Indian Army Issues Purchase Plan Of 200,000 Close Quarter Battle Carbine

[Kchontha]

IMHO INSAS will be certainly replaced by OFB 7.62 nato mk 1 c and carbine may go to punj loyd because OFB jvpc is not chambered in 5.56 mm.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

JVPC is chambered in 5.56mm but shorter cartridge ..

 

[Raj Malhotra]

Drdo MCIWS is two generations ahead of Israeli ACE and based on HK-416 adopted by even USA & France. But guess Imports are the best.

 

[Raj Malhotra]

IMHO INSAS will be certainly replaced by OFB 7.62 nato mk 1 c and carbine may go to punj loyd because OFB jvpc is not chambered in 5.56 mm.

DRDO OFB MCIWS is 5.56x45 as required for Carbine tender.

OFB INSAS MK-1C is 7.62x51 as required for 7.62 NATO Rifle tender.

Pune LLoyd has less manufacturing ability for a rifle compared to my Gool Gappe Wala.

 

[Johny_Baba]

Drdo MCIWS is two generations ahead of Israeli ACE and based on HK-416 adopted by even USA & France. But guess Imports are the best.

A slight correction brother,MCIWS/AAR is not based upon HK-416 but Daewoo K2 - It's an AR-15 variant with Long Stroke Piston Gas Operated Reloading Mechanism.

 

[abingdonboy]

Seems as though everytime the industry gives IA what it wants they move the goalposts, IA asked for multi-cal, MCIWS was developed, IA scraps multi-cal tender, IA says they now want 7.52 NATO battle rifle only, Mk.1C chambered for 7.62 NATO is developed but IA isn't interested (according to recent media reports) and also launches a 5.56mm carbine RFI despite there being a plethora of options ready in India to meet the role (AMOGH, MK.1C etc).

Really hard to look past corruption at this point, IA has failed to justify why they need foreign small arms and seem to be consistently looking the other way when DRDO/OFB delivers what the IA says they are looking for.

IA just are NOT interested in working WITH local industry, no wonder they are the worst equipped service.

 

[Johny_Baba]

Seems as though everytime the industry gives IA what it wants they move the goalposts, IA asked for multi-cal, MCIWS was developed, IA scraps multi-cal tender, IA says they now want 7.52 NATO battle rifle only, Mk.1C chambered for 7.62 NATO is developed but IA isn't interested (according to recent media reports) and also launches a 5.56mm carbine RFI despite there being a plethora of options ready in India to meet the role (AMOGH, MK.1C etc).

Really hard to look past corruption at this point, IA has failed to justify why they need foreign small arms and seem to be consistently looking the other way when DRDO/OFB delivers what the IA says they are looking for.

IA just are NOT interested in working WITH local industry, no wonder they are the worst equipped service.

Remember DM Parrikar ? He said in January,2017 that in next four months,Army is going to choose next standard issue combat rifle.

Then happened goa and everything went haywire.

 

[ezsasa]

Seems as though everytime the industry gives IA what it wants they move the goalposts, IA asked for multi-cal, MCIWS was developed, IA scraps multi-cal tender, IA says they now want 7.52 NATO battle rifle only, Mk.1C chambered for 7.62 NATO is developed but IA isn't interested (according to recent media reports) and also launches a 5.56mm carbine RFI despite there being a plethora of options ready in India to meet the role (AMOGH, MK.1C etc).

Really hard to look past corruption at this point, IA has failed to justify why they need foreign small arms and seem to be consistently looking the other way when DRDO/OFB delivers what the IA says they are looking for.

IA just are NOT interested in working WITH local industry, no wonder they are the worst equipped service.

There is an other side to the story....

If the forces ask for something futuristic or advanced, they are blamed for asking for things out of comic books. Parrikar said so himself.


If the forces ask for something on par with tech of the day, by the time trials happen the requirement is outdated possibly because of changes in threat perception.

This is a planning and coordination issue. Forces should involve DRDO/OFB guys from initial stages of planning, and listen to what they have to say before releasing a requirement.

 

[Rchauhan]

Seems as though everytime the industry gives IA what it wants they move the goalposts, IA asked for multi-cal, MCIWS was developed, IA scraps multi-cal tender, IA says they now want 7.52 NATO battle rifle only, Mk.1C chambered for 7.62 NATO is developed but IA isn't interested (according to recent media reports) and also launches a 5.56mm carbine RFI despite there being a plethora of options ready in India to meet the role (AMOGH, MK.1C etc).

Really hard to look past corruption at this point, IA has failed to justify why they need foreign small arms and seem to be consistently looking the other way when DRDO/OFB delivers what the IA says they are looking for.

IA just are NOT interested in working WITH local industry, no wonder they are the worst equipped service.

When you say "their is corruption" ..you seems to be sure of the fact that rifle developed by DRDO is perfect ...... Insas could well be a good rifle after all these years of improvements but it was a bad weapon when it was given to Army ..lot of our guys lost their life in Kargil ......my guess is that the other competitors have a better weapon to offer to IA and govt is not forcing IA to accept DRDO gun ......the point is that their must be a fair competition ...let our Army get the best weapon

 

[Hari Sud]

When you say "their is corruption" ..you seems to be sure of the fact that rifle developed by DRDO is perfect ...... Insas could well be a good rifle after all these years of improvements but it was a bad weapon when it was given to Army ..lot of our guys lost their life in Kargil ......my guess is that the other competitors have a better weapon to offer to IA and govt is not forcing IA to accept DRDO gun ......the point is that their must be a fair competition ...let our Army get the best weapon

Imaginary support for foreign war material in your argument by foul mouthing local material. Army invariably moves the goal post. Nobody questions them. My question why are they allowed to move the goal post every time. It is a repeat of LCA.

To remind you, all foreign rifles, (six of them) failed the trials two years back. So why should IA should have confidence in 'foreign Maal' defies any logic.

Keyboard warriors love to argue about two or three INSAS failures during Kargil operation. All rifles fail including M-16 during war situation. But INSAS failure is highlighted every time. Its derivative Excalibur was the only rifle passed the test. Strangely, the Army switched the goal post to 7.62 caliber just not to have the local material.

It was in 1996 that the Army brass insisted on 5.56 caliber. They dumped the fine working rifle 7.62 FAL. Well it's recoil was not to their liking, although it killed the guy behind the wall and the guy behind him too. Now they are back to 7.62, and asking for rifle firing a killing round and still not recoil. A few suppliers are willing to bring their rifle for test together with glossy brochures and pocket full of bribe money, hoping that their rifle may not recoil, work in all weather conditions and independent of dust and derby and still weigh 7-8 pounds. ...... stupid eh......

 

[SanjeevM]

Punj Lloyd-IWI JV to me it seems there will be issues. If you check today's Times of India, there is an article where Punj Lloyd is named among the top 12 defaulters in India and bankruptcy and insolvency of these companies is proposed. How will it get contracts unless it gets NOC on it's financial viability from RBI as is a requirement in all defence contracts. As per TOI they suspect these could be the top 12 defaulted companies though RBI is yet to come out with it's list.

 

[ezsasa]

When you say "their is corruption" ..you seems to be sure of the fact that rifle developed by DRDO is perfect ...... Insas could well be a good rifle after all these years of improvements but it was a bad weapon when it was given to Army ..lot of our guys lost their life in Kargil ......my guess is that the other competitors have a better weapon to offer to IA and govt is not forcing IA to accept DRDO gun ......the point is that their must be a fair competition ...let our Army get the best weapon

The list pasted below proves that, what you say is not exactly true. if DPSU were so bad, they wouldn't be having 2.5 lakh crore of book order(past + future).

Missiles  Agni Series of Missiles (Range up to 5000 km plus).  Akash : Medium Range Surface to Air Missile (Range: 25 km)  BrahMos Supersonic Cruise Missile (Range: 290 km).  Dhanush : Naval Version of Prithvi Surface to Surface Missile (Range: 250 km).  Prithvi : Surface-to-Surface Missile (SSM) (Range: 150 km – 350 km).

Armaments  105mm FSAPDS ammunitionVijayanta and T-55 (UG) MBTs  105mm Indian Field Gun (IFG) & family of ammunition  105mm Light Field Gun (LFG)  120mm FSAPDS MK-I ammunition for Arjun Tank  120mm HESH ammunition for Arjun Tank  120mm Main Armament System - MBT Arjun  122mm Grad Rocket for BM-21 MBRL  125mm FSAPDS MK-I ammunition for T-72/T-90 Tanks  125mm FSAPDS MK-I KE Ammunition for T-72 MBT  125mm FSAPDS MK-II Ammunition for T-72 Tank  30mm AGS-17 HE Grenade ‘Rudra’  450 kg / 250 kg HSLD Bomb with RTU and BTU  5.56mm INSAS Family : Rifle, LMG & Ammunition  51mm Infantry Platoon Mortar & Family of Ammunition  7.62mm Self Loading (Ishapore) Rifle  Bund Blasting Device.  Family of Mechanical, Electronic & Proximity Fuzes  Family of Smoke Ammunition for Mortars and Guns  Fire Detection and Suppression System.  Fuze FBRN 2I, FBT 3I & 4I for A/C Bombs  Illuminating Ammunition for 51, 81 & 120mm Mortar & IFG  Influence Mine, Adrushy.  Influence Munition Mk-II  Limpet Munition  Medium and Short Range ECCM Rockets  Multi Barrel Rocket Launcher (MBRL), Pinaka (Range: 10 km – 38 km).  Multi-Mode Hand Grenade.  PF, Incendiary and Submunition Warheads for ‘Prithvi’  Portable Handled & Backpack Water Mist System  Short Range ASW Rocket  Under Barrel Grenade Launcher (UBGL).  Warheads for Surface to Air Akash Missile

Combat Vehicles & Engineering Systems  Aircraft Mounted Accessory Gear Box for LCA Tejas  ArmouredAmbhibious Dozer.  Armoured Ambulance Tracked (on BMP).  Armoured Engineer Recce Vehicle (AERV).  Battery Command Post  Bridge Layer Tank T-72.  Bullet Proof Light Vehicle  Carrier Command Post Tracked (CCPT) on BMP.  Carrier Mortar Tracked.  Combat Improved Ajeya (CIA) Tank.  Gunnery Task Training Simulator  Launcher  Light Armoured Troops Carrier  Main Battle Tank (MBT) Arjun Mk-I.  Mobile Decontamination System.  Multispan Mobile Bridging System, Sarvatra.  NBC Recce Vehicle.  Operation Theatre on Wheels.  Replenishment Vehicle  Riot Control Vehicle  Unmanned Ground Vehicle.  Water Cannon.

Aeronautical Systems  Airborne Early Warning & Control (AEW&C) System.  Aircraft Arrester Barriers.  Electronic Warfare Suite for Fighter Aircraft for Mig 27 &Tejas Aircraft.  Heavy Drop System.  Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), Tejas.  Medium Sized Aerostat 2000 m3 “Akashdeep”.  Parachutes of various Sizes and Capacities  Pilotless Target Aircraft (PTA), Lakshya-I.  Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV), Daksh.  Remotely Piloted Vehicle (RPV), Nishant.  Technology for Identification of Friends or Foe  Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Rustom-I.

Electronics& Communication Systems  2D-Low Level Light Weight Radar (LLLWR), Bharani.  3D-Central Acquisition Radar, Revathi.  3D-Low Level Light Weight Radar (LLLWR), Ashlesha.  3D-Medium Range Surveillance Radar, Rohini.  3D-Tactical Control Radar (TCR).  Artillery Combat Command & Control System (ACCCS).  Battle Field Surveillance Radar-Short Range (BFSR-SR).  Combat Net Radio.  Command Information Decision Support System (CIDSS), Samvahak.  Electronic Warfare System, Samyukta for Army.  Electronic Warfare System, Sangraha for Navy.  Electronic Warfare System, Varuna for Navy.  Inertial Navigation System  Interception, Monitoring, Direction Finding & Analysis System, Divya Drishti.  Multifunction Phased Array Radar, Rajendra.  Night Vision Devices.  Pulse Compressor Radar, Indra.  SATCOM Terminals.  Secured Telephone.  Servo Valves  Supervision 2000 Radar.  Weapon Locating Radar (WLR).

Naval Systems  Active cum Passive Towed Array Sonar, Nagan.  Advanced Panoramic Sonar Hull Mounted (APSOH).  Airborne Dunking Sonar, Mihir.  Ground Mines  Hull Mounted Sonar HUMSA.  Hull Mounted Variable Depth (HUMVAD) Sonar.  Integrated Submarine Sonar System-USHUS.  Integrated Submarine Sonar-Panchendriya.  Low Frequency Dunking Sonar (LFDS).  Moored Mines.  New Generation Hull Mounted Sonar HUMSA-NG.  Torpedo Advanced Light (TAL).  Torpedo Decoy System.  Underwater Telephone. Materials,

NBC & Life Sciences Systems  Armour and Special Steels.  Bio-digester Toilets  Combat Free Fall Equipment.  Flame Retardant.  Heavy Alloys.  High Altitude Pulmonary Odema (HAPO) Chamber.  Integrated Shelters.  NBC Detection and Protection Items.  Permafrost Facility  Submarine Escape Suit.  Textiles and General Stores.  Various types of Food Products.  Water Purification System.

Microelectronic Devices and Computational Systems  Artificial Intelligence Technologies  Cyber Security Products  Data Encryption Technologies  Microwave Power Modules  Technologies for Network Management System  Technologies for Secured Communication

 

[abingdonboy]

This is a planning and coordination issue. Forces should involve DRDO/OFB guys from initial stages of planning, and listen to what they have to say before releasing a requirement.

This is exactly what I said but IA have no interest in working WITH DRDO/OFB, if they had done so for the AAR/MCIWS or whatever other rifle they required they could have had a world class INDIAN rifle in service by now but instead they have gone around the houses with this tender/trail/cancellation circus and still got NOTHING to show for it.

