why hasnt india inducted a high quality apc/ifv

[Kunal Biswas]

 

[pack leader]

cv 90 and ascod both fit the bill off protected yet air transportable
BTW 1 namer can fit in 1 c-17
for us (Israel) air lift for apc/ifv is useless

 

[pack leader]

yes k -21 can also be implemented
it has the best weapon kit on the world market
40 mm magazine fed auto cannon + 2 spike er

 

[Kunal Biswas]

My Idea is something like this, But Only a smaller hull ( Size of Abhay / K-21 )..

 

[pack leader]

that is ahzarit made from t-55 hulls ( captured from the Arabs)
it's too slow it's bloody heavy and the turson bars always break
not to mention a maintenance nightmare .
they are bean phased out in favor of namer
the Rafael rows is great ( the only ones used by the idf)

 

[Kunal Biswas]

that is ahzarit made from t-55 hulls ( captured from the Arabs)
it's too slow it's bloody heavy and the turson bars always break
not to mention a maintenance nightmare .
they are bean phased out in favor of namer
the Rafael rows is great ( the only ones used by the idf)

What i am saying is to fit a Rafael RCWS on Abhay like APC/IFV/ICV..

http://www.armyrecognition.com/euro...es_a_roues/Pandur_II_8x8_30mm_Gun/RCWS-30.pdf

 

[Rahul Singh]

Israel needs Namer or MBT converted ICVs because it fights in streets with tight corners where RPGs and wired ATGMs are fired from close distance and even from point blank. We don't have same problem (unless of course we plane to invade Pakistan and hold some territory including cities eg Lahore), all that we need is decently protected ICV with 2-4 ATGM launchers, a 30-50 mm cannon and if possible a remote controlled .50cal gun. I think, a heavily armored Abhay with ERAs(at critical spots only) and APS will do job fine.

 

[ace009]

For IA, Abhay with ceramic armor might be enough - ERA might make an Abhay-sized IFV too slow for actual combat operations on open plains.

 

[Yatharth Singh]

An APC/IFV isn't a fighter jet. The qualities that account for a good APC/IFV are ruggedness, reliability, and ease of use, not how fancy it is.

With these parameters in mind, the BMP-2 remains a world-class IFV, and they are produced in India by the hundreds.

"WORLD CLASS", I dont think that BMP-2 deserves such praises in today`s scenario. It is nothing but a deadly painful coffin for its passenger soldiers. Please dont ask why because I dont want to waste words criticizing it. (But I have to do if you disagree)

 

[Yatharth Singh]

just bit off the topic, here is how last armored jeep competition happen we still dont know the result, may be TATA won because of cheap product.

hope this type of competition happen for IFV.

Which one belong to TATA? I know the first one from left(its the new model of Mahindra).

Okay got it. The extreme right one. Just zoomed the pic and found that.

 

[Rahul Singh]

US Army future ICVs(concept).

Base concept GCV / ICV

BAE-Northrop concept

This is what they call Fast "Adaptable Next-Generation (FANG) GCV", a parallel concept by DARPA

By the looks of them, i think we are well placed with radical upgrade of ABHAY or a new ICV with ABHAY as base. I seriously believe, we don't need Namer class ICV or CV-90 class fire power on ICV. Let ICVs be ICV not a modified MBT or light tank.

 

[Yatharth Singh]

well thanks.
but thread is missleading why hasnt india inducted a high quality apc/ifv

I dont think so. He`s right in a way. The fact is that IA didnt got chance to test its BMP`S in a real war because after that they will surely dump them in the Indian Ocean. Believe me guys that no personnel would ever want to patrol inside a BMP during war times.

Its not insult but truth. BMP`s are nothing but simply a mobile coffin as mentioned by pl.

 

[Rahul M]

In Indian Army BMP-2 is considered as APC as it carriers 8 trooper inside and its sole vehicle in Mech Inf, BMP-2 is also considered ICV/ IFV as its been upgraded with additional 30mm AGL with 30mm cannon also a 7.62mg plus a ATGM above, Its also used for tank support Vehicle as it can lunch ATGM hence its use with heavy Armour, Its a Universal Armored Vehicle in Indian Army..

It's not quite correct to say that BMP-2 is considered as APC (and not ICV) in IA just because it carries troops, fact is all ICV/IFV's carry troops. however, ICV's are usually tasked with operating alongside tank formations, so that they are able to provide infantry support to tanks, while the ICV's themselves have enough firepower to support the infantry. a key requirement is for ICV's to be able to sustain a speed and mobility enough to keep up with the MBT's, both on road and cross country. this is something most APC's don't have (and don't need)

APC's on the other hand are simply a means to transport infantry to the battlefield in relative security. for a long time US army used the M113 for this role. now it's not that you can't use ICV's for this role but it would be very costly to do so. ICV's also require a larger logistics trail.

in US army for example, bradleys are in the role of ICV's
Bradley Fighting Vehicle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and operate alongside the abrams, while in the soviet army, many of whose armoured practices we adopted, used the BMP in ICV role to operate alongside their tank regiments while the lightly armoured BTR's were used as APC.

to understand the role of BMP's in Indian Army you have to see in which units they are assigned to.
ALL IA BMP's are assigned to mechanized infantry battalions in support of tank regiments as part of armoured brigades, whether in RAPIDs, armoured divisions or independent armoured brigades.
clearly, IA uses the BMP as a thoroughbred ICV.

Indian Army use OFB MPVs in J&K..

and in NE. but these are exclusively in COIN (counter insurgency) operations, they are not used as troop transport in line units. (btw Ray sir has experienced an IED blast while in an MPV, so he told us long back at BR, you should ask him to narrate his experience)

also, I wanted to ask you, are you sure these are OFB MPV's and not casspir ? I thought the army uses the casspir and OFB MPV is used only by the central police organizations like CRPF ?

My Idea abt a perfect APC/IFV/ICV in one is a heavily armored hull with a 30/40mm cannon and a ATGM launcher under RCWS..
Hull is something between Namer and Abhya yet Air transportable..

2 points here, firstly, we won't be able to afford something as costly as ICV to mechanize the large number of infantry formations we have.
neither is it needed, ICV's are made to a very high level of requirement regarding protection, mobility and firepower that are simply redundant in APC role. it's like using a sword to shave your beard !
secondly, namer is again an israeli solution to very specific israeli needs, we have no need for such a heavy and costly vehicle. or even anything close to its weight category (which is 60 tonnes !) !

for ICV's the current sweet spot seems to be between 20 and 30 tonnes, a decent balance between protection and mobility can be achieved at around the middle of this band. the abhay tilts the scales at 23 tonnes while the future GCV of us army would come at around the same weight of the bradley ~ 27 tonnes.

here's a caveat though, ideally we would like this vehicle to be transportable by the workhorse of the future transport fleet of IAF, not the C-17 but the MRTA which is expected to be much more numerous. however, the MRTA's payload capacity is only 20 tonnes.
in such a situation we would be well served to design the FICV at under 20 tonnes, if aircraft mobility is not a requirement then it really should be. the other alternative is of course increase the payload of MRTA, which may or may not be possible.
one way to keep the weight low would be to use bolt on armour liberally, so that the weight sans the armour comes below 20 tonnes and the armour is added on the field before engaging the enemy.

 

[pack leader]

Bradly weighs 36-40 t depending on version and has crapy protection that why they are bean replaced by GVC project (approx 60 t)
most first class ifv weight is 35- 40 t
cv 90 / ascod /k-21 type is exactly what IA needs
get your facts right before posting

 

[Rahul Singh]

For IA, Abhay with ceramic armor might be enough - ERA might make an Abhay-sized IFV too slow for actual combat operations on open plains.

Be it Abhay MK-X or completely new FICV, i have a firm belief that they will get much more that cremic armour and ERA is something i can bet on. Just ceramic armour is not enough in days of high velocity guns, rapid fire cannons and smart RPGs. Besides Abhay was conceptualized in 90s and back then anti-tank systems were not as lethal as they are today. So its engine was selected for such requirements.

 

[Yatharth Singh]

Looks can be deceiving

Its because till now only a mild steel prototype of the Abhay has been built, and is presently under testing for proving automotive systems. When it will be rolled out as a finished product then you wont say the same. I completely agree with you about its qualities and can blindly trust on the Kanchan armor.

 

[Rahul M]

Bradly weighs 36-40 t depending on version and has crapy protection that why they are bean replaced by GVC project (approx 60 t)
most first class ifv weight is 35- 40 t
cv 90 / ascod /k-21 type is exactly what IA needs
get your facts right before posting

how about you get tour facts right first eh ? a bit of politeness won;t be wasted either.

as for the bradley, it is quite an old design and yet performed quite well (no actual proof of crappy protection) in GW 1&2.

let's take the other examples you talked about.

K-21 : 25 tonnes
South Korean K-21 (IFV) | Armoured Vehicles - military vehicles and world news updates!

ASCOD : 25.2 tonnes
Specifications: ASCOD (Pizarro / Ulan) Tracked Armoured Fighting Vehicles - Army Technology

the CV-90 version you are talking about is a light tank, it has a tank turret with a 120 mm main gun. canada had once decided to replace all their tanks with this version. the APC version of CV-90 called armadillo weighs 27 tonnes. New BAE Systems CV90 Variant Improves Protection and Flexibility - BAE Systems

please try to understand that the weights you are quoting for GCV or bradley are after addition of copious amounts of additional 'optional' armour, not the weight of the baseline model, which remains in the 20-30 range.

for example, a puma IFV variant is a competitor in the GCV.
puma : 31.5 tonnes
psm-spz.de: Technical Data

 

[Rahul M]

Its not so lightly armored, Looks can be deceiving , It use Kanchan armour same on MBT Arjun, The armour module is better..

no boss, no kanchan on BMP. pack leader is right that it is quite poorly protected for the modern battlefield.

russians had a requirement that all their personnel carriers had to be amphibious, i.e able to float. as you can understand this meant keeping overall density low and put huge restrictions on the amount of armour you can put on it. you can see that even the upgrade packages do not talk much about armour protection.

p.s. both the BMP-1 and BMP-2 have a feature where the rear doors also serve as fuel tanks, one of the stupidest designs imaginable. in afghanistan a lot of soviet army soldiers died from being burnt alive just because a single incendiary bullet had penetrated the rear doors.

 

[Rahul Singh]

Bradly weighs 36-40 t depending on version and has crapy protection that why they are bean replaced by GVC project (approx 60 t)
most first class ifv weight is 35- 40 t
cv 90 / ascod /k-21 type is exactly what IA needs
get your facts right before posting

Attitude, ha? Well keeping it aside for while, i did neither said GVC will weight as much as Abhay nor i said use Abhay as it is or even called it is a first class ICV. If you mind reading again, you will find that i called for radical upgrade of Abhay, which i roughly defined in later posts . Mind you Abhay despite having thinner armour, no ERA, no machine gun and only two launchers of Konkurs and one 40mm cannon weights around 23t. Now put a thicker/heavier armour, slap ERAs on critical spots, place an APS, a remote controlled .50cal gun, two extra tubes of ATGMs in addition to 40mm Bofors cannon and all those modern sighting systems, computers, networking solutions etc and you have Abhay at 30-35t.

BTW don't even try to pretend the authority to say what IA needs? Our Army as of today doesn't requires ICVs to lurk in streets, they are only required to be troop carrier with decent protection and with speed to follow MBT column while maintaining some distance. Present BPM-2 is good enough for speed and mobility but it leaves much to be desired in terms of descent protection and its fuel laden gates is a design disaster. Abhay with said improvements fills that void.

And for Facts regarding GVC. Oh yes i did checked them and i found this is still a concept and U.S. Army Chief Of Staff is speaking following.

"I keep saying, 'Look, man, an MRAP [mine-resistant ambush-protected] is about 23 tons, and you're telling me this is going to be 70 tons, which is the same as an [M1] Abrams. Surely we can get a level of protection between that, that is closer to the MRAP than it is the M1,' " Casey said June 7. "It's not going to be a super heavyweight vehicle."
LINK

PS: I have huge respect for Israelis but can't help when attitude is shown.

 

[Rahul M]

Following a very good discussion , but since I'm a layman in this matter, just my cent of thought , can it be feasible to go for a wheeled version , or a modified BTR-80 by DRDO, by using the chassis of it ?
Regards

it's a decent idea but there's no need to copy BTR-80, wheeled APC's are not very complex, a good industrial truck manufacturer (ashok leyland, tata, mahindra, L&T etc in India) can handle the vehicle aspect easily. the armour, sensors and weapons integration can be handled by DRDO labs like VRDE.
in fact a number of wheeled APC's have been developed from truck chasis and a large section of wheeled APC makers also make trucks !
all we need is a formal statement of requirement from IA.

........Personally, I don't understand the hoo hah behind the Abhay platform, it's conception was brainstormed in the 90s when Soviet style blitzkrieg on a conventional, defensive enemy was the pinnacle focus..........
Wars of the present and future will be fought in streets and villages, in tight quarters. Protection, maneuverability, ease of repair and maintenance, a mobile and data-linked force is the key.

beg to disagree, that is true for western armies and their need to deploy against rag tag armies in countries with oil. our requirement still overwhelmingly revolves around countering conventional armies like that of pakistan and china. we are not going to engage in foreign occupation anytime soon.

The enemy expects India to retaliate on mountain tops and deserts, India should have the capability of pouncing on industrial and military targets embedded within the civilian populations.

using your ground forces to do that is a sure way to be engulfed in a mire. check out the history of 1971 war, IA deliberately bypassed military encampments en route a quick campaign to dhaka, bombed the seat of the pakistani govt there with IAF mig-21 (there's a video of the event in youtube YouTube - ‪Indian air force attacked dhaka ...1971 war‬‏ ) and as a consequence got a complete victory in 14 days.