Future Combat Vehicle Programs (FRCV and FICV)

South block said:
Look like Red effect is visiting this site quite often lately.

Click to expand...

What red effect is missing along with many Indian members here is......the reason why there is both Bustle & Carousel autoloader is because of safety reasons & less to do with carrying more Ammunition..... Having both has massive advantage & minor disadvantage as well.... Let me clarify.


Tanks like T-14 Armata with Carousel autoloader are still vulnerable since both propellant charge & Round are stored inside the tank. Which means in case of penetration.... turret of the tank will still go flying high due to catastrophic explosion & it's not guarantee that the 3 man crew in front will survive the massive explosion.
Furthermore the carousel autoloader limit the gun size as safety of crew decreases further, reason being if you increase the gun size you are also increasing the size of the Ammunition.... Bigger explosion in case of penetration.


Advantage of having both type can be a boon.......The Bustle Autoloader will carry the Propellant charge and the Carousel autoloader will carry the round..... So in case of penetration it will be turret which will face the brunt of explosion not the chassis itself..... This will also help increase size of main gun to higher caliber without worrying about crew safety.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sathya, Asterion Moloc and YoungWolf
Speedster1 said:
The Russians are going with the proven T-90M, putting the Armata on the backburner. They probably need foreign funding to iron out its kinks and put it into series production.
Click to expand...

They have a massive defense budget, they do not need foreign funding. But it doesn't make sense to use up tank production for Armata during the war unless they have achieved overcapacity.

Speedster1 said:
The Army will give preference to a 'proven' tank over the relatively new Armata.
Click to expand...

Based on RFI:
The Indian ‘Strategic Partner’ will retain the ownership of the design and technologies for the platform to ensure realisation of ‘Atmanirbhar Bharat’.

And the RFI states the requirement for a "2/3 crew pod concept," indicating an armoured capsule with an autoloader. So only EMBT K3, and Armata fit the role for now; NGMBT as well.

-Medium weight class would mean the tank cannot weigh above 55T.
-Multiple weapons for anti-aircraft would mean the 20mm/30mm cannon option as secondary armament.
-Deep fording.
-See-through armor. So 360 deg camera view for crew.

No talk of DEW and hardkill APS, that may come up later during RFP. And IP transfer means, they cannot willy-nilly offer stuff they want to keep for themselves. Deep fording is quite questionable for some of these tanks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YoungWolf, Speedster1 and Rajput Lion
randomradio said:
They have a massive defense budget, they do not need foreign funding. But it doesn't make sense to use up tank production for Armata during the war unless they have achieved overcapacity.



Based on RFI:
The Indian ‘Strategic Partner’ will retain the ownership of the design and technologies for the platform to ensure realisation of ‘Atmanirbhar Bharat’.

And the RFI states the requirement for a "2/3 crew pod concept," indicating an armoured capsule with an autoloader. So only EMBT K3, and Armata fit the role for now; NGMBT as well.

-Medium weight class would mean the tank cannot weigh above 55T.
-Multiple weapons for anti-aircraft would mean the 20mm/30mm cannon option as secondary armament.
-Deep fording.
-See-through armor. So 360 deg camera view for crew.

No talk of DEW and hardkill APS, that may come up later during RFP. And IP transfer means, they cannot willy-nilly offer stuff they want to keep for themselves. Deep fording is quite questionable for some of these tanks.
Click to expand...
Why to even consider foreign tank when drdo is developing ngmbt according to our own requirements.

It will be produced under dcpp model, frankly we have done enough imports now no more reliance on foreign maal govt needs to make this thing clear to corrupt generals.
 
randomradio said:
Based on RFI:
The Indian ‘Strategic Partner’ will retain the ownership of the design and technologies for the platform to ensure realisation of ‘Atmanirbhar Bharat’.

And the RFI states the requirement for a "2/3 crew pod concept," indicating an armoured capsule with an autoloader. So only EMBT K3, and Armata fit the role for now; NGMBT as well.

-Medium weight class would mean the tank cannot weigh above 55T.
-Multiple weapons for anti-aircraft would mean the 20mm/30mm cannon option as secondary armament.
-Deep fording.
-See-through armor. So 360 deg camera view for crew.

No talk of DEW and hardkill APS, that may come up later during RFP. And IP transfer means, they cannot willy-nilly offer stuff they want to keep for themselves. Deep fording is quite questionable for some of these tanks.
Click to expand...

Considering that the IA reportedly asked the DRDO to replace the electric drive on the ATAGS with hydraulics to reduce weight, all of these high-tech features would be ransom to the weight factor imo.

To be fair, the armoured corps has not operated a Western tank since the Vijayanta and it could take another generation or two before it recovers from its 'mobility over firepower+protection' dogma. The trials stage of FRCV should be interesting.
 
Chain Smoker said:
Why to even consider foreign tank when drdo is developing ngmbt according to our own requirements.

It will be produced under dcpp model, frankly we have done enough imports now no more reliance on foreign maal govt needs to make this thing clear to corrupt generals.
Click to expand...

Three reasons: IA knows what's out there through a tender.

DRDO's products need to have comeptition, free ride is over. This prevents them from becoming complacent and deliver products on time.

Private partners need a level playing field in winning tenders so they can develop their own capabilities in the long term, so partnering with DRDO and FOEMs gives them that.

What you are suggesting is whatever DRDO makes, we should just hand it over to them. That's how it's been since DRDO was created, and that's what led to all these imports. The issue is DRDO is rarely on the same page as the forces. Both LCA and ATAGS are prime examples. Both programs saw DRDO making things according to their own specifications without input from forces. That's why both LCA and ATAGS have become heavier than necessary. Only one foreign competition was brought in that they started making somewhat good products on time.

Otoh, the IN created their own design bureau, and DRDO created subsystems according to IN specifications. Whenever DRDO created something that the IN didn't want was rejected. HAL also tried to push Dhruv on them, they rejected it.

So, if NGMBT has to win, then it has to beat foreign designs, and in turn the foreign designs will become Indian via IP transfer. Take Kalyani's Bharat 52, it's a foreign gun, but Kalyani bought the company so now it's an Indian gun, no different from Jaguar Land Rover. We are doing the same thing in a much larger scale.
 
Speedster1 said:
Considering that the IA reportedly asked the DRDO to replace the electric drive on the ATAGS with hydraulics to reduce weight, all of these high-tech features would be ransom to the weight factor imo.

To be fair, the armoured corps has not operated a Western tank since the Vijayanta and it could take another generation or two before it recovers from its 'mobility over firepower+protection' dogma. The trials stage of FRCV should be interesting.
Click to expand...

IA has enough experience to manage any tank design. The tank doctrine itself hasn't changed much.
 
randomradio said:
Three reasons: IA knows what's out there through a tender.

DRDO's products need to have comeptition, free ride is over. This prevents them from becoming complacent and deliver products on time.

Private partners need a level playing field in winning tenders so they can develop their own capabilities in the long term, so partnering with DRDO and FOEMs gives them that.

What you are suggesting is whatever DRDO makes, we should just hand it over to them. That's how it's been since DRDO was created, and that's what led to all these imports. The issue is DRDO is rarely on the same page as the forces. Both LCA and ATAGS are prime examples. Both programs saw DRDO making things according to their own specifications without input from forces. That's why both LCA and ATAGS have become heavier than necessary. Only one foreign competition was brought in that they started making somewhat good products on time.

Otoh, the IN created their own design bureau, and DRDO created subsystems according to IN specifications. Whenever DRDO created something that the IN didn't want was rejected. HAL also tried to push Dhruv on them, they rejected it.

So, if NGMBT has to win, then it has to beat foreign designs, and in turn the foreign designs will become Indian via IP transfer. Take Kalyani's Bharat 52, it's a foreign gun, but Kalyani bought the company so now it's an Indian gun, no different from Jaguar Land Rover. We are doing the same thing in a much larger scale.
Click to expand...
You are wrong here army has created it's own design bureau to address these issues & they were involved in issuing clearance to ngmbt specs & design.
 
randomradio said:
IA has enough experience to manage any tank design. The tank doctrine itself hasn't changed much.
Click to expand...

Frankly, doctrines change based on the equipment you buy. Now that the Ukraine conflict has laid bare the performance of legacy Russian and Western armour (near peer rivals, I might add), I'd be glad if we transition to a new concept of operations built around IDDM tanks- Indian solution for Indian needs.
 
Speedster1 said:
Frankly, doctrines change based on the equipment you buy. Now that the Ukraine conflict has laid bare the performance of legacy Russian and Western armour (near peer rivals, I might add), I'd be glad if we transition to a new concept of operations built around IDDM tanks- Indian solution for Indian needs.
Click to expand...

Yep. That's the idea. The IA is going whole hog after very advanced capabilities.
 
South block said:
Lightly armed APC & IFV are getting Obliterated in Russia-Ukraine conflict in tens of Thousands but vishwaguru army k
Kaan par Joo tak nhi Rengti 🤡


TATA WhAP.......bad utilization of space & sitting arrangements & overall a bad design for moder APC.....when in rest of the world APC soldiers sit facing each other vishwaguru soldiers sit facing the side from where they will receive a direct enemy shot to their faces from many of the side port holes 🤡

View attachment 35444
Click to expand...
Ha ha ha!..... TATA Whap Export version have soldiers facing each other. Told you all that Indian version was a bad design, they changed it later. facing seats allows more space + better protection compared to previous iteration.

GbSMDZdbcAAuNjU.jpeg
 
South block said:
Ha ha ha!..... TATA Whap Export version have soldiers facing each other. Told you all that Indian version was a bad design, they changed it later. facing seats allows more space + better protection compared to previous iteration.

View attachment 37675
Click to expand...
When you want to carry some extra equipment like mortars or some killer drone with a rail, you can carry it easily. I think it's a better utilization of space to keep the center space free.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom