Indian Army Artillery Systems : News and Updates

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
11,671
8,918
India
If there was any urgency. IA would be expediting ATAGS trials and order a limited production till the gun mature.

Dunno how you missed the main plot, but the IA has been in an urgency to induct new guns since 3 decades now.

Anyway, what you said wouldn't make sense. ATAGS needs to clear trials and meet expectations before orders can be placed. Otherwise the system will become unusable, will be put into storage and wasted away.

This is work of lobbying just like FRCV.

FRCV is also not the work of lobbies. DRDO is expected to compete for it. This project is too important to be left to a single organisation. And India's industry is not mature enough to have a competition in this segment. Otoh, we have domestic capacity for FICV, hence it's being domestically sourced. Let's not forget currently the choice for the IA is either foreign or OFB, anything is better than OFB, hence the need to go through SPM.

If DRDO's product meets expectations, then it's gonna make the cut. It's not an import lobby special because the IP is expected to be 100% Indian. In such a case, there's no real money for foreign companies, so no one to fund the lobbies. Rather import lobbies will be working to scuttle the FRCV in favour of the basic tender with license production. Basically the opposite of what you're stating.
 

Ashwin

Agent_47
Staff member
Administrator
Nov 30, 2017
4,792
7,831
Bangalore
Dunno how you missed the main plot, but the IA has been in an urgency to induct new guns since 3 decades now.
So? Order more from currently active lines of Dhanush and L&T or LSP of ATAGS.

Three decades of urgency is a misnomer.

Anyway, what you said wouldn't make sense. ATAGS needs to clear trials and meet expectations before orders can be placed. Otherwise the system will become unusable, will be put into storage and wasted away.
Not true. ATAGS already cleared all basic trials. In 2018, DAC cleared 150 of them for limited series production based on it.

The DAC also cleared some other proposals worth around ₹ 24,879.16 crore, including approval for the procurement of 150 indigenously designed and developed 155 mm Advanced Towed Artillery Gun Systems for the Indian Army at an approximate cost of ₹ 3,364.78 crore, the statement said. “These guns have been indigenously designed & developed by the DRDO and will be manufactured by production agencies, as nominated by the DRDO. They are likely to be the mainstay of artillery in the near future. A nod to these major schemes will provide a fillip to the ‘Make in India’ push by the government, help create self-reliance in defence manufacturing, and make the defence industry a major engine of India’s economic growth," the statement said.

FRCV is also not the work of lobbies. DRDO is expected to compete for it.
Completely wrong. FRCV is under the strategic partnership (SP) model. Which is 100% imported design and license production with a local partner. DRDO has no say in it.

DRDO has already proven that it can design state-of-the-art tanks. They have a decade to design, trial, and improve a new one. There is no reason to believe they will fail to meet expectations. Even the 1500hp engine is in an advanced stage. A country with 3000+ tanks still trying to import is just shameful.

This project is too important to be left to a single organisation.
With this logic, should we open tenders for SSBN and Balistic missiles too? All over the world specialized weapons R&D is done by one main company/organization. Be it Dassault/naval group of France or BAE of UK. The project is one of the basic building blocks to have a self-sufficient military. Just like a fighter aircraft, frigate, or assault rifle. it is too important to be left to the PSU's import lobby and corrupt officers to decide.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
11,671
8,918
India
So? Order more from currently active lines of Dhanush and L&T or LSP of ATAGS.

Dhanush has come up with quality issues. OFB doesn't look like they will meet the current deadline for the 114 guns, nothing unusual. Regardless, they are going to get more orders later on, so the ATHOS is extra over that. Plus the Dhanush is 45 cal, the 52 cal version also has to undergo testing.

What will the army do with LSP guns? It's only for operational testing. After LSP, it will go through a new process for SP, this is when the large contract will be signed.

This is the same story like the HTT-40. You people here are expecting miracles when none exist. Military systems take time to finish. And in the end, any delay means only the forces suffer for it.

Three decades of urgency is a misnomer.

The army doesn't believe that. Have you actually seen the state of guns we use?

Not true. ATAGS already cleared all basic trials. In 2018, DAC cleared 150 of them for limited series production based on it.



That's LSP. It's still yet to clear trials for SP, which is post LSP period. The article claims it's gonna be at least 2026 before SP models begin deliveries. ATHOS is expected to finish deliveries of all 400 long before that.

Completely wrong. FRCV is under the strategic partnership (SP) model. Which is 100% imported design and license production with a local partner.

Er... No. Would definitely recommend reading the FRCV RFI.

DRDO has no say in it.

The OEMs include: France Leclerc Nexter; Russia 1) T-90 & T-14 Armata Uralvagonzavod marketed by Rosoboronexpo (ROE); South Korea K1 Hyundai Rotem; USA M1AX (Abrams) General Dynamics; Germany Leopard KMW and Rheinmetall; Ukraine T – 84 Malyshev Plant marketed by Spectstechno Expo; Italy Ariete Consortium Iveco and Oto Melara (Leonardo); Serbia M – 84 Yugoimport; Israel Merkava Mantak/ Israel Ordnance Corps; UK’s Challenger; and Turkey’s Altay Otokar. And, Indian Defence Research and Development Organisation.

With the exception of the Chinese and Japanese, everybody considered big has been sent an RFI. And DRDO is expected to compete for the FRCV, not simply nominated. This is a very good change and is of immense benefit to the army.

In fact, this is how it should be.

DRDO has already proven that it can design state-of-the-art tanks.

Er... No.

Right now, only the Russians have designed such a tank, and even they are struggling with some aspects of it. They are also in LSP.

With this logic, should we open tenders for SSBN and Balistic missiles too? All over the world specialized weapons R&D is done by one main company/organization. Be it Dassault/naval group of France or BAE of UK. The project is one of the basic building blocks to have a self-sufficient military. Just like a fighter aircraft, frigate, or assault rifle.

So tanks are equal to non-export technologies now?

it is too important to be left to the PSU's import lobby and corrupt officers to decide.

Surprising you say that, while not understanding that this is exactly what the army is fighting against using the FRCV.

Let's see how DRDO performs now. It will be good for them as well.
 

Hydra

Well-Known member
May 19, 2020
1,916
909
Mumbai
I don't agree no matter whatever excuse people give I am strictly against the import in this segment.
Do you want our military to suffer in the event if conflict, or run here and there like a headless chicken? In house solutions are still under testing, how long do you want IA to wait?

You'll have to learn to trust the forces more though.
I don't agree no matter whatever excuse people give I am strictly against the import in this segment.
And i dont know wheather it is appropriate to quote, there was an indian member ( i dont know he is still there or not) with kim jong un as profile pic in a foreign forum ( and probably know which forum), i do remember once he stated that the combined requirement for howitzer, which includs towed, wheeled, self propelled & ulh are 5000+ and there is enough space for indigenous towed artillery aswell as foreign towed one.

I am unable to remember that guy's name. But those who were active in that forum probably remembering him, the guy always uses kim jong un as DP.
 

Ashwin

Agent_47
Staff member
Administrator
Nov 30, 2017
4,792
7,831
Bangalore
Er... No. Would definitely recommend reading the FRCV RFI.
Tender document attached.

No 16:
16. The Government of India invites responses to this RFI only from foreign OEMs.The end user of the equipment is the Indian Army.
17. Criteria for Shortlisting of Indian SP and Foreign OEMs. Guidelines for shortlisting and selection of SP and Foreign OEMs will be governed by Chapter VII of DAP-2020.
You should also search for Chapter VII of DAP-2020. Read what SP model is before making such statements.

he OEMs include: France Leclerc Nexter; Russia 1) T-90 & T-14 Armata Uralvagonzavod marketed by Rosoboronexpo (ROE); South Korea K1 Hyundai Rotem; USA M1AX (Abrams) General Dynamics; Germany Leopard KMW and Rheinmetall; Ukraine T – 84 Malyshev Plant marketed by Spectstechno Expo; Italy Ariete Consortium Iveco and Oto Melara (Leonardo); Serbia M – 84 Yugoimport; Israel Merkava Mantak/ Israel Ordnance Corps; UK’s Challenger; and Turkey’s Altay Otokar. And, Indian Defence Research and Development Organisation.

And for starters, DRDO is not even an OEM. Their responsibility is not production. Quoting uninformed indian outlets does not suit you.
This is the same story like the HTT-40.
Exactly, Just like HTT-40, All your "urgent" import arguments will go down the drain in due time. Indian designed and developed equipment will be preferred over imported ones.
 

Attachments

  • RFI FRCV 010621.pdf
    480.4 KB · Views: 27

_Anonymous_

Senior Member
Dec 4, 2017
14,520
10,495
Mumbai
Tender document attached.

No 16:

You should search for Chapter VII of DAP-2020. Read what SP model is before making childish statements.



And for starters, DRDO is not even an OEM. Their responsibility is not production. Quoting uninformed indian outlets does not suit you.

Exactly, Just like HTT-40, All your "urgent" import arguments will go down the drain in due time. Indian designed and developed equipment will be preferred over imported ones.
Indigenization arguments apart ( & I am with this group / lobby) , last summer's little excursion on the LAC has helped the import lobby get their foot in the closing door with all the arguments on expected lines like lower cost per piece , full ToT , close to 100% indigenization & local production post initial imports , lower weight as compared to ATAGS,etc .

There's no mention of this item on the import ban list as well . The stage's being set for a deal with Elbit.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Hydra

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
11,671
8,918
India
Do you want our military to suffer in the event if conflict, or run here and there like a headless chicken? In house solutions are still under testing, how long do you want IA to wait?



And i dont know wheather it is appropriate to quote, there was an indian member ( i dont know he is still there or not) with kim jong un as profile pic in a foreign forum ( and probably know which forum), i do remember once he stated that the combined requirement for howitzer, which includs towed, wheeled, self propelled & ulh are 5000+ and there is enough space for indigenous towed artillery aswell as foreign towed one.

I am unable to remember that guy's name. But those who were active in that forum probably remembering him, the guy always uses kim jong un as DP.

Dunno about the guy, but I have stated the same here as well. Our overall towed gun requirement is massive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hydra

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
11,671
8,918
India
Tender document attached.

No 16:

You should also search for Chapter VII of DAP-2020. Read what SP model is before making such statements.

Than you very much for selectively quoting irrelevant stuff. Maybe you forget that DRDO doesn't need to reply to a "global" RFI since the IA already knows what they need to from them. DRDO will get the RFP.

In the same RFI, there's also this:
The Indian ‘Strategic Partner’ will retain the ownership of the design and technologies for the platform to ensure realisation of ‘Atmanirbhar Bharat’.

Are you suggesting all these foreign OEMs are standing in line to hand over IP?

And for starters, DRDO is not even an OEM. Their responsibility is not production. Quoting uninformed indian outlets does not suit you.

The Indian partner that DRDO will choose will be the main producer.

Exactly, Just like HTT-40, All your "urgent" import arguments will go down the drain in due time. Indian designed and developed equipment will be preferred over imported ones.

Yep, yep, went down the drain. We are in 2021, I don't see any HTT-40s in IAF colours yet. Now we are gonna lease trainers. :ROFLMAO:

Typical childish case of overestimating capabilities. Maybe you don't even know that the IDDM's Indian content requirement is only 40%.
 

Ashwin

Agent_47
Staff member
Administrator
Nov 30, 2017
4,792
7,831
Bangalore
Than you very much for selectively quoting irrelevant stuff. Maybe you forget that DRDO doesn't need to reply to a "global" RFI since the IA already knows what they need to from them. DRDO will get the RFP.
You asked me to check the tender document and I did.