I would understand the IA going abroad for an off the shelf purchase if the requirements were urgent but after 5+ years of trying the IA still is unable to fill their requirements.

Simply put, I don't think the IA even know what they want other than that they don't want an Indian rifle, I hope the MoD/GoI slaps these clowns around and forces them to go for one of the multitude of Indian options available.

In the past I have blamed OFB/DRDO for putting IA in thsi position but it is now clear the IA are putting themselves in this position, the DRDO/OFB have done EVERYTHING that has been asked of them, for every requirement the IA has imagined up they have responded.

 

[ezsasa]

This is exactly what I said but IA have no interest in working WITH DRDO/OFB, if they had done so for the AAR/MCIWS or whatever other rifle they required they could have had a world class INDIAN rifle in service by now but instead they have gone around the houses with this tender/trail/cancellation circus and still got NOTHING to show for it.

I would understand the IA going abroad for an off the shelf purchase if the requirements were urgent but after 5+ years of trying the IA still is unable to fill their requirements.

Simply put, I don't think the IA even know what they want other than that they don't want an Indian rifle, I hope the MoD/GoI slaps these clowns around and forces them to go for one of the multitude of Indian options available.

In the past I have blamed OFB/DRDO for putting IA in thsi position but it is now clear the IA are putting themselves in this position, the DRDO/OFB have done EVERYTHING that has been asked of them, for every requirement the IA has imagined up they have responded.

There is a flip side to the argument, there are very few developmental projects undertaken by dpsu's which cost 100 crores( or above) and have been completed on time. probably LUH is the only exception in recent years.

i'd rather blame both parties, forces(not IA alone) for bad planning during requirement stage and DPSU for delaying development cycles because of inefficient project management.

but the good news is that there seems to be remedies undertaken on both sides in the last three years, proof is the increase in the number of systems tested or inducted in the last three years. most of the development cycles for current projects estimated to be completed before 2019, i would wait till 2019 before giving any further judgement.

 

[abingdonboy]

There is a flip side to the argument, there are very few developmental projects undertaken by dpsu's which cost 100 crores( or above) and have been completed on time. probably LUH is the only exception in recent years.

i'd rather blame both parties, forces(not IA alone) for bad planning during requirement stage and DPSU for delaying development cycles because of inefficient project management.

but the good news is that there seems to be remedies undertaken on both sides in the last three years, proof is the increase in the number of systems tested or inducted in the last three years. most of the development cycles for current projects estimated to be completed before 2019, i would wait till 2019 before giving any further judgement.

All is true except the IA is STILL looking for a FOREIGN carbine, they have clearly not learnt anything.

 

[Raj Malhotra]

Basically Carbine requirement has been increased to 200,000 but in order to disguise the fact that it's an assault rifle tender, it's called Carbine tender. To further help imports, gsqr conditions have been relaxed so that the requirement is to fire NATO ROUND and not INSAS ROUND. To prevent MCIWS competing, weight has been fixed at 3kg as MCIWS is 3.15kg.

 

[ezsasa]

Basically Carbine requirement has been increased to 200,000 but in order to disguise the fact that it's an assault rifle tender, it's called Carbine tender. To further help imports, gsqr conditions have been relaxed so that the requirement is to fire NATO ROUND and not INSAS ROUND. To prevent MCIWS competing, weight has been fixed at 3kg as MCIWS is 3.15kg.

Quite frankly MCIWS has been given sufficient time. We have been seeing it for last 4 years I think.

 

[Chinmoy]

Quite frankly MCIWS has been given sufficient time. We have been seeing it for last 4 years I think.

Sad part is, only we have been seeing it that too in exhibition. IA has repeatedly changed their requirement for MCIWS too. First it was for 7.62 AK round, then when it had been done, they got interested in 7.62NATO round.

 

[ezsasa]

Sad part is, only we have been seeing it that too in exhibition. IA has repeatedly changed their requirement for MCIWS too. First it was for 7.62 AK round, then when it had been done, they got interested in 7.62NATO round.

So far atleast I haven't seen any news article which suggests that MCIWS has been asked to convert to 762 NATO.

 

[Shaitan]

Quite frankly MCIWS has been given sufficient time. We have been seeing it for last 4 years I think.

Sure, but the three calibers MCIWS/AAR was meant to fire, the original requirement by IA, are all redundant in the IA's new requirement, which wants a 7.62*51.

It's one thing if they wanted one of the three calibers, but they chose the one that's outside that. They basically curb stumped that rifle right when it's going through intensive trials.

OFB managed to produce 7.62*51 with the INSAS MC1 quickly(6 months), but I think IA doesnt even care.