Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15472
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 21 Mar 2010 07:09

quote: "somnath":


The biggest reason probably though is the fact that neither the govt, nor the Indian Army really thinks that a large scale armour battle is redundant in the threat scenario faced by India...The Cold Start literature is reasonably unanimous on the following axioms:

1. Quick mobilisation
2. No objective of capturing and holding large swathes of real estate
3. "Overwhelming" firepower
4. "Limited", focused objectives of destroying Pak military capacities


One must also wonder towards the progress in implementing a realistic way to enable Cold Start, thanks to glacial pace in artillery modernisation and inducting much needed capabilities, such as thermal imager for bulk of tank fleet.

"To me, and I am repeating myself, there is no value add in the ongoing "tu tu main main" on Arjun, neither for DRDO , nor for the IA, nor for arm chair generals...DRDO should pronto get into a discussion on the FMBT with the Army...Get someone like Ashok Leyland or Tata Motors as partners on day 1 - preferably keep Avadi out completely to build credibility with the Army...In fact nothing stops Tata Motors from acquiring Rhinemetall itself in case the project is large enough!!!that way the lessons and key tech from Arjun can be deployed fruitfully...Else, T90 will be followed in due course by T95, or T-105, who knows?

Why would the FMBT or any MBT program be any different from the Arjun program given the deficiencies in the Army's GSQR development process (clearly noted above), inability to prioritize essential features (see above), doctrinal issues (east tanks versus west tanks), lack of a dedicated weapons development organization. Tendency to place piecemeal orders (again noted above), limits private sector involvement as well.

Quote "putnanja": "Else the army will come up asking for all features of western tanks in a T-90 sized tank. Better get it done through Russian companies. They will also not have to worry about logistics then"

Unbelievable set of things asked for as part of recent exercises in armour development, by the Army. While there is practically no movement whatsoever from ages on essentials such as, FCS with night fighting capability for T-72s.

somnath
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3416
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: Singapore

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby somnath » 21 Mar 2010 07:31

Mrinalji,

There are vast gaps in force levels in lots of other areas as well - starting with not having enough BPJs! Thats not the point..The point simply is that the IA (at least to me) seems to favour rapidly building up numbers of a known platform so that they can ensure a sort of "firepower gap" with the Pakis...T90 does not need any new inputs in terms of training, doctrinal developments, logistics train, and the opposition is anyway another T72 clone, so why bother? Especially because a large scale armour battle across the Thar seems ever more remote..I am not necessarily defending the mindset, simply trying to understand it..

the point on the FMBT is to start on a clean slate...Given the experience gained by all parties in the Arjun saga, everyone concerned would be approaching this (hopefully) with greater clarity and maturity..And it will not have the (egos and organsiational) baggage of Arjun...

Putnanja ji, the Avadi question is very moot..It has an expecially pathetic record of handling any project that it has over the years...And it is a HUGE factor in the Army's recalcitrance over the Arjun (after all, on T90, it can always be imported, arjun cannot)...Therefore getting a Tata Motors will immediately signal an intent to break from the past...And the Tatas wont have to make major investments till the design is accepted by the Army, so it would be only glad to play ball...A project like this will overniht create a military industrial business for them if it goes through...

negi
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 12913
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Trying to mellow down :)

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby negi » 21 Mar 2010 07:31

somnath wrote:In these scenarios, maybe a new tank doctrine is now considered too much of a pain to bother about....The army is interested in quickly mobilising - given that the T90 is so similar to T72, the existing logistics chain would perhaps be more suited..Large increase in firepower - that in our context would be a function of numbers, and there is greater certainty on building up numbers through the known Russian devil than the unknown (or very bitterly known) Avadi with Arjun....This is especially true as Pakistan is not bringing to bear the sort of situational awareness capabilities or firepower that the Americans did against the Iraqis - our biggest weapon against them would be overhwlem them simply with numbers..Last, and probably most important, the war is expected to end pretty quickly, within 5-7 days...What sort of tank battles can we envisage within those time frames? Pretty small ones, I would hazard..In which case, why bother with a brand new tank with new doctrinal requirements and an unreliable supplier?

Ok so now suddenly Cold Start is being used to support the T-90 , fair enough.

But then how come out of the blue this need for FMBT ? Specially when there is no indication of TSP and Chicom moving on to some revolutionary platform as far as armor is concerned , why this sudden pragmatism (for a change) ?

And fwiw IA's Cold Start is built around its MBT fleet and not the other way round so quoting buzzwords like Clod Start here does not make any sense , it could have been devised around Arjun too for as COAS once said "We will fight with what we have".

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6210
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby nachiket » 21 Mar 2010 07:49

negi wrote:But then how come out of the blue this need for FMBT ? Specially when there is no indication of TSP and Chicom moving on to some revolutionary platform as far as armor is concerned , why this sudden pragmatism (for a change) ?



Check the specs of the Type-99A2. It is a 58 tonne tank with a 1500hp engine which would put it in Arjun's class although it still uses Russian style 125mm gun. It will wipe the floor with the T-90 if things come to a head. Which is why the Army's decision to go with the T-90 is even more surprising.

somnath
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3416
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: Singapore

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby somnath » 21 Mar 2010 08:02

negi wrote:Ok so now suddenly Cold Start is being used to support the T-90 , fair enough.

But then how come out of the blue this need for FMBT ? Specially when there is no indication of TSP and Chicom moving on to some revolutionary platform as far as armor is concerned , why this sudden pragmatism (for a change) ?

And fwiw IA's Cold Start is built around its MBT fleet and not the other way round so quoting buzzwords like Clod Start here does not make any sense , it could have been devised around Arjun too for as COAS once said "We will fight with what we have".


To start with, I am not defending the Army's position vis a vis the Arjun here, only trying to understand the background of why things have to come to this pass..

But allusion to the Cold start is not about quoting a buzzword...While I agree that doctrines and capabilities are intermeshed - at all times, one can lead to another in no particular defined sequence, the question here is of threat scenarios, established doctrine and a new equipment fit...

The Cold Start is not so much an enunciation of a great new doctrine as it is a recognition of the strategic scenario...Short "window" for mobilisation, short war fighting timeframes, and absllutely no strategic objective to capture or hold enemy real estate in any large measure...In such a scenario, the Army feels that its objectives today will be met by a T90/72 type tank inducted in large numbers with souped up capabilities...Therefore to undergo a transformation in everything to induct Arjun is a waste of time, not forgetting the big Avadi variable...

About FMBT, well, the key word is "future"..Its about the Army asking for a tank of tomorrow...For all we know, that tank might also be a "light weight" T72 class tank...Just because its named FMBT doesnt mean that it has to be a 60 ton beast, it can well be a new concept within the 45 ton class...I am not prejudging what it will be - dpeends on what we think Pakis will be inducting among various other things..But it can use key tech spinoffs from the Arjun and build an indigeneous beast afresh..

I am myself a sceptic on the ability/willingness of militaries to undertake revolutionary changes organically...But "evn" the IA seems to be changing for the better...If Ajai Shukla's rfecent Nag article is true, seems that IA will be going about evolving a doctrine around a type of platform that does not fit into its current model at all..I am still a sceptic - that article used a slightly dated piece of info to infer soemthing bigger - but if its true , things are changing for the better!

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15472
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 21 Mar 2010 08:14

quote:Somnath

"Mrinalji,

There are vast gaps in force levels in lots of other areas as well - starting with not having enough BPJs! Thats not the point..The point simply is that the IA (at least to me) seems to favour rapidly building up numbers of a known platform so that they can ensure a sort of "firepower gap" with the Pakis...T90 does not need any new inputs in terms of training, doctrinal developments, logistics train, and the opposition is anyway another T72 clone, so why bother? Especially because a large scale armour battle across the Thar seems ever more remote..I am not necessarily defending the mindset, simply trying to understand it..


Sir,

The issue is whether the egg comes first or does the chicken. Was cold start even decided when the t-90 acquisition was mooted and then decided upon. Also the T-90 would require significant new training - new FCS, Electronics, new engine, transmission. It is WIP tank that will take more time to properely understand and utilize. Problem is that key issues are not resolved such as its operation of TI in extended periods, and hatch down operations, so how can it support Cold Start. Can we request Pakistan that we will fight only after sunset, in 1-2 hours where TI will work? You see the problem, here.


the point on the FMBT is to start on a clean slate...Given the experience gained by all parties in the Arjun saga, everyone concerned would be approaching this (hopefully) with greater clarity and maturity..And it will not have the (egos and organsiational) baggage of Arjun...

But, unless the basic issues mentioned previously are resolved, the same problems that affected Arjun will affect this program. There is not even acceptance by DGMF Army that a structural deficit exists in terms of handling projects of this nature and something should be done to remedy before next program is launched.

Putnanja ji, the Avadi question is very moot..It has an expecially pathetic record of handling any project that it has over the years...And it is a HUGE factor in the Army's recalcitrance over the Arjun (after all, on T90, it can always be imported, arjun cannot)...Therefore getting a Tata Motors will immediately signal an intent to break from the past...And the Tatas wont have to make major investments till the design is accepted by the Army, so it would be only glad to play ball...A project like this will overniht create a military industrial business for them if it goes through...

How much of this "pathetic record" is because of the fact Avadi has been tasked to make tanks like T-72 and T-90 which do not come with proper design drawings, TOT and what was promised. One clear thing that is evident from multiple records of assembly and overhaul, is the lack of requisite assembly items in a timely fashion, which are not there because they are being indigenized with problems of setting up production or even developing items.

Now the question is, why is this having to be done with such pain, if the Russians had kept their share of bargain in first place? If they point out that the agreement did not bear all these features, what did the Indian Army do, with such an agreement and why is it cutting so many corners to favour a vendor in such a situation.

I am not anti Russia (Sukhoi deal was a big success) but the T-90 procurement is not a good case.

Now we are learning via the media that Russians have not done their share in TOT of T-90 as well for whatever reason, so the so-called License manufacture of tank never took off. We then gave the next 347 tank order as a further reward, and have asked DRDO to develop/collaborate in T-90 armour in hush hush manner, which it has done. So the Indian agency which cuts its teeth on Arjun project is made to salvage a rival and this is not even publicized (for what reason but to avoid offending Russia which may be even harder on us).

The point is this is becoming a herculean task by itself, which takes away the aspect of quick induction, rapid combat boost, mature product inducted and operationalized quickly (since it is not mature)

Consider things which have to be done - still - to make this tank T-90 fully combat operational and sustainable in Army ecosystem:

1. Electronics issues. Advanced electronics cannot be added to tank without significant engineering as heat will increase. Airconditioning to be added which will most probably have to be custom developed for this tank, as existing ones failed. Till this is achieved, even thermal imager reliability is suspect. Managing high wastage rate in exercises, peace is one thing, but in battle?

2. Training issues: Tank: T-90 live fire cannot use Indian ammo as Russians did not give us purpose developed ballistic computer able to accomodate our ammunition. The Indian Army forgot to ask for this. Now we are waiting for TATA to do this. Even so, this signifies another planning issue from Army end. How many more of these will be apparent over project lifespan, as we "learn" about this tank and discover other gaps.

3. Further upgrades: Talk of Arena system, implying that current tank is not proof enough, but that Army employed accounting tactics to keep base price low and keep adding add-ons. Again, more dependence on Russian supply, indigenization without their assistance will be hard.

4. Spares production - with TOT haggling from Russia, when will this stabilize?

I am afraid, this is not just an overnight boost to our capability. That is only going to happen if we purchase all 1700 tanks from Russia, and that too accept heavy attrition at wartime thanks to operational deficiencies in tank equipment.

The other problem is the hype about Cold Start has alerted Pakistan, which will do its best to implement countermeasures. What happens to issues with the T-90 upgrade then, to keep apace in rapid manner. I am afraid, that aspect too has not been well thought out.

I am myself a sceptic on the ability/willingness of militaries to undertake revolutionary changes organically...But "evn" the IA seems to be changing for the better...If Ajai Shukla's rfecent Nag article is true, seems that IA will be going about evolving a doctrine around a type of platform that does not fit into its current model at all..I am still a sceptic - that article used a slightly dated piece of info to infer soemthing bigger - but if its true , things are changing for the better!


Yes there is Nag, there are other items like ALH but there is also the Arjun. Issue is the Army does not have consistent structure and systems in place to lead weapons development, and so far record of Armoured Corps and DGMF in this aspect has been singularly ineffective. This does not bode well for FMBT.

I am afraid we tend to get happy when the next "big thing" is launched, but given how the Arjun has been handled, there is every chance that the FMBT may be handled the same way.

Also, if the FMBT is to be nothing but a locally modified new Russian super tank, I do not know what to say.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 21 Mar 2010 08:30

Somnath,

That is an interesting thought.

Quantity over quality.

I am not too aware of the production time that will be required to churn out adequate number of Arjuns for the new raisings and also for replacement of the depleting fleet.

So, maybe to fill the void in the interim, to have T 90 may have been a thought out plan of action to keep the IBGs and other Armoured Formations battle ready.

In fact, in the magazine Purple Beret, which is a magazine published by senior retired military officers about various aspects of the military as is current as also of the families, there was an interesting article on the Defence Expo. There was an interview with Admiral Walter Doran (incidentally he had done the Stafff College Course with me) who is Raytheon's Asia head, Doran stated that Raytheon was upgrading 1000 x T72s. The upgrades will enable the tanks to operate at night and other systems such as commanders and gunners sights and the computer system and its ability to search, scan and identify targets. The IA has also shown interest for upgrading BMPs.

It does indicate that efforts are being made to keep the forces as 'current' as feasible so that we fight with what we have. And also fill the void in the interim till the Arjun rolls in with the requisite numbers.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7533
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Gerard » 21 Mar 2010 08:34

Star Trek-style force-field armour being developed by UK military scientists
When a threat from incoming fire is detected by the vehicle, the energy stored in the supercapacitor can be rapidly dumped onto the metal plating on the outside of the vehicle, producing a strong electromagnetic field. Scientists behind the project claim this would produce a momentary "force field" capable of repelling the incoming rounds and projectiles.
At a test in 2002, senior British Army officers saw the chassis of a Warrior infantry carrier, which was fitted with the early electric armour, survive repeated attack by RPGs before being driven away with only minor damage.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby chackojoseph » 21 Mar 2010 08:35

Self Deleted, purpose over.
Last edited by chackojoseph on 21 Mar 2010 09:37, edited 1 time in total.

vasu_ray
BRFite
Posts: 550
Joined: 30 Nov 2008 01:06

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby vasu_ray » 21 Mar 2010 08:36

Indian railways uses a lot of shunting locomotives, perhaps the engines of T-72 which aren't battle worthy anymore can be sold to the railways

the turrets also can be reused on the sorely missed light weight howitzers perhaps that are air transportable (just a thought)

Arjun engine and transmission manufacture should be done by private sector and commonality should be maintained with railway locomotives, Avadi can keep assembling

whether its locally assembled T-90's or Arjuns or small hp rail locomotives, assembly lines for these engines should keep rolling for private sector to get its ROI

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 21 Mar 2010 08:46

chackojoseph wrote:
I did immediately in your yahoo.co.uk mail. Can you check?


You have got mail!

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 21 Mar 2010 08:53

The Pakistanis use discarded turrets of tanks with minor modification as 'pill boxes' on the DCB. Very ingenuous and effective too.

Jagan
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3037
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Earth @ Google.com
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Jagan » 21 Mar 2010 09:02

RayC wrote:The Pakistanis use discarded turrets of tanks with minor modification as 'pill boxes' on the DCB. Very ingenuous and effective too.


How are they powered? Generators?

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 21 Mar 2010 09:06

Jagan wrote:
RayC wrote:The Pakistanis use discarded turrets of tanks with minor modification as 'pill boxes' on the DCB. Very ingenuous and effective too.


How are they powered? Generators?


No.

They are just like the concrete pillboxes which are flushed into the DCB. The turret pillboxes are overground and so the situational awareness is more. Because of the armour, arty shelling will not effect, except maybe a direct Medium shell hit; Or tank fire and A Tk wpns.

Putting to good use what would be disposed as junk!

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby chackojoseph » 21 Mar 2010 09:51

RayC wrote:It does indicate that efforts are being made to keep the forces as 'current' as feasible so that we fight with what we have. And also fill the void in the interim till the Arjun rolls in with the requisite numbers.


:lol: No comments.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21824
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 21 Mar 2010 10:31

Rahul and everybody ,we may passionately discuss about Arjun and the kind of injustice it has met with all odds stack against it but lets be clear

1 ) The induction of Arjun and its mark derivative depends on decision taken by Army and GOI , the GOI has to abide by what Army says and thinks its final opinion on the subject , at the same time it will want to reward DRDO for its work on Arjun.

2 ) We may see Arjun beyond 124 in various mark version , if it makes it to mark 2 , makr 3 derivative its good for DRDO and its morale , if it does not go beyond 124 mark 1 its not the end of world for DRDO , they can learn from the past mistakes and move on with FMBT.

3 ) Since the Army has decided that 1,500 plus T-90 Bhishma will be its MBT then so be it , the IA known the pros or cons of 45T T-90 and why it suits its operational doctrine better than 60T Arjun , if some one here thinks it has a weak armour and is vulnerable to ATGM the Army knows that quite well and still thinks T-90 is good for them in the limited Tank warfare game if that ever takes place.

4 ) Apparently no one in GOI/IA takes a decision on Arjun or T-90 based on what BRF "Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread" has to say , though there are some good points that come up during such discussion , but its just of academic value and does not influence GOI/MOD decision.

5 ) If DRDO does not manages to sell more Arjun for what ever reason , a smart move to check mate future failures is to co-develop FMBT with another partner.

There are always regrets in life and one has to live with it and move on , globally too specially in US there are projects that gets cancelled due to funding issue or because its no more relevant to the armed forces , they have learnt to accept that as part of risk associated with project development and move on.

Russia has already offered India such a proposal and its better to co-develop , mainly to make sure that the FMBT Project team does not have to constantly worry about developing Tank that meets the need of constantly changing GSQR and worry if FMBT meets similar fate as Arjun , its a smart way to mitigate risk and check mate the army and focus on product development and delivery schedule. Looking at the success of Brahmos .DRDO must learn to beat the Army in its own game , instead of stubbornly pursuing its own agenda which does not bear fruit and looses good will within the Army.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21824
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 21 Mar 2010 10:46

The T-90 too has seen some evolutionary upgrades and chances are much of that upgrade will see its way in IA Bhishma program , considering the scale of the program now under works ~ 1600 T-90 :shock: thats probably the largest number of tank that any country is planning the build in coming decade.

Here is one T-90M from Igor blog T-90M
Translated Russian link

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16410
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: woh log gawad hai, unpad hai !
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 21 Mar 2010 10:51

for the last time, it is not DRDO's project, arjun follows army's GSQR to the T. secondly, forget arjun-T-90, none of MOD/GOI decisions are taken depending on BRF, we all know that and still have this forum. :wink: so that's a non-issue IMHO.

it will not make it to Mk2 or Mk3 or whatever because as of now those are nothing but buzzwords created by some people in the armoured forces to induce scope creep and scuttle the project, not for the first time either. till now we don't see *any* serious attempt from the army to actually initiate development of a better arjun. when the DGMF says that arjun is obsolete and goes on to induct a much inferior 60's design tank, the attitudes are laid bare.

if the arjun is capped at this number, as seems likely, DRDO will be better off shutting down CVRDE or selling it to some pvt co. let IA depend on their beloved russian firetraps till eternity if they so want. the public money can be put to better use developing systems for services that actually know what they want (as against those that want whatever the russians are having) like the IN, IAF and sections of IA.

btw saying "it's the army's decision" is not an argument to end all arguments, it frequently so happens that forces make the wrong decision and are forced by the govt into certain ways. IAF was vehemently opposed to the mig-21 acquisition, it wanted western fighters until it was forced by the govt. same with the T-72, IA was not at all in favour of the tank initially. looking outside India, the first tank was thrust upon an extremely reluctant UK armed forces by winston churchill. quite clearly, army knows best is not an argument, although it is used as an argument killer.

also, why on earth should we launch a JV with russia in a field where we already have enough expertise having created a superior tank to their latest creation, not to mention that their operational requirements are quite different from our own ?

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16410
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: woh log gawad hai, unpad hai !
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 21 Mar 2010 10:52

Austin wrote:Here is one T-90M from Igor blog T-90M
Translated Russian link

hey, why are you posting a blog post ? I thought anything other than parliamentary declarations by the RM was unacceptable ? :twisted: :P

somnath
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3416
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: Singapore

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby somnath » 21 Mar 2010 11:20

Mrinal ji,

I wasnot suggesting that Cold Start was the motivator for the T90 acquisition..Most of us know that story well - Pakis had inducted T84, Arjun wasnt ready, so T90 was the stop gap, being pretty much the only game in town! The allusion to Cold Start is about its construct in articulating our threat perceptions and military scenarios..In them, a large, or long drawn, tank battle across the thar is ruled out....If the idea is to have greater firepower, inducting a MarkII of the T72 in large numbers is easiest on the "system", isnt it? owsoever much more training T90's electronics etc might need, Arjun would require a completel different armoured corps philosophy and doctrine, and seems that the IA doesnt feel the need for it..

Avadi's dismal record cannot be only the result of Russian perfidies, real and imagined...We have been operating T72s for 30 years - they still dont know enough about the tank to churn out modest upgrades in reasonable numbers? The initial batch of T90s were supposed to be simply screw drivered by Avadi, none of the major ToT issues were relevant there...Even that ran into delays....

And quite frankly, the comparison of "parts" (TI camera, air conditioning, auto loader etc) between Arjun and T90 really does not throw any light on the issue...If the Army thinks that a heavy tank with larger silhouette does not fit the bill in its current infrasturctuire and threat perceptions, thats about it really...Rest of the discussion becomes academic...Unless the civvie establishment pushes it down the Army's throat...

That is why I think DRDO should be engaging IA on the FMBT right now...In case they are just fibbing about the size/weight issues, the initial discussions on the FMBT will lay it bare...And if they genuinely think that a smaller/lighter tank is what is required for India, the FMBT should also be that...It wont make it a "modified Russian product" at all...

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16410
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: woh log gawad hai, unpad hai !
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 21 Mar 2010 11:41

HVF's avadi's reputation is poor from the pre-T-72 days, there was massive (and legitimate) angst in the army regarding its shoddy manufacturing of the vijayanta tanks.

negi
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 12913
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Trying to mellow down :)

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby negi » 21 Mar 2010 11:44

^ Avadi is a common denominator as far as Arjun and T-90 are concerned so why even consider it ? And the license production of T-72 or any RU imports will continue to run into issues any where in globe for those chaps follow completely different standards right from bolts,screws to even conventions for basic electrical connections .

The point about lower silhouette and weight is now being raised to justify the T-90 acquisition , for if these were indeed critical to IA's operational requirements they would have been a part of GSQR around which Arjun was made .

Btw in IRAQ M1 Abrams successfully took out T-72 at ranges upto 3 km on several occasions and a Chally-2 boasts of a kill over 5km (longest tank-tank kill till date) , I assume with modern thermal imagers , gun sight , ballistic computer accompanied with modern sabots and guns would only improve upon above numbers .

Let us not even talk about FMBT as of now.
Last edited by negi on 21 Mar 2010 11:51, edited 1 time in total.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby chackojoseph » 21 Mar 2010 11:51

somnath wrote:Mrinal ji,

Pakis had inducted T84, Arjun wasnt ready, so T90 was the stop gap,


:roll: Wrong. Arjun Was ready.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16410
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: woh log gawad hai, unpad hai !
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 21 Mar 2010 11:57

negi sahab, my point about HVF was not in support of using it as a support for the T-90 fiasco in anyway. if avadi is a problem, (it is IMO) alternatives and walk-arounds are always available, especially with the current state of Indian pvt industry.

simply put, why can't the pinaka model be applied to it ?

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby chackojoseph » 21 Mar 2010 12:05

Rahul M,

With T-90, Avadi was getting rushed into producing certain Generals pipe dream. Don't blame Avadi. Skill and manpower shortages are well known.

Arjun Tank is a project that Avadi never did before, i,e, they were handed over the drawings, trained and asked to make it. Entirely new concept for them. Thats what they practically found out. Once they got into rythm, there is no place to store the tanks they produced.

T-72 was CKD/SKD assembling and gradual ToT.

You can understand that Avadi is also the victim of Army attitude.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16410
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: woh log gawad hai, unpad hai !
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 21 Mar 2010 12:08

chacko, I was talking of the vijayanta tank which in general had very poor manufacturing quality leading to considerable maintenance headaches.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby chackojoseph » 21 Mar 2010 12:14

Right!

My intention was to show what happened the latest.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 21 Mar 2010 12:20

chackojoseph wrote:Rahul M,

With T-90, Avadi was getting rushed into producing certain Generals pipe dream. Don't blame Avadi. Skill and manpower shortages are well known.

Arjun Tank is a project that Avadi never did before, i,e, they were handed over the drawings, trained and asked to make it. Entirely new concept for them. Thats what they practically found out. Once they got into rythm, there is no place to store the tanks they produced.

T-72 was CKD/SKD assembling and gradual ToT.

You can understand that Avadi is also the victim of Army attitude.


A few years back, tanks were sent to Avadi for overhaul and refit. We know the story of how good it was done, wherein in had to be taken back again.

Since you know people, just go and ask Lt Gen Jat Verma.

I have visited Avadi myself. Good for photo op! :rotfl:
Last edited by RayC on 21 Mar 2010 12:25, edited 1 time in total.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 21 Mar 2010 12:25

Avadi

Note BMP 3 is a JV with Russia.

Clever thinking!

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16410
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: woh log gawad hai, unpad hai !
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 21 Mar 2010 12:33

it's wrong info. BMP-3 was rejected by IA and was never produced in India. there was a proposal to modernise BMP-2's by mating BMP-3's turret to it but it never materialised.

VRDE has developed an ICV called abhay to replace the BMP's in due time, although one wonders if the army is interested in an Indian product.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 21 Mar 2010 12:40

[quote="Rahul M"]

Gajraj is an Indian product?

Cosmetic changes are good, but the skeleton remains videshi!

Your bias against the Army is very pronounced and is so evident. You have the temerity to call the Indian Army dumb or words to that effect.

I daresay that you are sole authority on earth to comment so glibly as you have done so far.

Do you understand tactics? So you understand the terrain? Have you any inkling of the op doctrines?

May I request you to gather yourself and since you are Mod, please be more restrained in comments.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16410
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: woh log gawad hai, unpad hai !
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 21 Mar 2010 12:42

:roll:

somnath
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3416
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: Singapore

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby somnath » 21 Mar 2010 13:09

negi wrote:^ Avadi is a common denominator as far as Arjun and T-90 are concerned so why even consider it ? And the license production of T-72 or any RU imports will continue to run into issues any where in globe for those chaps follow completely different standards right from bolts,screws to even conventions for basic electrical connections .

The point about lower silhouette and weight is now being raised to justify the T-90 acquisition , for if these were indeed critical to IA's operational requirements they would have been a part of GSQR around which Arjun was made .

Btw in IRAQ M1 Abrams successfully took out T-72 at ranges upto 3 km on several occasions and a Chally-2 boasts of a kill over 5km (longest tank-tank kill till date) , I assume with modern thermal imagers , gun sight , ballistic computer accompanied with modern sabots and guns would only improve upon above numbers .

Let us not even talk about FMBT as of now.


Negi saab, to start with, Avadi is not as big a factor with the T90 as it is with Arjun - in case they goof up on the former, there is always Nizhny Tagril to turn to to fill up the numbers, for Arjun, they are basically it!! And that is a big factor IMO in the Army's thinking...

But your (and many others') point on Army's GSQR is very moot - obvioulsy GSQR management is something that IA learnt the hard way in the last couple of decades...The initial GSQRs might well have been put down as a response to a reported Paki acquisition of the M1 (Gen Zia's last act in office was to view a demo of the M1!)...Over the years, that "threat" didnt materialise, and possibly the Army itself realised the infrastructural/logisitical challenges of a heavier tank..Its a fair point you are making actually, but for the DRDO (and Arjun lovers), it earns nothing but brownie points...

The point of GWI and II, made repeatedly, by you and others on the other hand, is not so simple though IMHO..It presumes that in modern warfare, a tank squares off against anotehr tank in a sort of a duel...Its a system that comes into play, not a piece of equipment..By that logic, even Russian aircraft operated by the Iraqis performed very poorly against Coalition aircraft - should we then banish Russian aircraft as well and plump for Western stuff only? Neither are Indians operating T72s Iraqis, nor are our adversaries Amercican/British forces with the sort of situational awareness and firepower and above all, materiel resupply capabilities that Pakistan can think only in their dreams....

These things dont work acording to plan always in any case...Merkava is the most "armoured" piece of beast in the world, custom made by Israel due to its unique needs...Israeli armoured forces didnt really cover themselves in glory in the last couple of campaigns did they? And they were facing precisely the sort of general threats that the Merkava has been designed for (ATGMs, RPGs, IEDs etc)...

So its a bit of a simplistic fallacy to conclude that a "heavier", western design tank is the "best solution...

chackojoseph wrote:
:roll: Wrong. Arjun Was ready.


Joseph saab, well thats news then, we were still reading of engine related problems at that time..In any case even if it were, was Avadi ready to deliver 200 odd nos in short time?
Forget T90, Avadi has been machining T72s for 30 years and still cant handle modest upgrade programmes on them...they are a scam, like the OFB....At least on this count, I wont blame the IA...

The FMBT is very important to carry on the Arjun legacy..And I wont be surprised if India's FMBT is a "lighter tank", of the 45-50 ton class...the lessons in Kanchan armour, electronics, BMS can be utilised there...And DRDO can do nothing better than pro bono say that the manufacturing will be handled by a Tata Motors or M&M....A production run of 1500 tanks would be business of 30k crores (assuming 20 crores/tank)..Enough for the Tatas to acquire even a Mannesmann or a Rhinemtall in case that adds value..

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 21 Mar 2010 13:24

Fine.

Let us assume that the T 90 is a lemon, gentlemen. Arjun is a great tank (which most do not deny and rightly so, if one goes by technical specifications and more).

Let us assume that the Arjun passes muster. Good.

Now how long will it take to have it mass produced to replace the depleting tank strength and for new raisings? (I say this since many are indicating they have 'inside' info).

What is to be done in the interim to fill the vacuum, lest our adversary desire to embark on an 'adventure'?

With the current tanks and their state, will the casualties be any less than having T 90s?

Have you heard any complaints or breast beating that the IA is woefully handicapped in any of the wars we fought? IA is not BA (British Airways)! As the ex Chief said - we fight with what we have.

What makes people like Rahul and others feel that the Army wants the worst and damn the lives of the uniformed men? Am I to understand that Army men are ready to accept utter nonsense? And that we don't care to have a modicum of security to our lives? True, we are not afflicted with the bodybag syndrome, but we are human. We also want to live. Yet, we understand what the nation can give and what it can't. If we did not know that, then we would have done a Musharraf. That such a thing has not happened, thank Heavens that our uniformed people are mature and understand the compulsions of the Nation!

Thus, in the interim T 90 is not the best, but best what money can buy rather than be totally at the mercy of Pakistan!

Our employment of troops is better. We overcome the shortcomings with tactics and better understanding our equipment and hence we have won all wars so far!

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 21 Mar 2010 13:38

Since I find there are great tacticians of Armoured Warfare, and such learned folks, let us have their views as to what is the tactics involved in such a war.

Of course, one could google, but let us have it in the Indo Pak context.

I would be grateful since I could write a paper based on such inputs and pass it to my peers for their professional comments since I am sure armchair fantasies will not match professional inputs!

I am sure they (the learned men here and of Hindoostan) understand the intermediate and terminal objectives and so on and so forth and more so, the the terrain and the opposition to such objectives and how they shall be overcomed.

No vague English. Merely brasstacks so that I can learn.

I might as well add that I don't visit the 'Future Scenarios' except when I feel down and out and want to see a Tom and Jerry show.

It is just like that article appended in some thread that the Chinese can come down and capture the 16 miles corridor in West Bengal wherein the Seven Sisters i.e. the NE is isolated!!

It is as easy as the posts that advocate that Central Asia is connected once we capture Pak Occupied Kashmir.

Indeed, if things were so easy as gazing at a map and dreaming, then India must be stupid to not have done so!

Drake he's in his hammock and a thousand miles away,
Captain, art thou sleeping there below?

Slung atween the round shot in Nombre Dios Bay,
And dreaming all the time of Plymouth Hoe.
Yonder looms the Island, yonder lie the ships,
With sailor-lads a-dancing heel-an'-toe,
And the shore-lights flashing, and the night-tide dashing,
He sees it all so plainly as he saw it long ago
.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2925
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Kanson » 21 Mar 2010 14:00

somnath wrote:obvioulsy GSQR management is something that IA learnt the hard way in the last couple of decades...


learnt ?

:D You must be kidding there right?

Until recently to the cancellation of artillery tender due to the ubiquitous RFP framed by the Army, I dont see any learning, let alone in armour division...

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 21 Mar 2010 14:07

Rahul M wrote::roll:


I have no quibbles with you at all.

All I would appreciate is that you establish your credentials to indicate that the are more intelligent and wiser than those you call as 'dumb'.

If you prove so, I will not complain. I sure find it unfair that a person who has not interacted with the Army (maybe flying visits) to abuse and demean a set of otherwise intelligent people as dumb. Isn't it great that such dumb men have protected you so that you can sleep well at night? Dumb were they? You remind of the saying in Few Good Men! Am I outraged? You bet I am.

Will I report, no we have been taught in my school to take things on ourselves and not 'sneak'!

I raise this issue since it indicates that one is on a sticky wicket and so one is being offensive and demeaning a set of people without proof and using the Mod cover to whitewash his irrationality and rather unbecoming conduct for a Mod.

And then justifying the good old Gurdial, no longer on earth as the same Gurdial now in DRDO!

Christ! to what length one can go to prove a point!
Last edited by RayC on 21 Mar 2010 14:33, edited 1 time in total.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2925
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Kanson » 21 Mar 2010 14:10

Thus, in the interim T 90 is not the best, but best what money can buy rather than be totally at the mercy of Pakistan!


huh! During Op. Parakram which tank faced the Pakistani Armour, T-72? or T-90?

What is that super duper qualitites so visible in T-90 that needed against Pakistan T-80 and why not an upgraded T-72 match the Paki T-80? Thermal sights, FCS, Reactive Armour, egnine can be upgraded in T-72 as shown in Tank Ex to match the T-80. If the T-90 purchase is interim then why not T-72 upgrd in terms of Tank Ex or the original russian T-72 upgrad proposal ?

Tactics are deterimed not only by the terrian, situation but also by the equipment. Based on hit-survival, Arjun provides for more option and intiative than hit avoidance strategy of T-XX series tank.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 21 Mar 2010 14:11

Kanson wrote:
Thus, in the interim T 90 is not the best, but best what money can buy rather than be totally at the mercy of Pakistan!


huh! During Op. Parakram which tank faced the Pakistani Armour, T-72? or T-90?

What is that super duper qualitites so visible in T-90 that needed against Pakistan T-80 and why not an upgraded T-72 match the Paki T-80? Thermal sights, FCS, Reactive Armour, egnine can be upgraded in T-72 as shown in Tank Ex to match the T-80. If the T-90 purchase is interim then why not T-72 upgrd in terms of Tank Ex or the original russian T-72 upgrad proposal ?

Tactics are deterimed not only by the terrian, situation but also by the equipment. Based on hit-survival, Arjun provides for more option and intiative than hit avoidance strategy of T-XX series tank.


You tell me since you know so much.

Would it be better than nothing was there to combat the Pakistanis if the push came to shove?

Upgrading is like pulling a rabbit out of a hat? Instantaneous? Harry Potter at his best? Which world do you live in?

Read my stuff on upgrading T 72 by Raytheon?

Equipment matters, upgrading is not instantaneous and magical, it takes time but then tactics is more important. Tactics has proved itself in all the wars.

As the saying goes - man behind the machine!

Heard of Assal Uttar? Imagine Shermans against Pattons, the then most world class tank!

Heard of the Viet Cong?

Since you appear to be an expert to state that terrain and situation does not matter, would be good enough to let us know why the US, with all the best equipment in the world is floundering against the rag tag Taliban in Afghanistan?

somnath
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3416
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: Singapore

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby somnath » 21 Mar 2010 14:30

Kanson wrote:huh! During Op. Parakram which tank faced the Pakistani Armour, T-72? or T-90?

What is that super duper qualitites so visible in T-90 that needed against Pakistan T-80 and why not an upgraded T-72 match the Paki T-80? Thermal sights, FCS, Reactive Armour, egnine can be upgraded in T-72 as shown in Tank Ex to match the T-80. If the T-90 purchase is interim then why not T-72 upgrd in terms of Tank Ex or the original russian T-72 upgrad proposal ?

Tactics are deterimed not only by the terrian, situation but also by the equipment. Based on hit-survival, Arjun provides for more option and intiative than hit avoidance strategy of T-XX series tank.


Kanson saab, the T90s were induected during Op Parakram..In fact the first tanks were rushed to the frontlines in a hurry, precisely because the IA felt it needed someting more than the T72s it had...Obviously Arjun was not a viable option at that time..and yes, even then some people, including former PM Deve Gowda had argued that an upgraded T72 would be cheaper and deliver the same functionality...I guess upgrading an existing tank by shipping it off to Russia is more complicated and time consuming than simply buying a new one off the assembly line...Also, the IA obviously liked what they saw in T90 for the follow on orders to come through..


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests