to reach the targets and with closed loop integration with you converge onto it. Say, the system can fire 1000 rounds in a min, all the 1000 fire slots aren't occupied. The target relevant slots are filled while are blank for friendly positions. if one is careful about azimuth angle, infantry is never in the line of friendly fire. hopefully this clears some fog.

b) keyword is distance x or calculated dispersion, and not to sit in the direct path of a falling nuke. if the fly wheel concept takes off and I have 30 secs advanced warning of ground zero coordinates, the vehicles can move further away reducing the x even more. x is the distance where the armor melts off exposing the heat shield layer that can tolerate some major heat pulse. who is talking about NBC?

c) the context is busting the hardened targets in as few shots as possible while operating in mountains. Is your 105mm always sufficient?

the bottom line is,

a) are we reducing our casualties,

b) are we adding force multipliers vs. the opponents

skher · Post by **skher** » 11 Jan 2009 02:10

X-posting from Indian Army thread

hardly. arty acquisition is in a mess. while the soltam conversion would give some much needed boost, the armoured formations desperately need SP arty. AFAIK, with the retirement of the abott, IA is w/o any SP tube artillery.
They need to decide on the SP and towed arty and quickly !!
(renuka choudhari stalled the bhim !)

rocket arty is at a better place but the numbers are too small IMHO.

What does a health/WCD minister have to do with guns?And why does she get to torpedo them?

What abt the M777 deal - that's gone too?
If we have something like IFG and LFG then why have we made a SP howitzer(however 'defected') on our own?We have Arjun/BMP II and the IFG gun-why no match made?

The chinkis and porkis are closing in...too close.

nikhil_p · Post by **nikhil_p** » 11 Jan 2009 02:24

vasu_ray wrote:I think I have an old score with you, you had trouble accepting JDAM-ER, SOW-142 concepts and you just ejected then.

and frankly you miscomprehend all the time,

a) I know what a PHALANX is and referred it to drive home the concept, here the keyword is ADAPT, go ahead have a IC engine who cares if you can impart the rotary motion, btw, this need not be the same as the vehicle engine

as for friendly fire, the WLR will have an IFF and the rotating gun will not just spray bullets, it times the shots to reach the targets and with closed loop integration with you converge onto it. Say, the system can fire 1000 rounds in a min, all the 1000 fire slots aren't occupied. The target relevant slots are filled while are blank for friendly positions. if one is careful about azimuth angle, infantry is never in the line of friendly fire. hopefully this clears some fog.

b) keyword is distance x or calculated dispersion, and not to sit in the direct path of a falling nuke. if the fly wheel concept takes off and I have 30 secs advanced warning of ground zero coordinates, the vehicles can move further away reducing the x even more. x is the distance where the armor melts off exposing the heat shield layer that can tolerate some major heat pulse. who is talking about NBC?

c) the context is busting the hardened targets in as few shots as possible while operating in mountains. Is your 105mm always sufficient?

the bottom line is,

a) are we reducing our casualties,

b) are we adding force multipliers vs. the opponents

I am too old and reasonably mature for the settling scores talk and certainly dont believe in the same.

If you care to read...or even know some things...what you are now referring to (i say now because your first one was gibberish) is something like the ARENA system developed in Russia a few years ago. (look it up).
This system has its share of problems and AFAIK is still not perfected.

What speed do you think tanks and APC/AFV's can move at. Also the whole flywheel hybrid thingie is an issue because the tank transmission is not conventional, in the sense it connects to a direct drive sprocket whick actually moves the track. A flywheel system will require space, will most probably not be field maintanable and moreover as good as useless. How much will you care to save fuel, when you have something which guzzles a gallon a mile.
IF you talking about using the stored energy to work in the silent watch mode, i prefer using a second small engine powering a generator and heat shielded. BTW to just help you along..there is a company which is currently a market leader in heavy duty hybrid systems.
There are many practical implications to using a flywheel system.

BTW a flywheel system does not mean a 'FLY' wheel ...coz i think that is what you were understanding (from your prev post)...a tank just cannot accelarate fast enough (Physics-inertia...read it up).

For busting a hardened target...even a carl gustab...hell even an RPG7 is good enough...the 105 is an overkill. Alli need to do is put in a HE or even a KE round downrange. What you need the 155 for is increased range, higher azimuth angle, higher velocity projectile.
But yes if you are talking 4 ft of concrete...even a 155 will not have significant damage. what you will need is something like a HE pinaka/Smerch rocket...so i cannot go around moving them up ht mountains..can I. Instead we would use A/c (effective aint they).

About the part of reducing casualties...even the best protection is sometimes as good as no protection.

Force Multipliers....hmm...UAV's, UCAV's, etc....

BTW the original line about my brain having grease...you should have kept it I frakly wouldnt have cared.

nikhil_p · Post by **nikhil_p** » 11 Jan 2009 02:28

Check this out...

A 100 Bhims on order...Typo or just BBS...

products developed
BHIM - T6
A state-of-the-art 155mm Self Propelled gun named BHIM has been developed by CVRDE by integrating the T6 turret of M/S LIW, South Africa onto the Arjun derivative chassis system. After successful field trials, Army has recommended induction of this equipment into service. M/S BEML has been nominated as the nodal agency for the production of 100 nos. of BHIM. M/S BEML is to manufacture BHIM chassis and integrate with T6 turret.

the link.
http://www.drdo.com/labs/cvrde/achieve.html

Div · Post by **Div** » 11 Jan 2009 03:26

nikhil_p wrote:Check this out...

A 100 Bhims on order...Typo or just BBS...

products developed
BHIM - T6
A state-of-the-art 155mm Self Propelled gun named BHIM has been developed by CVRDE by integrating the T6 turret of M/S LIW, South Africa onto the Arjun derivative chassis system. After successful field trials, Army has recommended induction of this equipment into service. M/S BEML has been nominated as the nodal agency for the production of 100 nos. of BHIM. M/S BEML is to manufacture BHIM chassis and integrate with T6 turret.
the link.
http://www.drdo.com/labs/cvrde/achieve.html

Or else that page hasn't been updated in 7-8 years.

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 11 Jan 2009 03:57

a) Even before looking up the ARENA system, we know for a fact that we didn't have WLR in the kargil conflict or before, if Russia had any good WLR we would have lapped it up. Without an excellent WLR this battlefield PHALANX is not possible.

b) The heat curve from ground zero tapers off exponentially so much so that even 100 meters of additional distance can make a difference in survivability of a armored vehicle, one can design for engine acceleration based on this. On top of this loss of one vehicle that is caught doesn't impact much.

c) lets believe in redundancy of systems, even in the case of b) we know we will have interception of an incoming nuke yet...

if you think from air force's POV, UAVs, UCAVs add up, however if you think from Infantry's POV what is your force multiplier? tomorrow a stealth UCAV manages to penetrate your SAM defense launches a barrage of stand off JDAMs, what is your defense? China will reach there sooner or later with the UCAVs.

US or China offers JDAM to TSP which tries a SEAD attempt on our ABM pillar, on assets like the MCC, LRTR etc or even using Babur, what is your defense after the SAM net?

ParGha · Post by **ParGha** » 11 Jan 2009 05:04

skher wrote:If we have something like IFG and LFG then why have we made a SP howitzer(however 'defected') on our own?We have Arjun/BMP II and the IFG gun-why no match made?

IFG and LFG are 105mm guns, while the Requirement for the SP howitzer seems to be for 155mm. The most logical step would be to license-produce a number of 155mm guns, some towed, some to match with an existing tank hull if the Requirements specify tracked SP... or go with a heavy carrier domestically produced in India (Volvo?) if the Requirements specify wheeled SP. It would be even more sensible, if feasible from other aspects, to continue with Bofors for simplicity of logistics.

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 11 Jan 2009 13:13

nikhil_p, the ARENA-E is a tank specific system, whereas the envisaged WLR integrated 'battlefield PHALANX' is a perimeter system mounted on a tracked chassis or variants, the aim is to shoot down 'hostile airborne elements' entering the perimeter. The sophistication of the system determines the perimeter size and speed regime it can handle. There would be few of these in a formation not for each tank or BMP.

lets widen the thought horizon, thanks.