There won't be 4x ATGM launchers for an IFV, only reconnaissance vehicles have those.
There won't be 4x ATGM launchers for an IFV, only reconnaissance vehicles have those.
What's the reason for that ? This IFV is not much heavy ( around 25 ton only ) , adding 2 more ATGM launchers will not affect it's mobility at all. Additionally it'll get more fire power to stand in a contested battlefield having enemy tanks . With ready-to-fire 4 Nag MK2 missiles of 7 to 8 km range ( + 8 to 10 stored) it'll have an upper hand on enemy tanks. It provides STANAG LEVEL 5 PROTECTION, which can be further increased to STANAG LEVEL 6. And with indigenous APS it'll be more protected.
The turret on the tracked variant could be an excellent backfit option for the BMP-2 fleet. It is compact and low-profile with integrated optics and also shares the same 2A42 gun.
The current upgrade package from OFB is not ergonomic for the crew. The sights are too exposed to enemy fire/dazzlers.
Because its an IFV and they are meant to be transporting troops as close to the enemy as possible. ATGMs mounted on them during such missions will mostly armed with thermobaric warheads to destroy bunkers.
For Recon vehicles performing counter reconnaissance missions or providing overwatch during offensive operations 4x ATGMs make sense.
Lame excuse and self-deniel of capabilities. Even if it is for destroying bunkers, as per your statement, 4× ATGM launchers provide more strength over 2× ATGM launchers. If 2 added launchers are not hampering mobility but enhancing capability then it's better to include them than rejecting.
No idea. X-band has some advantages over Ku-band. Better weather penetration, resolution & range.
Some docs say 125 some say 120. Don't know what do believe. DRDO has been trying to improve armour penetration depth with APFSDS rounds. 125 would be better.
They want cannon launched Nag Mk2? I thought CLGM would do that job. Still 120 to 125 isn't a big difference. Sabots would be prepared for that.
DRDO unveils its Advanced Armoured Platforms, the organisation's pitch for the BMP replacement
The army is likely to procure between 2,000 to 2,200 of these vehicles as per a capability development roadmap released last year. Although a Request For Information (RFI) for FICVs released in 2021 pegs the number at 1,750 tracked vehicles
"The army currently has a total of 50 battalions of the Brigade of the Guards and the Mechanised Infantry Regiment which operate the BMPs and each unit has around 60 to 70 of these vehicles in different variants. So the overall requirement of these vehicles would be well over 3,500 vehicles of both the tracked and wheeled varieties, plus the vehicles in reserve," a source in the army said
"The army requires tracked vehicles for desert and semi-desert areas that are found in Rajasthan and Gujarat, while a wheeled vehicle is preferred in the plains of Punjab. The wheeled platform will also be a better option in the hilly and mountainous terrain," the source said.
The army is likely to procure between 2,000 to 2,200 of these vehicles as per a capability development roadmap released last year. Although a Request For Information (RFI) for FICVs released in 2021 pegs the number at 1,750 tracked vehicles
"The army currently has a total of 50 battalions of the Brigade of the Guards and the Mechanised Infantry Regiment which operate the BMPs and each unit has around 60 to 70 of these vehicles in different variants. So the overall requirement of these vehicles would be well over 3,500 vehicles of both the tracked and wheeled varieties, plus the vehicles in reserve," a source in the army said
"The army requires tracked vehicles for desert and semi-desert areas that are found in Rajasthan and Gujarat, while a wheeled vehicle is preferred in the plains of Punjab. The wheeled platform will also be a better option in the hilly and mountainous terrain," the source said.
Understood
Also, what do we know about Ranjeet, especially the gun and autoloader?
Was autoloader is duel, carousal and bustle type?
I assume that the entire crew would sit in the capsule up front like T14
Can we expect to see the prototype before 2028?
Specs: Future Combat Vehicle Programs (FRCV and FICV)
Autoloader prototype: Future Combat Vehicle Programs (FRCV and FICV)
I am just worried about how are they going to plan on placing APS radars and effectors on the turrets. Isn’t the atgm placements gonna be a problem.
In the worst case scenario, I hope not that the IA is planning to go without a good APS.
In the worst case scenario, I hope not that the IA is planning to go without a good APS.
Nobody calls it Ranjeet except that one instance by some Army guy and he meant it for the FRCV tender.
CVRDE had this patent, can't say if it will come like this. Idk about Zorawar or Arjun UGCV autoloader, but those should also exist.
We have an automotive test rig at the moment:
A total of 4 vehicles were displayed. You can imagine the mental thought process of these babus who were busy ensuring they got photographed rather than clearly explain to the media what was being displayed.
Kalyani Wheeled platform:
Kalyani Tracked platform:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TASL Wheeled platform:
TASL tracked platform:
Good product nonetheless. I hope they succeed.
Kalyani Wheeled platform:
Kalyani Tracked platform:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TASL Wheeled platform:
TASL tracked platform:
Good product nonetheless. I hope they succeed.
What is the technical challenge with creating a 125mm APFSDS single piece round? I was thinking a larger bore means more charges & a longer round. Length of the penetrator has a direct effect on DoP. I know we have to look at autoloader compatibility too.
Europeans seem to be moving toward higher caliber tank guns. If the FICV is supposed to replace the T90s, we would be replacing a 125mm main gun with 120mm. Seems like a step in the wrong direction.
Why not? The SAMHO will be cheaper than the Nag Mk2. SAL seeker vs. IIR seeker. We could reserve the Mk2 for enemy tanks & AFVs/IFVs & the SAMHO for JLTV/Humvee type vehicles or fixed forward positions. After all the Army still uses Kornets/Konkurs at Pak LoC bunkers despite having better ATGMs.
Not technical but logistics challenge. You definitely don't want to use a ammunition which is only exclusive to you .
Nope , a longer round can be achieved by keeping the bore dia constant . Rheinmetall DM13 and DM53 all have a 120 mm propellant casing yet they differ massively in length .
Both EMBT and KF51 panther are preety much still a far fetched dream whose success only depends upon allied nations acceptance of a larger caliber. Else logistics would be a nightmare. Both Challenger 3 and Abrams X are currently going with 120 mm . Also kf51 does comes with a Rh-120 main gun too .
Yeah, I got that. The problem with this approach is that we will always depend on somebody else setting the standard.
Assuming the US Army's NGSW program succeeds, pretty soon we will hear arguments about adopting 0.277 Fury. We adopted the 5.56 mm after the US did the same. Although our 5.56 isn't the same as 5.56 NATO.
How about we adopt/develop calibers that would fit our needs, instead of looking for commonality with countries that we have to defence treaties with.
These are DRDO's designs for tracked and wheeled FICV contenders. Tata and BF are the manufacturing partners for tracked and wheeled resply.
They are separate from Tata and BF's own designs, both designing 2 tracked and wheeled contenders each, alongside L&T and Mahindra.
OFB/AVNL is coming out with their own design.
Essentially DRDO, OFB, and 4 private companies in the fray.