Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

niran
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5443
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 16:01

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby niran » 27 Apr 2010 17:17

Sanku wrote:Well folks, decide between yourself whether army knows best or not. You guys cant have it both ways. :P


no, it is not "IA knows best" it is IA perceived the need and ordered as per the need.
this could be correct perception or incorrect perception, but that is entirely different
mater, so i digress.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 27 Apr 2010 17:19

vina wrote:It really came down to "fashion" in the 70s , with the percieved need to fire rockets, not really technical merits/demerits of conventional rounds in rifled vs smooth bore, where rifled will easily in the majority of cases.


Chalo, I will take your word for it for the moment. (You have not mentioned logistics though based on all reports, in general Rifled do need more maintenance) However, the fact of the matter is ALL the world is smooth bore now. ALL.

India is also smooth bore (Arjun is still up in the air as to what it will be like) what next? I say lets also go smooth bore if we can leverage the ammo for T 90 or ammo for other systems (from Israel say)

As per available gyan no extra advantage is seen purely between a 120 rifled canon compared to what a 125 mm Indian canon should have)

And good exercise in developing canons in general too (which I think should anyway be done)

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby vina » 27 Apr 2010 17:37

Austin wrote:The T-90ME has already been demonstrated to Putina in Dec 2009 as per Igor Blog

http://igorrgroup.blogspot.com/2009/12/t-90me.html

Now the T-90ME is ok but what we need to look is Russian standard 'Burlak' program, that is the gold standard T-90 , I hope the MOD has been briefed on the Burlak program.


Riiight. The T-90S we got doesn't cut the mustard , so we need to look at a future variant that will address the weakness of the current one, while in the interim, we continue building a 1000 of the T-90S tin cans , even though we have a better home grown tank called the Arjun, that can tie the future "Burlak" up in Burlap as of now.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 27 Apr 2010 17:45

Austin wrote:
The T-90ME has already been demonstrated to Putina in Dec 2009 as per Igor Blog

http://igorrgroup.blogspot.com/2009/12/t-90me.html

Now the T-90ME is ok but what we need to look is Russian standard 'Burlak' program, that is the gold standard T-90 , I hope the MOD has been briefed on the Burlak program.


Oh and what great credibility that source ( a blog at that)!!!!

Seriously!!! The improved crap is going to right our decision to buy the bad crap???

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 27 Apr 2010 18:16

vina wrote:
Austin wrote:The T-90ME has already been demonstrated to Putina in Dec 2009 as per Igor Blog

http://igorrgroup.blogspot.com/2009/12/t-90me.html

Now the T-90ME is ok but what we need to look is Russian standard 'Burlak' program, that is the gold standard T-90 , I hope the MOD has been briefed on the Burlak program.


Riiight. The T-90S we got doesn't cut the mustard , so we need to look at a future variant that will address the weakness of the current one, while in the interim, we continue building a 1000 of the T-90S tin cans , even though we have a better home grown tank called the Arjun, that can tie the future "Burlak" up in Burlap as of now.


Well I think T-90 Bishma is a good buy and the numbers they bought it was sensible thing to do with TOT , now if you can make it better over all via T-90M and still better via Burlak then why not , there is lot of space considering the numbers in the pipe like to get a mark 2 and mark 3 variant of T-90.

Oh and what great credibility that source ( a blog at that)!!!!

Seriously!!! The improved crap is going to right our decision to buy the bad crap???


Surely I agree any Blog is not a very reliable source but with 1650+ T-90 there is room to improve to keep the T-90 fighting fit and current till 2040.

The good T-90 Bishma simply gets better with Burlak.

The key thing I want to see is to indigenous it 100 % as it moves from Bishma to Burlak with addition of Indian sourced component added as much as possible like ERA or TI ,Ammo or Electronics to move towards maximum standardization possible across all tanks simplifying logistics and cost effectiveness in the end.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7737
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 27 Apr 2010 18:30

Accepted, my only question is the Gun change also happening? At least a Gun control seems to be in pipeline.


The planned upgrade consists of the following (from Ajai Shukla's blog):

--New 1000-horsepower engines (identical to the T-90 tank) to replace the T-72’s old 780 horsepower engines. The cost of each engine: Rs 3 crores.

--Thermal Imaging Fire Control Systems (TIFCS) that will allow the T-72 gunners to observe, and fight at night. Each TIFCS will cost Rs 1.4 crores.

--Thermal Imaging (TI) sights to provide T-72 tank commanders with night vision. Each TI sight costs Rs 0.4 crores.

--An auxillary power unit (APU) to generate power for the tank’s electrical systems. Each APU will cost Rs 0.16 crores.


Again fully accepted. The question was could the T 90 system be retrofitted to T 72s? Is it being?



Can the Indian smooth bore canon handle that kind of Ammo even with manual loader? (A two step load?) If so isnt commonality achieved?


