Indian Missiles and Munitions Discussion - June'14

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 04 Sep 2014 21:18

Aditya_V wrote:Rohitvats-> but if NAG range is reduced from 4KM to 2.5Km like Javelin, I am sure it can be brought to around weight of the Javelin.

I don't think it is about range. Range of TOW is also mentioned as 4,200 meters for a missile which weighs ~23 Kg and is shorter in length by about 37%. Not to forget the diameter of Nag is also on higher side as compared to other missile. Spike ER with range of 8 km has a weight of 33 Kg. And is both shorter in length and thinner in diameter. While no data is available on weight of it's warhead, I am guessing it should be in 5-6 kg range.

Only Hellfire is in the same weight class with equivalent warhead weight - but shorter and thinner still. That I think is because it being air-launched, it has a single sustainer motor and does not require launch motor as inherent in ground launched missiles.

My guess is that it has got to do with higher energy required for the lofted flight and to deliver such a heavy warhead. NAG carries a formidable 8 Kg warhead on a lofted profile as compared to 6 Kg on TOW which has a more level flight. IMO, this energy requirement also manifests itself in having a more powerful booster motor to launch the missile from vehicle as compared to other missiles. Booster in those missiles is primarily to aid in safe separation of missile from firer before main motor ignites.

Also, I think the design of the missile also plays a part - launch/boost motor is ahead of sustainer motor and is carried as dead-weight in flight. Other missiles like TOW also have dual motor structure but their launch motors are more simplistic in design.

Check diagram of TOW 2B with simplistic launch motor: http://btvt.narod.ru/4/tow2.files/2b.jpg

HELINA design:http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-h_N2U5e9D2o/T ... er%2B2.jpg

Finally, we need to check if the propellant for the missile itself requires new solution.

PS: JAVELIN also lobs a 8 kg warhead over 2.5 km! And one JAVELIN missile unit weighs at 22 kg...

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 04 Sep 2014 21:25

ADE is hiring civil trucks for transportation of SDN-55 Airborne store (Sudarshan) and related test equipment from ADE, Bangalore to ITR, Chandipur via Balasore and Kalaikunda Air force station and back to ADE, Bangalore. The Evaluation Trials are planned during Oct-Dec 2014.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 04 Sep 2014 22:35

Marten wrote:
Karan M wrote:Hecky, that pic is awesome. Can you post the source? In a few years DRDO has moved from large, federated compute/nav black boxes to those compact SOC based units. That has huge ramifications for all our programs.
Karan: Here's the pic off Twitter. It was posted by @SJha1618 - but I don't know if he's the owner.

Thank you sir!

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 04 Sep 2014 22:39

KiranM wrote:Yes, Javelin is more expensive than Milan. But it brings F&F capability through its IIR seeker. Resource crunch is in terms of having NAMICA type ATGM platforms in adequate number to support Infantry Bns. Hence, we need Inf Bns to have integral ATGM platoons which will be comparatively less expensive. But to enable ATGM crews to shoot & scoot we need to give them F&F capability.

If Javelin goes Joint Development /TOT way, I wish DRDO works on a Carl Gustaf follow on with expanded ammunition set & better tech, and gets it through IA trials. Not just a composite CG launcher, but something fire & forget without a sensor, making it a good urban/counter terror weapon. Something with a wide range of warheads etc.
In Afghanistan, British & American troops were using Javelin like a section heavy weapon, leading to prodigious (over) use & expense, beyond what snipers can cover.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 04 Sep 2014 22:44

rohitvats wrote:
srai wrote:^^^ Isn't it possible to mount current NAG on smaller jeep-sized vehicles? While not MANPAT, it would be light enough to be deployed more extensively than NAMICAs. They can be the F&F LR component to the ATGM platoons armed with Milans.
NAG is simply too heavy - the missile itself weighs 42 Kg. And apart from the weight aspect, the length of the missile itself will be an issue.

An example of 'heavy' ATGM used in mounted and dismounted role is TOW ATGM from USA. US Infantry still uses a combination of this missile along with Javelin ATGM. The latest version of the missile with launcher should top at 25 kg with missile length being under 1.2 meter. This allows the missile to be fired from tripod on dismounted profile. Pakistan Army also uses TOW in their Light Anti-Tank (LAT) and Heavy Anti-Tank (HAT) infantry battalions. But the missile still is not exactly man-portable.

Pakistan Army M113 APC mounted Bakhtar-Shikan from 39 Azad Kashmir (HAT) Battalion: http://defence.pk/gallery/data/619/medi ... _15_w1.jpg

Compared to TOW, NAG missile itself weighs at 42 Kg with length of 1.90 meter and diameter of 0.19 meter (TOW diameter is .152 meter). These dimensions make NAG unwieldy in it's current form.

Tripod mounted TOW - you can see the missile cartridge loaded into the launcher. Not to miss the huge battery required to power the whole optronics complex:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... R-001a.jpg

Another picture which shows only the launcher w/o the missile cartridge:

http://semanticommunity.info/@api/deki/ ... ssiles.png

NAG in it's current form will be a still bigger and heavier missile. Also, being restricted to firing from only from mounted role would be a serious disadvantage. The TOW weighing at at 50% of NAG can at least be broken down into sub-components by a team and fired from dismounted role. And also moved by this team over limited distance. I doubt it can be done with NAG in present form.

I also think we need dedicated and robust 4x4 platform to mount a heavy ATGM. Check pics below of Milan ATGM mounted on Jonga/Maruti Gypsy/Mahindra Jeep.

http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/dat ... m/0529.jpg
http://pib.nic.in/archieve/phtgalry/pgy ... 120016.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/XDaSXzK.jpg

Compare above to pic below of Land Rover Defender mounted Green Arrow ATGM from China (their 'heavy' ATGM which passes as Baktar Shikan in PA service):

http://defence.pk/gallery/data/619/Anti ... obile_.jpg

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

Having said that, if we aim to develop a 'lighter' version of NAG in the same range as TOW, we could implement this solution. Use a light+heavy mix of Javelin and NAG ATGM for filling army's requirement.

I think this could replace Milan/Konkurs over time & supplement Javelin *if* it meets IA doctrine.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZwTu23PBkdU/U ... CLGM-1.jpg

Simpler seeker & not F&F so lower cost, but still offers 3rd party design & hitting concealed targets.
Also, seems to be leveraging the IA standard launchers.
http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/3850/scan90084.jpg

FLAME - Fagot Launcher Adapted for Milan Equipment
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORC ... 5/0528.jpg

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 04 Sep 2014 22:47

indranilroy wrote:ADE is hiring civil trucks for transportation of SDN-55 Airborne store (Sudarshan) and related test equipment from ADE, Bangalore to ITR, Chandipur via Balasore and Kalaikunda Air force station and back to ADE, Bangalore. The Evaluation Trials are planned during Oct-Dec 2014.

Great stuff. Wonder if this will be the new kit shown @ DRDO Techfocus:
http://i.imgur.com/3rg3am7.jpg

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Sep 2014 23:32

KaranM and rohitvats, I think the NAG warhead is sized for the expected TSP Abrams tanks. Its quite large compared to most other stuff.
And it has the dead weight of the booster to carry on.
I read many papers on NAG but not one sheds light on the configuration chosen, Why was that booster ahead of sustainer and thus cannot be separated? May be separation technology wasn't there at that time?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 05 Sep 2014 01:28

Ramana i can tell you why i remember noting why.. Pls give me a day to get to my Nag notes.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 05 Sep 2014 02:50

Karan M wrote:
indranilroy wrote:ADE is hiring civil trucks for transportation of SDN-55 Airborne store (Sudarshan) and related test equipment from ADE, Bangalore to ITR, Chandipur via Balasore and Kalaikunda Air force station and back to ADE, Bangalore. The Evaluation Trials are planned during Oct-Dec 2014.
Great stuff. Wonder if this will be the new kit shown @ DRDO Techfocus:
http://i.imgur.com/3rg3am7.jpg

Unlikely. Given the name of the project, I think they are field testing production units. They had an IAF order for 50 kits. They built 55 using two private entities (at least that's what they sought to do). I think they are field testing these by randomly choosing units from the production lot.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 05 Sep 2014 04:33

NRao wrote:
One situation I can think of, to answer your question, is when a combatant initiates contact.

Not to belabor the point but if the 'contact' involves tanks, we should have been aware of intent an disposition of the enemy forces. It would be very unlikely that that they could sneak up like non-state actors or special forces types using tanks and supporting men and equipement.

Unlike in 1965, we have Airborne sensors, SIGINT, HUMINT and of course, an awareness that would derive from statements and presaging force movements by the enemy.

We don't have to wait for them to fire the first shot. It's a doctrinal change to be sure but once made, it means different responses and tools.

To make it short, the idea (figuratively) of meeting in a designated area, tossing a coin for the first shot and then going through choreographed escalation stages is passe (and lethal).

The Israeli blitz during the 1967 war illustrates the point: if our enemy has signaled intent, it is a declaration of hostilities and you strike first.

In paki context, if SIGINT/HUMINT/SAR shows 'formations' being assembled and ready to move to seize the 'Chicken's neck' at Akhnoor

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/m ... ia.kashmir

CBU-105s at marshaling points are more effective than mano a mano infantry vs patton tanks in 1965.

Bottom line, I'm against 'knife fights' and all for arrow fights.

Finally, 'Spike' vs 'Javelin'.

Personally, I'd buy time with Konkurs, Milan, Nag, Helina, Nag, Hellfire (Apaches) and CBU 105s to develop our own MP ATGM by spending the Javelin monies into a contest where under 35 non-IIT 'chaps' are given a game to build a seeker that complements the warhead tech we already have and the propellant tech we already have.

Thinking DARPA here

JMT

Hobbes · Post by **Hobbes** » 05 Sep 2014 08:05

NRao wrote:
Ultimately, the seeker tech/algorithms which make the Javelin what it is will never be handed over.
* Never, Never have expectations of anyone giving anything. IF it happens so be it - thank the stars
* Always, always, at the very least, keep on slow boil research in critical technologies, especially when someone offers such techs. Keep that research going

+++1.

Not sure why we'd even expect a business to hand over a complex technology that they spent a fortune in developing, which gives them a military edge and in a situation where the handing over may offer insufficient advantage. Yes, we might be willing to pay for it but it may not be worth it for them to sell a critical piece of technology that may carry long term yield for a one time payment. Would we be willing to do it if the tables were turned?

TOTs are at best short term stop gap arrangements that are like cholis; they hide the critical bits and at best can help accelerate the curve a bit. There is no substitute for indigenous R&D and design.

srai · Post by **srai** » 05 Sep 2014 08:09

Hobbes wrote:...

TOTs are at best short term stop gap arrangements that are like cholis; they hide the critical bits and at best can help accelerate the curve a bit. There is no substitute for indigenous R&D and design.

Choli ke niche kya hai?

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 05 Sep 2014 08:37

I think the declaired policy of the present sarkar one defense products is "made in India". That being the case I do not see any items like ATGM getting imported now. At least not in huge numbers. I agree that ATGM with F and F seeker is a complex system. When we can sent a prob to Mars but can not make a ATGM and needs to import one. Surely we can design and make them here if there is will, drive, support and funding. Time of course is a factor but with someone with a hunter can get the things done faster at least in production side one the product is ready.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 Sep 2014 09:22

the Nag IIR seeker (albeit imported from sofradir of france or some such) is a F&F....

what we lack is the domestically made IIR seeker and MMW seeker(whether domestic or imported)

the holy grail is the tri-mode laser, uncooled IIR, MMW seeker that Raytheon made a few yrs back...has a vast application use case .. its the smartphone of seekers and as an app can be used anywhere. no doubt GPS can be added as well for quad-mode.
http://www.raytheon.com/newsroom/techno ... 1_trimode/

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 05 Sep 2014 09:32

Narayana Rao wrote:I think the declaired policy of the present sarkar one defense products is "made in India". That being the case I do not see any items like ATGM getting imported now. At least not in huge numbers. I agree that ATGM with F and F seeker is a complex system. When we can sent a prob to Mars but can not make a ATGM and needs to import one. Surely we can design and make them here if there is will, drive, support and funding. Time of course is a factor but with someone with a hunter can get the things done faster at least in production side one the product is ready.

The fab costs are the challenge. Historically most GOI have viewed defence R&D as a capital soak & then spent on imports heavily. This attitude is also reflected in the attitudes of service folks of the era who continue to hold true to that thought process (Lt Gen Harwant Singhs's article f.e. or Matheswaran & co when viewed against the Rafale). A lot of the COTS electronics the world over is imported, but specialized items like detector arrays are made by a handful of companies - Sofradir in France (supplies Sagem & Thales both of which also have dedicated R&D on seekers), Kentron in SA (which shows even smaller firms, when funded can develop tech), Raytheon & several firms in the US, ELOP in Israel (dont remember whether Elbit has it too) ... in each case, dedicated fabs & significant capex in infrastructure & associated opex (manpower et al).

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 05 Sep 2014 09:35

But surely we can develop those things also here in India with some commitment and hard work. Right?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 05 Sep 2014 09:38

Singha wrote:the Nag IIR seeker (albeit imported from sofradir of france or some such) is a F&F....

what we lack is the domestically made IIR seeker and MMW seeker(whether domestic or imported)

the holy grail is the tri-mode laser, uncooled IIR, MMW seeker that Raytheon made a few yrs back...has a vast application use case .. its the smartphone of seekers and as an app can be used anywhere. no doubt GPS can be added as well for quad-mode.
http://www.raytheon.com/newsroom/techno ... 1_trimode/

The "seeker" is not imported per se. Its detector array is. The seeker consists of a gimbal mechanism + electronics, the optics, the detector array, the cooler, plus the image processing. Its assembled at BDL.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... PD_017.JPG
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-gGpnMyMbk-g/U ... 9s+FPA.jpg

Problem is the detector..

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 05 Sep 2014 09:38

Narayana Rao wrote:But surely we can develop those things also here in India with some commitment and hard work. Right?

Yes sir, with funding & support, it is possible.

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 05 Sep 2014 09:43

^^^
Karan ji
We are making progress on the focal plane array. Please see this post.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 05 Sep 2014 09:59

Thanks Neela ji. So it appears we have kept the clock ticking & won't be starting from scratch if a focused program on this is launched. That is good news.
The scale of Sofradir's work is impressive.
These are the kind of facilities they have on the manufacturing end.
http://www.sofradir-ec.com/products-cooled.asp#factory
I hope once the economy is stabilized, we can invest in such facilities for the long term.

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 05 Sep 2014 11:15

Another post for you Karan

X-post by Pankajs in Indian R&D thread

-----

I have a favor to ask you. Can you do a write-up on the different types of sensors/seekers and the type of targets they are intended for. That will be invaluable information that we can post on the first page of this thread.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 Sep 2014 11:20

I think the local seeker has also been tested on live fire Nags but the demand for greater range and ability to detect targets at higher ambient temp and smaller delta between target and environment drove the need to import the sofradir tfta seeker. they have a range of seekers off the shelf and were the easiest to get.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 05 Sep 2014 15:05

ramana wrote:KaranM and rohitvats, I think the NAG warhead is sized for the expected TSP Abrams tanks. Its quite large compared to most other stuff.
And it has the dead weight of the booster to carry on.
I read many papers on NAG but not one sheds light on the configuration chosen, Why was that booster ahead of sustainer and thus cannot be separated? May be separation technology wasn't there at that time?

Even if that was the case, the DRDO, has recently demonstrated the CLGM, that can have a man portable application.

The question I have for any one who may able to answer. How difficult would it be for the seeker of CLGM to be replaced with the F&F guidance module similar that of the NAG.

I know that this cannot happen on a plug and play basis. Still the possibilities can be explored. If possible, this may give us a basis of coming up with a quickly fielded 3rd gen light weight ATGM.

Ranjani Brow · Post by **Ranjani Brow** » 05 Sep 2014 15:36

Singha wrote:the Nag IIR seeker (albeit imported from sofradir of france or some such) is a F&F....

what we lack is the domestically made IIR seeker and MMW seeker(whether domestic or imported)

DRDO officials while speaking to TOI said these evaluation trials were conducted after integrating the "more sensitive" and "higher resolution" seekers developed by Research Centre Imarat (RCI) of DRDO here with Nag.

Aug 2, 2013; DRDO tastes rare success in evaluation trials of Nag

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 07 Sep 2014 06:10

Guys, all the seeker detector arrays for Nag - previous & current are imported, from Sofradir.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 07 Sep 2014 06:11

Neelaji, currently snowed under thanks to work & some other commitments. Will take some time & do it later if its ok.

BTW, a very interesting gif of the Brahmos - iterative advances zindabad, this same tech can now be used for all our VLS missiles - already being used for Shourya and others in the future.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 07 Sep 2014 09:17

Per Saurav Jha, after his discussion with Dr. Chander, DRDO is working towards complete seeker import-independence in 3 years! Great, if achieved!

vic · Post by **vic** » 07 Sep 2014 09:50

I think that people here are confusing seeker with detector/sensor array. Seeker refers to full assembly including glass dome, cryo cooler, electronics Plus detector/sensor array. So DRDO has been making seekers with imported detector/sensor array.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 07 Sep 2014 09:57

The success of Nag was attributed to the indigenous cryo cooler. So I guess they can do it except for the FPA. But then again the production and import are a decision in their own right. Can Do is not he same as Did It.

Rien · Post by **Rien** » 07 Sep 2014 17:50

Man portable Nag, Arjun with LAHAT, Namica. We are kind of excessively well equipped to counter the very unlikeliest of all possible scenarios, a Pakistani tank thrust. The Pakis know exactly what we have, why would they foolishly walk into a trap?

It just makes no sense to invest in Javelin, whether it is fire and forget or what. Since 1971, we have not encountered a single tank on tank battle. And we won't either, Pakistan's Red lines are all about preventing us from taking our their armoured divisions.

sattili · Post by **sattili** » 07 Sep 2014 18:11

Rien ji,

But how will we deal with situations like Longewala? I think Rohitvats also pointed a bit earlier in this thread, that we are good in tank vs tank battle. However its the infantry that needs these man portable ATGMs and we are short in that dept. (in the sesnse still using old gen Milan etc).

There is also an excellent scenario written by Vivek Ahuja in the Chimera thread, it essentially makes it clear that advanced ATGMs are also very crucial if our infantry has to face the Cheeni Armour in the few places where they can open the front and thrust forward. We cannot place our Tanks everywhere every time. Proven in 1965 when the young 2nd Lt Khetarpal and his 2 other colleagues were asked to help the infantry battalion that was staring at the Paki tank division barreling towards them. It was 3 Indian tanks against an entire division of the enemy. Imagine if infantry had ATGMs to defend themselves while more help arrives.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 07 Sep 2014 18:40

Rien wrote:Man portable Nag, Arjun with LAHAT, Namica. We are kind of excessively well equipped to counter the very unlikeliest of all possible scenarios, a Pakistani tank thrust. The Pakis know exactly what we have, why would they foolishly walk into a trap?

It just makes no sense to invest in Javelin, whether it is fire and forget or what. Since 1971, we have not encountered a single tank on tank battle. And we won't either, Pakistan's Red lines are all about preventing us from taking our their armoured divisions.

Sir jee, since '71 we have not witnessed a single 'dog fight', single full scale war, etc. Why are we investing so much on fauj? We should not buy Javelin can be argued differently. Your idea of war tactics may not be that of the TSPA Gen Staff, no?

Weapons or troops, the IA and IN are on a big expansion route while we discuss the reverse on BRF. IAF is the only one reducing its size and that too not by choice. Obviously, we on BRF are missing the entire change in doctrine. Once the IAF acquisitions and LCA comes on line, the IAF may reach levels never seen before.

The modernity of a weapon system and its origin are the things we discuss here as most of us are way out of depth in tactics. Mostly since vital information for tactics remains out of public domain. Only a few like rohitvats seem to have a grip on actual role play of formations from the Indian side. Guessing for the TSPA is war gaming. Even in war games if one assumes a particular action it is based on capabilities built and past usage patterns. TSPA has a lot of Tanks including TSPA made tanks. We may call them 'tin cans' but their soldiers will use those. And we better be ready.

So why not Javelin - should be from the plus or minus vis-a-vis any other systems. Lets not bring in to discussions Paki strategy and Tank warfare tactics unless we sure of that based on some information source. Assumption like yours should be avoided.

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 08 Sep 2014 05:36

deejay , no matter what and how much you feed this troll he will remain hungry . his lahori logic and playing the "swadeshi" card each time is getting my nerve .

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 08 Sep 2014 07:00

^Better than the scores of trolls that play the "videshi" card each time.

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 08 Sep 2014 07:51

^ this troll plays the swadeshi thing just like the quota card policy of our politicians , hope you got the hint.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 08 Sep 2014 11:11

Arun Menon wrote:^Better than the scores of trolls that play the "videshi" card each time.

Touche.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 08 Sep 2014 20:38

The javeline offer comes around the time when Nag-Helina version is successfully tested at 7-km range, along with specific requirements as earlier demanded. A simple reason for hitherto unoffered tech to be offered now (like nuke deal) is that terrorist munna has browned their shalwar and lost their mind due to top attack and colorless flame (or residue burnt gas) Nag spitting fire over gazi wannabe cowards.

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 08 Sep 2014 21:49

^ It is a ploy used so often that its not even worth mentioning. Question is who should one blame for falling for the same ploy more than once (in our case so often)?

Example - No super computers to India until we made our own. Then 'overnight' offered super computers to kill domestic development capability. In fact, UK built the first supercomputer and guess what -> Americans banned imports from UK until Cray (US firm) came up with 'domestic' supercomputer. American local demand was way higher and Cray left behind UK firms quickly.

Singling out US is irrelevant as Russia, Israel, France ....they all engage in same competitive game >> Drain money through super expensive prices and kill domestic capability. We are left with few shiny high maintenance goodies and have to go begging when a war lasts beyond a week.

Obviously, No country becomes the Top world power or a 'First' world nation without been smarter than rest of the pack.

Rien · Post by **Rien** » 09 Sep 2014 17:34

Sattili, Deejay

We don't need Javelin. We have the NAMICA and the Kestrel and mortars and the Light Combat Helicopter as well as Smerch. Why will they go into action against tanks with the least well equipped to handle it unit, the jawan? Why do we have IFV's for in the first place? In the Gulf War, the Bradley IFV took out more tanks than the Abrams did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipment_ ... #Anti-tank

We have no less than 30 000+ Milan and 15 000+ Konkurs. No need.

deejay wrote: Sir jee, since '71 we have not witnessed a single 'dog fight', single full scale war, etc. Why are we investing so much on fauj? We should not buy Javelin can be argued differently. Your idea of war tactics may not be that of the TSPA Gen Staff, no?

The TSP General staff have never even considered tank on tank warfare. At the end of the day, Kargil and mujahideen make no sense if they can just do a classic blitzkrieg. The General Staff's strategy has been clear for decades. Bleed us dry like they pulled off in Afghanistan. You are disregarding 43 years of Pakistani strategy to date to suggest they are suddenly going to decide they can win a tank battle. It's not a realistic possibility.

The Indian Army's old strategy was to cut Pakistan in half. They have given that up in favour of Cold Start. I can't think of an old fashioned tank battle anywhere in the world since the Gulf War.

deejay wrote:
So why not Javelin - should be from the plus or minus vis-a-vis any other systems. Lets not bring in to discussions Paki strategy and Tank warfare tactics unless we sure of that based on some information source. Assumption like yours should be avoided.

You are making a very unwarranted assumption . Do you have any proof to back that up? Pakistan's Red lines are very clear that they assume we can wipe out both the PAF and the PA, because otherwise why threaten to nuke us? To date, tank on tank battles have gone badly for them.

We have more tanks, we have Namica, we have artillery, we have Smerch + thousands of Milan and Konkurs. At some point one has to start questioning the need for more maal to counter their limited tank force. The Chinese tank force can't fly over the Himalayas. So even combined, two front war we are far in excess of requirements. And to even suggest tank battle suggests that we are ready for a nuclear exchange with Pakistan. Are we that ready?

What do we do if we wipe out the PA's tanks? Pakistan has been very clear they will nuke us.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 09 Sep 2014 17:43

my understanding was Ladakh at least some portion of it is a tank county. I remember we stationing t72s there. I am not sure about east side of the border. In case of paki munnas, they will try all kinds of stupid things (and fail in reality but boost having done very well). We can not predict what an irretional and mad fellows do. So we can not rule out anything from pakis. They may even nukes at the first hint of out right of war. They will justify it somehow and tell the world it is our fault.

So be prepared for madness in case of war. Of course we can beat them to pulp in any case.