Indian Army wants futuristic vehicle for its Armoured corps

[Rowdy]

2. That means you don't understand how economics work. Trading for something good is no different than producing it here. I will try writing a post on it when I have time why it is so.

Sure.... I also have some Ideas I would like to discuss.

Trade and production efficiency is what makes us wealthy

My belief is that we, not being an export driven economy, have to first ignite trade inside our borders. The word productivity does not exist in the indian lexicon.

All of this helps the economy.

I agree. This car example is a good example ***if*** india did not have a population cut off from the 21st century.
Two realities in car example
a) Our trade laws ensure that Indian cars are cheaper (EU cars are taxed at 130 % )
b) Our capital stays inside our land, where due to sheer size and diversity we ***can*** create a monopoly free environment ... now this will need robust governance but it is possible to a large extant and allows us some degree of self suffiency.
Ultimately my goal is not socialism .... but making sure capital stays inside to aid industrialisation . Since Industrialization is driven by govt spending in all developing countries.

Why bother with new techs?

Evolving geopolitical threats .... and need for scientific advancements.

 

[Mad Indian]

Sure.... I also have some Ideas I would like to discuss.

My belief is that we, not being an export driven economy, have to first ignite trade inside our borders. The word productivity does not exist in the indian lexicon.

I agree. This car example is a good example ***if*** india did not have a population cut off from the 21st century.
Two realities in car example
a) Our trade laws ensure that Indian cars are cheaper (EU cars are taxed at 130 % )
b) Our capital stays inside our land, where due to sheer size and diversity we ***can*** create a monopoly free environment ... now this will need robust governance but it is possible to a large extant and allows us some degree of self suffiency.
Ultimately my goal is not socialism .... but making sure capital stays inside to aid industrialisation . Since Industrialization is driven by govt spending in all developing countries.

Evolving geopolitical threats .... and need for scientific advancements.

Thats not how efficient economy works at ll neither is it a good, efficient or a fast way to even industrialise.

To see how stupid protectionism really is,(which you are advocating without knowing) see this video. It will clear a lot of misconceptions on trade and imports

 

[Rowdy]

protectionism

I want more capital to stay inside, and more outside capital to come inside.
The means are secondary to me. But I also have an eye on our own RnD and development (sci tech) culture.

 

[Mad Indian]

I want more capital to stay inside, and more outside capital to come inside.
The means are secondary to me. But I also have an eye on our own RnD and development (sci tech) culture.

Dude, everything will happen as it happens. That is the most efficient way to do it. And of course govt can give incentives as well, but that cant come at the cost of our Armed forces' interest.

The indigenisation will occur in steps in defence, just like any other industry - how Kawasaki Bajaj to Bajaj autos, Hero Honda to Hero Motor corp and so on. It is a step wise process. It cant be allowed to be held in hostage by some lazy filth lining the DRDO.

And of course, this is far from my point - imports are not bad for the economy!

Did you even watch the video?

 

[Rowdy]

Did you even watch the video?

Gimme some time.

30 characters

 

[Mad Indian]

Gimme some time.

30 characters

Thought so .... ha ha ha. Seriously, its a shame that that video is not very popular. it would put to rest all the crap surrounding imports and outsourcing

 

[pmaitra]

Dude ... this RFI is shit.... once I had damaged optical lenses in my physics lab and had to replace them + pay fine.
Guess what ... that sheet had more numerical fields than this bullshit.
Example:
They never specify how many people they want to keep in one tank .... I mean do they not have any calculation / estimate on how they want to plan their forces.... say induction is 2027....what is the estimated size of army...so how many people you would have then...how many of those would be in tanks and how many people per tank?

As for DRDO yes they are $hit, but if we have Frozen,Numerical specs and an adequate timeline, they will deliver. At least tanks are not THAT complicated.

Thank you.

Once we have frozen numbers, then the following things can happen:

• Neither DRDO, nor anyone else can meet the requirements, thus proving the unrealistic expectation of the DGMF.
• DRDO will fail to make a prototype but some other company will succeed. This will prove DRDO's lack of competence.

I found the RFI incredibly ambiguous and subjective, leaving way too much leeway to shift the blame at a later stage.

http://indianarmy.nic.in/writereaddata/RFI/445/FRCV RFI.pdf
Is the thread on new rfi of army for future ready combact vehicles created? Please someone create a thread if not posted. I am unable to do so

I went through the requirements, and I would have expected the Director General of Mechanized Forces to be less vague and more objective.