What did I selectively quote? Did it mention DRDO elsewhere?

If i remember correctly, i was the one saying it's global RFI for "Import".

In the same RFI, there's also this:
The Indian ‘Strategic Partner’ will retain the ownership of the design and technologies for the platform to ensure realisation of ‘Atmanirbhar Bharat’.

Are you suggesting all these foreign OEMs are standing in line to hand over IP?
So? How is it relevant here? Is it a direct import of foreign design and license production or not?

Here is the DAP-2020 which the RFI is based on: https://www.mod.gov.in/sites/default/files/DAP2030new_0.pdf

Can you show me this bizarre procedure specifying DRDO's participation in SP model?

From "DRDO will compete in the global tender" to "DRDO will choose who will license produce from foreign OEM".

Meanwhile, DRDO has its own design. :LOL:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chain Smoker

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
11,671
8,918
India
It will be the usual drill, a la MMRCA. They will cancel the tender and start a GTG for 400 ATHOS. The cost is expected to be $1B for the whole lot. And it's needed simply because the ATAGS cannot be used everywhere in the mountains due to its higher weight. At $470M for 150 ATAGS vs $1B for 400 ATHOS, it's a no-brainer why the IA will follow through with it. At 11Cr, the ATHOS is currently the cheapest gun on offer to India, even amongst indigenous guns. Kalyani hopes ATAGS will cost around 15Cr by the time SP starts compared to 18Cr today, so that's yet to be seen.

Dhanush is facing production issues. It's 45 cal, it needs to be upgraded to 52 cal before more orders can be placed. There's potential for 300 more guns of the 52 cal version. The 45 cal costs 14Cr. And regardless of whether the 52 cal costs more than that or less, OFB will still get the order because it's a PSU.

Bharat-52 seems very promising. It's practically a direct competitor to the ATHOS and can potentially eat into the current ATAGS requirement, particularly in the mountains.

People seem to be forgetting that the enemy is at our doorstep and we do not have modern artillery guns. ATAGS, Dhanush and Bharat-52 are currently pies in the sky. Only ATHOS is available for immediate induction into operational units.

ATAGS will need 2-3 years to get SP clearance. Bharat 52 is yet to enter LSP. So don't expect both guns for bulk orders until 2023-24 at the minimum. Dhanush's 114 gun order will take until 2024 to finish, it's been delayed by a year. The Sharang upgrade has also been delayed by a year. Both delays are due to COVID. OFB is yet to increase production to 50 guns a year, and that may happen only in 2022. So the potential for new guns before 2025 is pretty much 114 Dhanush and 150 LSP ATAGS. If signed this year, Israel plans to deliver all 400 ATHOS by 2025, before Dhanush 52, Bharat 52 and ATAGS can enter large scale serial production.

Currently the majority of our units facing China are using 105mm guns. So they are completely outmatched. Futhermore, the ATAGS in its current form isn't suitable for the mountains. So it's unlikely that most of the 150 units ordered will actually face China. So all they can look forward to are the 114 45 cal Dhanush within the next few years, which are also outmatched by Chinese artillery, along with the existing Bofors guns. Basically, without the ATHOS, we won't have any real guns that can match Chinese artillery for many more years.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
11,671
8,918
India
You asked me to check the tender document and I did.

What did I selectively quote? Did it mention DRDO elsewhere?

If i remember correctly, i was the one saying it's global RFI for "Import".

This is what you said:
Completely wrong. FRCV is under the strategic partnership (SP) model. Which is 100% imported design and license production with a local partner.

This is what's in the RFI document in rebuttal to that:
The Indian ‘Strategic Partner’ will retain the ownership of the design and technologies for the platform to ensure realisation of ‘Atmanirbhar Bharat’.

Ain't no such thing as 100% import in the FRCV when the Indian partner is expected to hold the IP for it. No one, not even the Russians, will simply hand over the IP of their designs meant for their captive clients.

Plus DRDO will be a technology partner in the program, even if their design is not chosen. So technologies being developed under NGMBT can find their way into the FRCV, since DRDO is expected to provide ToT of their products to any Indian company, which includes the SPs.

SPM has been designed to be very flexible. It's very different from the Buy and Make Global component of the DPP, which is mainly about 100% import and license production, with no transfer of IP, the one you are actually talking about. So, no, it's not what you think it is.

FRCV will be our very first "import" project which will have a design phase, R&D phase and production phase. This is basically no different from AMCA, the only difference being 11 other foreign companies will also be competing, not just DRDO being nominated without a competition.

Even in FICV, DRDO is competing with private Indian companies. They are partnering with OFB. What, you think DRDO should be handed over the FICV too, no competition? FRCV is no different from FICV in its objective.

FRCV allows foreign OEMs to bring in exotic technologies that they cannot develop on their own due to the small orders placed by their own captive forces or other issues like requirements. For example, instead of Armata, the Russians can compete with the more advanced T-95, or an even better design that's a generation after the T-14/T-95. I'm sure South Korea will be able to design a more advanced tank if the number of tanks and other platforms to be produced is 4000+ instead of just 200+.

Once foreign OEMs step in with their designs and technologies, this will allow the IA to create a new set of RFPs that combine the best of all the OEMs in relation to what's required by the IA. And then, these OEMs can partner with Indian companies to compete with each other through SPM. The process will end up being no different from FICV. DRDO can offer their own product with OFB or any other Indian partner. They won't simply be handed the project on a platter like the IAF did with AMCA.

So please tell me how this is 100% import and license production?

Don't have to. HTT-40 won over any further import of PC-7. Which was the point.

And in exchange, the IAF has no pilots to fly their jets. Nice point. Now, the IAF will lease PC-7s instead. Points are flying all over the place, not pilots.

Think about it, if India and China go to war within the next 2 years, the IA will have ZERO 52 cal towed guns. ZERO!!!

Do you want to win wars or just make DPSUs fatter and fatter? Your priorities are all mixed up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sid4587

Chain Smoker

Well-Known member
Mar 2, 2020
546
439
india
It will be the usual drill, a la MMRCA. They will cancel the tender and start a GTG for 400 ATHOS. The cost is expected to be $1B for the whole lot. And it's needed simply because the ATAGS cannot be used everywhere in the mountains due to its higher weight. At $470M for 150 ATAGS vs $1B for 400 ATHOS, it's a no-brainer why the IA will follow through with it. At 11Cr, the ATHOS is currently the cheapest gun on offer to India, even amongst indigenous guns. Kalyani hopes ATAGS will cost around 15Cr by the time SP starts compared to 18Cr today, so that's yet to be seen.

Dhanush is facing production issues. It's 45 cal, it needs to be upgraded to 52 cal before more orders can be placed. There's potential for 300 more guns of the 52 cal version. The 45 cal costs 14Cr. And regardless of whether the 52 cal costs more than that or less, OFB will still get the order because it's a PSU.

Bharat-52 seems very promising. It's practically a direct competitor to the ATHOS and can potentially eat into the current ATAGS requirement, particularly in the mountains.

People seem to be forgetting that the enemy is at our doorstep and we do not have modern artillery guns. ATAGS, Dhanush and Bharat-52 are currently pies in the sky. Only ATHOS is available for immediate induction into operational units.

ATAGS will need 2-3 years to get SP clearance. Bharat 52 is yet to enter LSP. So don't expect both guns for bulk orders until 2023-24 at the minimum. Dhanush's 114 gun order will take until 2024 to finish, it's been delayed by a year. The Sharang upgrade has also been delayed by a year. Both delays are due to COVID. OFB is yet to increase production to 50 guns a year, and that may happen only in 2022. So the potential for new guns before 2025 is pretty much 114 Dhanush and 150 LSP ATAGS. If signed this year, Israel plans to deliver all 400 ATHOS by 2025, before Dhanush 52, Bharat 52 and ATAGS can enter large scale serial production.

Currently the majority of our units facing China are using 105mm guns. So they are completely outmatched. Futhermore, the ATAGS in its current form isn't suitable for the mountains. So it's unlikely that most of the 150 units ordered will actually face China. So all they can look forward to are the 114 45 cal Dhanush within the next few years, which are also outmatched by Chinese artillery, along with the existing Bofors guns. Basically, without the ATHOS, we won't have any real guns that can match Chinese artillery for many more years.
Shup up u dalal I don't want to listen any of these bullshit if ATAGS orders are placed now it's delivery will be faster than ATHOS.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: suryakiran

Ashwin

Agent_47
Staff member
Administrator
Nov 30, 2017
4,792
7,831
Bangalore
This is what's in the RFI document in rebuttal to that:
The Indian ‘Strategic Partner’ will retain the ownership of the design and technologies for the platform to ensure realisation of ‘Atmanirbhar Bharat’.
How is that a rebuttal :LOL:

The Indian entity will get the transfer of tech and IP from OEM after they win complete the contract.

Meaning, fully imported. Just like Indian L&T and South Korean Hanwha for the K-9 Vajra assembly. But in this case, there will be IP transfer to the indian "strategic partner".

PR by MoD:
Government has notified the “Strategic Partnership (SP)” Model which envisages establishment of long-term strategic partnerships with Indian entities through a transparent and competitive process, wherein they would tie up with global Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) to seek technology transfers to set up domestic manufacturing infrastructure and supply chains.
The point of SP model is to go one step from the usual ToT and local manufacturing. so that Indian companies can retaining full control of the item afterward. By which they can establish an ecnomical supply chain and increase spare availablity.

Ain't no such thing as 100% import in the FRCV when the Indian partner is expected to hold the IP for it. No one, not even the Russians, will simply hand over the IP of their designs meant for their captive clients.

Plus DRDO will be a technology partner in the program, even if their design is not chosen. So technologies being developed under NGMBT can find their way into the FRCV, since DRDO is expected to provide ToT of their products to any Indian company, which includes the SPs.

SPM has been designed to be very flexible. It's very different from the Buy and Make Global component of the DPP, which is mainly about 100% import and license production, with no transfer of IP, the one you are actually talking about. So, no, it's not what you think it is.

FRCV will be our very first "import" project which will have a design phase, R&D phase and production phase. This is basically no different from AMCA, the only difference being 11 other foreign companies will also be competing, not just DRDO being nominated without a competition.

Even in FICV, DRDO is competing with private Indian companies. They are partnering with OFB. What, you think DRDO should be handed over the FICV too, no competition? FRCV is no different from FICV in its objective.

FRCV allows foreign OEMs to bring in exotic technologies that they cannot develop on their own due to the small orders placed by their own captive forces or other issues like requirements. For example, instead of Armata, the Russians can compete with the more advanced T-95, or an even better design that's a generation after the T-14/T-95. I'm sure South Korea will be able to design a more advanced tank if the number of tanks and other platforms to be produced is 4000+ instead of just 200+.

Once foreign OEMs step in with their designs and technologies, this will allow the IA to create a new set of RFPs that combine the best of all the OEMs in relation to what's required by the IA. And then, these OEMs can partner with Indian companies to compete with each other through SPM. The process will end up being no different from FICV. DRDO can offer their own product with OFB or any other Indian partner. They won't simply be handed the project on a platter like the IAF did with AMCA.
I gave you DAP-2020 and asked you to prove your usual 'claims'. Which you obviously can't. Now writing essays with deflecting arguments.

Would any of the OEM's willing to transfer IP to an Indian partner?
Who knows? But is the RFI asking IP transfer? Yes.

Is there any contribution by DRDO under SP procedure?
No, Zero.

DRDO part of this competition? Did they get RFI?
No, this is purely for foreign OEMs.

Will there be customization according to indian requirements?
Obviously!. K9 Thunder got Indian version called K9 VAJRA-T with 50% Indian content and supply chain. It still does not take away the fact that this is an imported design.

DAP2030new_0-pdf.png


The question here is what entails the RFI tender released by IA based on DAP-2020. No other what-ifs are necessary. Saying this import will be similar to our development of AMCA is ludicrous and just plain wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chain Smoker

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
11,671
8,918
India
Shup up u dalal I don't want to listen any of these bullshit if ATAGS orders are placed now it's delivery will be faster than ATHOS.

You are being a bit too touchy about this. The army lives in reality, unfortunately for you.

If ATAGS order is placed now, it will be no different from the F-35, where they are endlessly buying it without any operational testing, which means none of them can be used in a war.

This is where ATAGS is:
 

Akhlys

Member
May 14, 2021
53
38
Norway
How many does India have, plan to have and what's the overall impression been of the K9 in Indian service so far?



Did India order the K10 as well? Or does it use its own resupply vehicle?
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
11,671
8,918
India
How is that a rebuttal :LOL:

The Indian entity will get the transfer of tech and IP from OEM after they win complete the contract.

Meaning, fully imported. Just like Indian L&T and South Korean Hanwha for the K-9 Vajra assembly. But in this case, there will be IP transfer to the indian "strategic partner".

PR by MoD:

The point of SP model is to go one step from the usual ToT and local manufacturing. so that Indian companies can retaining full control of the item afterward. By which they can establish an ecnomical supply chain and increase spare availablity.


I gave you DAP-2020 and asked you to prove your usual 'claims'. Which you obviously can't. Now writing essays with deflecting arguments.

Would any of the OEM's willing to transfer IP to an Indian partner?
Who knows? But is the RFI asking IP transfer? Yes.

Is there any contribution by DRDO under SP procedure?
No, Zero.

DRDO part of this competition? Did they get RFI?
No, this is purely for foreign OEMs.

Will there be customization according to indian requirements?
Obviously!. K9 Thunder got Indian version called K9 VAJRA-T with 50% Indian content and supply chain. It still does not take away the fact that this is an imported design.

View attachment 19987

The question here is what entails the RFI tender released by IA based on DAP-2020. No other what-ifs are necessary. Saying this import will be similar to our development of AMCA is ludicrous and just plain wrong.

It's not a surprise you don't understand what IP transfer means. It's funny how you have linked it to license production and ToT. They are not the same.

No, the K9 is not the same as FRCV. Rather the MKI MLU and K9 are the same.

The army doesn't need to send an RFI to DRDO for the same reason they didn't send it to them for FICV as well.

FRCV will obviously have ToT from the winner. Even DRDO has to provide ToT to OFB. This has nothing to do with whether something is imported or domestic, the rules are the same. ADA will have to provide ToT to the manufacturer of AMCA as well. It's funny how you equate ToT with IP. And you've completely failed to understand that the FRCV can be worked on from scratch, with clean-sheet designs if necessary.

What you are proposing works entirely against the army's interests. This is the best method, until the Indian industry develops capacity for such high level R&D on their own for the future. DRDO won't be able to take forever developing something when there's competition. Doesn't look like you will understand though. More like it seems it's your ego that's hurt because of this than anything else.

I would recommend reading up on the American T-X program and the Swedish involvement in order to understand what's happening. Or even the F-35's helmet with Israeli involvement.

And no, the IA is not dumb enough to simply hand over FRCV to the DRDO-OFB combine.
 

Ashwin

Agent_47
Staff member
Administrator
Nov 30, 2017
4,792
7,831
Bangalore
It's not a surprise you don't understand what IP transfer means. It's funny how you have linked it to license production and ToT. They are not the same.

No, the K9 is not the same as FRCV. Rather the MKI MLU and K9 are the same.

The army doesn't need to send an RFI to DRDO for the same reason they didn't send it to them for FICV as well.

FRCV will obviously have ToT from the winner. Even DRDO has to provide ToT to OFB. This has nothing to do with whether something is imported or domestic, the rules are the same. ADA will have to provide ToT to the manufacturer of AMCA as well. It's funny how you equate ToT with IP. And you've completely failed to understand that the FRCV can be worked on from scratch, with clean-sheet designs if necessary.

What you are proposing works entirely against the army's interests. This is the best method, until the Indian industry develops capacity for such high level R&D on their own for the future. DRDO won't be able to take forever developing something when there's competition. Doesn't look like you will understand though. More like it seems it's your ego that's hurt because of this than anything else.

I would recommend reading up on the American T-X program and the Swedish involvement in order to understand what's happening. Or even the F-35's helmet with Israeli involvement.

And no, the IA is not dumb enough to simply hand over FRCV to the DRDO-OFB combine.
Its always admirable how confident you are to give your totally false ideas to the crowd.

Once again, show me these in the DAP-2020 document. I am not interested in what you think SP model is. Explain your argument by referring to the document.

IP transfer means a license to use those IPs, not the ownership. Didn't think I have to mention it. On top of that license is given to a JV of which the OEM is part. Get a grip on the subject before writing paragraphs.

Let's look if the document about IPR and ToT. (Since you have decided to latch on to and ignore all others here).

Screenshot 2021-06-09 at 19-43-27 DAP2030new_0 pdf.png

Screenshot 2021-06-09 at 19-44-14 DAP2030new_0 pdf.png


Now, let's go back to the original point.
  • Is it a direct import? (Its in the definition of SP model)
  • Can DRDO compete in this tender? (Even though they are not even an OEM and its limited to foreign companies)
  • Is there any role for DRDO in the selection procedure?
Please explain these by referring to the document. I am not here to take your words on it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chain Smoker

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
11,671
8,918
India
How many does India have, plan to have and what's the overall impression been of the K9 in Indian service so far?



Did India order the K10 as well? Or does it use its own resupply vehicle?

The IA dreams of operating 35+ armoured brigades, so the ideal number would be 750+. But that's not gonna happen. IA currently operates 100 K9s, and 50 more are up as options, but not yet exercised. We are expected to have somewhere between 25 and 30 armoured brigades right now, so our SPH requirement is 600+.

Then, there's the FRCV program, and we seem to be chasing after the UCP concept. So while the T-72 armoured brigades will switch to the FRCV and its corresponding UCP derived vehicles, the T-90 armoured brigades could get all the K9s. So at least half the 25-30 brigades should get it eventually.

The army is really happy with the K9s. And they want more. Currently they are testing it for a mountain role and are interested in 2-3 more regiments.

We do not operate the K10. At least I haven't seen anything suggesting that. Maybe we use the good 'ol truck and manual labour instead of a resupply vehicle.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
11,671
8,918
India
Its always admirable how confident you are to give your totally false ideas to the crowd.

Once again, show me these in the DAP-2020 document. I am not interested in what you think SP model is. Explain your argument by referring to the document.

IP transfer means a license to use those IPs, not the ownership. Didn't think I have to mention it. On top of that license is given to a JV of which the OEM is part. Get a grip on the subject before writing paragraphs.

Let's look if the document about IPR and ToT. (Since you have decided to latch on to and ignore all others here).

View attachment 19989
View attachment 19988

Now, let's go back to the original point.
  • Is it a direct import? (Its in the definition of SP model)
  • Can DRDO compete in this tender? (Even though they are not even an OEM and its limited to foreign companies)
  • Is there any role for DRDO in the selection procedure?
Please explain these by referring to the document. I am not here to take your words on it.

Wah, bhai. With every post you are creating new definitions. You started off with LSP and now this gem...

"IP transfer means a license to use those IPs, not the ownership." :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:

The IA must be complete morons then...
The Indian ‘Strategic Partner’ will retain the ownership of the design and technologies for the platform to ensure realisation of ‘Atmanirbhar Bharat’.