Future Infantry Combat Vehicle (FICV)

[WolfPack86]

FICV bids closed.

 

[WolfPack86]

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music that you love, upload original content and share it all with friends, family and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

Russia offer upgraded bmp 3 ifv for ficv Indian army.

 

[WolfPack86]

AVNL proposed design ficv concept for Indian army.

 

[Bleh]

AVNL proposed design ficv concept for Indian army.

BC... driver's sight pe gun atak jayega.

 

[WolfPack86]

AoN for 480 futuristic infantry combat vehicles (FICVs) for Rs 20,000 crore

 

[Bleh]

I have a feeling that India, sticking to her traditions of the "old way", is maybe still playing catch up.

With the successful utilisation of drones in combat there is a good chance that, automated & remotely-guided UGVs may take the role of Infantry Combat Vehicle in the future... while APCs make a comeback to taxi infantry & do fast maneuvers throught the countryside. While the actually combat can be left to drones (possibly to outnumbering IFVs 10:1)
The two need not be done by the same vehicle anymore.

It is neither safe not desirable for flimsily armoured vehicles like to engage the modern infantry.

 

[Corvus Splendens]

BC... driver's sight pe gun atak jayega.

It's part of the turret.

 

[WolfPack86]

The FICV, while retaining its amphibious capability, looks for high protection levels in the frontal arc at STANAG 5 against 25mm APDS, which can be upgraded to STANAG 6 against 30mm APFSDS, with removable armour panels. It also lays down STANAG 4, against 14.5mm AP, on the sides & top as also STANAG 3B, 8kg mine explosive under belly. It also challenges the designer to produce 30HP/Ton criteria while remaining amphibious, especially with add-on armour.

View: The 'Make in India' Futuristic Infantry Combat Vehicle is once again on the horizon

The FICV has been on the procurement anvil since the Acceptance of Necessity was issued out in October 2009. It saw two Expression of Interests in the Make/Make-1 category, change to the Make-2 category, and has now finally fructified in a new RFI in the Buy & Make or Buy (Indian-IDDM) category.

economictimes.indiatimes.com

 

[SwordOfDarkness]

I have a feeling that India, sticking to her traditions of the "old way", is maybe still playing catch up.

With the successful utilisation of drones in combat there is a good chance that, automated & remotely-guided UGVs may take the role of Infantry Combat Vehicle in the future... while APCs make a comeback to taxi infantry & do fast maneuvers throught the countryside. While the actually combat can be left to drones (possibly to outnumbering IFVs 10:1)
The two need not be done by the same vehicle anymore.
View attachment 206955

It is neither safe not desirable for flimsily armoured vehicles like to engage the modern infantry.

I really doubt, tbh even remote weapons stations are not as good as crewed ones, completely unmanned is long way off.

Even US army, which experiments a lot, is only using unmanned vehicles in limited scout roles.

 

[SwordOfDarkness]

It's part of the turret.

Oh yeah I just noticed.

IMO this is likely a PDR stage thing, they dont have gunners sight marked (maybe mis-marked as drivers sight?)

 

[Bleh]

I really doubt, tbh even remote weapons stations are not as good as crewed ones, completely unmanned is long way off.

Even US army, which experiments a lot, is only using unmanned vehicles in limited scout roles.

Maybe, but I was thinking like, the said the same things on drones until recently... literally everyone thought they can't be used in a hostile airspace & can only scout.
Plus I reckon you can field them in larger numbers. Like a single FICV with 7-8 troops, against an APC with 10 troops + 3 UGVs with 20mm & ATGMs at same price

Btw, why& how would manned turrets be better?.. the only difference is the crew is sitting inside the turret in one & in another vehicle in the other case.

 

[SwordOfDarkness]

Maybe, but I was thinking like, the said the same things on drones until recently... literally everyone thought they can't be used in a hostile airspace & can only scout. Plus most IFVs are becoming remote-turret.

Btw, why& how would manned turrets be better?.. the only difference is the crew is sitting inside the turret in one & in another vehicle in the other case.

Not saying they cant be used, just saying their utility is of questionable value. In the role of infantry carrier+ Figting vehicle I think IFV is a good compromise in place of 2 separate vehicles, and doesnt need doctinal changes to be effective. More or less, if it aint broke, dont fix it.

As for turrets, autocannon jams and ammo issues are still very common in all IFVs, having a human makes it much easier to get a jam cleared/new ammo loaded in. It does have the drawback of taking more space, but it does compensate quite a bit with the simple ability to stick your head out and have a look around.

 

[Bleh]

...if it aint broke, dont fix it.

Yes but, as the French found out in '39, that philosophy may have some... issues.
What I'm saying is, warfare may be at another such point.

Sorry I have this habit of editing my posts after so you may not have ready this, but I really don't think these two are an evenly matched opponents:

a single FICV with 7-8 troops, against an APC with 10 troops + 3 UGVs with 20mm & ATGMs at same price

 

[SwordOfDarkness]

Yes but, as the French found out in '39, that philosophy may have some... issues.
What I'm saying is, warfare may be at another such point.

Sorry I have this habit of editing my posts after so you may not have ready this, but I really don't think these two are an evenly matched opponents:

The french had issues because they didnt evolve as others did, in this case no one is evolving radically.
In long term future, we will definitely move towards unmanned combat vehicles, but I dont think that the tech is useful enough at this stage to induct. If you are suggesting a long term project for semi-autonomous combat vehicle, I support that.


Nah not true for Manned vs unmanned turret (indeed, unmanned usually cost more since the loss of situational awareness has to be replaced with a bunch of cameras)

Unless you want to remove armour and be just a M113 type APC, then not only does it becomes a liability of losing a bunch of troops very easily to another IFV, but also if you build a proper UGV, with 20mm gun and ATGM, it wont be cheap. US army one with zero armour, and just a 50 cal and javelin costs around 800,000 dollars. Upgunning that will cost more.

Compared to BMP-2 price of 900,000 dollars, and it comes with 30mm autocannon, good protection, multiple ATGMs, and 7 dismounts.

Not worth the cost as a fire support vehicle as of now. Much better will be to use it as a scout vehicle or for providing logistical support under heavy fire.

 

[Bleh]

good protection

Good points, except for this BMPs & M113 both have junk protection. They were not enough then, nor now FICV's protection from 30mm will be capable of survival in drone-heavy scenario.
The original concept of dismounting troops & going in guns-blazing as support isn't feasible anymore for lightly armoured vehicles.

And it's all too nascent for cost estimation. These R&D as well as typical prototyping customisation expenses involved, without any economy of scale. But I've been reading about this concepts & regarding the bang-for-buck there's something significant to consider. That is...

...with same (probably better due to small size) armour a 5-7ton midget gonna be incredibly harder to kill unless you manage to blow it to smithereens! Ridiculously small, obscenely fast & without a crew to knock-out a penetrating hit will only damage subsystems; while sending out suicide-drones besides an autocannon that can take out a FICV from sides of rear.
Also BMP is outdated as fuck. With the bell & whistles FICV is getting it could cost twice as much, so 2-3 of these might be mass manufactured at the same price.

So if one side is sending ahead the dogs to do the hunting with crew in a heavily-armoured APC behind, the side with a light IFV may be at a significant disadvantage & it's mounted infantry much more vulnerable.

That's the gist of it.

 

[SwordOfDarkness]

So if one side is sending ahead the dogs to do the hunting with crew in a heavily-armoured APC behind, the side with a light IFV may be at a significant disadvantage & it's mounted infantry much more vulnerable.

That's the gist of it.

Heres the thing

What you said - Heavy APC carrying troops, with "attack dogs" going ahead
What I said - Heavy APC with a turret (i.e. IFV) carrying troops, with "attack dogs" in limited scout role.

Only difference is, My version has a turret and yours doesnt. You have simply offloaded the turret onto more fragile platforms, with decreased threat to life being traded for decreased awareness and firepower.

But I've been reading about this concepts & regarding the bang-for-buck there's something significant to consider. That is with same (probably better due to small size) armour a 5-7ton midget gonna be incredibly harder to kill unless you manage to blow it to smithereens! Ridiculously small, obscenely fast & without a crew to knock-out a penetrating hit will only damage subsystems; while sending out suicide-drones besides an autocannon that can take out a FICV from sides of rear.

Nope. These vehicles will be very easily killed in the way you are proposing, operating as a lone warrior in an offensive role. Damaging subsystems on a drone will inevitably render it useless, all it takes is one RPG or mine or even a hand grenade.

You are misunderstanding the point of IFVs. The most powerful tool of an IFV is not the gun, it is the troops it carries. They form the primary offensive and defensive armament of an IFV.

If we delete the men from an IFV, we are essentially limited to a harassing role (i.e. scouts).

 

[Bleh]

What you said - Heavy APC carrying troops, with "attack dogs" going ahead
What I said - Heavy APC with a turret (i.e. IFV) carrying troops, with "attack dogs" in limited scout role.

Only difference is, My version has a turret and yours doesnt. You have simply offloaded the turret onto more fragile platforms, with decreased threat to life being traded for decreased awareness and firepower.


Nope. These vehicles will be very easily killed in the way you are proposing, operating as a lone warrior in an offensive role. Damaging subsystems on a drone will inevitably render it useless, all it takes is one RPG or mine or even a hand grenade.

You are misunderstanding the point of IFVs. The most powerful tool of an IFV is not the gun, it is the troops it carries. They form the primary offensive and defensive armament of an IFV.

If we delete the men from an IFV, we are essentially limited to a harassing role (i.e. scouts).

I give more thought than you might be assuming.
Let ne address 1 by 1.

1stly, FICV isn't a heavy APCs. It's not gonna last in modern combat in fire support roles. That's 3 dead crew & 7/8 lads stuck under fire.

2ndly, it's preferable if they're joining the assault but it's better if the UGVs are ahead & pinning/engaging the enemy... as the APC unloads troops in the rear, who as you say are the main weapons of IFVs. Those thing work better if not toasted, there's video from Ukraine of it happening.

3rdly, you're ignoring that i said these things have to be armoured. At that size, that can match FICV & be within 5-7t. Definitely grenade proof, should be fast to make hitting with an RPG more difficult than FICV.

Essentially you get 2 or 3 IFVs giving fire support. Except the vehicles will be more expendeble.

And lastly, in modern day popping up isn't the way to ensure situational awareness, surely a dinosau-filled Jurassic Park like IA had someone bring it up when deciding upon unmanned GN-MBT turret... Multi-millions are being invested in scout-drones, imagers & sensors, BMS, IFF. Sure let's them pop up from the APC.

Does that explain better?

 

[WolfPack86]

DRDO and L&T develope ficv.

 

[SwordOfDarkness]

I give more thought than you might be assuming.
Let ne address 1 by 1.

1stly, FICV isn't a heavy APCs. It's not gonna last in modern combat in fire support roles. That's 3 dead crew & 7/8 lads stuck under fire.

2ndly, it's preferable if they're joining the assault but it's better if the UGVs are ahead & pinning/engaging the enemy... as the APC unloads troops in the rear, who as you say are the main weapons of IFVs. Those thing work better if not toasted, there's video from Ukraine of it happening.

3rdly, you're ignoring that i said these things have to be armoured. At that size, that can match FICV & be within 5-7t. Definitely grenade proof, should be fast to make hitting with an RPG more difficult than FICV.

Essentially you get 2 or 3 IFVs giving fire support. Except the vehicles will be more expendeble.

And lastly, in modern day popping up isn't the way to ensure situational awareness, surely a dinosau-filled Jurassic Park like IA had someone bring it up when deciding upon unmanned GN-MBT turret... Multi-millions are being invested in scout-drones, imagers & sensors, BMS, IFF. Sure let's them pop up from the APC.

Does that explain better?

Then what will you call a heavy APC? Namer? Something like that wont make it halfway to lahore, Israelis get away with it cause sand allows very heavy vehicles.

UGVs cant pin/engage the enemy for sustained duration, atleast those that exist as of now beyond concept art. And 3 UGVs per IFV is greatly understating the cost of a UGV. Maybe 1.5 per IFV, then you deal with the topic of lesser combat power and it means realistically, in combat its ~0.7-0.8 IFV for the same cost.

Nah. RIPSAW, one of the few UGVs that will match your description of armament, is ~5 tons and can only protect against 50 cal bullets.

Didnt get the last part.

 

[WolfPack86]

Indian Army issues AoN for procurement of Future Infantry Combat Vehicle - FICV