Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2033
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srin » 19 May 2015 08:51

Actually, Philips may be right. If you consider all the non-ruski enhancements we've done or contemplating for the T-90 - like the main gun, ERA, thermal imaging sight, fire control systems and gyros, air conditioning - the T-90S indigenization will probably exceed Arjun's :D

And we should seriously contemplate doing the same with Armata too. Most revolutionary concept in tank warfare, appreciated by all the tank fans worldwide - we can be sure that as the first ever users, it will be very successful in the next conflict with TSPA. So we should immediately order a few hundreds to ensure that the IA can validate this new concept. Also, we need to pay premium for the ToT because of its proven success in the past and for our continued friendship for Russia

PS: sarcasm alert on

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 - August 9 , 2014

Postby vina » 19 May 2015 09:31

we can be sure that as the first ever users, it will be very successful in the next conflict with TSPA

But SERIOUSLY , we need to keep an eye out on the reported weight of the Armata. If that Pakistan/Kakkoose weighs in at anything less than 55 tons AT LEAST (my guess is best case it is 60 Tons, realistic weight around 62 tons), then it has SERIOUS problems.

The only way in a 7 road wheel tank that anyone case reduce weight (other than using exotic materials like Titanium) is to REDUCE the armour. Yeah, yeah, I know the story of 3 man crew vs 4 man crew and "lesser volume" that needs to be armoured. Okay trade that for 5 tons weight, and so going by comparable 3 man tanks with autoloader (like Leclerc and the Korean tank), you are looking at 60 tons. What you are asked to to believe is "this thingamagic Afghanit" / active protection stuff will save your hide and you don't need to cart heavy armour around.

Okay, best case the APS might protect you against RPG /ATGMs which are slow. But faced with an APFSDS flying at you at around Mach 4 to 5 fired from a tank, this is asking for deep trouble.

This APS stuff is NOT a substitute for armour. This APS is actually a substitute for ERA armour . Okay, unless you drink the Russian KoolAid is that their ERA defeats the APFSDS anti tank round as well and they don't need to mount heavy laminated armour like their western counterparts.

So, really, best case, this T-14 is like a single purpose tank meant for use in urban warfare and depending on the APS (don't know how effective will the APS will be against an insurgent popping up on a nearby roof top and unleashing an RPG29 at 50 metres) , and not meant for traditional tank warfare.

Let us see the DGMF /Army put their money where their mouth is and issue an RFP to the DRDO with for a 50 ton tank with APS trading off against armour. Last time they contemplated that, they got the dhoti shivers and saw sense. Now that Rodina has probably done that , we might see the IA follow suit. I do hope better sense prevails.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Austin » 19 May 2015 09:37

vina wrote:Let us see the DGMF /Army put their money where their mouth is and issue an RFP to the DRDO with for a 50 ton tank with APS trading off against armour. Last time they contemplated that, they got the dhoti shivers and saw sense. Now that Rodina has probably done that , we might see the IA follow suit. I do hope better sense prevails.


DRDO FMBT in their Journal already states it a 50T Tank , I had posted this earlier but once again

Image

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 - August 9 , 2014

Postby vina » 19 May 2015 09:50

DRDO FMBT in their Journal already states it a 50T Tank , I had posted this earlier but once again

Doesn't compute. Why will you have a 4 man crew AND a bustle mounted autoloader ? What will the 4th guy do ?
Also, notice, it is a 6 wheel tank , not 7 wheel. This is like the Japanese tank , small . But the T14 is 7 wheels !

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8308
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Pratyush » 19 May 2015 09:56

Vina,

The best part of the tank is that the fuel tanks are exposed to top and the side protection is under 5 MMs. The top images of the tank posted are evidence enough of this. So a small arm firing incendiary round can knock out your tank.

It is the most revolutionary tank in the world.

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 - August 9 , 2014

Postby vina » 19 May 2015 10:06

the side protection is under 5 MMs

Ah.. Do I sense disbelief ? Off with his head for apostasy! He obviously didn't read that memo about "hit avoidance" sensor and active protection.

The T14 will cloak itself with a cloud of fog like gas when it senses the bullet flying towards it and make itself invisible. The bullet cannot see it and hence cannot hit !

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8308
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Pratyush » 19 May 2015 10:11

:((

I had not though of that. Please forgive me.

:((

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21049
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 19 May 2015 10:34

I think that was the spec,weight,which the DRDO chief/Avadi said "wasn't possible".I remember posting that report over a yr. ago.

Let's take a sanguine look at our AV/MBT inventory/requirements for the moment.I've been going through heaps of reports,etc. for sev. days to try and get as wide a perspective as poss. of the issue.One report says that we still have legacy T-55 tanks in the inventory, true? Another that our goal is 4500 tanks by 2020.Around approx. 1000 T-72s to be upgraded apart from T-90 prod. The mainstay is the T-90,with another 300+ ordered. The issue here is Arjun,MK-1/2,improvements,etc. Let's not go back into the past history of why the T-90 was first ordered-to meet the Paki T-80UD challenge,and the IA in its wisdom batted heavily for the T-90 over the decade when Arjun was in its final stages of development.

It is a fact that the IA has been repeatedly over the last 3 years shifting the goalposts demanding more and more improvements in Arjun-2,which has led to allegations that there is no level playing field when it comes to evaluating the T-90 and Arjun.The new DM is also determined to force the issue and get Arjun MK-2 production quick-started and freeze the design at some point. Given the intensity of the new regime's "make in India" policy,one has no doubt that a substantial order of A-2s will arrive before the year end,planned hopefully for at least 300,though another 125+ may be ordered due to budgetary issues.The big Q is prod. capability at Avadi and whether we should upgrade all T-72s or not in favour of better T-90s and Arjuns.

Now examining the Paki and Sino inventory,we actually have a superior capability to them quality wise.Whether it is the T-90 or Arjun,both are superior to the Paki tincan. One would also imagine that the upgraded T-72s bringing these tanks as close as poss. to T-90 std. would also be better. Therefore,with around 400-500 Arjun 1/2s in service by 2020 (prod rate between 50-100/yr),along with the other T-90s,T-72UGs,we should be somewhere close to achieving the 4,500 MBT mark and have a decisive qualitative diff.against both Pak and China. A Q remains as to how many MBTs/light tanks we need facing China in the Mountains.

The news about scaling down the planned Mountain Corps size is worrisome. As Maj.Gen Bakshi puts it well,we cannot afford to lose Indian territoty in Ar.Pr.,Ladakh or anywhere on the Indo-Tibetan border to China. China can afford to lose 100-200 ships in the IOR in a counter attack by the IN,but can we afford to lose land?

By 2020 T-90 prod. will end and A-2 prod too. After that is anyone's guess.The IA/DRDO have to plan for the future.The Armata/T-14 arrival has thrown up a debate upon FMBT designs. I think that in the light of the new tank,the IA will be reviewing its requirements,as it still hasn't finally decided upon what it wants. Whether the T-14 will be offered/arrive in IA colours is another matter,The IA's future FMBT design however should be worked at asap,so that at least by 2020 series production can start. Ideally,there should be some synergy between the next desi tank and IFV/AVs,as seen in the Armata fanily,standardising elements,which brings down costs and improves support,etc. An exciting time for our AV design team ahead.

PS:The T-14s fuel tanks are integrated with the hull and not as exposed on top like our two "drums" on the Arjun. It would be asinine not to have sufficient armour for the fuel tanks to withstand MG fireThe least poss. attack is also from the rear,not the front or flanks as is usually the case,and there is bound to be significant protection to the power plant. The USN has come out with a new concept of fitting BPDMS systems in silos flush with the sides of warships,acting in similar manner to ERA,so that if the warship is hit by a missile,the SAMs located at the edges explode outwards protecting the main innards of the ship.As for top attack, all current MBTs are vulnerable.How many have active anti-missile/projectile systems?

srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2033
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srin » 19 May 2015 10:53

Philip wrote:...
By 2020 T-90 prod. will end and A-2 prod too. After that is anyone's guess.The IA/DRDO have to plan for the future.The Armata/T-14 arrival has thrown up a debate upon FMBT designs. I think that in the light of the new tank,the IA will be reviewing its requirements,as it still hasn't finally decided upon what it wants. Whether the T-14 will be offered/arrive in IA colours is another matter,The IA's future FMBT design however should be worked at asap,so that at least by 2020 series production can start. Ideally,there should be some synergy between the next desi tank and IFV/AVs,as seen in the Armata fanily,standardising elements,which brings down costs and improves support,etc. An exciting time for our AV design team ahead.
...


That sir is the classic definition of brochuritis - creating a product requirement not based on our enemy's capabilities, not based on our own doctrine, not even based on our own experience, but based on on-paper specs of a new tank that hasn't been field tested.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21049
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 19 May 2015 11:17

Not brochuritis but pragmatism and farsightedness. One cannot think in a blinkered fashion ignoring tech progress wherever it comes from.Why are we then developing a stealthy AMCA? Why do we want the Rafale? Why are we developing our own AESA radar,Astra,etc.? It is a fact that our FMBT specs hasn't been finalized by the IA.To imagine that the IA would ignore the latest Armata concepts while the entire world is examining it in great detail is laughable!

Last para from an IDRW report.Don't shoot the postman :mrgreen:
http://idrw.org/with-russia-tempt-india ... mata-tank/
Will Russia tempt Indian Army with new Armata tank?
Published April 21, 2015

Will Indian Army resist temptation for the new Russian tank? and will the development of FMBT also suffer due to indifference Army will adapt to Imported battle tanks like it did for Arjun and heavily favored Russian T-90 over the Indigenous battle tank? only time will tell.


Older report.
The country's military, which has projected a need for about 1,200 FMBTs, has indicated in no uncertain terms that it expects the tank to go into production by 2020 (*FMBT). Initial development costs for the project, which is seen as crucial for the country's future battle readiness, has been estimated at Rs 1,500-crore.

The Indian Army's desperate need for state-of-the-art tanks has been well documented, with a significant portion of its 4,000-strong fleet populated by largely obsolete, nightblind Russian-made T-72 tanks, which have been in service for more than 30 years.

Its battles with the DRDO, marked by the Army's reluctance to induct the Arjun Main Battle Tank, have only recently subsided after the country's first indigenously-built tank comprehensively outperformed its current showpiece, the T-90, in war-games conducted last year. Sivakumar rubbished claims that the FMBT programme was to be shelved, and hence the delays by the Army. "It will definitely not be shelved, because there is a critical requirement," he said.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Singha » 19 May 2015 11:57

why is the T72 obsolete and night blind despite 2 decades of rolling upgrades chosen by the IA itself?

the arjun drum tanks are for ferry only. due to big size of the dated engine, the internal fuel capacity is not enough for long marches.
wags claim the newer engine is 2 feet smaller, so that would have solved the issue if a more bulk production permitted a shift to the new engine. it is also more fuel efficient and has 100 hp more. std on all leopard A5 tanks.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16830
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby NRao » 19 May 2015 11:59

Not postman, but an undertaker. :mrgreen:

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Austin » 19 May 2015 11:59


NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16830
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby NRao » 19 May 2015 12:12

Mr. Postman. On a more serious note (if it is even possible) (and for giggles) IA still needs to buy the Russian BPM-3 offered by Putin himself.

durairaaj
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 94
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby durairaaj » 19 May 2015 12:31

I am fed up with the BS about Ruskies tank. I am a fan of Arjun and Karan tank, but not a fanatic.
Though I considered Russia as a perennial friend of India, this Arjun saga has changed me a lontime ago. They totally lost their credibility. I am fed up with their swindling, cheating and subversion of our industrial development.

If there comes a situation, Indian Army was considering buying another Russian tank, I will come to the road and raise a civil movement against it and will try to save Arjun project.

I will start a Save Arjun campaign through email, sms, issuing printed notices in public places, publish blogs. I will educate the public and students in particular about the decades long corruption going on in Army and its procurement division. Ask the public to send mails to their MPs and ministers. Ask actors in Chennai to come and support Avadi's R&D and mfg division.

I am not going to let the history repeat again.

I may ask for your support, if the situation comes to a head and will do the same in this very thread. You need not respond to this message but support, if you can, when needed.

member_27581
BRFite
Posts: 230
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_27581 » 19 May 2015 13:56

durairaaj wrote:I am fed up with the BS about Ruskies tank. I am a fan of Arjun and Karan tank, but not a fanatic.
Though I considered Russia as a perennial friend of India, this Arjun saga has changed me a lontime ago. They totally lost their credibility. I am fed up with their swindling, cheating and subversion of our industrial development.

If there comes a situation, Indian Army was considering buying another Russian tank, I will come to the road and raise a civil movement against it and will try to save Arjun project.

I will start a Save Arjun campaign through email, sms, issuing printed notices in public places, publish blogs. I will educate the public and students in particular about the decades long corruption going on in Army and its procurement division. Ask the public to send mails to their MPs and ministers. Ask actors in Chennai to come and support Avadi's R&D and mfg division.

I am not going to let the history repeat again.

I may ask for your support, if the situation comes to a head and will do the same in this very thread. You need not respond to this message but support, if you can, when needed.

we need a bit of it anyways...we are caught up in a vicious cycle..army blames DRDO for quality, indegenization and DPSUs blame army for lack of orders..this chain of he said she said needs to be broken at the earliest

member_23891
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 27
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_23891 » 19 May 2015 17:01

durairaaj wrote:I may ask for your support, if the situation comes to a head and will do the same in this very thread. You need not respond to this message but support, if you can, when needed.


+1008

Saar you have my all out support. A pro Arjun campaign must start now before Armaata ji's marketing phlip Arjuns' future This is the time, no reason to wait anymore.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21049
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 19 May 2015 17:12

Guys,go by hard facts. Sift the truth from the hype. No Q that the IA shifted the goalposts demanding better improvements in Arjun. It is for the DRDO/MOD to determine whether the same yardstick was used in ordering T-90s. It does not appear so. The IA has to answer for that to the DM/MOD. A-! proved itself against the T-90 in trials. I came across one report where the Israelis,who were called in for their opinion,gave the tank the nickname of the "desert Ferrari". Now with the stringent demands of the IA,A-2 after incorporating almost all the requirements is allegedly deemed too heavy by the IA! Frankly, I too feel that this has all become become one big farce. One might as well ask for an espresso machine,bar fridge,water purifier and solar panels/power cells! It is why the buck has to stop with the DM who has to crack heads. If the IA can fight upto 2020 with legacy 20/25 yr old T-72s,night blind,etc.,they surely can fight with modern Arjuns,even the Mk-1s!

This issue does not mean demeaning our Russian tanks.They have their own plus and minus points and have been the mainstay of the IA for decades. The IA like them because they are used to them,have been operating them for decades and have won wars against Pak with them. I am not sure what the comparative cost is,T-90 vs Arjun Mk-1/2,but the IA also want numbers to meet the challenge from both Pak and China. It has to juggle its budget for MBTs/AVs .The T-90s may be cheaper than Arjuns. Nevertheless,ordering a large batch of Arjuns Mk-1/2 to add to the 124 MK-1s won't hurt the IA at all. If the number comes close to the 500 figure that the DRDO says will recover the cost of development,then so be it. But we have to sort out the production issues at Avadi and ramp up prod capability. 4500 MBTs are required in the inventory by 2020,after which,as the report said,an FMBT has to roll out. The FMBT is an issue for the future.

member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_22539 » 19 May 2015 18:22

For allah's sake, please buy some tincans :(( :(( :((

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19839
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 19 May 2015 18:30

>>>Guys,go by hard facts.

>>>This issue does not mean demeaning our Russian tanks.

:rotfl:

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8308
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Pratyush » 19 May 2015 18:37

Philip for the FM BT to come about the Indian army has to release the GSQR. but that hasn't happened. Can you tell us why that is?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21049
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 19 May 2015 19:18

Beats me! Why I've posted xcpts. from reports of the same. I frankly think that unlike the IN,and to a lesser extent the IAF,who are v.savvy technically,but have had a poor opinion of our desi entities delivering the goods,the IA have to form their own design teams like the IN,who can think laterally,innovatively,outside the box and work out their own futuristic requirements based upon our geographical/terrain peculiarities and doctrine. For example,take the Merkava .Designed for the Israeli doctrine protecting the crew by having the engine in front. The Armata/T-14 has shown Russia priorities v.clearly from is design,that has been in the works for several years,using we are told the experience gained in the T-95 project which was abandoned in favour of the new concept. The IA are probably reviewing their reqs. as there may be differing schools of thought as there are in any service on weapon systems.

Xcpt:
At first, the Merkava’s most striking aspect was its rearwards turret, a feature more common in SPGs than MBTs. But the positioning of the engine at the front was a deliberate attention to crew protection, as it participates in the frontal defense of the fighting compartment. Second, this compartment was exceptionally roomy, allowing several infantrymen and their equipment to embark. The rear two-hatch door was another originality, allowing fast evacuation by the crew, as well as an APC-style access which was found very useful during the Lebanon campaign. The drive train and suspension was largely inspired by the British Centurion and the tracks were directly derived from it. The diesel engine provided, to a 65 ton vehicle, a good power-to-weight ratio and enough mobility on soft grounds. Many other solutions were borrowed from existing systems, thus allowing it to fulfil two of the initial specifications: cost-effectiveness and easy maintenance and repair on the battlefield. The drive train was made of six road wheels, one rear idler wheel, one front drive sprocket and three return rollers per side. The turret was large but low, narrow and triangular in shape, presenting the absolute minimal surface from the front.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1289
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby RKumar » 19 May 2015 20:26

But still disappointed with DM and NaMo for not ordering 124 Arjun Mk2 NOW and not releasing a plan to order 500 in next 3-5 years so that the production line warms up by the time real order kicks in.

Should also give go ahead on Arjun Mk3 with newer compact engine + whatever remaining improvement from Mk2 + issues discovered in Mk2, so that the weight can be brought down to 55-60 tons. Orders must not held hostage just because of 5% improvements are missing.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16830
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby NRao » 19 May 2015 21:58

Just for kicks:

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ma ... _country#D

Code: Select all


Country     Owns     Produced (own+export)
China       8700      13511
France       407       1452
Germany      225       4596
India        248      (3200) Aprox (these are included in the Russian "Export" numbers)
Russia     22417      55658 (includes the 30 Armata)
US          6743      17532 (?????)


There are a total of about 102K tanks across the globe, of which around 92-93K are from the 5 nations above.

This was a quick excel analysis, but, I think India has the most retarded ratio of owned vs. produced. India has bought a cool 10% of Russian/Soviet exports over the years!!!!!!!!!

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11209
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Gagan » 20 May 2015 03:29

Image

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16830
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby NRao » 20 May 2015 03:54

A few months ago, in the FGFA thread, I had posted that "Russia cannot deliver". The foundational reason ......... finance. Which obviously has had an impact on developing technology, etc, etc, etc.

This has got to impact Indian decisions. India would love "technology", but has to make dead sure that India gets what she pays for, a very touch act to implement.

Moscow Times :: Russia’s Military Spending Is Out of Control

On May 9, Russia held its largest military parade since the Soviet era. In the tradition of that era, Red Square was filled with the army's latest equipment, including the new T-14 Armata tank. And, also in the tradition of that era, ordinary people were quick to joke when the tank stalled during the parade rehearsal: "The Armata truly has unprecedented destructive power; a battalion can destroy the entire Russian budget!" :rotfl:

The joke, though an exaggeration (each tank costs about $8 million), highlighted another throwback to Soviet life: overspending on the military.

There is now no question that the Kremlin's military spending is threatening Russia's fiscal position, which has already been undermined by low world oil prices and the West's economic sanctions. And this spending spree shows no sign of slowing. In recent months, growth in military expenditure has accelerated rapidly, exceeding the authorities' already ambitious plans.

The 2015 budget that Russia developed last summer was based on the assumption that oil prices would remain at $100 per barrel, with annual gross domestic product growth and inflation at about 2 percent and 5 percent, respectively. Then oil prices plummeted, the economy contracted and inflation reached double digits. Russia's government was slow to accept reality, with President Vladimir Putin signing a revised budget only last month.

The good news is that the new budget is much more realistic, as it cuts spending by about 2 percent in nominal terms. Given annual inflation of at least 11 percent, this amounts to roughly an 8 percent real reduction in planned spending.

Nonetheless, as lower oil prices and economic contraction undermine budget revenues, the deficit will increase from 0.5 percent to 3.7 percent of GDP. This is a major problem, given that Russia, despite its miniscule sovereign debt of only 13 percent of GDP, cannot borrow on global financial markets, owing to Western sanctions.

As a result, the Russian government's only option for financing its deficit is to tap its Reserve Fund, which is meant to cushion the economy against shocks.

With the fund amounting to only about 6 percent of GDP, Russia can maintain a 3.7 percent deficit for less than two years before it either has to withdraw from Ukraine to gain relief from Western sanctions, or undertake a major — and, for Putin, politically dangerous — fiscal adjustment.

But even this scenario may be too optimistic. According to just-published budget data, during the first three months of 2015, non-defense spending amounted to 16.5 percent of quarterly GDP, as planned; but military expenditure exceeded 9 percent of quarterly GDP — more than double the budgeted amount.

In other words, Russia has already spent more than half of its total military budget for 2015. At this rate, its Reserve Fund will be emptied before the end of the year.

The fact that the Reserve Fund is now being consumed in this way represents a decisive step in a protracted debate over Russia's military spending. That debate began in 2011, when then-President Dmitry Medvedev proposed raising military spending by $600 billion, taking it from under 3 percent to above 4 percent of GDP, over 10 years. When then-Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin — who had presided over budget surpluses, helped to build up the Reserve Fund and cut state debt considerably — argued that Russia could not afford such an increase, he was fired. The plan was adopted soon after.

But sacking Kudrin did not change the facts. The Kremlin's goal was extremely ambitious, both by Russian and global standards. Most European countries now spend less than 2 percent of GDP on defense. China spends slightly more than 2 percent and the United States spends about 3.5 percent. According to the World Bank, only nine countries in the world, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Israel, spend more than 4 percent of GDP on their militaries.

Russia simply cannot sustain the allocation of such a large share of its budget to defense spending. Moreover, its defense industry lacks the capacity to produce modern equipment as quickly as the plan anticipated.

Since the plan's adoption, scandals involving overpricing and corruption have multiplied, with many defense executives losing their jobs. And still, until this year, actual defense spending remained at about 3 percent of GDP.

Against this background, Russia's recent military spending binge is all the more notable, for it suggests that the government, desperate to retain popular support amid declining economic performance, is less interested in investing in the most modern equipment than in showing its support for the rebels in eastern Ukraine, even at the price of further economic hardship.

The Kremlin might even be preparing a major offensive for the coming months. Alternatively, it may have no strategy, with unusually high military spending simply reflecting the higher-than-expected costs of the conflict.

In any case, Kudrin's economic and financial logic is even more valid today than it was at his dismissal from office. If Russia could not afford a 4 percent-of-GDP defense budget in good times, it cannot possibly manage such a high rate of military spending now, when it confronts rock-bottom oil prices, Western sanctions and economic recession.

Of course, the government could be betting on an oil price resurgence; after all, prices have historically bounced back when Russia was in need. But, like the T-14 in Red Square, Putin's luck may be about to give out

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16830
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby NRao » 20 May 2015 10:14

A Japanese view.

Image

member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_22539 » 20 May 2015 13:34

^ :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Tin can over horse cart, so appropriate.

symontk
BRFite
Posts: 920
Joined: 01 Nov 2001 12:31
Location: Bangalore

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby symontk » 20 May 2015 17:48

Philip wrote:This issue does not mean demeaning our Russian tanks.They have their own plus and minus points and have been the mainstay of the IA for decades. The IA like them because they are used to them,have been operating them for decades and have won wars against Pak with them.


From my limited knowledge India hasn't won any wars with Pakistan with Russian T series tanks, India never needed that, there was no war for that

So we don't know how the T-series will perform in a war

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby vishvak » 20 May 2015 21:49

So sirs, what are the "issues" bothering with logistics chain of Arjun. It is not a rocket science. Last page messages from d_barewal, Phillip, uddu point to about 1000 Arjun orders will sort out such 'issues' easily. Rest is just OT it seems.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1849
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby sudeepj » 20 May 2015 23:21

Two man crew with a crewless turret makes Armata a revolutionary tank. It has kicked off a new generation of tank development that up until now had been reduced to upgrades to leopard 2, Merkava, Abrams and the T72. In response to Armata, the Germans are kicking off a new tank as well. It may well be the new T34, that hopefully does not need to be used in war ever.

I dont think the Russian designs can better something that the western block can produce, given the preponderance of technology on the side of the West, but as a comparison to older generation Eastern block tanks, its something that is heads and shoulders above. Improved crew survivability, longer APFSDS and a much bigger upgrade potential makes this a tank to watch out for and better than the T90MS on all counts! It compares favorably with the Western tanks in automation and weight. The 125mm gun is somewhat underwhelming but is likely upgradeable.

DRDO is probably looking at unmanned turrets itself and can likely do a pretty awesome integration of the best technologies from the East (Heavy ERA, missiles, shaping of the armor), and the West (much better optics, electronics, Gun calibration) to produce a world beater in the next gen Arjun.

VibhavS
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 64
Joined: 04 Jan 2011 16:56
Location: Classified

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby VibhavS » 20 May 2015 23:57

Armata is not revolutionary, it is an extension of the current Russian Tank lines with auto loaders. All they are now doing is that they are trying to get the crews out of the turret since their tanks have a nasty habit of brewing up when the turrets get penned and ammo catches fire. Not really a marketing bell ringer right.
Not to mention that the crews dont really want to get barbecued.
I would love to see what happens to the tank when the auto loader conks off. somebody is going to crawl all the way into the turret to manually reload?

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1849
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby sudeepj » 21 May 2015 00:07

VibhavS wrote:Armata is not revolutionary, it is an extension of the current Russian Tank lines with auto loaders. All they are now doing is that they are trying to get the crews out of the turret since their tanks have a nasty habit of brewing up when the turrets get penned and ammo catches fire. Not really a marketing bell ringer right.
Not to mention that the crews dont really want to get barbecued.
I would love to see what happens to the tank when the auto loader conks off. somebody is going to crawl all the way into the turret to manually reload?


From the elongated bustle, it looks like the autoloader is in the unmanned turret and not in the crew compartment. The older T series tanks do have the issue you point out, but if, as the pictures suggest, the autoloader (and ammunition) is moved to the bustle, the resulting tank would be a lot safer. That Russians realized this drawback is evident from the T90MS, which stores the extra ammunition (not in the auto loader) not in the fighting compartment, but in the bustle. In addition, if the hardkill mechanisms (APS) work, that will make the tank immune to infantry carried rockets, making the vehicle fit for fighting even in urban areas.

shyamoo
BRFite
Posts: 483
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby shyamoo » 21 May 2015 00:11

symontk wrote:From my limited knowledge India hasn't won any wars with Pakistan with Russian T series tanks, India never needed that, there was no war for that

So we don't know how the T-series will perform in a war

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/histo ... -t72s.html

VibhavS
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 64
Joined: 04 Jan 2011 16:56
Location: Classified

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby VibhavS » 21 May 2015 01:12

Agreed my friend but if you are moving the Ammo and Auto loader to the bustle then you do not really need to move the crew out of the turret right? Since you solved the problem of the whole thing brewing up. In the case you just outlined just the bustle is going to blow up which is the case with every Western MBT. So they are now just copying what is accepted wisdom in Western Tank design.

Secondly by removing the crew from the Turret you offer them greater protection yes, but if your auto-loader conks off on you, the tank is a sitting duck and will have to be fixed before resuming combat. Also as I pointed out before without crew in the turret, manual loading is going to be a fun thing to watch in an Armata.

Calling it a revolution is a tad bit optimistic. Also I do not think the Arjun should be pushed down that path.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16830
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby NRao » 21 May 2015 01:44

vnmshyam wrote:
symontk wrote:From my limited knowledge India hasn't won any wars with Pakistan with Russian T series tanks, India never needed that, there was no war for that

So we don't know how the T-series will perform in a war

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/histo ... -t72s.html


Searched for "Pakistan", found one instance, which had nothing to do with a T series during a war with TSP. Just saying as a FYI only.

Also did a dirty google for tank battles with Pakistan and could not find any ref about T series in wars (65/71).

VibhavS
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 64
Joined: 04 Jan 2011 16:56
Location: Classified

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby VibhavS » 21 May 2015 02:06

India only purchased the T72 in the late 1970s, so I do not think we used any in the 71 war.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Viv S » 21 May 2015 02:12

symontk wrote:From my limited knowledge India hasn't won any wars with Pakistan with Russian T series tanks, India never needed that, there was no war for that

So we don't know how the T-series will perform in a war

Poona Horse was equipped with T-55s during the Battle of Basantar in 1971. That said, while famous for 2nd Lt. Khetarpal heroic last stand, for sheer scale it is far overshadowed by Asal Uttar, 1965 where the PA's elite armoured division was ripped open by the IA's Centurions & Shermans playing hammer to the anvil of 8th Mtn Div's dug-in infantry.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16830
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby NRao » 21 May 2015 02:41

equipped with T-55s


Wiki stated that they were used for trawling - I took that to mean that the T-55s were not used as "armuor". : (

Hobbes
BRFite
Posts: 219
Joined: 14 Mar 2011 02:59

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Hobbes » 21 May 2015 06:31

Viv S wrote:Poona Horse was equipped with T-55s during the Battle of Basantar in 1971. That said, while famous for 2nd Lt. Khetarpal heroic last stand, for sheer scale it is far overshadowed by Asal Uttar, 1965 where the PA's elite armoured division was ripped open by the IA's Centurions & Shermans playing hammer to the anvil of 8th Mtn Div's dug-in infantry.


As per the Wikipedia article on S/Lt. Khetarpal at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arun_Khetarpal, his unit (17 Poona Horse) was equipped with Centurions. If that is correct, it looks like the T-54/55 had a pretty undistinguished combat record with the Indian Army.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests