Even if they want to import Stryker, will it still go to that sub-standard low IQ wretches called DPSUs and OFBs? Because if you impart that experience to even a private company like L&T, Tata, Mahindra- atleast they will absorb that and improvise their learnings, if MoD babus give that to Gormint employees then its billions wasted again.
Doubt anyone's been picked yet. Anyway, it first has to clear trials. If it fails, then nothing.
Anyway...
The APC version of WhAP has cleared trials though. The IFV and other support vehicles still require clearance. The drawback with this is, if we are to move beyond the APC, all related vehicles should clear trials otherwise the WhAP ecosystem will become useless. The Russians are dealing with the same crap with Armata's lesser cousins like Bumerang and Kurganets. Plus WhAP is protected by tanks and aircraft as they are organically part of an integrated infantry brigade. But these reccce Strykers have to move into enemy territory only with air support. Hence the importance of a proven design.
Furthermore, Stryker's evolved into a new model called ICVV with a double V-hull design, it's in the name. Better design, more protection.
Another thing people overlook is the Stryker can be carried in a C-130, hence a much more rapid deployment capacity to the Chinese border after dealing with Pak. But WhAP needs IL-76/C-17 even in its base model, which are required to ferry tanks and other heavy vehicles instead.
Here's one of the technologies involved that we are interested in.
And new upgrades are coming in.
Shovel or RPG? Army upgrades will help scouts better identify targets
A surveillance system that came into the Defense Department’s inventory at the outbreak of the Iraq War is set to see major upgrades that will help scouts better identify targets and conceal themselves when finding what to shoot.
www.armytimes.com
Do we have a similar indigenous system? Nope. So imagine some of the more classified technologies the Americans have that we are not aware of.
Punjab's TFR is <1.5
There isn't gonna be any considerable insurgency there like in the 80s. I don't think the K-stan angle plays into this - seems mostly aimed at Tibet/Pakjab. Oh well, what's in a name.
But I do wish we move toward alphanumeric designations instead. Less baggage, plus easier to export if a foreigner can at least pronounce the name properly. HF was a nice prefix for fighters for example.
The Stryker deal is political. No doubt about it. Like the Talwar Batch-3 from Russia even though we can quite easily design & build similar/better frigates at home. If we want the Americans or Russians to share stuff they wouldn't otherwise (like F414 ToT or N-subs), we're gonna have to sweeten the pot by taking on additional financial & industrial commitments at some level.
However, with the Americans, I think there's something else going on at a higher level than what we let on.
I think there's an effort (seems very haphazard & coincidental, but maybe that's by design) to create combined arms formations that are largely compatible to operate alongside US Stryker Brigade Combat Teams.
We're making the excuse of dividing procurement on basis of cost (and that's not entirely without merit) but I think what this will result in is certain formations that are more interoperable with US ground forces than others. Even for ATGMs we're likely to divide the procurement between Javelin/Spike for 'frontline' units and the cheaper MPATGM/Amogha-3 for everyone else. SIG716s with NATO-spec calibre for some units while AKs go to others. Stryker for some & WhAP for others. AH64 for some & LCH for others.
I just wonder how we'll handle the all-important Comms/BMS layout. Maybe this is why the old BMS plan got shelved and creating Theatre Commands & IBGs is taking so long. We're having to redraw not just the tactical but the strategic aspect of each formation as well.
Even if TFR is low, the young population is the real threat. Low TFR means less economic certainty, so more possibility of discontentment. And for an insurgency, you need few tens of thousands, a number Pakistan can recruit and train quite quickly.
While I hope it doesn't happen, it's still gonna be funny to see them panic when Ranjeet comes for them.
FICV should be named Akali Baba, it will be the trifecta.
It's definitive proof that Sikh Empire is an Indian empire, and that even Pakjab that was part of the Sikh Empire is Indian. It will force the separatists to rethink their priorities.
Anyway, we have a long history of naming tools, we shouldn't change that culture for the top stuff. It's something for our descendents to worry about.
Stryker is definitely not political. Explained in post 402.
It's fine for plains, it needs to go through desert and mountain trials, but it's much more necessary than the WhAP requirement. So it's a high priority program. The Strkyer is necessary to launch offensive operations into enemy territory.
Talwar wasn't a political decision either. The IN ended up delaying their last tranche of 3 ships 'cause the delays in local production of other ships led to cost overruns, including Gorky and Vicky. They later increased their original requirement of 3 to 4 and built 2 in India, which was partly politically motivated, but that decision was mostly to support industry. IN went for all 10 'cause Indian shipyards could not keep up. Before that there was no plan to import any ship.
Yep. It will morph into something more visible in the future.
The recce battalions will function alongside armor and infantry units. But they work independently before the main body moves.
We also need to build and distribute some of this tech onto other vehicles, even soldiers.
The goal is standardization. AH-64s will support armored brigades, LCH will support infantry and mountain brigades and so on. Small arms can be divided, that's okay, but vehicles will not.
Spike and Javelin are currently dead. The Spike we ordered piecemeal was an LR version, which won't be standard issue for mass. The only way they can come back is if they win the competition for mass that will be held in a year or two alongside all the other upcoming rifle tenders in which MPATGM will also compete alongside other Indian competitors.
Stryker will get Javelin as part of the package, but that's specific to it. It's not for mass.
BMS has two programs: Project SAMA, an interim one, and AIDSS, the main one. TCS is ongoing too.
Then there's a whole bunch of other programs like Sanjay, Avgat, Anuman etc. Sanjay integrates tens of thousands of sensors like cameras, thermal imagers, motion detectors etc. Avgat is some kinda mapping system, and Anuman is to deliver weather info to artillery teams in the field.
We are doing very well here.
Problem is IA's insistence on 25t AUW could see the ICVV, M-Shorad ,etc stripped down of all but the most basic gear. They might go for modular armour but fitting out in the field might slow down entire units, esp when operating behind enemy lines.
The IA is steeped in Russian armoured/mechanized warfare philosophy having operated T and BMP series vehicles for decades. I could see them going for Kurganets-25 (given that it meets the 25t, fully amphib spec) but Stryker was completely out of the blue for me.
Some reports say that it was a Indian general that first showed interest in Stryker on a visit to the US. But I suspect political pressure may have something to do with it. Anyhow, it'd be interesting to see which Stryker variant they actually end up buying.
1. Do competitive trials with WHAP across India. Or else induct 500 Arjun's for desert. You cannot be a dogla.
2. If WHAP fails, invite international bids. Who decides that Stryker is the best option? It's straight corruption. Nothing else.
It wasn't impossible to develop a version of WhAP that meets all those requirements. If we can come up with a design for a LT (which is much more complicated than a recce vehicle) in 2 years, a modified version of WhAP isn't hard to come up with. Not to mention we now have multiple production agencies willing to prototype different features (Tata, Mahindra, L&T, Kalyani) at the same time.
I doubt air mobility via C130J was a factor. We don't have enough of them & the few we have will likely be busy supporting SOF insertion behind enemy lines. Dropping a couple Strykers behind the frontline isn't going to make a difference against an enemy the size of PLA.
We need the MTA requirement to be met if we want to airdrop a brigade-sized formation over the Tibetan Plateau or into the Tarim Basin. The C390 is most likely to win, and it will be able to carry WhAP as well, even in its current size & weight.
Even though, I agree that the vehicles which would perform this operation would indeed be Strykers, not WhAP. I just think that's due to political and/or interoperability reasons rather than purely technical ones.
Yeah I think Trump will seek to strike a deal before he leaves office. I just wonder if we'll go through with it.
We're looking at a division in vehicles as well though.
The Stryker is unlikely to meet the entire requirement for 8x8 vehicles. Only for the recce/BCT-analogue formations, which will together comprise about 10 battalions consisting of 530 vehicles total, almost all of which would likely be LAC-facing.
But we need over 2,000 8x8s to complete the mechanization of the entire Infantry. There's no way we can meet that with anything other than a domestically-made solution, so around 1,500 indigenous 8x8s are pretty much guaranteed (Tata or Mahindra needs to be seen) either way.
Similarly for the light tanks with 105mm cannons that are entirely intended for LAC compared to the mostly plains-focused T-90/T-72 with 125mm guns. The LTs will be able to absorb NATO-spec ammo resupply which may or may not come in the event of a war with China but Russian-spec 125mm will be harder to procure if our domestic factories are taken out by Chinese attacks.
Same goes for 155mm for K9, M777, ATAGS.
There'll be division in the ATGM procurement as well - you'll see.
The bulk of the mass will be met through MPATGM or Amogha-3, depending on which finally turns out to be cheaper. But a significant number of Western-spec ATGMs will more than likely be procured as well.
And the formations that will use them will be operating alongside the Strykers.
Stryker is less than 20T in all its models. Add-on armor modules can increase weight, that's all.
And when we say airlift, they won't be dropped into enemy territory via parachutes, we are talking about transportation.
We don't use Russian philosophy, we are a mix of east and west. Basically, Indian style.
As for Kurganets and Bumerang, both vehicles can compete in India once the two competitions start. Although I think Bumerang is a bit on the heavy side.
In a way. Things got rolling after the US brought the Stryker to India for exercises and IA troops saw it firsthand.
If it's purely reconnaissance, then the primary unit will be the recon version. In the US, an RSTA squadron has 54 Strykers with 39 of them being recon equipped with sensors, the rest are 9 command versions and 6 120mm mortar versions. Plus trucks and LMVs as necessary. And this squadron can support a brigade. But the way we could go about it could be very different.
Stryker and WhAP are not competing with each other. WhAP's competing with another one from Mahindra, and some other foreign stuff through private partnership in a separate deal. Stryker is for recon units, WhAP and others are for maneuver units. The former has airlift needs, C-130 and Chinook. The latter needs to be amphibious, so its heavier weight is not suitable for C-130 and Chinook.
And why Arjun? It's delayed by many years 'cause the Germans want 4 years to restart engine production and the new Indian engine is anyone's guess. For Arjun to just barely meet the mark, it needs an Indian engine and transmission, and it will still remain surpassed by the T-90. So let's see where Arjun Mk2/3 etc will take us.
To come up to Stryker's level, WhAP requires a multi-year, multi-billion dollar development effort, including the development of recce sensors and completing a proper satellite nav system alongside other ISR systems, whereas Stryker comes with all that in a few years at $2-3B for 500+ vehicles. For example, these Strykers can be networked with the upcoming Raytheon Sentinels and Guardian drones. And definitely other technologies we are not privy to.
And then, to transport WhAP, we will need to buy and build C-390, which will take many years, whereas C-130s and Chinooks can be requisitioned from the US during war for cheap.
Overall, an indigenous equivalent is a 10-15 year effort, and there's no guarantee of success. An isolated, autonomous ICV is a far easier enterprise, and that's the goal for indigenous systems.
Let's not forget that the Chinese cannot destroy American GPS and other ISR sensors when at war with India. A reality currently faced by Russia.
Stryker or something big? I don't think we will get into an alliance. Just some defense import deals and a lot of civilian tech deals. We need more Apaches and Chinooks. Trump has bigger fish to fry once commercial engagement with India is over.
Stryker is necessary for both borders. Once the job is done at one border, it will be airlifted to the other.
And yeah, we need WhAP-equivalents for maneuver groups. Just converting 5 or 6 infantry brigades to mechanized ones will require over 2000.
We don't need a lot of tank ammo against China though.
Apart from emergency purchases, infantry will standardize on one type. Vehicles could be a mix depending on our partners, but the mass will still remain one type. For example, FRCV and FICV will have one type, not counting the tube-launched version. But then there's Namica with Nag, Stryker with Javelin and BMP-2 with Konkurs-M.
Btw, MPATGM and Amogha-3 have to compete with other designs, even foreign ones.
Again.
Who decides thar Stryker based Recon vehicle is the best and cheapest?
And
why buy 500 Arjun's because, if you are okay with Strykers who aren't amphibians because you want it only in mountains, then you should be okay with Arjun's only for deserts. Equip all the holding corps too with Arjun's. Induction of Arjun mk1 in 2028 is better than T90 in 2028.
What are you smoking today? That piece of junk is worse than the T72 upgrade Pols offered.
Come on, it doesn't take that long to prototype a lighter WhAP. The chassis is already proven, the engine would be off the shelf anyway, downgrading from a 600hp to a Stryker-like 350hp alone would save a lot of weight, accompanying transmission would also be lighter. Plus losing the amphib kit & snorkeling system saves even more.
There's no magic sauce in the Stryker that makes it lighter - you can make WhAP as light or even lighter if you downgrade its capabilities & power/weight ratio to Stryker's level.
It'll take us years to evaluate & set up a production line for Stryker anyway. WhAP line is already operational & will be ramping up (to accommodate Moroccan order before their local factory comes up). With the Stryker, the time we gain by not having to certify a new version of WhAP, we lose as we wait for the local line to be set up & then gradually ramp up. Small initial numbers of off the shelf vehicles won't make much difference at the front anyway.
As of Recce equipment, IRDE & Tonbo Imaging can give you everything you need. Most likely, even on Stryker we'd be going for indigenized equipment. And if there's some equipment you need ASAP, we can always buy - like how we put a Cockerill 105mm turret on the Zorawar.
None of these are good reasons for going with Stryker - but the thing is, it already has a good enough reason: political capital & interoperability. That's all the justification it really needs.
Yep - like I said, we're going for Stryker cuz we need something that can work out of the box with American support networks.
Not because we can't come up with a WhAP version to meet this requirement. Otherwise, we wouldn't have waited for the iCET discussions & Doval-Sullivan talks before bringing Stryker to the table. We'd have started an open tender to procure an 8x8 recce vehicle long time back - all the way back when the Mountain Strike Corps plan was started.
I had F-35 in mind, which may or may not come with a stipulation for getting rid of the S400.
Whether we go for it depends on our options and how desperate we are.
Depends how long the war lasts. We need a lot of artillery though. There's not a lot of room for free movement of troops & vehicles in the mountains, which makes Artillery fire truly a game-changer.
The decision to move toward 155mm for all future guns is wise.
There isn't a competitor for it. It's the only one of its kind.
Money... For the price of 500 Arjuns, you can buy 1000+ T-90s. Plus it's not ready. Plus, even in the desert, it's difficult to use.
A lot of the issues with Arjun are based around the fact that it's very difficult to use, and that whatever can be used requires a lot of investment.
In some ways, Arjun is better, like mobility, ride comfort and accuracy, but in most of the relevant ways T-90 is better, like cost, maintenance, logistics, firepower, armor, supply chain, maturity, indigenization levels, customization, weapons options, international suppliers, ammo availability etc. Plus the T-90 was available with all these advantages 10 years before Arjun. And the T-90s we are currently building improve on the older T-90s quite significantly.
Making the WhAP lighter is easy, but that's the easiest part. Delivering a Stryker equivalent WhAP is gonna take 10+ years before we begin producing it due to the lack of transports and sat nav. It will be a 2040 project vs 2030 for Stryker.
Plus Stryker can be evaluated and customized in less than a year. It's basically already ready, it only needs modifications for Ladakh and Sikkim.
Yes. That is my point.
But not in the timeframe we want. It's the same as MRFA vs AMCA. We can develop one, but we also need a working support network.
F-35, Su-57, NGAD, Mig-41, F/A-XX, let's worry about all that after 2030. Until then, these programs are just gonna waste money. Let's see how Trump proceeds with their own programs first. Elon's talking about cutting the F-35 program.
I'm more interested in exotic capabilities from the US and Russia rather than generic stuff.
That is just the main image, the tech itself on its own is very old. There's more going on in ENVG-B. It has more features that uses that image.
You have software that allows integration of the rifle to the NVG so they can shoot from the hip instead of aiming. Next would be integrating it with an IFF-type system that can differentiate between friend and foe. And then overlaying all that into an AR system so the soldier can see more information right in front of his eyes. You then want all that image networked with your unit commander and HQ, which will include sat nav.
So somebody has to take that camera from Tonbo and then add all new features to it. So you can imagine the Americans are ahead in that game.
It's the same with LRAS3. We have the capabilities in-house in small part, like DRDO's new TIs for tanks, but requires extensive integration that will take the better part of a decade. For example, can you use the TI camera to automatically use a ranging and mapping system and sat nav to locate a target and call in a missile strike via an integrated comm system with the push of a button in real time? Furthermore, LRAS3 provides far more range than what DRDO's developed. Pre-LRAS3 TIs on Abrams provided 3 km, Catherine improved that to 5-8 km on T-90S (DRDO's manages 8 km, probably up to 10 km). Old gen LRAS3 from Iraq War managed 24 km. The new eLRAS3 doubles that in a much smaller package that can absorb more shock.
Even during Iraq War, LRAS3 was integrated with artillery and fighter jets. Ours is isolated to the tank alone today.
So even with similar looking stuff, there's quite a bit of a qualitiative edge to American systems due to their more advanced tech industry.
It's not like we're getting newer versions like T-90M/MS. So there's no comparison between the two in terms of armour, firepower as has been amply proven during comparative trials some time back. Russia reportedly diverted some T-90S meant for India to Ukraine and we've all seen what happened to those.
As for maintenance, and logistics, this tank has been in service in numbers for nearly 25 years. Painstaking effort has gone into customization- including indigenous AC units, tank barrels, even armour panels - all tech spin-offs from Arjun. The Russians refused to part with ToT for key items. We didn't even buy Shtora APS to keep costs down.
Imo, there's nothing the T-90S has today (including the so-called Mk3 version shown recently) that an upgraded T-72 MKI wouldn't have brought to the table.
That's what I'm saying as well. But it needs to be phrased the right way.
Developing a Stryker-equivalent WhAP version within timeframe is not hard - it's very doable. But developing a US-equivalent support network within that timeframe is not doable.
And the support network is the reason we're going for Stryker - not cuz of the vehicle in of itself.
Trump loves the military. I don't think he'd cut spending on major programs unless the platform itself is deemed incapable of the mission anymore.
I think Elon is actually making a play at acquiring one of the two big aerospace giants - Lockheed or Boeing - in the next few years, while Trump is still President. It would sure help him if their share price is pared down.
What is the basis for this assumption that the Stryker for India is meant for "recon" and WhAP is meant for "maneuver" when the original tender was called WH AFV ( R & Sp)?