Indian Army (IA): Equipment and News

I think with the advancement of armour in 2-3 decades since the time BMP-3 first saw service they can afford to have similar or better armour protection with light armour and can have engine on front.

Yeah agree getting out of BMP-3 can be awkward and would expose the crew to small arms fire while moving out , so they better be in same safer location while moving out.

Its more of a design choice that Soviet General would have made , they thought they would want higher firepower and frontal protection without comprmising amphibious qualities and seperating fuel from crew.

So they compromised a bit on comfort and exposure while moving out

So at 25 T will Kurganets will have amphibious capability ?

Do the more modern IFV from West/Europe like Boxer in 25 T class lacks Amphibious capability.

I read the BMP-3M that was specifically built for UAE sacrificed Amphibious capability with gain in weight from new engine and electornics

I read the BMP-3M that was specifically built for UAE sacrificed Amphibious capability with gain in weight from new engine and electornics

Never heard of that.
What is for sure is that BMP-3M retain entirely its amphibious capabilities, while enormously increasing any other foundamental of the machine.


http://www.be-and-co.com/oaf_pdf/oaf_010710.pdf

Mention should be made that even after the complete upgrade of the BMP-3, its buoyancy remains on a par with the production model.
In other words, it can swim across wet gaps at Sea State 3 without special preparations.

Therefore i highly doubt that this information would be correct (probably nothing more than the umpteenth sample of bad ,or worse mercenary, journalism likely coming from some western source).

GarryB wrote:There are no IFVs that are more modern than Kurganets. Amphibious capability is not a priority for NATO forces so most of their medium and heavy vehicles are amphibious.

Kurganets is still on drawing board

Among the modern IFV both Wheeled and Tracked how many of them have amphibious capability ?

I think your abve statement is contradictory , if Amphibious capability is not a priority how come medium/heavy vehicals are amphibious ?

Mindstorm wrote:
Therefore i highly doubt that this information would be correct (probably nothing more than the umpteenth sample of bad ,or worse mercenary, journalism likely coming from some western source).

That could be the case then

When I mean Modern Western I meant Modern and Operational like Boxer.

What i wanted to know was do these Western IFV maintain Amphibious capability because if they didnt India wont find much use for it.

Western latest (after 1990) trends in IFV's technical requirements and construction's philosophy has nothing to do with innovation but with the quick shift into focus of optimization for regional COIN operations, mostly in urbanized areas.



Requirements of the latest IFV in western counties ,in facts, has been relieved from the historical task to slow down ,for what was possible, overwhelming Soviet Forces advancing in the Great European Plain in the attempt, at least, to "channel" and concentrate them and allow, in this way, a more efficient employment of tactical nuclear weapons ( obtaining a de-escalation of the conflict).

Today ,instead, requirements of IFV such as Schützenpanzer Puma, ASCOD Pizarro, CV-90 etc... are dictated mostly by COIN missions against technically inferior opponents which employ mostly guerrilla warfare tactics in urbanized areas ; in this optic the most important features to assure crew's survivability become :

1) All around protection against AP heavy submachine gun fire
2) High resilience to RPG fire
3) High survivability against middle charge IEDs
4) Good speed and mobility on-road and on compact terrains (to complicate aiming task of ambushing elements armed with RPG and machine guns and reducing time of exposure to enemy fire.
5) Multispectral sensor suit and integrated data sharing capabilities, to allow combined engagement or avoiding of a potential ambush point detected by a third asset.
6) Pin point precision engagement capability in the 1500-2000 meters radius circle. (Enemy are almost totally devoid of military class long range ATGMs while ambush fire from defilade in urban environments become habitual)



Now anyone can realize how IFVs constructed around similar central requirements in a high intensity conflict against a very powerful enemy wouldn't result merely unsuitable but even on the border of the ridiculous.



The first most critical (even strategic...) requirement of an IFVs for efficiently fight in an high intensity conflict against a symmetric opponent is capability to move unhindered in ANY terrain of ANY sector of the conflict's theatre -both in offensive and ,even more, counteroffensive operations - so to achieve:

1) Local Force's Concentration Overmatch on enemy forces and ,possibly, insulation of one or more of its components.
2) Tactical Surprise ,through attacks executed from vectors unexpected or uncovered by enemy formations.
3) Avoid enemy Fortified Positions ,Minefields and Artillery/Infantry Ambush points.
4) Actively search open "corridors" to enemy frail supply lines and logistical tail.

In this regard anyone can realize how ,in a conflict between very strong opponents, real amphibious capability work literally as a strong Force's Multiplier.


Someone should think how much Schützenpanzer Puma or CV-90....if any.....,with the infantry elements carried , would be present in a particular moment ,in a precise theatre's sector, for attack enemy forces from a particular direction or penetrate in its rearguard or supply lines and, instead, how much BMP-3/3M would be present in the same conditions in a theatre like the following :




Naturally the opponent would be........China (not some small third world opponent completely uncapable to defend itself )
Someone is surprised that amphibious capability is one of the central requirement of Indian FIFV program ?


I've leaved out the question of fire power and capabilities to engage any battlefield menace because here the difference become even crushing.

If i was a troop of an ATGM squads in covered/fortified positions placed on an hill and equipped with TOW and Javelin i would be extremely scared knowing that groups of enemy BMP-3Ms (that can come literally from anywhere ) can stop quietly at 7-7,5 km of distance and saturate at leisure the entire area with an indirect rain of overhead detonating supersonic 3UOF19/E-3UOF19 HE-Frag rounds , advance and engage the remaining fortified positions with Arkan missiles ; all of that from a wide stand-off range


Same situation against enemy Pumas, M3 Bradley or ASCOD with, at maximum theirs auto-cannon’s fire to effectively engage enemy ATGMs squads ?
Well, i would definitely NOT be in any those vehicles or in one of the infantry squads it carry.

Good Post Mindstorm

Mindstorm wrote:
1) All around protection against AP heavy submachine gun fire
2) High resilience to RPG fire
3) High survivability against middle charge IEDs
4) Good speed and mobility on-road and on compact terrains (to complicate aiming task of ambushing elements armed with RPG and machine guns and reducing time of exposure to enemy fire.
5) Multispectral sensor suit and integrated data sharing capabilities, to allow combined engagement or avoiding of a potential ambush point detected by a third asset.
6) Pin point precision engagement capability in the 1500-2000 meters radius circle. (Enemy are almost totally devoid of military class long range ATGMs while ambush fire from defilade in urban environments become habitual)

Agreed , Western Military conventionally is more oriented towards anti-Insurgency Operation and their new design reflect those quality which you had mentioned above, Something Indian Army will never face as we dont expect to be fighting in streets of Pakistan.

The first most critical (even strategic...) requirement of an IFVs for efficiently fight in an high intensity conflict against a symmetric opponent is capability to move unhindered in ANY terrain of ANY sector of the conflict's theatre -both in offensive and ,even more, counteroffensive operations - so to achieve:

1) Local Force's Concentration Overmatch on enemy forces and ,possibly, insulation of one or more of its components.
2) Tactical Surprise ,through attacks executed from vectors unexpected or uncovered by enemy formations.
3) Avoid enemy Fortified Positions ,Minefields and Artillery/Infantry Ambush points.
4) Actively search open "corridors" to enemy frail supply lines and logistical tail.

In this regard anyone can realize how ,in a conflict between very strong opponents, real amphibious capability work literally as a strong Force's Multiplier.

India Pakistan Conflict will be Short and Intense against a Nuclear backdrop.

We need FICV with good firepower , protection/safety and amphibious capability besides integrating with multispectral sensors and add on armour.

I am sure a modernised variant of BMP-3 will meet the tracked requirement for wheeled requirement we might have to look at available western types in 25 Ton class.

I think superav is a good option for IA

http://www.armyrecognition.com/italian_army_italy_wheeled_and_armoured_vehicle_uk/superav_apc_8x8_iveco_wheeled_armoured_vehicle_personnel_carrier_amphibious_italian_army_italy_tech.html

I am sure a modernised variant of BMP-3 will meet the tracked requirement for wheeled requirement we might have to look at available western types in 25 Ton class.

No variant of BMP-3 will meet technical requirements of Indian Army for FIFV program.

Indian Army must obviously assure that its FIFV will retain operational significance in a future battlefield environment ,therefore the vehicle should integrate the most modern solutions both in the defensive department :

1) Passive protection (in particular new composites and meta-alloys)
2) Active protection (APS, soft kill systems )
3) NBC shielding (in particular new anti-meutron fillers and also....EMP/HP microwave shielding for electronic components)
4) Multispectral signature reduction (both in-built and through mass-produceable camo-coverage)

In the offensive department:

1) Improved medium caliber gun (40 mm or over)
2) New type of medium caliber munitions, even better if telescopic (capable to engage ANY sub-MBT menace on and over the battlefield )
3) Stand-off missiles with very high jamming immunity

In the mobility department:

1) Full amphibious capabilities
2) Active suspension systems
3) Composite transmission
4) New generation engines (with high specific power and very low fuel consumption)

In ther vectronic department:

1) Multi sensor data unification
2) Sensors working on very wide electromagnetic bands
3) Capability to process indipendently data stream coming from third part assets
4) Capability to guide indipendently reconnaissance UAVs


Therefore India don't need BMP-3/3M ,but it need a perspective IFV built on the same basis principles of BMP-3/3M : a machine designed to fight and win a major war against a very powerful enemy (BMP-3s and BTR-80s was intended and capable to let the bulk of Soviet mechanized infantry to transverse indipendently the English Channel from various points !)

I think superav is a good option for IA

Obviously not, here we talk of IFVs

Amphibious capabilities in vehicles intended to travel at 60-70 km/h in enemy territory engaging and destroying enemy man power, vehicles, C4 bases, airfileds and radars and delivering, in the meantime, assault infantry squads to paralyze and take control of the most important strategic targets in the theatre is ALL ANOTHER THING in respect with a simple amphibious landing vehicle.
It is not a case that US has canceled EFV.

This is exactly where Rosoboronexport fails to show imagination .

For the FICV competition it has teamed up with the state run Ordinance Factory Board (OFB) . One of the other contender in this competition is almost knocked out . Now, this is a golden opportunity for Rosoboronexport but yet they fail to capitalize .

The MoD’s Secretary for Defence Production & Supplies also remains a Board-member of all the MoD-owned DPSUs, his/her loyalty will always be with the DPSUs . So the OFB + Rosoboronexport combination is clear favorite.

Rosoboronexport should have at least given a visual presentation of their FICV if not showcase a prototype with the promise that initially BMP 3 will be supplied and the FICVs would be supplied within a short period of time .

This is exactly where the US wins in India . US defense contractors will now tie up with DRDO so that they can participate in this project and make DRDO a partner in a upcoming US FICV project .

India can only use MBTs or amphibious infantry fighting vehicles like BMP 3 in the desert areas of the Western sector and a few areas of the Northern plain . Against China the high peaks of the Himalayas guarantee that MBTs and infantry fighting vehicles cannot be used . It's NOT without reason that China or India does NOT have any tank regiment in forward position in their borders . China intends to pulverise India's forward position with a barrage of MLRS fire supported by precision artillery fire and India intends to use NLOS - BM to blunt China's edge .

BMP3/FICVs are therefore exclusively to be used against Pakistan . This is exactly where Rosoboronexport needs to step up the plate and kill the competition before it starts. Now, that was the carrot , where is my stick ?

Mindstorm wrote:Therefore India don't need BMP-3/3M ,but it need a perspective IFV built on the same basis principles of BMP-3/3M : a machine designed to fight and win a major war against a very powerful enemy (BMP-3s and BTR-80s was intended and capable to let the bulk of Soviet mechanized infantry to transverse indipendently the English Channel from various points !)

Can you tell me what is the kind of protection level does BMP-3M offers.

Is it immune to small arms fire from all sides , the frontal protection which is stronger is it immune to 30 mm gun ? What about protection from mine how good is that ?

Can you tell me what is the kind of protection level does BMP-3M offers.

Is it immune to small arms fire from all sides , the frontal protection which is stronger is it immune to 30 mm gun ?

I image that you talk of resilience to KE penetrators.
BMP-3 (in its first export version) is impenetrable by vast majority of 25mm and 30mm APFSDS rounds (for angles of incidence 0-30 degrees) for great part of its frontal projection.
BMP-3M (always exportable version), with add-on armor shields and new laminated alluminium alloy is impenetrable by all type of 25 -30 mm APFSDS in its entire frontal projection and from 12,7 reinforced AP rounds all-around.

This factor was one of the main catalysing element triggering quick introduction of 35mm guns on several LAVs and extensive researchs on 50mm Supershot, CTA 40 and Super 40 rounds.

What about protection from mine how good is that ?

Very ,very limited (several design solutions work even against mine detonation resilience in BMP-3.
BMP-3 was designed to render very diffcult (or even impossible) for enemy to plan minefield's placement ,through superbe tactical mobility amd full amphibious capability.
Naturally that would be true in typical offensive/counteroffensive operations in a major war; in COIN operations, instead, where your BMP-3 would execute theirs daily patrols coming from well known HQ bases and on urban roads all change.

Pretty sure BMP-3 front was rated against 30mm AP, not APFSDS.

Pretty sure BMP-3 front was rated against 30mm AP, not APFSDS.

I image that you are not the person at which is necessary to explain the difference in denominations of acronyms between Western and Russian literature....do you know, forgiving this "little" detail, no Russian MBT would have been tested against an APFSDS round..... ever !!!

If you have instead some doubts on the figures involved you would be interested to graph at pag 7



http://www.kalasnyikov.hu/dokumentumok/cta.pdf

Yesterday DRDO Chief made some interesting statement on IA future Tank called FMBT

http://bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/newsrf.php?newsid=19853

On being asked about FMBT he said, “The idea is to reduce the weight of the tank. Developed nations such as the United States of America and Israel have been working on reducing the weights of battle tanks. Heavy weights of tanks affect their maneuverability. We are therefore looking to reduce the weight of FMBT to 50 tonnes each.”

So FMBT will be a 50T tank and then he also admits Heavy Tank Affect their Maneuveribility ....something Mindstorm as alluded to us before

Austin, I thought they killed the FMBT program in favor of the Arjun?
Also, its pretty weird reading Damian's posts defending the T-90 there in DFI.

collegeboy16 wrote:Austin, I thought they killed the FMBT program in favor of the Arjun?
Also, its pretty weird reading Damian's posts defending the T-90 there in DFI.

That was Ajai Shukla claiming in his write up claiming his source but apparently that is untrue as we know now from DRDO chief.

collegeboy16 wrote:Austin, I thought they killed the FMBT program in favor of the Arjun?
Also, its pretty weird reading Damian's posts defending the T-90 there in DFI.

Damien is a good guy, but hopelessly Abrams obsessed.

Nice video of T-90,T-72 and Arjun tank fighting Side by Side in the desert

https://youtu.be/kwvFlzNjYjU