Armies Infantry Combat Vehicles to be modernized

[selvan33]

Armies Infantry Combat Vehicles to be modernized

Based on operational requirement, the entire Infantry Combat Vehicle (ICV) fleet of the Indian Army is being modernized to enhance their capability.

In the ICV fleet, armament and firepower capability are being upgraded with the latest generation Fire Control System, Twin Missile Launchers and Commander`s Thermal Imaging Panoramic sights. These ICVs will also be equipped with the latest generation Anti Tank Guided Missiles and Automatic Grenade Launchers.

The ICV proposal for the Armament upgrade of BMP-2/2K to BMP-2M and New Power Pack for BMP-2/2K will cost an estimated Rs. 8000 crore.

This information was given by Defence Minister Shri AK Antony in a written reply to Dr. Sanjeev Ganesh Naik and Shri Sanjay Dina Patil in Lok Sabha today.
Armies Infantry Combat Vehicles to be modernized | idrw.org

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Good this will put more teeth in our mechanized infantry formations.Just wondering what's the new ATGM to arm these?

 

[IND151]

Armies Infantry Combat Vehicles to be modernized | idrw.org

 

[selvan33]

Good this will put more teeth in our mechanized infantry formations.Just wondering what's the new ATGM to arm these?

Dont know. most probably second gecond generation ATGM only for BMP's.

Back-of-the-envelope calculations show the overall cost of this entire project could touch Rs 10,000 crore. The armament upgrade alone, for instance, would be worth over Rs 5,000 crore, with the BMPs to be equipped with two twin-missile launchers on each side, 2nd-generation-plus ATGMs (anti-tank guided missiles) and 30-mm automatic grenade launchers.

Army to upgrade entire fleet of infantry combat vehicles - Times Of India

 

[indian_foxhound]

yes we are doing it very rapidly.... 1st priority given to modernization. in short ABHI TO SURUWAT HAI MERE DOST. more coming up

 

[Ayush]

good initiative...

 

[Dash]

I just dont want those BMPs in Army these days, they look so outdated...

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

We are getting kornet ATGMs.now those are badass.Insurgents knocked out abrams in iraq and merkava in lebanon with kornet.

 

[janon]

We have to start mechanizing our infantry faster. We have too many line infantry battalions, and too few mechanized infantry units. Earlier there were talks of mechanizing all the infantry units in the plains. Unfortunately, that remained mere talk.

The number of ICVs is just too low for an army this big. Hope the FICV program gets a nod soon. I wish they also get thousands of cheap APCs that can keep up with armoured and mechanized formations, and transport infantry into battle. Cheaper than the ICVs, but able to trasport more troops. Armoured, but not too heavily armed. Our FICV as it is envisaged, has to have mroe firepower than a tank. Once again I think we are making the mistake of aiming too high with intended specs.

 

[sancho]

The number of ICVs is just too low for an army this big. Hope the FICV program gets a nod soon. I wish they also get thousands of cheap APCs that can keep up with armoured and mechanized formations, and transport infantry into battle. Cheaper than the ICVs, but able to trasport more troops. Armoured, but not too heavily armed. Our FICV as it is envisaged, has to have mroe firepower than a tank. Once again I think we are making the mistake of aiming too high with intended specs.

Except of the marked part, the rest is possible with modern IFV designs, be it wheeled or tracked, but the problem is not only the number of vehicles, but also their transportability. If you want to transport them fast and in numbers from point A to B, especially in war times, rail and road transportation are too slow. But the Chinook will not be able to carry such vehicles, nor will be the C17 able to land on too many airstrips in in the north, MTA might be limited in payload and cargohold size and all this limits our air transportability of such vehicles by far.
We aim on a 2 front war, but are not able to provide reinforcement fast enough. That might be possible for fighters, by transfering MKIs from one border to the other, but not with air currently considered transport fleet and which is why we also need an aircraft in between MTA and C17 for effective operations inside of India!

 

[janon]

Except of the marked part, the rest is possible with modern IFV designs, be it wheeled or tracked, but the problem is not only the number of vehicles, but also their transportability. If you want to transport them fast and in numbers from point A to B, especially in war times, rail and road transportation are too slow. But the Chinook will not be able to carry such vehicles, nor will be the C17 able to land on too many airstrips in in the north, MTA might be limited in payload and cargohold size and all this limits our air transportability of such vehicles by far.
We aim on a 2 front war, but are not able to provide reinforcement fast enough. That might be possible for fighters, by transfering MKIs from one border to the other, but not with air currently considered transport fleet and which is why we also need an aircraft in between MTA and C17 for effective operations inside of India!

Oops, I made myself very unclear in that post. I wasn't recommending that bolded part, I was criticizing that fact. In the requirement put forward by the army, they want the FICV to have almost as much firepower as a tank, able to kill any tank, and yet be more mobile and carry infantry troops. It makes one wonder why they need tanks anymore, if they think their future ICV can be deadlier than a tank. IMO, they should lower the requirements, unless they want another 20 year development saga. They should go for slightly lesser firepower in favor of more mobility and lesser cost (and therefore larger numbers) for the future ICV.

The capability to airlift ICVs is nice, but I don't think it is sustainable for large mechanized formations. That can ensure that we have rapidly mobilizable small mechanized units, for responding to enemy movements, or for lightning strikes. But for division sized formations, or RAPIDs, road and rail mobility is the key. Start building those roads on the east immediately.

 

[sancho]

Oops, I made myself very unclear in that post. I wasn't recommending that bolded part, I was criticizing that fact. In the requirement put forward by the army, they want the FICV to have almost as much firepower as a tank, able to kill any tank, and yet be more mobile and carry infantry troops. It makes one wonder why they need tanks anymore

That's not fully correct I guess, they do look for light tanks and wheeled tank destroyers and most likely want to see the same of FICV, but in versions of the FICV, not from all of them. The BAE CV90 for example is available in an infrantry fighting version, usually with a 35mm gun turret and we saw similar versions as models from Tata, or Mahindra. These should be aimed to be able to carry more troops, but not the light tank / tank destroyer versions, that have a 105 or even 120mm gun.

CV90120 light tank and CV9035 IFV as an example:

The capability to airlift ICVs is nice, but I don't think it is sustainable for large mechanized formations. That can ensure that we have rapidly mobilizable small mechanized units, for responding to enemy movements, or for lightning strikes. But for division sized formations, or RAPIDs, road and rail mobility is the key. Start building those roads on the east immediately.

That depends on the size and weight of IFVs, FICV seems to be aimed at 15 to 25t, a single C17 could carry several of them, the A400/AN70 class aircrafts too and the larger the fleet, the more you can carry.

From a comparison that I once made:

10 x C17 can carry 30 x BMPs or Stryker IFVs
6 x C17 can carry 18 x BMPs or Stryker IFVs
10 x C17 + 12 x A400Ms (same price as 6 x C17s) can carry 54 x BMPs or Stryker IFVs

So you can transport a credible number of reenforcements with good firepower all around India, in a very short time, IF the necessary transport fleet is available.

 

[GR!FF!N]

Can anyone confirm are we going for FICV or BMP-3(as a stop gap measure)??there are several speculations on that.there are no news on Abhay yet,Tata group is interested on this project and might built one and there are reports that Russia offered BMP-3 to India..FICV is a big project with around 2600 vehicles going to be built.even specs are puzzling..some are saying it'll be with 20/30 mm autocannon,some are saying it'll be something like tank destroyer,is there any proper clue whats going on???I think India sohould go some hybrid like BTR-80 armed with autocannon as well as ATGM.what say guys???specs of Abhay isn't bad either.but hope it'll not be too heavy.

 

[Killswitch]

The Abhay was just a tech demonstrator.

The BMP 3 is dated and does not meet requirements.

I think the private companies will be able to win this tender.