DRDO, PSU and Private Defence Sector News

[Blood+]

Is the 600mm protection for HEAT or APFSDS ?

They didn't mention it in the RFI.

 

[abingdonboy]

Since when hasn't that been true?? Their moto be like - "If even we don't know what we are doing, then the enemy will definitely not know what we are doing".

Well, to be fair, light tanks can have a place there, especially in the infantry fire support role. The notoriously low gun depression of Russian MBTs is definitely going to become a problem in the northern front, and a light tank will come in quite handy there.

Yeah, I know, and this is the concept the Indian Army should have gone with.

Light tanks of that sort will be most useful for providing the infantry with a mean to deliver precise and rapid fire at a cheaper cost. Can't do that with missiles, simply won't be economical enough. But yeah, a fire support vehicle would have been a better suit for the intended role, I agree.

Well, the cost would be a huge problem. An APFSDS round will cost you in excess 2000 $ where as a gen 3 ATGM on the other hand - you get the point. In my opinion, a combination of different systems would be needed. NAMICA and loitering munitions for targeting MBTs and other high value targets at beyond line of sight ranges where as light tanks for line-of-sight ones.

Nah, the tracked chassis of BMP-2 would be better suited there.

Quite possible.

We are seemingly having more of an in-depth discussion on role than the IA did before they floated this requirement

‘Light tank’ implies a Hunter-killer application against MBT as a primary role. Mobile fire support is obviously a more logical role for this kind of platform but it seems entirely missing from any literature/source coming from the IA regarding this project. A tank is a tank to them it seems

this kind of boneheaded and unrefined brochure regurgitating is why you end up with the mess the IA’s ORBAT is. Why they demand PDW with bayonet lugs and BPJ/PC so heavily protected they become immediately unusable in any kind of operational use.

anyway it would be great at some point to see the NAG integrated onto the BMP/FICV/LT turret (2 launchers)

 

[Blood+]

We are seemingly having more of an in-depth discussion on role than the IA did before they floated this requirement

Tell me about it.

‘Light tank’ implies a Hunter-killer application against MBT as a primary role.

Well, not necessarily. There is this misconception, and yes, I'm guilty of spreading it in the past as well, that tanks are specifically designed to hunt and kill other tanks and AFVs, but that's not the case. And it makes sense if you think about the reason why they were introduced on the battlefield for the very first time by the Brits—of course, to overcome German fortifications. And that remains the primary goal of tanks to this day: - provide precise, direct, and rapid fire support to the infantry and blow up anything and everything that needs to be blown up, which may or may not include other tanks.
May I recommend this highly informative piece by Nicholas Nick 'The Chieftain' Moran -
But whether this WAS the reasoning behind IA's decision regarding the induction of light tanks is very much in doubt. After all, these are the same folks who keep repeating that ludicrous claim of 5.56 rounds inducted for wounding the enemy BS on live TV.

Mobile fire support is obviously a more logical role for this kind of platform but it seems entirely missing from any literature/source coming from the IA regarding this project. A tank is a tank to them it seems

Indeed, can't argue there.

this kind of boneheaded and unrefined brochure regurgitating is why you end up with the mess the IA’s ORBAT is. Why they demand PDW with bayonet lugs and BPJ/PC so heavily protected they become immediately unusable in any kind of operational use.

So true. Regarding the vests, maybe the Army should include power lifting in its training course, lol.

anyway it would be great at some point to see the NAG integrated onto the BMP/FICV/LT turret (2 launchers)

Nag is probably too heavy for that. I think the upcoming MPATGM would be a better fit.

 

[karn]

They didn't mention it in the RFI.

Makes a lot of difference while analysing the RFI .. Defeating a 600 mm pen HEAT round with ERA is trivial. But then again 600mm is pretty low for HEAT pen ... RPG7 is around that much.

 

[Blood+]

Makes a lot of difference while analysing the RFI .. Defeating a 600 mm pen HEAT round with ERA is trivial. But then again 600mm is pretty low for HEAT pen ... RPG7 is around that much.

That's true. But even that will be unlikely to be achieved under the specified weight, not unless they go for an unmanned turret and there by concentrating all the armor on the glacis plate.

 

[Lonewarrior]

Some random Sharma Jee who drafted that 600mm protection requirment without much knowledge of new APFSDS or armour must be laughing his a** off seeing this thread.

"Arre Bhagyawan, zara dekho to in baccho ko. Inhe kaun samjhaye abhi kitte revisions honge induction tak. Bechare"

 

[karn]

That's true. But even that will be unlikely to be achieved under the specified weight, not unless they go for an unmanned turret and there by concentrating all the armor on the glacis plate.

With ERA I mean .. You can add ERA to anything. Again Im confused is the 25Ton requirement weight is loaded or unloaded. IFVs with 25 ish tons have only 600 HP engines usually.

 

[Blood+]

With ERA I mean .. You can add ERA to anything. Again Im confused is the 25Ton requirement weight is loaded or unloaded. IFVs with 25 ish tons have only 600 HP engines usually.

No, even with ERA on, the base armor would need to posses a certain thickness to be able to defeat the jet and I don't think it'd achievable under 25 tons unless you go with an unmanned turret.

 

[abingdonboy]

Tell me about it.

Well, not necessarily. There is this misconception, and yes, I'm guilty of spreading it in the past as well, that tanks are specifically designed to hunt and kill other tanks and AFVs, but that's not the case. And it makes sense if you think about the reason why they were introduced on the battlefield for the very first time by the Brits—of course, to overcome German fortifications. And that remains the primary goal of tanks to this day: - provide precise, direct, and rapid fire support to the infantry and blow up anything and everything that needs to be blown up, which may or may not include other tanks.
May I recommend this highly informative piece by Nicholas Nick 'The Chieftain' Moran -
But whether this WAS the reasoning behind IA's decision regarding the induction of light tanks is very much in doubt. After all, these are the same folks who keep repeating that ludicrous claim of 5.56 rounds inducted for wounding the enemy BS on live TV.


Indeed, can't argue there.

So true. Regarding the vests, maybe the Army should include power lifting in its training course, lol.

Nag is probably too heavy for that. I think the upcoming MPATGM would be a better fit.

I never said the tank was dead or that the LT wouldn’t have utility beyond a tank killer (this in fact seems like its most unlikely feature) but the way the LT has been framed has been as a direct result of the PL-15 and to ‘counter’ it in the high altitude deployments

I’ve also never seen much indication that the IA has too much of a grasp on combined arms warfare especially the integration of dismounted infantry and MBTs (that would be required if trying to use the LT as a fire support platform). Small things like having an external phone so infantry deployed alongside an MBT can talk to the tank commander ( that goes back to WW2 for tanks) have never been seen on a single Indian MBT

Another Cheiftan video:
MPF has been designed from the ground up to work alongside dismounted infantry (aftomentioned phone, cameras to build situational awareness of troops in the vicinity etc). No such features for LT, any thoughts of supporting infantry seem like an after thought if even considered at all.

So I can only come to the conclusion that either the IA hasn’t properly thought through the LT or they are going down a path with it that won’t actually achieve what they are seeking.

edit- I just remembered that the RFI says there’s a preference for hard kill APS on the LT, how exactly would this function in the vicinity of dismounts? The IA seem typically aimless and clueless but this is an opportunity to get a few more of their kids into fancy foreign universities/think tanks

 

[karn]

No, even with ERA on, the base armor would need to posses a certain thickness to be able to defeat the jet and I don't think it'd achievable under 25 tons unless you go with an unmanned turret.

Bradley has pretty thin armour and can still mount ERA . Theres a vid of a Bradley taking a rpg7 to the front and backing off just fine

 

[Blood+]

I never said the tank was dead or that the LT wouldn’t have utility beyond a tank killer (this in fact seems like its most unlikely feature) but the way the LT has been framed has been as a direct result of the PL-15 and to ‘counter’ it in the high altitude deployments.

Ok, now I get it. yeah, that's what I suspect to be the case as well.

Another Cheiftan video:
MPF has been designed from the ground up to work alongside dismounted infantry (aftomentioned phone, cameras to build situational awareness of troops in the vicinity etc). No such features for LT, any thoughts of supporting infantry seem like an after thought if even considered at all.

Of course, that's why I said this was the concept IA should have followed instead of this whole LT charade.
So I can only come to the conclusion that either the IA hasn’t properly thought through the LT or they are

going down a path with it that won’t actually achieve what they are seeking.

You're not the only one, I tell ya.

 

[Blood+]

Bradley has pretty thin armour and can still mount ERA . Theres a vid of a Bradley taking a rpg7 to the front and backing off just fine

Which version of the RPG-7?? Not all of the warheads have got pen value of 600 mm or higher.

 

[abingdonboy]

Ok, now I get it. yeah, that's what I suspect to be the case as well.

Of course, that's why I said this was the concept IA should have followed instead of this whole LT charade.
So I can only come to the conclusion that either the IA hasn’t properly thought through the LT or they are
You're not the only one, I tell ya.

And then we will argue about the hull/turret/engine. If even the user is this clueless everything that follows will be confused and sub-optimal

the kind of haphazard solutions we see emerging from DRDO and PSUs over time is not merely their fault for design/manufacturing shortcomings but the kind of ridiculous demands that are being thrown at them-By The IA in particular

 

[karn]

Which version of the RPG-7?? Not all of the warheads have got pen value of 600 mm or higher.

No idea . Whatever the Iraqis were using.

 

[Blood+]

No idea . Whatever the Iraqis were using.

They were using quite a few variants, so hard to say.

 

[patriots]

 

[flanker99]

nibba this poppy looking thing is drone launched micro munition by newspace.

 

[SwordOfDarkness]

Which version of the RPG-7?? Not all of the warheads have got pen value of 600 mm or higher.

Bradley has pretty thin armour and can still mount ERA . Theres a vid of a Bradley taking a rpg7 to the front and backing off just fine

Taking an RPG and not dying immidiately isnt that impressive, especially for an IFV. A heat warhead only pokes a small hole in the vehicle. If it doesnt hit anything really important, it will keep working. In tanks, the hot plasma tends to ignite ammo, which leads to kills. IFVs are much less vulnerable.

Even tanks have taken half a dozen ATGMs and still survived, IFVs can do much more.

 

[karn]

Taking an RPG and not dying immidiately isnt that impressive, especially for an IFV. A heat warhead only pokes a small hole in the vehicle. If it doesnt hit anything really important, it will keep working. In tanks, the hot plasma tends to ignite ammo, which leads to kills. IFVs are much less vulnerable.

Even tanks have taken half a dozen ATGMs and still survived, IFVs can do much more.

Just talking about the front hull.. That Belgian turret has ammo in its bustle with blow out panels in any case. And if it not so impressive then a 600mm HEAT protection in the frontal arc is pretty reasonable ask.

 

[Sachinananda]

Post last week of previous fy nothing else has been exciting nor even talked about
I personally think military purchasing spree has extinguished and all we have to wait for next fy end
Par tab toh election hoga
Anyway koi @Fatalis ji ko bulao unke posts aur shabd akashvani hai
Joh likhte hai woh ho jata hai