What's new

Indian army $10-bn combat vehicle order!!!

The army specified the FICV to be no more than 24 ton,that means they want a heavy ICV unlike the present 12 ton BMP2s.So the ICVs should be equipped with 105 mm guns instead of 40mm guns roof mounted ATGM launchers,coaxial GPMG and a turret mounted HMG.This combo will make the FICV one of the most heavily armed ICV in the world.
REGARDS.....
 
.
Broadsword: Indian industry at landmark defence tender

Indian industry at landmark defence tender


Companies to compete, US-style, to develop armoured carriers for army

By Ajai Shukla
Business Standard, 9th Aug 01

India’s defence industry is poised at a landmark. On the 25th of August, four Indian companies --- three private and one public --- will submit bids in the MoD’s first-ever “Indian industry only” competition to develop a high-tech weapon system for the defence forces.

The four companies --- Tata Motors; the Mahindra Group; L&T; and the MoD-owned Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) --- are competing to design and build 2600 new-generation Future Infantry Combat Vehicles (F-ICVs) to replace the Indian Army’s aging fleet of Russian-designed BMP-IIs. In an American-style showdown, two of these vendors will be nominated to develop a prototype each and the winning design selected for the F-ICV.

While the cost of developing and manufacturing 2600 FICVs can only be roughly estimated, senior executives from two of the competing companies say that the bill could add up to Rs 50,000 crores. This will make it India’s most expensive defence contract so far.

Infantry Combat Vehicles (ICVs) are lightly armoured, highly mobile, tracked vehicles that look like small tanks. Travelling deep into enemy territory alongside tank columns, each ICV carries 7-8 infantry soldiers. These jawans, once dismounted, physically occupy and defend captured territory until the slower-moving infantry divisions can catch up with the strike formations.

The MoD will fund 80% of the cost of developing the FICV; the selected contractor will pay just 20%. It has been mandated that the FICV must have an indigenous content of at least 50%. With a development time of 7-8 years, the FICV should be ready by 2018.

This indigenous development of an FICV has been enabled by the Defence Procurement Procedure of 2008 (DPP-2008), which lays down a “Make” procedure for developing “high-tech, complex systems” through Indian industry. Following this procedure, the MoD surveyed private and public industry to zero in on potential contractors. The four companies identified were then issued with an Expression of Interest (EoI), which listed out the capabilities that the army expected from the FICV. Sources familiar with the EoI say that the FICV will be operated by 3 crewmembers, and carry 7 additional soldiers with combat loads; it must provide protection from bullets fired by 14.5 millimetre calibre weapons; it must be amphibious, i.e. capable of floating in water; it must be air-transportable, which would imply a maximum weight of 18-20 tonnes; and it must have a cannon and be capable of firing anti-tank missiles.

In their responses to the EoI on 25th August, each of the four competitors will detail their proposal for developing the FICV; the key project milestones; the estimated capital expenditure; the technology they will include and how that will be developed or purchased; and the minimum order that they would need to set up a financially viable production line.

Those responses will be evaluated by the MoD’s Integrated Project Management Team (IPMT), which will select two contractors. Over a fixed number of years the two contractors will develop their respective FICV prototypes. The Indian Army will select the better of the two by carrying out field trials.

But this is not a winner-take-all competition. Since the MoD wants to retain two production lines, the winner will be given 65-70% of the order; the runner-up will build 30-35% of the army’s requirement of FICVs, provided that company agrees to build the winning design at the same cost as the winner.

With two assembly lines operating, India’s private defence players expect that the FICV contract will create an eco-system of suppliers extending far beyond the winner of the contract. Brig Khutab Hai, who heads the Mahindra Group’s defence business, says, “The FICV project will be a huge boost to the Indian defence industry in R&D, manufacture, and in developing Tier-1 and Tier-2 suppliers from the small and medium sector industries.”

This MoD attempt to harness private contractors is backstopped by the public sector: the Defence R&D Organisation (DRDO) believes that it will be approached for key technologies; and the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB), which manufactures the BMP-II at Medak, in Andhra Pradesh, for production assistance.

At least two of the private contractors believe that it would be wasteful to set up a Greenfield production line. Says a senior executive in one of the contending companies, “Ordnance Factory, Medak is a national asset and it would be lying idle at that time. We could build the FICV at Medak --- on a Government-Owned-Company-Operated (GOCO) basis --- instead of setting up a brand new facility.”
 
.
FICV.jpg
 
.
Excellent.

Similar strategy should be adopted for other hitech systems but I am not sure if private Indian players would be capable of doing it.

Fighters is one such example.
 
.
Excellent.

Similar strategy should be adopted for other hitech systems but I am not sure if private Indian players would be capable of doing it.

Fighters is one such example.

I know for a fact that Godrej and Boyce has an aerospace division at Mumbai which is not openly known to the public.
My friend worked there and he told me a select few engineers were working on missiles system components as well as some components for ISRO.
I'm sure they have the capability to work on fighters as well.
As far as the combat vehicles are concerned light armored vehicles like Marksman and Sherpa seem to be plenty in number around us. The learning and development curve for this category may not be as high as seen in Tejas and Arjun.
 
.
I know for a fact that Godrej and Boyce has an aerospace division at Mumbai which is not openly known to the public.
My friend worked there and he told me a select few engineers were working on missiles system components as well as some components for ISRO.
I'm sure they have the capability to work on fighters as well.
As far as the combat vehicles are concerned light armored vehicles like Marksman and Sherpa seem to be plenty in number around us. The learning and development curve for this category may not be as high as seen in Tejas and Arjun.

Mahindra has aerospace ops as well.

But having aerospace labs and ops dosent mean they can work on the most cutting edge tech i the industry bcoz thats what you require if you plan to indegeniously work on modern fighter jets.
 
.
@Vibs

Godrej has been supplying components to ISRO for years now..Its really amusing to see the difference of approach between DRDO and ISRO and this,perhaps is the reason for their success also..
 
.
Mahindra has aerospace ops as well.

But having aerospace labs and ops dosent mean they can work on the most cutting edge tech i the industry bcoz thats what you require if you plan to indegeniously work on modern fighter jets.

Actually I'd trust G&B,Tata Aerospace and M&M to acquire state of the art tech if they feel the govt. will let them manufacture jets. In India HAL provides a design as per specification which may be rejected and reworked a number of times. Incase private players are involved (like in US/Russia) multiple firms will present their own interpretation of the requirements sent accelerating the learning curve for the industry as a whole. Even those who are rejected for IAF can garner revenue through sales to other countries. Plus the design could serve as a base for the next generation of aircraft. Thats how Boeing, Dassault and Lockheed Martin have advanced and India needs something similar.
 
.
@Vibs

Godrej has been supplying components to ISRO for years now..Its really amusing to see the difference of approach between DRDO and ISRO and this,perhaps is the reason for their success also..

I agree. But my friend did mention missile components. And I know of G&B engineers being sent to Israel for training. I would suspect that's the DRDO. Notice the increase in the frequency of missile developement and testing over the last decade?
 
.
In my view MoD should have told the DRDO to develop and design the FICV because they have got a massive experience in developing tracked armor vehicles. After the army accept it then private companies would manufacture them.By doing so we could gurantee that the FICV would be one of the best,high quantity of indigenous components and manufacturing by private companies would ensure that quality is not compromised because in past so many times due to the incompitence of public ordnance factories DRDO was condamned for which they were not guilty.
But giving the whole development work to the inexperienced private companies have a huge risk.The contract says the companies can use upto 50% foreign components and they will definately exploit it.Besides there is no guarantee that they won't mess it up.Till now they don't have any expertise needed to develop such complex military hardwares.So in my view MoD should have left the development works with DRDO.
REGARDS....
 
.
I agree. But my friend did mention missile components. And I know of G&B engineers being sent to Israel for training. I would suspect that's the DRDO. Notice the increase in the frequency of missile developement and testing over the last decade?

Yes sir..I know.. But such secret matters are never publicized ..
 
.
Actually I'd trust G&B,Tata Aerospace and M&M to acquire state of the art tech if they feel the govt. will let them manufacture jets. In India HAL provides a design as per specification which may be rejected and reworked a number of times. Incase private players are involved (like in US/Russia) multiple firms will present their own interpretation of the requirements sent accelerating the learning curve for the industry as a whole. Even those who are rejected for IAF can garner revenue through sales to other countries. Plus the design could serve as a base for the next generation of aircraft. Thats how Boeing, Dassault and Lockheed Martin have advanced and India needs something similar.

HAL does not design aircrafts(except LCH),the ADE does.HAL is an umbrella of several manufacturing facilities.Even for the private players it will be very much dificult to develop a worldclass fighter from scratch simply because they don't have any expertise.So development work should be left with ADE and other DRDO labs,private companies should manufacture them under licence.

REGARDS....
 
.
HAL does not design aircrafts(except LCH),the ADE does.HAL is an umbrella of several manufacturing facilities.Even for the private players it will be very much dificult to develop a worldclass fighter from scratch simply because they don't have any expertise.So development work should be left with ADE and other DRDO labs,private companies should manufacture them under licence.

REGARDS....

Drawing a parallel to a different industry to give an indication of how the govt. is thinking. I worked with two of the metro projects coming up (Bangalore and Hyderabad). The model is Indian companies or Indian subsidaries of foreign companies are allowed to bid for tender and start supplying coaches from their factories abroad in semi-built condition and finally assembled at a local factory (eg.BEML-Rotem in Bangalore). They are given deadlines to develop local vendors who can then in the future provide the base for indegenious coach designs.
The same was the criteria for the MMRCA (although a little modified) when they spoke of ToT. The intent is simple. Do not reinvent the wheel. Take expertise from outside and develop local private players. Build their base strong enough to go for complete indegenization in the future. So they won't be manufacturing the jet from scratch per say.
 
.
Drawing a parallel to a different industry to give an indication of how the govt. is thinking. I worked with two of the metro projects coming up (Bangalore and Hyderabad). The model is Indian companies or Indian subsidaries of foreign companies are allowed to bid for tender and start supplying coaches from their factories abroad in semi-built condition and finally assembled at a local factory (eg.BEML-Rotem in Bangalore). They are given deadlines to develop local vendors who can then in the future provide the base for indegenious coach designs.
The same was the criteria for the MMRCA (although a little modified) when they spoke of ToT. The intent is simple. Do not reinvent the wheel. Take expertise from outside and develop local private players. Build their base strong enough to go for complete indegenization in the future. So they won't be manufacturing the jet from scratch per say.
Not a single private company in india has developed an ICV,so there is a big chance that they will out source all the critical systems and the aim of indigenisation will not be achieved.But DRDO has gained plenty of knowledge regrading tracked armored vehicles through developing the Arjun mbt and Abahay ICV prototype.So they can now develop a fully indigenous ICV in lesser time which will be comparable to the best in the world.Example-Arjun mk2 ready within 1 year from clearing of the project and with the full 94 upgrades will come in top 5 tanks in the world.That's all what I was trying to say.Let the private companies to manufacture instead of public ordnance factories for better quality control but leave the development work solely on DRDO.
REGARDS....
 
.
In my view MoD should have told the DRDO to develop and design the FICV because they have got a massive experience in developing tracked armor vehicles. After the army accept it then private companies would manufacture them.By doing so we could gurantee that the FICV would be one of the best,high quantity of indigenous components and manufacturing by private companies would ensure that quality is not compromised because in past so many times due to the incompitence of public ordnance factories DRDO was condamned for which they were not guilty.
But giving the whole development work to the inexperienced private companies have a huge risk.The contract says the companies can use upto 50% foreign components and they will definately exploit it.Besides there is no guarantee that they won't mess it up.Till now they don't have any expertise needed to develop such complex military hardwares.So in my view MoD should have left the development works with DRDO.
REGARDS....

Not necessary. The private companies do the development at their own risk. There maybe more than one way to bell the cat. These are not small companies btw. They are huge companies whose ability to hire the best talent in the world is not fettered unlike the DRDO. The DRDO is not the sole repository of intelligence. While much of the flak they have receive may have not been solely their fault, the DRDO has been proven to take on more projects than they can handle. If they want to compete, let them. The competition must be however kept open so that India gets the benefit. TATA, L&T & Mahindra are all vastly experienced companies with a wealth of knowledge. What they don't have can always be bought. It is time we stopped spoon feeding every little thing.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom