Should concentrate on atgm vehicles with armor. Some can be modified to carry heavy armor as support for troops
Any idea what happened to the IFV developed by OFB-Medak?
Only 2 pictures of L&T's FICV came out which kinda looked bulky but I would for sure want the contract to be given to a private Indian defense firm
It's a joke.
Being a mere upgrade of the BMP-2, it will be cheaper. But I doubt the army will go for it.
It's not bulky. Gotta wait before we see what Mahindra, Tata SED and Rel Defence's designs will look like.
DRDO offers two options to develop an Indian light tank
DRDO offers two options to develop an Indian light tank | analysis focus army defence military industry army
DRDO offers two options to develop an Indian light tank | analysis focus army defence military industry army
Can some one post the difference between BMP 2 , kestrel , L&T) k9 mod
With respect to mobility, protection, troop carrying capacity, range of action, offensive weapons storage capacity..
If turret can be fixed on any chassis, then let's ignore the gun for the moment.
With respect to mobility, protection, troop carrying capacity, range of action, offensive weapons storage capacity..
If turret can be fixed on any chassis, then let's ignore the gun for the moment.
No reason to go for Oshkosh's LATV
We have similar local alternatives developed by private Indian defence firms which could suit the purpose when fitted with an appropriate gun mount
Tata LAMV
Tata LSuV
Mahindra LSV
Bharat Forge's LAM & LSV
Shri Lakshmi Defence's LTV
Attachments
Last edited:
It's extremely poor planning by IA. Instead running around like headless chickens to counter Chinese VT5's with a similar light tanks...just give a ton of ATGM's to the soldiers. PA didn't try to match us in tank numbers but instead focused on Bakthar Shikan and the likes
An alternative is to use ATGMs on vehicles like LATVs and IFVs for offence. But the problem here is modern tank sensors and defences, alongside support units, are so advanced that ATGMs are a lot less reliable than they used to be.
3rd and 4th gen ATGMs have two firing modes. One is the direct attack mode, where the missile heads straight towards the tank, but hits the tank at its strongest points. The second is top attack mode, where the missile climbs up to 500 feet and then drops down on the tank, hits it at its most vulnerable area. Both require you to be within line of sight of the tank.
The problem for both attack modes is by the time you set up and are ready to fire, the tank will have already fired at you. Even if you managed to get a shot out, the ATGM can still be countered by passive and active defences on the tank before it is hit. The Type 15 comes with an active protection system and has also been offered for export.
Furthermore, the problem with the top attack mode, even before tank defences come into the picture, the ATGM can be countered with air defence.
With 5th gen ATGMs, you get NLOS capability, so you can fire from longer range and outside your line of sight. But for this, you need LOS targeting, like a laser pointer targeting the tank either by a soldier on the ground or a UAV. But tanks can now swivel their turret towards the source of the laser at a moment's notice. So the tank only has to kill or move away once it detects a laser designator.
Lastly, ATGMs carrying IIR seekers are weather-specific. It can only be used effectively in fair weather. In foggy and smoky conditions, the effectiveness of the sensors can be reduced to as much as a zero, whereas tanks equipped with APS come with radars with sufficient range to engage targets. So you tell me if mountains can be foggy or not. Active homing seekers are the solution, but even these need LOS targeting. The technology itself is relatively new and we are not sure how well tanks can defend against such missiles. If you use UAVs and mmW equipped ATGMs in a sensor-shooter loop, they are liable to be jammed even before they can be used effectively.
Due to all these reasons, if you do not put tanks on the battlefield but only have ATGMs, then the Chinese tank crews are going to be extremely relaxed since the probability of getting killed by ATGMs is very low when up against a modern tank with modern support units. In Syria, RPGs and 2nd gen ATGMs have completely failed to do anything to the T-90.
Note that I haven't talked about armour at all. So all these problems even without considering whether ATGMs are effective enough to defeat modern armour.
So, overall, ATGMs are not your primary counter to a battle tank. LAT and HAT types units are only supporting units, and your primary against the tank must be another tank.
Has Army put forward any request to grant AoN to MoD's DAC for any light tank project yet?
We have infrastructure in place and we have tanks wherever required.
Will be good for DRDO and India as a whole if DRDO focuses on completing delayed projects first which the armed forces require and not run after projects which no one has requested thus far.
An armour piercing shell fired even from T72 at 1500+ m/s has actually higher chances of destroying its target than an ATGM at 200+ m/s.
And that's why everywhere in the world nations are still investing in tanks.
Our missiles have to get out of perpetual testing.
Our helis only didn't get ATGM.
Need to sort out Nag & Helina . & give production Orders for LCH, LCA.
These are all low hanging fruits.
Need to order more CBU anti armour bombs and integrate with more platforms. If not possible with Mirages then at least LCA.
But alas what I think will happen is
We ll be buying more Spike .
We screwed making spike in India by private cos. but will buy off the shelf.
Not even close, Oshkosh LATV is miles ahead of even Hummer, and it is a replacement program for hummer which designed based on the experience from real battle ground. The engine power itself will tell you the facts.
Nope.... Indian army should ask Russia to give licence to build this thing. Chances of Kurganets-25 being part of Indian army in future is more than Tata , L&T substandard crap.
I would like to see even T-15 in indian army down the line.
IA should have forsee the intention of PLA, therebwere no room for light tank except on mountain terrain ( it may not a good choice, but no were it useful ).
A light tank with minimalistic armor protection will survive tue battle ground crowded with Attack helicopters & infantry ambush with atgms? I doubt, a modern heavy armored tank like merkeva and abrams are struggling in the new battle ground.
1) what we required there is an intense mobility. The kalyani's 105mm jeep mounted howitzers can provide better firing solution than a light tank without compromising mobility, indirect firing can win a battle
2) we need attack helicopters, the mere 6 or 22+6 apaches are inadequate. If DRDO is not mating LCH with anti tank missile, ignor them ruthlessly. Go for more apaches. You dont need to get raped by enemy by waiting for incompetency.
3) Arming infantry with armored protection vehicles which capable to pull aggressive mobility at high altitude. If we have offered, Oshkosh LATV can give crew protection and mobility.
4) Drone support for target desiganation & rec
5) arming infantry with fire and forget ATGMS.
DRDO's light tank ideas are not really feasible. Both their ideas are 35T for a 105mm gun and 38T for a 125mm gun. And you can bet they won't keep to the weight. They will comfortably go up to 40T. Plus the 125mm gun option is basically the K9 Thunder's hull mated to the T-90S turret. That's a terrible idea since the T-90 is not suited for mountain warfare.
What the army needs is a full-fledged tank designed to operate in as harsh an environment as Ladakh. And the only tank that can suit such requirements is the new Japanese Type 10. The 1200hp engine has been made for very cold mountain conditions. It has the L44 gun, can fire any NATO ammo, and has an unknown but pretty high gun elevation, which can be further increased with the tank's hydropenumatic active suspensions. It's lighter and smaller than the T-90, 3.2m wide versus 3.8m for the T-90, and far more capable. It comes with a 40T base design and can be uparmoured all the way up to 48T, so it can function as a light tank (with a lot of armour) and MBT as needed.
Best of all, we should be able to buy our entire requirement from the Japanese on mostly credit with very generous payment terms, along with license production by a private company of their choice. I'd say we need 342 tanks in Ladakh, enough for 2 armoured brigades (300 tanks) and 3 infantry brigades (42). And 468 tanks in the Northeast, enough for 2 armoured brigades (300) and 12 infantry brigades (168). That's 810 tanks.
We plan to do the same with the FRCV, but that's way too far in the future. Designing the FRCV for plains and mountains will come with compromises for both designs, whereas the Japanese have designed the Type 10 specifically for the mountains. And the main idea is to get this capability on generous payment terms from the Japanese. For example, 0.1% interest, a 5-year moratorium and a 5-10-year repayment plan. This will not stress the budget and we will pay for the entire capability when we are a whole lot richer and after most of the induction is practically complete, possibly between 2027 and 2037. I'm sure the Japanese will accomodate such a request, especially with enough pressure from their own industry considering the numbers involved. Not to mention, our political alignment with Japan is extremely good and Modi and Abe are on very good terms with each other. (In return, another bullet train line can be awarded to them on nomination basis as well, particularly one that the Chinese were supposed to build.)
The same can be repeated for the Type 89 IFV, modified with our ATGMs. We will need about 900 IFVs. And 80 Type 99 howitzers. All on credit.
The Type 10, Type 89 and Type 99 are 40T and below and are 3.2m wide. Perfect for mountains.
@Falcon @vstol Jockey Any opinions?
DRDO worked on a light tank a while ago but IA never showed interest. Now that panic buying started and IA realized their T-90s & T-72s wouldn't work in the himalayas while chinese have been rolling around with their light tanks, IA wanted to follow suit
The project shouldn't be given to DRDO in the first place. L&T should be asked to do the mating of T-90's turret with K9's chassis. Remember how fast L&T delivered all K9s to IA
Panic buying has become habitual to IA & IAF. This is exactly how IAF went on a missiles buying spree after the Balakot debacle
Oshkosh's JLTV is definitely superior but that's not something you can counter a light tank with. Secondly, the indigenous defense industry would never take off if we continue to import platforms where we have the capability to design and build in-house
Companies like Tata motors or Mahindra weren't built in a day. Back in the late 90s and early 2000s, Tata cars were known for their problems and issues. Currently, Tata cars are some of the best available in the market rivaling Japanese and European firms. Most recent models of Tata and Mahindra have received 4 or 5 star rating in Global NCAP's crash tests while being both cost effective and offering contemporary designs
License producing Russian platforms would still go to OFB's where the negotiations are never ending with severe cost overruns and delayed deliveries in addition to the crappy build quality. Should be fine if it's given to a private Indian defense firm like L&T or Kalyani
My previous post should give you my opinions on what we should do when it comes to dealing with Chinese armour. The Type 10 has a smaller footprint than the Chinese Type 15 and much, much more capable since it's an MBT.
We have our own LATV designs. So I doubt we will be importing those. But yes, the IA need new gen ATVs.
Yes, we definitely need more Apaches. But LCH are also important for us, and our initial lot will carry Spikes. The LCH will eventually require an mmW radar as well, and I hope HAL has started work on it already.
Points 4 and 5 have already been planned in some ways. Hopefully the MPATGM enters user trials soon.
Do not wait for any indigenous products, buy from international market as a stopgap and purchase indigenous product once it developed.
IA needs weapons to counter chinese, not a paper project. Our military screwed a lot by waiting for indigenous products and we are now in apathetic state that we are unable to thwart a kargil type invasion.
We need to invest in infrastructure and a proper replacement for or T72 fleet asap. Any 45-50 ton tank with a modern 120mm smoothbore with all NATO type ammo available to it , and decent protection and 1000hp engine will be fine.
But first Army needs to come clear on its requirements soon and how it intends to replace the ageing 2000+ T72 tank fleet. Only then any serious substantial process of development or acquisition can kickstart. That's why I keep saying we need detailed white paper on defence every 2-3 years.
For me personally, if we can get our hands on Challenger 2 with a smoothbore gun and a more powerful engine, that's a world beater. But note, it's just a fanboy comment on C2.