Some of the things written in this document have the potential of raking up a dispute in the future. Let me list them out. I will simply point out the points of the Brief description of the FRCV:

• (7). The maximum operating temperature of the tank should have been mentioned.
• (8). The term "compact" should have been quantified in cubic centimeters, or LxBxH.
• (9.a). The in-service bridges on Indian side of the border should have been properly defined as per axle load, pressure, and width specifications, and if possible, for those across the border as well.
• (9.b.) What crew size is desired? Do the design bureaux have the liberty to decide the crew size? In that case, they might also have the liberty to decide whether they will go for the crew-less turret.
• (9.c.ii) A quantified number for FRHP should have been specified, which can be obtained from contemporary MBTs. Also, the size of the gun (120 mm, 125 mm) should have been specified.
• (9.e.i) A power-to-weight ratio should have been quantified.
• (9.e.ii) The operating range should have been quantified.

I understand that this is a very initial stage, but there are quite a few points where not enough homework was done to keep the guess work out. I think the MoD should look into this, and reduce the amount of sloppiness involved in such important documents. Scientists don't work on gut feelings. They need hard numbers. Hard numbers are also necessary to avoid future mud-slinging and finger-pointing.

It is quite obvious that the DGMF et al., are looking at the Armata family, although they are not stating it openly. That is why, they want a modular platform with several variations thereof, just like the Armata family.

 

[Bhadra]

Dude ... this RFI is shit.... once I had damaged optical lenses in my physics lab and had to replace them + pay fine.
Guess what ... that sheet had more numerical fields than this bullshit.
Example:
They never specify how many people they want to keep in one tank .... I mean do they not have any calculation / estimate on how they want to plan their forces.... say induction is 2027....what is the estimated size of army...so how many people you would have then...how many of those would be in tanks and how many people per tank?

As for DRDO yes they are $hit, but if we have Frozen,Numerical specs and an adequate timeline, they will deliver. At least tanks are not THAT complicated.

This RFI for design or production ? Given a design for three versus two ! What has the design to do with force structuring and time lines for production ?

 

[Bhadra]

Dude ... this RFI is shit.... once I had damaged optical lenses in my physics lab and had to replace them + pay fine.
Guess what ... that sheet had more numerical fields than this bullshit.
Example:
They never specify how many people they want to keep in one tank .... I mean do they not have any calculation / estimate on how they want to plan their forces.... say induction is 2027....what is the estimated size of army...so how many people you would have then...how many of those would be in tanks and how many people per tank?

As for DRDO yes they are $hit, but if we have Frozen,Numerical specs and an adequate timeline, they will deliver. At least tanks are not THAT complicated.

The RFI is first for design. So make a design as per RFI :

"(b) Crew. The number of crew members should be such that they can perform their designated tasks, and operate all on-board systems without hindrance and without any overlapping of duties/ responsibilities."

Why should Army do designers job and specify crew numbers? Let the designer work on it !

 

[Rowdy]

The RFI is first for design. So make a design as per RFI :

"(b) Crew. The number of crew members should be such that they can perform their designated tasks, and operate all on-board systems without hindrance and without any overlapping of duties/ responsibilities."

Why should Army do designers job and specify crew numbers? Let the designer work on it !

There is a difference between design and requirement sir
Without requirement you cannot have a design.
DO the babus know the range of pakistani & Chinese tanks...... What if the new tank has less range? Our tanks will be taken out before they can attack the enemy tanks.
How do the tanks fit in with our other troops e.g. other artillery / battle groups.
Quoting from my earlier post:

Numerical specs are important..... E.g a tank with 4 operators will need less automation than one with 3. But it will need better ventilation. Just a small example.

THIS RFI IS A PIECE OF SHIT

 

[Bhadra]

@Rowdy

The requirement has been spelled :
"
"(b) Crew. The number of crew members should be such that they can perform their designated tasks, and operate all on-board systems without hindrance and without any overlapping of duties/ responsibilities."

Now that is quite clear that IA debate on three versus four crew member is required to be solved through Designed route :

The entire design philosophy has to be based on " Medium Tank" requirement - Weight of 45 tons or less.
If so can the tank be made in such a way as to house four crew or it would be imperative to keep crew at three to achieve that weight? Can the turret be unmanned? or is it necessary to keep turret unmanned to achieve reduction in weight? In both conditions - what would be level of automation?

Can the vital functions of driver, gunner, loader and commander by performed by three? If so how? Can gunner be the commander or commander be the driver? How can the weapon mix be handled and by whom?

If that is specified then what is the use of designer? Then one has designed half the tank.

There is a questionnaire given in RFI. Read it and answer those.

Some vital aspects are Clear from This RFI :
* Indian Army has rejected the concept of Heavy Tanks and wish to seek protection in mobility rather than thickness of the tanks.
* Indian army is seeking a platform on which all their armour vehicles could be based.
* Indian Army is seeking A vehicle platform that confirms to their existing Trailers, existing rail specification, existing road and bridge capacities.
* Specifications that confirms to ground realities rather than having a dud which does not fit into existing scheme of things.

* Indian army must have given due deliberation to the fact that in the obstacle ridden terrain, they need a medium tank rather than a heavy monsters which would bog down under its weight....

What is use of protection if it impinges on mobility which is the basic quality of mobile warfare.

In effect - Arjun is dead(as it is in present form) - an injustice done by DRDO to a great name.

 

[Rowdy]

@Rowdy

The requirement has been spelled :
"
"(b) Crew. The number of crew members should be such that they can perform their designated tasks, and operate all on-board systems without hindrance and without any overlapping of duties/ responsibilities."

Now that is quite clear that IA debate on three versus four crew member is required to be solved through Designed route :

The entire design philosophy has to be based on " Medium Tank" requirement - Weight of 45 tons or less.
If so can the tank be made in such a way as to house four crew or it would be imperative to keep crew at three to achieve that weight? Can the turret be unmanned? or is it necessary to keep turret unmanned to achieve reduction in weight? In both conditions - what would be level of automation?

Can the vital functions of driver, gunner, loader and commander by performed by three? If so how? Can gunner be the commander or commander be the driver? How can the weapon mix be handled and by whom?

If that is specified then what is the use of designer? Then one has designed half the tank.

There is a questionnaire given in RFI. Read it and answer those.

Some vital aspects are Clear from This RFI :
* Indian Army has rejected the concept of Heavy Tanks and wish to seek protection in mobility rather than thickness of the tanks.
* Indian army is seeking a platform on which all their armour vehicles could be based.
* Indian Army is seeking A vehicle platform that confirms to their existing Trailers, existing rail specification, existing road and bridge capacities.
* Specifications that confirms to ground realities rather than having a dud which does not fit into existing scheme of things.

* Indian army must have given due deliberation to the fact that in the obstacle ridden terrain, they need a medium tank rather than a heavy monsters which would bog down under its weight....

What is use of protection if it impinges on mobility which is the basic quality of mobile warfare.

In effect - Arjun is dead(as it is in present form) - an injustice done by DRDO to a great name.

I read this RFI completely differently. It is too vague and not enough research is done. It reads like a bunch of fanboys typed in their fetishes. There is no place for would have and would have nots. If the indian army , using tanks since decades is unable to express its needs in Numbers,e.g. the T-90 is 3 man 48 tonnes....what has the army learned from this...does it want 3 man or 2 man or 4 man... it writes medium weight ... what is medium weight .... is it 48 tonne or 45 tonne or 43 tonne.
What is the acceleration ? what turning radius...more or less than T90? some sense of benchamarks?
T 90 has a Smoothbore 125mm/48, 10rpm gun....does army want a higher caliber or higher round per minute?
WHAT DOES IT WANT?
What has it learned from all these decades of operating T90 and T72 apart from Arjun in limited numbers?
@Mad Indian

 

[Rushil51]

I read this RFI completely differently. It is too vague and not enough research is done. It reads like a bunch of fanboys typed in their fetishes. There is no place for would have and would have nots. If the indian army , using tanks since decades is unable to express its needs in Numbers,e.g. the T-90 is 3 man 48 tonnes....what has the army learned from this...does it want 3 man or 2 man or 4 man... it writes medium weight ... what is medium weight .... is it 48 tonne or 45 tonne or 43 tonne.
What is the acceleration ? what turning radius...more or less than T90? some sense of benchamarks?
T 90 has a Smoothbore 125mm/48, 10rpm gun....does army want a higher caliber or higher round per minute?
WHAT DOES IT WANT?
What has it learned from all these decades of operating T90 and T72 apart from Arjun in limited numbers?
@Mad Indian

Maybe Army is keeping an open mind. I mean they are keeping their options open. To be honest it seems like a good strategy. For example by saying medium weight they are not saying they need one specific weight i.e need to make sure the tank is of X weight, maybe they are just trying to say that the tank can be anywhere from 45-50 tons etc or whatever comes under medium weight category. Let the maker decide what goes with what and what two things suit eachother. Helps to give maker some flexibility during design. Just my opinion.

P.S:- The maker can communicate back too. Any statements the maker may find vague can always be clarified by army by the request of the maker

 

[Rowdy]

Maybe Army is keeping an open mind. I mean they are keeping their options open. To be honest it seems like a good strategy. For example by saying medium weight they are not saying they need one specific weight i.e need to make sure the tank is of X weight, maybe they are just trying to say that the tank can be anywhere from 45-50 tons etc or whatever comes under medium weight category. Let the maker decide what goes with what and what two things suit eachother. Helps to give maker some flexibility during design. Just my opinion.

P.S:- The maker can communicate back too. Any statements the maker may find vague can always be clarified by army by the request of the maker

I am an engineer with advanced degree in an interdisciplinary craft. I can tell you the army has no idea what it wants(less likely) or it has already (ARMATA) something in mind. No one can even start designing with this.

 

[Mad Indian]

What has it learned from all these decades of operating T90 and T72 apart from Arjun in limited numbers?
@Mad Indian

One thing I indeed have learned is that Arjun lacks the logistics chain in the sophistication available for T72 and T90 as it arrived a decade too late. Drdo failed India and Indian army big time. Its time to call out their BS.

 

[Mad Indian]

P.S:- The maker can communicate back too. Any statements the maker may find vague can always be clarified by army by the request of the maker

this part is actually very important! It blows out the "vagueness" excuse right out the window

 

[Kunal Biswas]

I would have agree with you if we were Pakistani or Ugandan ..

Army is also Government largest typical government organization ..

I know DRDO is a typical govt organisation through my friend who works as an engineer there.

i know DRDO is a typical govt organisation through my friend who works as an engineer there.

 

[Bhadra]

I read this RFI completely differently. It is too vague and not enough research is done. It reads like a bunch of fanboys typed in their fetishes. There is no place for would have and would have nots. If the indian army , using tanks since decades is unable to express its needs in Numbers,e.g. the T-90 is 3 man 48 tonnes....what has the army learned from this...does it want 3 man or 2 man or 4 man... it writes medium weight ... what is medium weight .... is it 48 tonne or 45 tonne or 43 tonne.
What is the acceleration ? what turning radius...more or less than T90? some sense of benchamarks?
T 90 has a Smoothbore 125mm/48, 10rpm gun....does army want a higher caliber or higher round per minute?
WHAT DOES IT WANT?
What has it learned from all these decades of operating T90 and T72 apart from Arjun in limited numbers?
@Mad Indian

This kind of beating around the bush in a round- round- and round fashion will derail everything..at least I am not impressed.

So remain to the point and answer issues raised by me..

and I repeat : If so many things are required to be specified then the designed is fixed by the user ..

Then what is use of the designer ? Then designer, read DRDO, can fix responsibility on user - is that it.. you want it that way .. forget it !!

Why do not you ( DRDO) plainly give up that you can not design .. there is no harm in that ??

Let someone else design and may be then you can respond to manufacture... stage two..

OK , take it this way _ Has not DRDO outsourced designing on many occasions ?

So what is this " Syapa" andall that Rudali act ??

 

[ezsasa]

One more thing to be noted is that this RFI is meant for tanks in western borders, i think this is one more clue.

I see no problem in the vagueness in RFI, just because RFI does not contain clarity it does not necessarily mean that army does not know what it wants. To me it just means army is keeping the options open at this point in time.

If I understood the RFI correctly, it says that army will own the design after completion of the design and prototype phase . if it works out as planned there is no TOT.

And finally at around 2500 tanks required this is at least a 10 bln $ program spreading across next 20 years, if Indian companies really want to walk their talk they should take this serously or hold their breath forever. If Indian Pvt companies cannot get into this program, they are a bunch of idiots.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ezsasa]

Can somebody pull out RFI's for T-90, Tatra truck or any such vehicle inductions post Kargil. Comparing older RFI's with FRCV RFI should give an idea whether IA has changed it's thought process or not?