Indian Army’s $15 Billion Infantry Combat Vehicle Program Deadline Extended

[Zarvan]

Tata FICV model at Defexpo 2011

The deadline for Indian Army’s INR 1 Trillion (USD 15 billion) Future Infantry Combat Vehicle (FICV) program has been extended for 10 Indian companies to submit project reports.

The earlier deadline of Oct 15 to submit expression of interest for the FICV project has been extended by three months and the new deadline will be 15 January 2016 at the request of several participating companies seeking clarification on the program, Janes quoted an unnamed official source as saying Monday.

They demanded additional details on forming joint ventures or consortia with foreign original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to design and build 2,610 FICVs to replace the Indian Army's fleet of Soviet-era BMP-1 and BMP-2s.

The Indian Army had issued a Request for Information (RFI) in June 2015 to design and develop a new generation combat vehicle platform called the Future Ready Combat Vehicle (FRCV).

The RFI is for the development of a base platform for the Main Battle Tank which is planned to replace the existing T-72 tanks in the Armored Corps. It is also planned to subsequently develop other need-based variants on this platform.

There was speculation that the FICV program had been abandoned following the issue of an RFI for the future ready combat vehicle (FRCV) a fortnight ago. The FRCV program proposes the design and development of a modular system of vehicles to replace the T-72 tanks and spawn a host of variants including an armored fighting vehicle. Tata Motors is one of several Indian and foreign countries invited by Vehicle Research & Development Establishment (VRDE) to co-develop chassis, propulsion unit and weapon system for a wheeled armored amphibious platform under the FICV (wheeled) program.

Indian Army’s $15 Billion Infantry Combat Vehicle Program Deadline Extended

 

[Omega007]

Tata FICV model at Defexpo 2011

The deadline for Indian Army’s INR 1 Trillion (USD 15 billion) Future Infantry Combat Vehicle (FICV) program has been extended for 10 Indian companies to submit project reports.

The earlier deadline of Oct 15 to submit expression of interest for the FICV project has been extended by three months and the new deadline will be 15 January 2016 at the request of several participating companies seeking clarification on the program, Janes quoted an unnamed official source as saying Monday.

They demanded additional details on forming joint ventures or consortia with foreign original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to design and build 2,610 FICVs to replace the Indian Army's fleet of Soviet-era BMP-1 and BMP-2s.

The Indian Army had issued a Request for Information (RFI) in June 2015 to design and develop a new generation combat vehicle platform called the Future Ready Combat Vehicle (FRCV).

The RFI is for the development of a base platform for the Main Battle Tank which is planned to replace the existing T-72 tanks in the Armored Corps. It is also planned to subsequently develop other need-based variants on this platform.

There was speculation that the FICV program had been abandoned following the issue of an RFI for the future ready combat vehicle (FRCV) a fortnight ago. The FRCV program proposes the design and development of a modular system of vehicles to replace the T-72 tanks and spawn a host of variants including an armored fighting vehicle. Tata Motors is one of several Indian and foreign countries invited by Vehicle Research & Development Establishment (VRDE) to co-develop chassis, propulsion unit and weapon system for a wheeled armored amphibious platform under the FICV (wheeled) program.

Indian Army’s $15 Billion Infantry Combat Vehicle Program Deadline Extended

Yeh toh honai tha,koi tajjob nehi.Akhir aisa bullshiit RFI file karangey,toh isse alag aur kya honga??In my opinion,they should take the Arjun's hull,shift the engine to the front to place the back doors and put an appropriate turret with a modified L70 gun,a FN MAG 58 co axial mg,two twin flame launchers for ATGM (one on each side of the turret) and a roof mounted RCWS with a 12.7mm NSV and a 30mm AGL.This should give it enough firepower to give effective fire-support to its dismounts.What do you think @Abingdonboy ??

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

I think this is a waste of time tender,what crucial technology leap will a new FICV have that upgraded bmp-2s with kornet won't?No new IFV's should be procured on large scale until we find a common armor vehicle platform similar to
armata for both tanks and IFV.
Instead funds should be diverted to priority projects - like assault rifles and Future infantry soldier programme .This is because IFV are only large scale war use weapons,and also of little use in chinese border and in any case the difference between new IFV and upgraded bmp-2s is marginal for such a huge 15 billion dollar order,on the other hand our troops are fighting with obsolete infantry gear and suffering casualities everyday and need new equipment asap.
Priority right now is infantry,artillery and air defence.Artillery and air defence is getting a move on atleast finally.

 

[Omega007]

I think this is a waste of time tender,what crucial technology leap will a new FICV have that upgraded bmp-2s with kornet won't?No new IFV's should be procured on large scale until we find a common armor vehicle platform similar to
armata for both tanks and IFV..

Check out my above post.

 

[Abingdonboy]

I think this is a waste of time tender,what crucial technology leap will a new FICV have that upgraded bmp-2s with kornet won't?

The BMP-2s (upgraded or not) are thin-skinned,outdated, death traps. The entire doctrine (Russian surprise attack on Western Europe) that lead to their design and production is no longer relevant in the 21st century.

No doubt that any vehicle made today would better this design and offer far greater levels of utility to the IA.

No new IFV's should be procured on large scale until we find a common armor vehicle platform similar to
armata for both tanks and IFV.

I'm not so sure on this "family" concept. A jack of all trades and a master of none is what this sounds like- the F-35 by another name. The Russians have hardly proven the Armata is the way forward. What is wrong with specialisation?

Priority right now is infantry,artillery and air defence.Artillery and air defence is getting a move on atleast finally.

Not going to argue with this but that doesn't mean the groundwork can't be done for the FICV (trails and such).

 

[Providence]

After being a part of lot of contract signing process among B2B companies (none in defence though) I can tell with utmost surety that the **** ups during evaluation of bids is no one in the govt want to own up the entire process. What is lacking is a ownership at a mid-manager/bureaucrat level. Also bidding and tendering process although looks very innocuous at the outset have a lot of disadvantages.

Any one with a half assed knowledge in game theory can tell you that.

 

[saurav]

whats wrong with TATA's ? Why again this L1 drama ?

 

[Abingdonboy]

whats wrong with TATA's ? Why again this L1 drama ?

What L1 drama? What is TATA doing wrong?

 

[saurav]

What L1 drama? What is TATA doing wrong?

I was referring to TATA's ICV. When a prototype is ready for testing, why go for a new RFI to select L1 vendor..

 

[Abingdonboy]

I was referring to TATA's ICV. When a prototype is ready for testing, why go for a new RFI to select L1 vendor..

How is TATA's ICV ready? By what measure? And you can't simply go for a single vendor purchase what kind of president does that set? I can hear the media storm and calls of "crony capitalism" right now....


In a government procurement an open tender with multiple contenders is the preferred route for multiple reasons- this is the case worldwide.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

The BMP-2s (upgraded or not) are thin-skinned,outdated, death traps. The entire doctrine (Russian surprise attack on Western Europe) that lead to their design and production is no longer relevant in the 21st century.

No doubt that any vehicle made today would better this design and offer far greater levels of utility to the IA.



I'm not so sure on this "family" concept. A jack of all trades and a master of none is what this sounds like- the F-35 by another name. The Russians have hardly proven the Armata is the way forward. What is wrong with specialisation?
.

I doubt there is any 'safe' IFV in service atm,any ATGM/new RPG that kills bmp-2 will kill new IFV too.And with kornet upgrade and 30 mm,bmp-2 is moderately well armed.I think 15 billion is way too high for marginal increase in capability.

 

[Abingdonboy]

I doubt there is any 'safe' IFV in service atm,any ATGM/new RPG that kills bmp-2 will kill new IFV too.

Many of the modern heavyweight IFVs are extremely well protected and will top an RPG (thanks to ER armour and "hard kill" systems).

.I think 15 billion is way too high for marginal increase in capability.

You pay peanuts and you get monkeys as the saying goes. For the numbers the IA is looking to procure it is a reasonable figure, that too given the fact this area has been neglected for decades.


The BMP-2 will be a looming weak-link in the IA's offensive capabilities for as long as it exists in service- no matter how well upgraded it is. At this point it is nothing but polishing a t*rd.

 

[saurav]

How is TATA's ICV ready? By what measure? And you can't simply go for a single vendor purchase what kind of president does that set? I can hear the media storm and calls of "crony capitalism" right now....


In a government procurement an open tender with multiple contenders is the preferred route for multiple reasons- this is the case worldwide.

Single vendor ? TATA has developed this with DRDO and is ready for Testing. This tender will add at least 2-3 years to this process. RFI is good if that was the intention.

 

[Abingdonboy]

Single vendor ? TATA has developed this with DRDO and is ready for Testing. This tender will add at least 2-3 years to this process. RFI is good if that was the intention.

The Kestrel was developed with DRDO entirely separately to the FICV process, it is important to de-link the two.

 

[Omega007]

The Kestrel was developed with DRDO entirely separately to the FICV process, it is important to de-link the two.

True.Besides,Kestrel is not even an ICV as per se.It's more like a rather well armed APC.

The BMP-2s (upgraded or not) are thin-skinned,outdated, death traps. The entire doctrine (Russian surprise attack on Western Europe) that lead to their design and production is no longer relevant in the 21st century.

True to an extent,although it could be up armored to a certain level as a temporary measure,before the next generation ICVs become operational.

No doubt that any vehicle made today would better this design and offer far greater levels of utility to the IA.

True again.

I'm not so sure on this "family" concept. A jack of all trades and a master of none is what this sounds like- the F-35 by another name. The Russians have hardly proven the Armata is the way forward. What is wrong with specialisation?

The 'family' concept, as you put it,is not necessarily a bad thing actually.I mean,suppose you can design a plethora of armored vehicles like an ARV,an ICV,an APC,an urban tank support vehicle on the line of the BMPT Terminator,a mobile air defence vehicle,a mobile command vehicle and an MBT - all of these sharing the same basic hull design!!Just imagine,by how much factor it will ease up the logistical trails and there by reducing the procurement and servicing costs!!Give it a thought for a moment.