And what will it gain by doing so? Commonality for the sake of it? And btw, the new additional autoloader on T-90M uses unitary rounds. Tomorrow, if the T-90M makes it to IA Service, what kind of situation would be in?

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby negi » 27 Apr 2010 18:38

Sanku maharaaj do some reham on us;

The only hold out was Britian with its Great Britannia complex which also gave up on rifled guns 10 years back.
but NO the great Arjun MUST ONLY have RIFLED GUNS.
:eek:

So now all you got is to raise this rifled gun issue and that too by twisting facts ? Chally-2 first tested the smooth bore L55 only in 2006 . And the latest news is the upgrade programme is still in WIP mode .

Accuracy , lethality and finally the Armour protection are by far more important parameters when compared to the wear and tear of the gun finally do you have the numbers for how many rounds per barrel for 2A46M vs the Arjun's main gun before they are replaced ?

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1302
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RKumar » 27 Apr 2010 18:43

Sanku wrote:
RKumar wrote:BTW who is opposing meaningful changes??? IA induct it at least 500-1000 tanks as Mk1 then we can talk about all the changes in Mk2. Why to make so much noise when GoI is about to make a decision on numbers.


Hello ji? Asking for one possible change amongst many others in Arjun Mk II causes so much grief? Lot of noise? My few posts on BRF? I didnt know I was so powerful?

CVRDE is done with Arjun in 2008 (the current claim) this is 2 years since 2008 and will be 3-4 more years to Arjun Mk II. Irrespective of Arjun orders (when did I say dont order more?) why cant Arjun Mk II be fitted out with a new gun if needed?

One small possible request gets everybody's so hassled?

Aiyo...


Pls read carefully full post and kindly take 5 mins break... all changes are welcome in Mk II but one or more possible changes should not stop Mk1 induction.

Infact continous and minor/major improvements are key to success. IA is the end user of the these equipment and their continues feedback is very important/valuable. So keep it flowing but ready to accept the system with one or more drawbacks.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 27 Apr 2010 18:52

Austin

If the Russians had cooperated a lot of spin offs from Arjun (comm etc can all go to make the T series a little better).

But they do not.

After the disaster with their guns and our ammo, we tried to get a desi firm to do the ballistic computer but its held up as the Russis will not cooperate with their ammo which sadly we are stuck with.

This is what happens when you keep importing.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 27 Apr 2010 19:12

^^^ Surely that applies to any thing you import or from any country you import , the only reason we keep importing is because the promised "indigenous" system are not upto the mark or are never delivered on time or both .

The promise that DRDO keeps making is never realised in most cases which leaves the Defence Forces no other option but to import these equipment.

Mr APJ Abdul Kalam gave the promise of 70 % indigenous equipment by 2005 way back in 1995 and in 2010 we are as far away as we are in 2010.

The hyperactive import lobby at GOI does not make the task easier either.

The only option is to co-develop equipment to deliver it to defence forces on time and to their satisfaction , this beats the import lobby and gradually increases the indigenous content in our armed forces without having to worry about unrealistic dream of some scientist shoved on the nation

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7737
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 27 Apr 2010 19:26

Austin wrote:^^^ Surely that applies to any thing you import or from any country you import , the only reason we keep importing is because the promised "indigenous" system are not upto the mark or are never delivered on time or both .<SNIP>


Well, the discussion at hand is about the T-90 and Arjun and hence, lets not bring in red herrings here.....

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 27 Apr 2010 20:24

^^^ Result is the same

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 27 Apr 2010 20:28

Austin


sure all the more reason the time wasted once the Arjun was peforming well is scandalous

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 27 Apr 2010 20:43

It did performed very well if the recent reports are to be believed but it performed late , the fact that IA has to choose regiment and location that it can be deployed shows that the army now has to find and justify the role she can perform since it came in late for the IA but any ways better late then never.

The crux of the matter is the ball is in GOI court and we have to wait and see the number of Arjun that GOI will approve.

Lets see how much love does GOI have for indigenous equipment lip service apart , while GOI can spare $5.8 billion for 10 Aircraft , how much money GOI can spare for Arjun will be the deciding factor.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 27 Apr 2010 20:50

and round we go again

It was fine a few years ago and should have been inducted then and thats not GOIs fault but the Army's

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7737
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 27 Apr 2010 20:50

Austin wrote:It did performed very well if the recent reports are to be believed but it performed late, the fact that IA has to choose regiment and location that it can be deployed, shows that the army now has to find and justify the role she can perform since it came in late for the IA but any ways better late then never.


:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

You really have taken the argument to different level..... :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

The crux of the matter is the ball is in GOI court and we have to wait and see the number of Arjun that GOI will approve.

Lets see how much love does GOI have for indigenous equipment lip service apart , while GOI can spare $5.8 billion for 10 Aircraft , how much money GOI can spare for Arjun will be the deciding factor.


