In India, they talked about the parameters of the modernization of the BMP-2 after the abandonment of the FICV armored car program

In India, they recalled the problems that arose with the project to create the latest infantry fighting vehicle for the needs of the Indian army. We are talking about the project FICV (Future Infantry Combat Vehicle), which received approval in 2008. Based on this project, it was planned to put into the armed forces of the country 2610 latest armored vehicles, which were designed to replace the Russian (Soviet) BMP-2 (2K) (in the Indian version - Sarath). The first deliveries of FICV were scheduled for 2022.

But in the end, the project failed. And the Indian command had no choice but to implement the idea of ​​updating the BMP-2 and the purchase of additional armored vehicles of this nature. In particular, they are talking about signing a contract for the purchase of 156 modernized BMP-2, the manufacturer of which is the company in Medak, previously specialized in the production of ammunition. This despite the fact that in 2018 in India, it was planned to attract private companies to the project - TATA and Mahindras.

In total, in India it was decided to modernize 1600 BMP-2. Of these, 640 infantry fighting vehicles are still planning to be modernized at private industrial facilities.

What are the options for modernization?

It is noted that the armored vehicles will receive new control systems, Kornet-E anti-tank missile systems, and new-generation night-vision devices. It is planned to make changes to the protection system.

Retired Indian Officer Brig Bhatia:

BMP-2 infantry fighting vehicle is an extremely powerful platform that is the basis of the Indian Army mechanized infantry battalions. It can be used as a fire support vehicle, as ambulance armored vehicles in a wide variety of ways. This is a universal platform that allows you to extend its service life. It is great for quick maneuvers in battle conditions, to overcome water barriers. It is lightweight, which allows for its transfer, including by air.

It is known that the production of the first batch of modernized armored vehicles in the amount of 156 units will cost 11 billion rupees. These are impressive funds - about 64 million rubles per unit.

Video about 2 BMP-2018 Sarath:

Comments

[rocket757]

Best the enemy of the good! Moreover, this best still needs to be CREATED!

[Civil]

Without gun stabilization - so-so modernization.

[rocket757]

A good artillery module is well worth the money ... we decided that it would do. Besides a question, and they release good modules ??? or again on the side of buying?
They have another bzik, release \ use their own!

[Kuroneko]

Quote: rocket757

They have another bzik, release \ use their own!

And why, as you put it, they have this "quirk", dear? On the contrary, the desire to develop their own technologies and production is more than commendable for any country, who wants to be at least something of herself on the world stage and not be in the role of an eternal cash cow, willingly unfastening someone else’s uncle money for any equipment is more complicated than a boiler.

[rocket757]

No problem. Let them start and do.
The process must be started and not interrupted in any way.

[orionvitt]

Quote: Kuroneko

why, as you put it, they have this "quirk"

Because, as history shows, all attempts by the Hindus to develop their weapons systems usually turn into "folk dances". They talk for a long time, then with fanfare they make statements about their own developments. And in the end, they announce a competition for the purchase of weapons abroad.

[Alex777]

IMHO because of COVID-19 they have a budget reduction.
Therefore, not the purchase of a new one, but as it is.

[orionvitt]

Quote: Alex777

Therefore, not the purchase of a new one, but as it is.

I don't understand the general skepticism. BMP-2, as a platform, is very successful. Upgrade electronics, and there will be a completely modern car. Some "especially gifted", of course, shout that this is a "mass grave", a tin, but it was designed as a lightly armored combat vehicle. Even an ultra-modern tank, with all the bells and whistles and excellent armor, in the presence of a competent enemy and with a successful hit, turns into a "mass grave". So, the BMP-2 will still serve.

[Alex777]

Did I even say something against the BMP-2?
I'm talking about my favorite Indian dances with tambourines.

[orionvitt]

Quote: Alex777

Did I even say something against the BMP-2?

And I didn't say anything about you. Analyzing past publications on VO on the topic of old Soviet infantry fighting vehicles, I spoke about widespread skepticism and "especially literate" ones, who either have the wrong armor, or the fuel tanks in the wrong place and further point by point. If you saw a hint at your own expense, then I apologize.

[Blackgrifon]

Quote: orionvitt

Upgrade the electronics, and there will be a completely modern machine.

Perhaps the best modification was proposed, perhaps, only by Czechs - increasing security, improving ergonomics, weapons, surveillance devices, etc. But the price is probably like the new one. It was possible to follow the BMP-2M variant from the Kurgan people - armament and armored screens with gratings. By the way, judge by public procurement for our BMP-2 and 3 MOs I finally ordered additional armor.

[orionvitt]

Quote: Blackgrifon

for our BMP-2 and 3 MO finally ordered additional armor.

Fraught with loss of buoyancy. These are the Americans on their "Bradley", they can hang as much as they like in terms of additional protection, so they don't care, he never swam with them.

[Blackgrifon]

Quote: orionvitt

It is fraught with loss of buoyancy.

Not a great loss.

[orionvitt]

Quote: Blackgrifon

Not a great loss.

If in the desert, then yes. But Soviet infantry fighting vehicles were created primarily for military operations in Europe, where there are many rivers and lakes. A floating combat vehicle is always preferable.

[Blackgrifon]

Quote: orionvitt

If in the desert, then yes. But Soviet infantry fighting vehicles were created primarily for military operations in Europe, where there are many rivers and lakes.

But, please, don't repeat these myths about "police wars" and "desert".

Floating infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers were created, of course, for Europe, but back in Afghanistan, it turned out that the BMP does not hold 7,62 mm in a circle and have been used on land for almost their entire career. And BMPs and armored personnel carriers, as you no doubt know, are called upon not only to carry l / s, but also to participate in the battle (I suppress possible arguments that "armored personnel carriers do not fight", let me remind you that according to tactics and regulations they are still fighting). Yes, and there are problems with the transportation of l / s - the living conditions for crews and troops in our vehicles (BMP-1/2 and BTR-60/70/80) are far from ergonomic.

Moreover, I strongly doubt that one can cite at least a few cases when a battalion of land explorers was forced to use the BMP / BTR buoyancy in combat (and we are talking about all the floating army armored infantry fighting vehicles of all manufacturers and operators). I know only one example - the IDF raid through the Suez Canal on trophy floating BBMs (and even there the Egyptians did not impede the crossing). You can recall the Egyptian breakthrough through the S. channel - but inflatable boats and pontoons were massively used there.
In other cases, the use was limited to a platoon company and was not accompanied by direct combat contact. And then, even a floating BBM (BMP-1/2/3, BTR-60/70/80) must be preliminarily trained.

We’re going further, let’s say your battalion moved to the other bank of the river without pontoons and a bridge, but what about the delivery of b / p, fuel and medicines? And the same pontoon crossings are far from possible everywhere (much depends on the coast). Artillery, too, you know, does not swim.

So it turns out that for the sake of a situation when in fact buoyancy is applicable only in exceptional cases and only to a limited number of equipment the more important component suffers - security.

[orionvitt]

Quote: Blackgrifon

In other cases, the use was limited to a platoon company and was not accompanied by direct combat contact.

This is because there has not been such tension since the Second World War. It is enough to recall how the American amphibians based on cars were the help in the last period of the war, for the Red Army. But they were generally without weapons.

Let's say your battalion moved to the other bank of the river without pontoons and a bridge, but what about the delivery of b / p, fuel and medicines?

All this has already happened in our history. It’s easy to imagine in what conditions our forces crossed the Dnieper, captured bridgeheads and all this with the help of improvised means, this is a feat. And nothing, because it turned out.

in fact, buoyancy is applicable only in the exclusion of cases

I already wrote above that yes, in the desert, buoyancy is not needed for nothing. But Indonesia and Malaysia, for example, think quite differently. There, our BMPs to the yard and even the old BTR-50 and PT-76 are still very happy. But they are "a hundred years old at lunchtime," and nothing.

[Blackgrifon]

You forget that the main objective of the BMP / BTR is the safe transportation of personnel and fire support. Our Soviet-made armored combat vehicles without additional protection with safe transportation (if we still forget about ergonomics) can not cope.
Buoyancy is not even secondary, but in comparison with the possibility of transporting railway and air transport, a third-rate ability.

Quote: orionvitt

This is because there has not been such tension since the Second World War.

Korean War, Arab-Israeli War, Iran-Iraq War, Indo-Pakistani War. You can also recall the Border War and the Somali-Ethiopian War. All these conflicts are quite comparable and were accompanied by the massive use of armored vehicles, aircraft and manpower. And in none of them the general buoyancy of armored vehicles did not show itself. This despite the fact that the Iran-Iraq war was directly related to the crossings through the water artery and the battles in the marshy area. I have already said above about the Arab-Israeli wars, and I am generally silent about Hindu wars.

Quote: orionvitt

All this has already happened in our history. It’s easy to imagine in what conditions our forces crossed the Dnieper, captured bridgeheads and all this with the help of improvised means, this is a feat. And nothing, because it turned out.

The problem is that when crossing the Dnieper there was essentially no crossing means - they had to be made on the spot. And full-fledged crossings began to induce already after the seizure of bridgeheads. And already in Germany and Poland, in spite of the insufficiency of crossing facilities, the troops were already successfully crossing rivers and rivers (fortunately, engineers and pontoons were not far behind and promptly sent crossings).

Returning to the logistics - even after crossing the BMP / BTR, they cannot move forward until supply vehicles, artillery, and other parts get to the shore.

Quote: orionvitt

But for example, Indonesia and Malaysia

Comrade The geography of Indonesia and Malaysia is somewhat different from the geography of the Russian Plain.
At the same time, Indonesia uses not the "naked" BMP-1/2 and BTR-60/70/80, but the BMP-3, which holds 12,7 mm in a circle (i.e. it is already protected from the main caliber of most light armored vehicles and the most large small arms). And the Malaysian BMPs are far from made of wood :)

The presence of floating equipment is good, but it is fundamentally wrong to consider that buoyancy should be provided at the cost of BBM security (i.e., one of the main characteristics of the machine).
In principle, if it is impossible to provide good protection during buoyancy, then it is necessary to strengthen the pontoon-engineering units with amphibious armored vehicles with special construction equipment. It will be more efficient and cheaper.

[Hermann]

Quote: Civil

Without gun stabilization - so-so modernization.

BMP-2 always had a steelizer.

[Mavrikiy]

Quote: rocket757

Best the enemy of the good! Moreover, this best still needs to be CREATED!

I agree. Reliable and maintainable, well, the highlight is the combat capabilities of the equipment. Let it taste better with a national touch. If only they would not oversalt.

[rocket757]

You can also destroy Soviet technology ... but you still have to try it.
In general, they themselves, especially those with a mustache, per capita, much more than ours.

[Karaul73]

Well, a very funny movie! It was as if in childhood he had been watching a disco dancer. Indians are able to take a picture.

[hagen]

I watched the video ... Touched, as the shooter under fire "enemy" crawls out of the hatch behind the mech-water and runs to tear off the landing doors !!! And the landing "under fire" sits humbly awaiting their fate. Did you try to jump out yourself? I remember that when we were young, in winter gear, we loaded and unloaded in BMP-1/2 in 7-9 seconds with the whole platoon.

[svp67]

Quote: Hagen

mililo, like a shooter under fire from the "enemy" crawls out of the hatch behind the mech-water and runs to tear off the landing doors!

Actually, this is the Branch Commander, this is his full-time place there ... so he asks for his soldiers, but really funny.
We would now push into their market "BMP-3" Dragoon "and wheeled BMP K-17" Boomerang ", it would be very profitable for us.
And on the issue of upgrading the BMP-2 fleet, you will have to fight very hard against the very Israel, which is very well promoting its services in this direction

[Hermann]

The position of the compartment commander at BMP-2 in the tower is at BMP-1 behind the mech-water.

[svp67]

Quote: Herman

The commander’s position at the BMP-2 in the tower,

And where is the BM commander? There is such a position there, the crew is THREE people

[Hermann]

Quote: svp67

Quote: Herman

The commander’s position at the BMP-2 in the tower,

And where is the BM commander? There is such a position there, the crew is THREE people

The squad commander - the commander of a combat vehicle is one and the same position, he dismounts from the tower in this case the gunner remains for the senior.
At least we had it, but the states are different, somewhere it might be as you say.

[hagen]

Quote: svp67

Actually, this is the Branch Commander

This is actually a BMP-2

[cormorant]

Judging by the video, if they really were going to fight like that, they have no chance against the Chinese.

[malyvalv]

We even worked out the loading technique to meet the norm. The first dived into the landing fish, the machine on the floor, the second also dived. While the third came in, the first two released a piece of the seat so that the fourth sat down. The fourth was the healthiest. He had to open and close the door.

[Vitaly Tsymbal]

Cool movie !!! The text can not be read. Especially the infantry To our "Soyuzmultfilm" at Holywood, as grandfather Lenin said: to study military science in a real way.

[carnifexx]

I am always so moved by everything that the Indians shoot. These are their branded slowmo wherever and scrolling on acceleration, well, the action itself "plunging into the thick of the event"

[Mavrikiy]

put in the armed forces of the country 2610 latest armored vehicles that were called to replace Russian (Soviet)

I agree, there is an equivalent replacement.

In total, in India it was decided to modernize 1600 BMP-2

And the loot is whole and national capacities are loaded, and the country's defense capability will rise to an unattainable height.

[Free wind]

And why this grenade launcher runs with an empty pipe, it’s clear well that it is always empty, they all landed together, while they ran to the bunker two times, they waited for him.

[Vasyan1971]

2 BMP-2018 Sarath video

Vidyuha is conceived, especially from 2min.50sec.!

[Yrec]

Hmm, like it or not, but a boot is more reliable in battle.

[Zaurbek]

Berezh put?

[cat Rusich]

About the video. The zampolites of the Indian army removed the "spirit-lifting agitroller". Maybe the bunker had to be suppressed by an ATGM from a high-explosive warhead right away ... or from a 30-mm cannon from afar? Can the BMP-2 be used with tanks that will suppress such firing points with their guns from a distance? However, Indian generals know better, the number of ground forces of the Indian army is 1 bayonets ...

[Kaw]

We need to offer our Kurgan and boomerangs to them. Perhaps after that they will appear in our army.