Future Combat Vehicle Programs (FRCV and FICV)

Gautam

Moderator
Feb 16, 2019
13,120
10,631
Tripura, NE, India
DRDO-Mahindra 8x8 Wheeled Armoured Vehicle has been spotted testing:
GDk4ebkXYAAuRvO.jpeg






 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
19,302
14,033
India
Quick & Short Analysis - Will IA induct Stryker?
- Here's a prediction - Nothing will happen to this Stryker deal.
- Yes, I know our GOI and MOD can align quickly when it comes to geopolitical interests (purchase of Apache, P-8I, C-17, C-130) and a suitable AON can be created.
- But Stryker as a weapon system does not fit any operational requirement of the army.
- Let's understand the role of Stryker: It's basically a battle-taxi in the US Army for infantry which otherwise would've gone to battle on military transport vehicles, Humvees and then on foot.
- US Army's standard IFV is M2 Bradley; Cavalry uses the M3 version.
- While you can get option(s), Stryker comes w/o armed turret. At best it has RWS with an HMG and Automatic Grenade Launcher (AGL).
- Similarly, in case of India, our standard IFV is BMP-2.
- We don't have, yet the concept of motorized infantry.
- So far, with exception of few WhaP/Kestrels and Kalyani M8 under Infantry Protected Mobile Vehicle (IPMV) category.
- I had argued earlier that the induction of these vehicles could be the green shoots for emerging Motorized Infantry in the Indian Army.
- Another unique requirement which the Indian Army has is that its IFV/APC should be amphibious.
- This is driven by the presence of rivers and multiple layers of canals in the Western front where Pakistan uses Canals as a defensive feature to slow down and channel Indian mechanized forces.
- Plus, having amphibious IFVs and APCs means less requirement of engineering resources like bridge laying tanks/vehicles and other bridging equipment.
- We've seen BMP-2 swimming across water bodies even in eastern Ladakh.
- Stryker is not amphibious.
- Plus, if the Indian Army is planning to have larger degree of mechanization in the form of motorized infantry, we've the amphibious Kestrel.
- It offers various turret solutions as well.
- Which means it can be used as a standard Wheeled Armored Personnel Carier (APC) with basic RWS as well as a Wheeled Infantry Fighting Vehicle.
- BTW, when tenders were floated for IPMV and Wheeled IFV, former was floated by DG Infantry while the latter was floated by DG Mechanized forces.
- It makes ample common sense to have the same platform for both types.
- Any large-scale induction of Stryker will require a major change in the way whole of the Indian Army operates and fights.
- And I don't think this is happening over Stryker because it does not bring anything cutting edge or substantial to the table.


Inducting this shit will mean deadend for WhAp and removing a future competitor from the market for Stryker. We must never accept this proposal and should never induct this shit in IA.

Apparently, the Stryker version offered is meant to meet the IA's air defense requirements for a tender that will replace SPAD-GMS. It's not a battle taxi.

Image-1-Stryker-A1-IM-SHORAD.jpg


The US Army wants 144 of these, and is supposed to be an interim capability before a more dedicated system is made.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hydra

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
19,302
14,033
India
We too can convert our own WhAP to something similar or better.

Of course. But this is just an American offer, it will be offered through an Indian partner. There will be foreign and indigenous designs (unclear who has it) in the competition. Naturally, the ones with the best capability, followed by L1 will win.


Korean: Biho II.
MSPO_2023_Introduction_of_the_Hanwha_Biho_II_Mobile_Air_Defense_System_925_001.jpg


Russian: Pantsir-S2
Pantsir-S2_Pantsyr-S2_air_defense_missile_system_anti-aircraft_gun_Russia_Russian_army_640_001.jpg
 

Ginvincible

Well-Known member
Dec 5, 2017
567
560
Ohio

After Killing Arjun, Army Sets Up Next-Generation Tank Project For Failure​

Ujjwal Shrotryia
Feb 22, 2024, 03:35 PM | Updated 09:35 PM IST​

After the Arjun tank program, it appears that the Indian Army is now trying to kill its future next-generation tank program.

The new tank, referred to by the army as the Future Ready Combat Vehicle (FRCV), aims to replace around 2,500 four-decade-old Soviet-origin T-72 tanks first acquired in 1982.

In addition to the T-72 tanks and their upgraded variants — the T-72 Combat Improved Ajeya (CIA) Mk-1 and Mk-2 — the Army operates more than 1,200 T-90 tanks, bought from Russia in various batches, and 124 Made-in-India Arjun Mk-1 tanks, with an additional 118 upgraded Arjun Mk-1A tanks on order.

The army is also looking to buy another 350 Zorawar light tanks, weighing close to 25 tonnes, for use in the mountains of Ladakh and North-Sikkim, against China.

The FRCV, the army hopes will be its tank of the future that will incorporate technologies that will keep it relevant for the next 35-40 years. They also anticipate the FRCV will have upgrade potential to adapt to the ever-changing battlefield

However, just like the Arjun, which underwent intense scrutiny and apathy before receiving orders for a mere 124 Arjun Mk-1 and an additional 118 upgraded Arjun Mk-1A (deliveries of which are likely to get delayed due to its diesel engine going out of production), the army seems poised to repeat the same mistakes with the FRCV.

The new qualitative requirements (QRs) drafted by the army for the FRCV are unreasonable and follow its penchent of setting marvel-comics-like QRs.

The last time the army drafted such QRs was in 2011 for the Multi-Caliber Assault Rifles (MCAR) to replace the INSAS rifles, and that project failed spectacularly. The army hoped its soldiers would be able to change the caliber of these rifles from 5.56 mm to 7.62 mm and vice-versa by simply changing the barrels, a requirement no international vendor could meet.

It has been 13 years since that ill-fated proposal, and only late last year did the new rifle, the Russian AK-203, begin induction.

An example of the unreasonable QRs is that the new tank should weigh 55 tonnes +/- 5 percent, with a crew of four, while simultaneously having frontal armor of 800mm RHA and a minimum of 600 mm RHA on all sides with blow-off panels.

No current tanks in the world with four crew members, whether American Abrams, German Leopard 2, or British Challenger, meet this requirement.

All of these tanks, which have undergone multiple iterations of improvements over the last decade, weigh nearly 60 tonnes or more.

Moreover, the army wants the tank to have provisions for all three — an autoloader, semi-automatic, and even manual loading for shells and missiles. Typically, the fourth crew member does the loading of shells and missiles if the tank does not have an autoloader.

Requirement of fourth crew member and all three ways of loading suggest that the army is unable to make up its mind, about what it wants.

Additionally, the army desires all the bells and whistles, including an active-protection system (APS) with 360° and top-attack protection against missiles, drones, and loitering munitions, jamming and electronic warfare solutions for soft-killing suicide drones, new-generation computers and electronics, the ability to control unmanned ground vehicles (UGV), and conduct manned-unmanned teaming (MUM-T) operations, all while having sufficient growth potential so that new technologies can be incorporated onto the tank as they emerge.

And all this for a modest price tag of $4 million apiece, amounting close to Rs 57,000 crores ($7.1 billion) for 1,770 tanks. Only one tank — the Korean K-2 Black Panther — comes close to this, but it costs a neat $8.5 million each and is operated by three crew members.

This budgeting harakiri could lead to the delays and potentially even cancellation of the project forcing imports in limited quantities at prohibitive costs, reminiscent of budgeting of just $10 billion dollars (in 2007) for 126 Medium Multi-role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA).

This budget estimation was so off the mark that when the time came to order, the government cancelled the project and imported just 36 Rafales in 2016 from France at a cost of $8.7 billion — a per-unit cost of close to $240 million.
=======================================================================================================
Source: Swarajya

This is just an opinion piece and he gets some figures wrong but the overall point still remains
 

Tatvamasi

Senior member
Jan 5, 2018
1,450
1,492
India

After Killing Arjun, Army Sets Up Next-Generation Tank Project For Failure​

Ujjwal Shrotryia
Feb 22, 2024, 03:35 PM | Updated 09:35 PM IST​

After the Arjun tank program, it appears that the Indian Army is now trying to kill its future next-generation tank program.

The new tank, referred to by the army as the Future Ready Combat Vehicle (FRCV), aims to replace around 2,500 four-decade-old Soviet-origin T-72 tanks first acquired in 1982.

In addition to the T-72 tanks and their upgraded variants — the T-72 Combat Improved Ajeya (CIA) Mk-1 and Mk-2 — the Army operates more than 1,200 T-90 tanks, bought from Russia in various batches, and 124 Made-in-India Arjun Mk-1 tanks, with an additional 118 upgraded Arjun Mk-1A tanks on order.

The army is also looking to buy another 350 Zorawar light tanks, weighing close to 25 tonnes, for use in the mountains of Ladakh and North-Sikkim, against China.

The FRCV, the army hopes will be its tank of the future that will incorporate technologies that will keep it relevant for the next 35-40 years. They also anticipate the FRCV will have upgrade potential to adapt to the ever-changing battlefield

However, just like the Arjun, which underwent intense scrutiny and apathy before receiving orders for a mere 124 Arjun Mk-1 and an additional 118 upgraded Arjun Mk-1A (deliveries of which are likely to get delayed due to its diesel engine going out of production), the army seems poised to repeat the same mistakes with the FRCV.

The new qualitative requirements (QRs) drafted by the army for the FRCV are unreasonable and follow its penchent of setting marvel-comics-like QRs.

The last time the army drafted such QRs was in 2011 for the Multi-Caliber Assault Rifles (MCAR) to replace the INSAS rifles, and that project failed spectacularly. The army hoped its soldiers would be able to change the caliber of these rifles from 5.56 mm to 7.62 mm and vice-versa by simply changing the barrels, a requirement no international vendor could meet.

It has been 13 years since that ill-fated proposal, and only late last year did the new rifle, the Russian AK-203, begin induction.

An example of the unreasonable QRs is that the new tank should weigh 55 tonnes +/- 5 percent, with a crew of four, while simultaneously having frontal armor of 800mm RHA and a minimum of 600 mm RHA on all sides with blow-off panels.

No current tanks in the world with four crew members, whether American Abrams, German Leopard 2, or British Challenger, meet this requirement.

All of these tanks, which have undergone multiple iterations of improvements over the last decade, weigh nearly 60 tonnes or more.

Moreover, the army wants the tank to have provisions for all three — an autoloader, semi-automatic, and even manual loading for shells and missiles. Typically, the fourth crew member does the loading of shells and missiles if the tank does not have an autoloader.

Requirement of fourth crew member and all three ways of loading suggest that the army is unable to make up its mind, about what it wants.

Additionally, the army desires all the bells and whistles, including an active-protection system (APS) with 360° and top-attack protection against missiles, drones, and loitering munitions, jamming and electronic warfare solutions for soft-killing suicide drones, new-generation computers and electronics, the ability to control unmanned ground vehicles (UGV), and conduct manned-unmanned teaming (MUM-T) operations, all while having sufficient growth potential so that new technologies can be incorporated onto the tank as they emerge.

And all this for a modest price tag of $4 million apiece, amounting close to Rs 57,000 crores ($7.1 billion) for 1,770 tanks. Only one tank — the Korean K-2 Black Panther — comes close to this, but it costs a neat $8.5 million each and is operated by three crew members.

This budgeting harakiri could lead to the delays and potentially even cancellation of the project forcing imports in limited quantities at prohibitive costs, reminiscent of budgeting of just $10 billion dollars (in 2007) for 126 Medium Multi-role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA).

This budget estimation was so off the mark that when the time came to order, the government cancelled the project and imported just 36 Rafales in 2016 from France at a cost of $8.7 billion — a per-unit cost of close to $240 million.
=======================================================================================================
Source: Swarajya

This is just an opinion piece and he gets some figures wrong but the overall point still remains


Now, this is a serious and fundamental issue with the Indian Army's procurement. No other service is plagued by such incompetence.
 

Hydra

Senior member
May 19, 2020
4,167
1,957
Mumbai
Indian Army is the most incompetent and corrupt organization in the world.
I want this project to be failed. We can save few billions & lives of soldier. The tank warfare is obsolete.

After Killing Arjun, Army Sets Up Next-Generation Tank Project For Failure​

Ujjwal Shrotryia
Feb 22, 2024, 03:35 PM | Updated 09:35 PM IST​

After the Arjun tank program, it appears that the Indian Army is now trying to kill its future next-generation tank program.

The new tank, referred to by the army as the Future Ready Combat Vehicle (FRCV), aims to replace around 2,500 four-decade-old Soviet-origin T-72 tanks first acquired in 1982.

In addition to the T-72 tanks and their upgraded variants — the T-72 Combat Improved Ajeya (CIA) Mk-1 and Mk-2 — the Army operates more than 1,200 T-90 tanks, bought from Russia in various batches, and 124 Made-in-India Arjun Mk-1 tanks, with an additional 118 upgraded Arjun Mk-1A tanks on order.

The army is also looking to buy another 350 Zorawar light tanks, weighing close to 25 tonnes, for use in the mountains of Ladakh and North-Sikkim, against China.

The FRCV, the army hopes will be its tank of the future that will incorporate technologies that will keep it relevant for the next 35-40 years. They also anticipate the FRCV will have upgrade potential to adapt to the ever-changing battlefield

However, just like the Arjun, which underwent intense scrutiny and apathy before receiving orders for a mere 124 Arjun Mk-1 and an additional 118 upgraded Arjun Mk-1A (deliveries of which are likely to get delayed due to its diesel engine going out of production), the army seems poised to repeat the same mistakes with the FRCV.

The new qualitative requirements (QRs) drafted by the army for the FRCV are unreasonable and follow its penchent of setting marvel-comics-like QRs.

The last time the army drafted such QRs was in 2011 for the Multi-Caliber Assault Rifles (MCAR) to replace the INSAS rifles, and that project failed spectacularly. The army hoped its soldiers would be able to change the caliber of these rifles from 5.56 mm to 7.62 mm and vice-versa by simply changing the barrels, a requirement no international vendor could meet.

It has been 13 years since that ill-fated proposal, and only late last year did the new rifle, the Russian AK-203, begin induction.

An example of the unreasonable QRs is that the new tank should weigh 55 tonnes +/- 5 percent, with a crew of four, while simultaneously having frontal armor of 800mm RHA and a minimum of 600 mm RHA on all sides with blow-off panels.

No current tanks in the world with four crew members, whether American Abrams, German Leopard 2, or British Challenger, meet this requirement.

All of these tanks, which have undergone multiple iterations of improvements over the last decade, weigh nearly 60 tonnes or more.

Moreover, the army wants the tank to have provisions for all three — an autoloader, semi-automatic, and even manual loading for shells and missiles. Typically, the fourth crew member does the loading of shells and missiles if the tank does not have an autoloader.

Requirement of fourth crew member and all three ways of loading suggest that the army is unable to make up its mind, about what it wants.

Additionally, the army desires all the bells and whistles, including an active-protection system (APS) with 360° and top-attack protection against missiles, drones, and loitering munitions, jamming and electronic warfare solutions for soft-killing suicide drones, new-generation computers and electronics, the ability to control unmanned ground vehicles (UGV), and conduct manned-unmanned teaming (MUM-T) operations, all while having sufficient growth potential so that new technologies can be incorporated onto the tank as they emerge.

And all this for a modest price tag of $4 million apiece, amounting close to Rs 57,000 crores ($7.1 billion) for 1,770 tanks. Only one tank — the Korean K-2 Black Panther — comes close to this, but it costs a neat $8.5 million each and is operated by three crew members.

This budgeting harakiri could lead to the delays and potentially even cancellation of the project forcing imports in limited quantities at prohibitive costs, reminiscent of budgeting of just $10 billion dollars (in 2007) for 126 Medium Multi-role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA).

This budget estimation was so off the mark that when the time came to order, the government cancelled the project and imported just 36 Rafales in 2016 from France at a cost of $8.7 billion — a per-unit cost of close to $240 million.
=======================================================================================================
Source: Swarajya

This is just an opinion piece and he gets some figures wrong but the overall point still remains
 

Ginvincible

Well-Known member
Dec 5, 2017
567
560
Ohio
Now, this is a serious and fundamental issue with the Indian Army's procurement. No other service is plagued by such incompetence.
at some point you have to wonder if it is really incompetence. Not suggesting kickback type corruption, but perhaps there are much more heated internal debates on tactical usage of these assets. Maybe the side that loses out is encouraged to use whatever influence it wields to sabotage these projects.

I want this project to be failed. We can save few billions & lives of soldier. The tank warfare is obsolete.
I think there will still be a role for tanks in the future just not as the heavy slower moving vehicles they are now. Just like how the advent of rifling made armored infantry/cavalry fade away into fabric clad soldiers to improve mobility, I think tanks will get lighter too. I think the tank of the future will be a highly mobile, lightly manned or autonomous gun/missile carrier.

I see value in a platform that can absorb hits men cannot and sustain heavy fire that single shot missiles cannot.
 

Hydra

Senior member
May 19, 2020
4,167
1,957
Mumbai
at some point you have to wonder if it is really incompetence. Not suggesting kickback type corruption, but perhaps there are much more heated internal debates on tactical usage of these assets. Maybe the side that loses out is encouraged to use whatever influence it wields to sabotage these projects.


I think there will still be a role for tanks in the future just not as the heavy slower moving vehicles they are now. Just like how the advent of rifling made armored infantry/cavalry fade away into fabric clad soldiers to improve mobility, I think tanks will get lighter too. I think the tank of the future will be a highly mobile, lightly manned or autonomous gun/missile carrier.

I see value in a platform that can absorb hits men cannot and sustain heavy fire that single shot missiles cannot.
All the battle occured after since 90 is shear mascare of tanks by non tank component. It either an attac copter or atgms.