Let IA first place order for Arjun and then we'll come to the inclination of the GOI......Gosh!!! Is there no end to this nonsense. :roll:

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1302
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RKumar » 27 Apr 2010 21:07

Austin wrote:It did performed very well if the recent reports are to be believed but it performed late , the fact that IA has to choose regiment and location that it can be deployed shows that the army now has to find and justify the role she can perform since it came in late for the IA but any ways better late then never.


This is what we want that some guys and most importantly IA should accept it. These words are like music to my ears from a firm supporter of T-72/90. I am getting satisfication that people are start accepting this fact and hope soon IA will accept. Do not resist the change, especially when it is for good. Please leave you confort zone and encounter new challenges. :wink:

PS: I am qouting full sentence as it cover the acceptance and well as relcutant on part of IA.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19862
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 27 Apr 2010 21:28

Mrinal aren't you missing some basic stuff here.

The T 90 ToT HAS happened. IT HAS BEEN absorbed. Home made T 90s are rolling out NOW.


No, they arent. T-90 assembly w/partial local content is occurring & that too with significant Russian hand holding & indigenization is quite a ways off. You might also want to ask HVF how much effort went into TOT absorbtion for the T-72 so much so that supplier conferences are still being held to indigenize parts.

I am saying that past experience will be leveraged for future smooth bore guns.


On what basis are you saying this? Who has ever said that the Arjun needs a smoothbore gun and for what reason?

What "dependence" on Russia are we talking of here? I am talking of past ToT.


As the so called past TOT for the T-72 shows, it has not been enough.

Also Russia never reneged on ToT, ToT was held up till the contract was FULLY sorted out using IP protection clauses. BIG DIFFERENCE.


Absolutely wrong.

The T-90 deal clearly included an amount paid for TOT, you can see this via parliamentary records. The Russians had no problem in taking our money and signing off on the deal. When production was to commence, they withheld TOT for both armour plates for fabrication of the tank (now provided by DRDO) and metallurgy for the gun barrels citing IP as a negotiating tactic. After significant hand holding and arm twisting, they have agreed to release only the latter.

Please Mrinal we have been over this 1001 times. The Arjun GSQR was redone in 85 because in 75 GSQRs and plan calling for induction by 80s were not met.


Who is we? You and your attempts to shout down others via BOLD FONT and screaming in capital letters? What you wrote is wrong, period. The Arun GSQR was revisited not because of the "time taken" or any such thing but because the Army was fully concerned that an upto date western MBT, namely the Abrams would be introduced in the neighbourhood. That was posted in this very thread by several people.

Spare me the history discussion, I am bored of revisiting it time and again.


We apparently exist to take away your boredom.

How is a change in gun "radical"?


You ask this question and talk about "basic facts"? A change in the gun is one of the most radical things that can be done to a tank or any armored vehicle. The entire gun control system, the fire control system and the turret have to be redesigned to take into account any new armament. The ammunition feed system needs to be changed, the placement of the gun necessitates new work on the automotives. Furthermore, the ammunition storage needs to be redesigned, another massive task given space inside an armoured vehicle is always at a premium and balanced against future upgrades. Your beloved 125mm gun on the T-72 has dual shells (propellant and dart), designed for simplifying autoloader operations. Consider the effect on manual operation and volume where all 4 man crew tanks and even 3 man ones have gone for single part rounds.

The UK has gone slow on even changing the gun on its Challenger 2's , looking at the rising costs and effort required, which put a huge dent into the future benefits of joint ammunition and gun development with the Germans and other Rheinmetall tank gun operators.

Given that the world is moving towards commonality, what sense does it make to keep rifled gun for pretty much the only tank in the world?


Commonality, what an interesting assertion! The Arjun has a unique GMS, the armour is different, subsystems are unique and the gun is chosen? What makes the gun so special?

As things stand, the Arjun's 120 mm is key to its firepower advantage over the T-90 given all known reports. It, with the FCS allows for better accuracy and can be upgraded as and when we want, since we made the gun.

And we have to change it for whimsy, when there are no problems with it. This makes no sense at all.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19862
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 27 Apr 2010 21:44

Austin wrote:The promise that DRDO keeps making is never realised in most cases which leaves the Defence Forces no other option but to import these equipment.

Mr APJ Abdul Kalam gave the promise of 70 % indigenous equipment by 2005 way back in 1995 and in 2010 we are as far away as we are in 2010.


70%? Irrespective of what Kalam said or did not say, here is what the Indian Air Force operates:

MiG-21, 23, 27, 29, Mirage 2000, Jaguar, Su-30 MKI - fighters
Transports - An32, Il-76, Avro, Boeings and even Embraers (VIP flight)
Helicopters - Mi-8, 17, 25/35, Cheetahs,
SAMs- Pechora, Gecko, OSA
Radars - ST-68/U, THD series, MPRs, LLLWRs etc

I am sure folks here have better lists than the above, but lets just take the above for simplicitys sake.

Just look at any of these segments and consider the R&D cost associated with making even one of these segments 70% wholly indigenous. As things stand, in 2010, with current projects, we can only hope for specific programs and products given a rapid rate of economic growth & which trend is assumed to continue.

Kalam was never given any of the funds or capabilities to achieve such an impossible task by far, forget Kalam, Indian industry as a whole does not have a figs chance of reaching the 70% figure in the timeframe envisaged (1995-2010). It is unlikely to happen in the near future as well, given the manner in which India's defence requirements are rising. There is a new DGIS (Directorate Gen IS) - was it there in 1995, no! Who knows what tomorrow will bring.

Currently, India's stated defence budget is around 17% of its Central allocation / year. Given this 70% indigenization figure, just for one service, India would have to break the bank.

The Navy's so called indigenous figure includes a mix of locally developed, JV and license manufactured & that too over some 4 decades, 40 years and they continue to rely on industries abroad given the realities of indian funding & technological capability.

As things stand, India's local procurement remains substantial bang for buck, compare amounts invested versus production orders received and the advantage gained is clear. The way forward is to continue with investments in local R&D, and where possible, JV's for high value projects so a portion of the investment goes back into India, develops local industry & has local support through the product lifecycle.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 27 Apr 2010 22:23

Mrinal I will appreciate if you post some links to substantiate your claims, because I personally dont find many of them squaring of with other sources I am aware of and are publically available For example Avadi says that Indian manufactred (not assembled) T 90s are being made. Are you saying that Avadi is lying (it may well be given past history)

Secondly, Negi et al of course the smooth bore gun is a idea for Mk II. That is not Arjun bashing.

Because unlike some others great defenders of Arjun, this so called fan boy of T 90 is not stuck in 2000, and asking for changes in Arjun is not being anti its being pro.

Ideas are needed for next gen Arjun. The question is what are those, the question that needs to be asked is why the whole world moved on to Smoothbore while we are happy with Rifled. Our our needs so different?

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 27 Apr 2010 22:26

Surya wrote:Austin


sure all the more reason the time wasted once the Arjun was peforming well is scandalous


Yes just like the EVM scam. So big so huge and so scandalous that nobody has never chirped about it. Even in front of the committees which are blaming Avadi for the QC issues reported by IA. Everyone is quite.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 27 Apr 2010 22:29

RKumar wrote:
Sanku wrote:RKumar>>
BTW who is opposing meaningful changes??? IA induct it at least 500-1000 tanks as Mk1 then we can talk about all the changes in Mk2. Why to make so much noise when GoI is about to make a decision on numbers.

Hello ji? Asking for one possible change amongst many others in Arjun Mk II causes so much grief? Lot of noise? My few posts on BRF? I didnt know I was so powerful?

CVRDE is done with Arjun in 2008 (the current claim) this is 2 years since 2008 and will be 3-4 more years to Arjun Mk II. Irrespective of Arjun orders (when did I say dont order more?) why cant Arjun Mk II be fitted out with a new gun if needed?

One small possible request gets everybody's so hassled?

Aiyo...


Pls read carefully full post and kindly take 5 mins break... all changes are welcome in Mk II but one or more possible changes should not stop Mk1 induction.
.


I love such posts. I say that this is a idea of Arjun Mk II. I am shouted at why are you delaying Arjun. When I say that its for Arjun Mk II, I am told, you idiot improvements are only for Mk II.

:rotfl:

Friends, yes, Arjun is the greatest and it must be so because IA said it was not ready. And any one who says IA was not wrong must be a anti-Arjun types who is not willing to listen.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 27 Apr 2010 22:34

rohitvats wrote:
And what will it gain by doing so? Commonality for the sake of it? And btw, the new additional autoloader on T-90M uses unitary rounds. Tomorrow, if the T-90M makes it to IA Service, what kind of situation would be in?


Commonality for the sake of it? Is a big thing. One less headache, one big less headache.

In addition a smooth bore is the way the whole world has chosen to go for a good reason.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 27 Apr 2010 22:49

negi wrote:So now all you got is to raise this rifled gun issue and that too by twisting facts ? Chally-2 first tested the smooth bore L55 only in 2006 . And the latest news is the upgrade programme is still in WIP mode .


Negi, I am not saying its a issue, never have.

Secondly I messed up on that date, accepted.Writing too much. It was asked for in 2004 and trialed in 2006.

[qupte]
Accuracy , lethality and finally the Armour protection are by far more important parameters when compared to the wear and tear of the gun [/quote]

finally do you have the numbers for how many rounds per barrel for 2A46M vs the Arjun's main gun before they are replaced ?


Look I am not saying it should be done, I am exploring this option. I am asking, myself whether the Smooth bore guns make sense. Prima facie sound like yes they do. Thats why everyone shifted (too pat to call it a fashion like Vina did) I am trying to learn here too.

Nothing I say is about anti-Arjun or Pro T 90. Folks have to stop looking at that world in that skewed perspective.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby negi » 27 Apr 2010 23:03

Whoa what commonality ? T-72 main gun (T-72<>T-72BM not in IA service) and T-90 main gun although similar in design are not interchangeable , and this talk about unitary ammo is nothing new iirc even T-80 uses it the point was about limitation on part of the existing carousel type autoloader accepting new long rod penetrators. As on date the latest APFSDS which IA fields for 125mm bore is sourced from IAI (Israel).Fwiw Arjun armor has said to have survived hits from the above round (Iirc Rahul has posted references to Israeli round more than once in this thread).

Most probably this one

http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Amm ... srael.html


I don't know if the T-90 deal included 3BM-42M/44M long rod penetrator (not to be confused with 3BM-42 mango :lol: ) being bought or license produced by OFB (nothing on its site) because the current 120mm APFSDS has higher muzzle velocity as compared to the 125mm APFSDS (as per OFB and DRDO site) so this halla around SB vs rifled is a non issue.

T series main gun data: http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 27 Apr 2010 23:32

Sanku thats all you are left with - infamous chirps :)

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7737
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 28 Apr 2010 00:09

Whoa what commonality ? T-72 main gun (T-72<>T-72BM not in IA service) and T-90 main gun although similar in design are not interchangeable , and this talk about unitary ammo is nothing new iirc even T-80 uses it the point was about limitation on part of the existing carousel type autoloader accepting new long rod penetrators. As on date the latest APFSDS which IA fields for 125mm bore is sourced from IAI (Israel).Fwiw Arjun armor has said to have survived hits from the above round (Iirc Rahul has posted references to Israeli round more than once in this thread).


True. From what I gather from internet university, the APFSDS rod in Russian service has reached the maximum length permissible given the auto-loader induced limitation. This even when the T-90 is supposed to come with modified auto-loader to accomodate the 3BM-44M. The 3BM-42M/3BM-44M has a projectile length of 730mm. Compare this with the 780mm length of penetrator of US APFSDS Round.


I don't know if the T-90 deal included 3BM-42M/44M long rod penetrator (not to be confused with 3BM-42 mango :lol: ) being bought or license produced by OFB (nothing on its site) because the current 120mm APFSDS has higher muzzle velocity as compared to the 125mm APFSDS (as per OFB and DRDO site) so this halla around SB vs rifled is a non issue.


The way d_berwal used the "Long Rod", it might well be the new Russian APFSDS. But I've read comments that T-90S use 3BM-46M/48M with 635mm penetrator.

AFAIK, the Russian rounds also bleed KE more faster than the western ones. Is it not ironic that newer T-90 versions (M or Burlak) comes with additional loader to allow for unitary rounds? Which will come with longer length APFSDS Projectiles and Penetrators? :P

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1302
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RKumar » 28 Apr 2010 00:27

Sanku wrote:I love such posts. I say that this is a idea of Arjun Mk II. I am shouted at why are you delaying Arjun. When I say that its for Arjun Mk II, I am told, you idiot improvements are only for Mk II.

:rotfl:

Friends, yes, Arjun is the greatest and it must be so because IA said it was not ready. And any one who says IA was not wrong must be a anti-Arjun types who is not willing to listen.


First of all thank you for loving my post ... I have one admirer at BR :oops: (hopefully my wife will not know it otherwise you will be in trouble :mrgreen: )

regarding authority to delay the induction of arjun, it is IA, MoD and GoI to decide. i hope all these changes are asked in Mk2 but no body know what will be out come. As keep hearing, no more arjun in current config.

Thank for accepting Arjun is THE greatest but I would like to add myself that it has one or more drawbacks/shortcoming. There is nothing called perfect system.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 28 Apr 2010 08:18

Probable Pictures of T-90 'Burlak' Turret

I like the Sloped frontal turret , since the Burlak variant of T-90 will increase the weight to ~ 50 T with all ding dong added we may see a new 1250HP engine for the tank.

It would be prudent to reduce the amount of T-90M that we buy and go for the Burlak design.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19862
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 28 Apr 2010 09:48

Mrinal I will appreciate if you post some links to substantiate your claims, because I personally dont find many of them squaring of with other sources I am aware of and are publically available For example Avadi says that Indian manufactred (not assembled) T 90s are being made. Are you saying that Avadi is lying (it may well be given past history)


Sanku, enough links have been provided on this very thread to justify each point I have said.

I wonder which other sources you'd wish to refer to given that when sources are provided, you shout them down in bold font! I have removed that in the quote above, thankfully.

Talking of links, where are they for the claim that the 120mm gun needs to be changed! Just because it is rifled!

For all the talk of rifled guns, here is what they are capable of, even in the Challenger 1 which by all sources suffered from a flawed fire control system compared to the Challenger 2.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot1DvaxbNLg

An Abrams also hit a target beyond 4000 metres, and one of its crewmen even mentioned how he had to modify the FCS to do so. Both these incidents show the negligible difference between the so called 120 mm rifled and smoothbore in actual conditions. Let alone the 125mm tank gun which till date has no such feat to its credit. It claims benefit from having a guided, expensive, slow missile to reach out to such ranges, whereas most of the western providers have preferred to stick to simpler, more effective and faster FSAPDS rounds!

Avadi may well say Indian manufactured, and it would not be lying, the importance lies in the details - its all about phased production which we usually adopt when receiving TOT and the like. Kindly take a look at HALs manufacture of the Su-30 MKI, "Indian manufactured" MKIs started out with Phase 2/3 itself, but its only till Phase 4 and beyond that you will see truly "Indian" MKIs. And in contrast to the MKI program, the T-90 program has been far more of a shambles since the tank designers could never really make their tank work right, and secondly, reneged on their commitment to provide TOT as well, delaying the program even further. Hence the 347 order, in order to salvage the Army's plan to raise as many regiments ASAP.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 28 Apr 2010 10:57

Mrinal wrote:Sanku, enough links have been provided on this very thread to justify each point I have said.


Sorry no you have provided no links. I am aware of most publicly available information on this issue, but I dont see some of your claims being buttressed, anyway lets leave it for a moment this is a generic statement that I made, if I disagree I will raise specific points to the discussion that I am presently interested in, which is why are we on a rifled canon. When the world has moved on.

BTW -- making statements bold is not shouting, just emphasis.

Talking of links, where are they for the claim that the 120mm gun needs to be changed! Just because it is rifled!


Mrinal you know, you do know a lot of stuff and I agree with you most of the time, but sometimes I wonder whether you really read what anyone else posts.

For example where did I say that there would be links for that claim? Considering that I have clarified that it is purely a question that I have raised here?

How can there be?

. Both these incidents show the negligible difference between the so called 120 mm rifled and smoothbore in actual conditions.


Fine, so if in actual conditions, the smooth bore and rifled are nearly similar in performance (your claim) combined with the fact that Smooth bores are easier to maintain, combined with the fact that the entire world has moved to smooth bore guns, tells us what?

That smooth bores are a good way to go perhaps?

Let alone the 125mm tank gun which till date has no such feat to its credit. It claims benefit from having a guided, expensive, slow missile to reach out to such ranges, whereas most of the western providers have preferred to stick to simpler, more effective and faster FSAPDS rounds!


Just to let you know 125 mm tank gun that you talk about is the current Russian 125 mm tank gun. If a 120 mm smooth bore can do a good job, there is no reason why an Indian 125 mm can not do a better job? In addition it can be designed to also use the T 90 ammo (apart from Indian ones too)

But if you note I am not a diameter nazi. If 120 smoothbore offers better ammunition choices so be it.

Avadi may well say Indian manufactured, and it would not be lying, the importance lies in the details - its all about phased production which we usually adopt when receiving TOT and the like.


All that is fine, and I am aware that Indian manufacture does not necessarily mean that ToT is done.

However the reports indicate that the T 90 ToT absorption did happen and Indian made tanks are being produced, 10 tanks were made in 2009. Maybe your data point is older and the ToT has now moved on?

Here are some links which support the same (ToT issues resolved)
http://indiadefenceonline.com/810/india ... d-shortly/
After a gap of one year, fifty T-90 tanks will be rolled out from India under licensed production following the resolution between India and Russia over the issue of transfer of technology. Indian defence officials have indicated that assurance from Russia has been received regarding the timely execution of defence deals including the T-90 tanks.


Followed by the actual production and induction
http://www.siliconindia.com/shownews/In ... 60608.html
After a delay of one year, the first batch rolled out of the Heavy Vehicles Factory (HVF) here. The batch of 10 tanks was inducted into the army at a function in Avadi by Minister of State for Defence M.M. Pallam Raju.


So as per public information, ToT has happened and Indian made T 90s are being made.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1302
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RKumar » 28 Apr 2010 12:03

Austin wrote:Probable Pictures of T-90 'Burlak' Turret

I like the Sloped frontal turret , since the Burlak variant of T-90 will increase the weight to ~ 50 T with all ding dong added we may see a new 1250HP engine for the tank.

It would be prudent to reduce the amount of T-90M that we buy and go for the Burlak design.


Austin, could you please stop posting from igor's blog, when he himself puts many if and thens. this news is neither reliable nor confirmed information. I have checked what you have posted, it is on paper only and one dummy model of size 2 x 2 feet. It could very well be a concept only which is cancelled a long time back and most important it is related to heating problems in T-90. You are suggesting to buy it only by viewing few pictures of it :eek:

The new compact conditioner for tanks, armored and civilian vehicles was developed in Russia. It used Peltier effect: thermoelectric cooling, based on creating a heat flux between the junction of two different types of materials. The most problem successfully solved was effectiveness of the Peltier modules. It's all solid state freon-free device, without any negative effect on ozone layer and global warming. Also it's very compact and stress-withstanding. Unlike current models it can be installed inside the Russian MBT tank T-90A. However, the more probable target for the new conditioner installation is 'Burlak' - the modernized version of T-90 tank currently over the tests. It could be installed on the export version T-90S or T-90M instead of the external conditioner, which can be seen on the Algerian and Libian T-90s. Naturally the Russian Future MBT, which published name is T-95, would be equipped with a conditioner based on the same principles, if the program succeeds.

Pictures of T-90 'Burlak' turret which can be used for different upgrades too (source - Internet):

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby vina » 28 Apr 2010 12:15

With Russia deciding that it is not going to need any next gen tanks and shelving further development, I am waiting for Natashas and Rodina worshipers to come crawling out of the wood work soon and declare this.

"Battle tanks are so 20th century!. The future battlefield will have no place for tanks. There is no need for Tanks anymore . Why, even the Russians have decided against new tanks. So let us do what the Russians do, that is upgrade the T72s and T90s to some T-90XX ding dong standard".. Of course, we can get into a joint venture /joint program for upgrade of both the countries tank fleets! :rotfl: :rotfl: .

Mark my words. This canard will be floated soon. Whether it comes from the Army side or the Natashas needs to be seen.

arnab
BRFite
Posts: 1136
Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby arnab » 28 Apr 2010 12:26

Sanku wrote:[


However the reports indicate that the T 90 ToT absorption did happen and Indian made tanks are being produced, 10 tanks were made in 2009. Maybe your data point is older and the ToT has now moved on?

Here are some links which support the same (ToT issues resolved)
http://indiadefenceonline.com/810/india ... d-shortly/
After a gap of one year, fifty T-90 tanks will be rolled out from India under licensed production following the resolution between India and Russia over the issue of transfer of technology. Indian defence officials have indicated that assurance from Russia has been received regarding the timely execution of defence deals including the T-90 tanks.


So as per public information, ToT has happened and Indian made T 90s are being made.


The things I have to do :)

STANDING COMMITTEE ON DEFENCE
(2009-2010)
(FIFTEENTH LOK SABHA)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
[Action Taken by the Government on the recommendations contained in the
Thirty-third Report of the Committee (Fourteenth Lok Sabha) on
‘Indigenisation of Defence Production – Public Private Partnership’].

March, 2010


http://164.100.47.134/lsscommittee/Defe ... %20PPP.pdf

As at March 2010:

In case of T-90 Tank, the indigenisation
percentage in the current year is 30% is likely to go up 70% by 2010-11
[/quote]
Last edited by arnab on 28 Apr 2010 12:30, edited 1 time in total.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 28 Apr 2010 12:29

RKumar 'Burlak' program is a classified one but it is known to exist and there are reports that by late this year they will display prototypes of the same.

So information naturally is far few and scanty , the T-90M certainly exists in prototype form and even pics of the same was shown during Putin Dec 2009 visit.

Since India has purchased ~ 1650 T-90 tanks , its obvious these two program will generate interest and will have implications on new purchase or upgrades.

I see no reason why we should not discuss this although I take your point not every information out there is reliable , that applies then to any thing out there on internet.

Vina , the FMBT is a very future concept and there is nothing more on this then talks and IA is exploring all options available , but I do not see any serious initiative happening on FMBT till 2015 , since T-90 will be our MBT till 2040.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 28 Apr 2010 12:32

dear austin

pray tell me what futuristic concept the IA has come up with in the past pertaining to technology that gives you so much confidence about it coming with FMBT??

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 28 Apr 2010 12:46

vina wrote:Mark my words. This canard will be floated soon. Whether it comes from the Army side or the Natashas needs to be seen.


And what if it does not come? I think this forum should have some marks against a poster for which speculation/allegation does /does not bear fruit.

Arnab thanks for the link, but I fail see to your point

In case of T-90 Tank, the indigenisation
percentage in the current year is 30% is likely to go up 70% by 2010-11


ToT was cleared in 2008 after the decision to licence manufacture in 2006.
In 2008 the ToT was done.
In 2009, 10 tanks were made with 30% content.
In 2010 100 tanks are expected (thats the line strength) with 70% Indian content. (if they are saying that in March they already know that the Tech for 70% is there)

So just what is the problem here? I mentioned that ToT was done deal. Yes, ToT is done and its already moved towards manufacturing phase??

------------------------------

Meanwhile note, this discussion was strictly in terms of how Russian ToT for 125 mm smooth bore canon can potentially be reused for a Indian one.

One part of it is the Russian ToT which has I say again seem to have happened.

The other part is the ability to use what ever experience we have to design newer guns.
Last edited by Sanku on 28 Apr 2010 12:51, edited 1 time in total.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1302
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RKumar » 28 Apr 2010 12:48

Austin wrote:RKumar 'Burlak' program is a classified one but it is known to exist and there are reports that by late this year they will display prototypes of the same.

So information naturally is far few and scanty , the T-90M certainly exists in prototype form and even pics of the same was shown during Putin Dec 2009 visit.

Since India has purchased ~ 1650 T-90 tanks , its obvious these two program will generate interest and will have implications on new purchase or upgrades.

I see no reason why we should not discuss this although I take your point not every information out there is reliable , that applies then to any thing out there on internet.

Vina , the FMBT is a very future concept and there is nothing more on this then talks and IA is exploring all options available , but I do not see any serious initiative happening on FMBT till 2015 , since T-90 will be our MBT till 2040.

Lets for discussion, we agree Burlak is classified (and not cancelled) and by late this year its prototypes will be displayed. So is true for T-90M, that its prototypes exists and few might have seen the pictures of it.

Without trial in India, you are suggesting to purchase it. T-90M and Burlak are prototypes, not final products and we don't know if they will complete their development cycles because Russia is cuting on its spending and might have cancelled it. We have just bought the rights of T-90S, with few years of discussion.

BTW, I totally agree that T-90S will be with us for next 30 years as we are going to have 1650 tanks, we dont have 1650 tanks at this moment. We have paid for it, becuase we need it in past, present and future. Do we need upgrades that future will decide, we can not spend money on upgrades when tanks exists only on contract. On the otherside, Arjun alone can't replace all the tanks in one go. So T-55 and T-72(no matter if they have life left or not) should be replaced with Arjun and Arjun should fight along T-90 not aginst T-90.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 28 Apr 2010 13:26

RKumar wrote:Lets for discussion, we agree Burlak is classified (and not cancelled) and by late this year its prototypes will be displayed. So is true for T-90M, that its prototypes exists and few might have seen the pictures of it.


The Burlak program is not the T-95 program that is rumoured to be cancelled but a variant of T-90 being built for Russian Army.

The T-90M was shown to public recently Dec 2009 , Igorr blog has pics and info on T-90M

Without trial in India, you are suggesting to purchase it. T-90M and Burlak are prototypes, not final products and we don't know if they will complete their development cycles because Russia is cuting on its spending and might have cancelled it. We have just bought the rights of T-90S, with few years of discussion.


No not at all , they should trial it in India before accepting these are derivatives of T-90.

BTW, I totally agree that T-90S will be with us for next 30 years as we are going to have 1650 tanks, we dont have 1650 tanks at this moment. We have paid for it, becuase we need it in past, present and future. Do we need upgrades that future will decide, we can not spend money on upgrades when tanks exists only on contract.


What I am suggesting is based on path available information on T-90 Program and that we have nearly 1000 more T-90 to go , so it makes sense that we plan the T-90 or better customise it as per our needs


On the otherside, Arjun alone can't replace all the tanks in one go. So T-55 and T-72(no matter if they have life left or not) should be replaced with Arjun and Arjun should fight along T-90 not aginst T-90.


I totally agree that if GOI decides to replace 1:1 T-72 with Arjun it will be dream run.

But you see no one here makes decision , the GOI/IA will jointly decide the fate of Arjun in days ahead lets hope it gets a fair deal.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21166
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Philip » 28 Apr 2010 13:35

So if tanks are obsolete,what will then break through land defences and hold territory along with the infantry? Helicopters? They are very vulnerable to MANPADS both carried by armoured vehicles and grunts,let aside tracked anti-air weapon systems.

Coming back to the query.The issue was the March 2010 of the Intl.Def.Rev.-Janes.

Gen Deepak Kapoor was quoted where he said that the IA had tanks that were "night blind" whereas in the case of Pak (80%) and China (100%),their tanks could fight at night.All the T-72s were night blind and 300+300 TIFCS/TISAS systems at a cost of $120,000 were being obtained from El-OP of Israel for the T-72 upgrades,which would cost $1.1m each.The Project Rhino (upgrades of 1600-1800 T-72M1s) were "stalled".It would also take about "several" years for these tanks to be upgraded.This pours "cold water" over India's much touted "Cold Start" doctrine according to many analysts.

Lt.Gen.Kapoor ,former armoured corps officer told the IDR that,"the MBTs lack of night-fighting capability is due to a lack of wider perspective in the army and incompetence and lack of equipment awareness in the MOD that is staffed entirely with generalists"! He added that "both seem incapable of working in tandem to enhance the military's operational capability and capacity". This is a scathing indictment and shocking statement to make of the MOD/IA.Other experts said that the lacunae in the IA's armoured formations "completely obviated" the IA's Cold Start doctrine.Is this perhaps why the IA has been so desperate to buy more T-90s which can fight at night?

Arjun is not mentioned anywhere in the report as its numbers in service are too small to be of significant importance.

Dear Min.AKA,what is happening?


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests