Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16761
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 25 Feb 2011 23:12

Austin, that's what I said, they are not buying the T-80 anymore because it has not been updated (IOW there is no India that would fund the development of T-80 upg) while the T-90 has been. it's the exact same situation with the mig-29k and su-33.

when they started off the T-80 was the definite superior of the two and the tank of choice of the russian army. now, the T-80 can no longer claim to being a definite superior simply because it has not been updated. if updated it remains a much better design than the T-90.

I dont know why people have such low opinion of Arjun that they feel that only by finding imaginary faults with T 90 can a case for Arjun be built.
sorry, which of these faults are imaginary ? I don't remember seeing even one of these refuted unless rhetoric and circular logic like 'it is good because it is mature/army chose it' etc can be called refutation.

it has NOTHING to do with arjun, it's only you who brings this irrelevant angle to somehow 'save' the T-90 from criticism. please, if you are really confident that the T-90 is a good tank discuss it on its own merits without bringing in unwarranted angles on arjun.
the T-90 is unfit for use on today's battlefield and it's a disgrace that our soldiers will be sent to battle in these deathtraps.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 25 Feb 2011 23:15

Hopefully the thread and the esteemed members will be better informed. I have no hope for some, but the others (and you know who you are) will hopefully not buy the line that IA and its wisdom needs to be rubbished and attacked ad nasueam to try and prop up Arjun.

There is no need, Arjun is a good tank it can stand in good stead without having the need to decry competition. Its not 1990s any more, Arjun has matured, no need to get into a defensive shell.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 25 Feb 2011 23:23

Rahul M wrote:Austin, that's what I said, they are not buying the T-80 anymore because it has not been updated (IOW there is no India that would fund the development of T-80 upg) while the T-90 has been. it's the exact same situation with the mig-29k and su-33.


That is irrelevant. We are not choosing a MRCA based on what the original design of A/c in 1960s were. We are making decisions based on the current shape of products today.

As shown by comments earlier, T 90 essentially represents a synthesis of best of T 80 and T 72.
This was done on the basis of real warfare exp


Soviets had their own little tank disaster, which IDF had much later, and used that knowledge to create a better tank. So clearly that in itself has much to recommend it.

it has NOTHING to do with arjun, it's only you who brings this irrelevant angle to somehow 'save' the T-90 from criticism. please, if you are really confident that the T-90 is a good tank discuss it on its own merits without bringing in unwarranted angles on arjun.
the T-90 is unfit for use on today's battlefield and it's a disgrace that our soldiers will be sent to battle in these deathtraps.


Rahul M, a simple cursory look at previous posts show that the comparison with Arjun is ALWAYS bought by others.

Secondly, there is no need to defend T 90 from criticism, because most of it mis-informed and rants.

Such as beating down T 90 because 1960 export model T 72s were defeated by 1980 M1s supported by massive air cover.

Sure.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4101
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby srai » 25 Feb 2011 23:42

Sanku wrote:
Austin wrote:It completely false to say that T-90 is inferior to T-80


In fact the other way around is true.

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/T-90S.htm

...

...
To further improve the T-72's export prospects and its chances of being selected as Russia's sole production MBT, the T-80U's more sophisticated fire control system was also added to produce a vehicle designated T-72BU. Finally, since worldwide news coverage during Desert Storm had firmly established the image of the T-72 as a burning Iraqi tank, the new model was renamed T-90.

...

The T-90 is an interim solution, pending the introduction of the new Nizhny Tagil MBT which has been delayed due to lack of funding. Produced primarily mainly due to its lower cost, the T-90 will probably remain in low-rate production to keep production lines open until newer designs become available. ...


For Russia, T-90 (aka T-72BU) is an interim solution, but for IA it has become the de-facto main MBT!

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby chackojoseph » 25 Feb 2011 23:44

As I see, Russians will have the regular 20-30 tank T-90 purchases per year till FMBT comes online. T-90 is not favoured in Russian Army, but, the only one in production because of foreign orders. Secondly Russia is more focused on rebuilding its Navy (640 bil $ odd). Russia will keep its T-72's, T-80's and token T-90's till FMBT arrives. My personal time horizion for a new gen Russian tank is within next 5 years. T-90 improvements are effected for continuation of overseas order.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 25 Feb 2011 23:48

srai wrote:For Russia, T-90 (aka T-72BU) is an interim solution, but for IA it has become the de-facto main MBT!


Actually the state Russia is in, they cant even afford their interim solution. They would have loved to have more T 90s (refer to Fornof's page) but they cant.

They are therefore pinning their hopes on FMBT which is 20 years away. I am sure we dont want a situation where our mainstay MBT for next 20 years is a fleet made in 1980s?

Or do we?

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12530
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 25 Feb 2011 23:50

chackojoseph wrote:As I see, Russians will have the regular 20-30 tank T-90 purchases per year till FMBT comes online. T-90 is not favoured in Russian Army, but, the only one in production because of foreign orders. Secondly Russia is more focused on rebuilding its Navy (640 bil $ odd). Russia will keep its T-72's, T-80's and token T-90's till FMBT arrives. My personal time horizion for a new gen Russian tank is within next 5 years. T-90 improvements are effected for continuation of overseas order.


There is nothing for you to see here. Russia is on record saying they cant buy more tanks because they have no money.

And can you please tell us which magical MBT will come through for them in next 5 years? All the projects are currently canceled.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4101
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby srai » 25 Feb 2011 23:51

Sanku wrote:
srai wrote:For Russia, T-90 (aka T-72BU) is an interim solution, but for IA it has become the de-facto main MBT!


Actually the state Russia is in, they cant even afford their interim solution. They would have loved to have more T 90s (refer to Fornof's page) but they cant.

They are therefore pinning their hopes on FMBT which is 20 years away. I am sure we dont want a situation where our mainstay MBT for next 20 years is a fleet made in 1980s?

Or do we?


That's where the Arjun comes in :wink:

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1049
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RKumar » 25 Feb 2011 23:56

I have no idea why and where this discussion between T-90 and Arjun is going.

My argument is there are enough old T-72 and older T-55 tanks in our inventory which simply can be replaced by Arjun.

There must not be any new orders for Russia (be it T-90M or FMBT) it should be be Arjun or Indian FMBT. There is no doubt that Arjun beat T-90 at given time. And IA have started building infrastructure, logistic, support and maintenance staff with initial order of 124. They must expand it today so in future we don't face any issues which we are discussing today..

just my 2 naya paisa.

GeorgeM
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 80
Joined: 09 Oct 2010 07:09

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby GeorgeM » 26 Feb 2011 00:04

Sanku wrote:

For T 90 the advantages seen so far are
1) Lesser fuel consumption (both on and off roads) -- as per IDSA and IPCS articles along with websites
2) Reports of lower maintenance needs, less MTBF for engines etc.
3) Less support train needed (reports say, a T 90 needs 2-3 trucks, Arjun needs 4)

The impacts could be, a self sustained battle group going longer before needing to stop for replenishment.

Quick turn around of breakdowns/losses. Simpler to repair systems.

Lesser cost == more numbers.


Sanku, Thank you.

One thing regarding you statement #1 above, it would seem to me that you may be taking just a few points from a sea of data. One doesn't know if the Arjun crew pushed the engine to its limits, the terrain, and many many other operating conditions. Why would they push the tank to its limit? because they can with the Arjun, it has higher reserve power with an automatic tranny compared to the mech in T-90. Automatic tranny means Arjun is at or near the 'best' hp. In cross country one could think of the tank changing speeds as it goes up and down mounds or dunes. If it slows down, the auto tranny is there to give it that additional head room on demand.
Imagine the T-90 driver changing gears frantically as the tank maneuvers over mounds, up and down, left and right, through ditches under fire, who cares about fuel economy then - Army Top Brass?. I need additional torque now. It is like I lost 10 T-90s "but sir we had better fuel comsumption than the enemy tanks".

Also remember T-90 has no APU. So were does that power come from. I don't see solar panels on T-90. So in real world this fuel consumption numbers could change significantly. Those numbers you quoted from IDSA etc is only good for that and I would leave it at that.

You seem to be very passionate about T-90. On one hand your passion has brought out so much info, pros and cons, in few pages of this forum from a variety of sources. But on the other hand such passion can cloud ones otherwise clear thought process. Enjoying my education here.

rgsrini
BRFite
Posts: 738
Joined: 17 Sep 2005 18:00

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rgsrini » 26 Feb 2011 00:24

Here is a link to a 2004 road test performed by Autocar on Arjun. Very interesting read IMO.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/36514626/Arjun-Autocar-Report

On page 74, it indicates that the cross country speed is 40KMPH.
On the last page it indicates that the fuel tank capacity is 2000litre and the fuel consumption is 6.7lit/KM. This works out to a range of 300KM.

For kicks, I wanted to compared this with something other than T-90.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams
Abrams has a 1500hp engine, 1900l fuel tank and has a range of 479KM. The fuel consumption works out to 3.96lit/KM. something doesn't gel compared to the efficiency of the German engine in Arjun. Or there is a big opportunity for increasing Arjun's fuel efficiency with the new indigenous 1500hp "Bharat Power Pack" being designed for Mark II.

Are there any links/info available on the 1500hp engine being proposed for MKII.

rgsrini
BRFite
Posts: 738
Joined: 17 Sep 2005 18:00

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rgsrini » 26 Feb 2011 00:42

Here is another comparison with Leopard 2. Powerpack supplied by the same German manufacturer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_2

1479hp, 1200L tank capacity, 550KM range. How can there be such huge differences in efficiencies?
2 possibilities come to my mind:
1. Huge upward potential in terms of range when the power pack is replaced with an efficient alternative.
2. Something to do with indian conditions. For e.g. the Inlet air filter used for filtering fine desert sand may be causing tremendous loss of efficiency. If this is the case, then we need to compare apples to apples before beating ourselves up.

I am sure gurus can think of several other possibilities as well.

Raman
BRFite
Posts: 265
Joined: 06 Mar 2001 12:31
Location: Niyar kampootar onlee

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Raman » 26 Feb 2011 00:56

rgsrini: Maximum speed != Most efficient speed. My guess is that Arjun will achieve similar ranges if running at the most efficient speed.

Also, you can be damn sure that all those other ranges are given for unattainable ideal conditions: low ambient temperature, no payload, no A/C or avionics drain, running downhill with the crew pushing :P , etc. etc

Gurneesh
BRFite
Posts: 470
Joined: 14 Feb 2010 21:21
Location: Troposphere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Gurneesh » 26 Feb 2011 01:43

rgsrini wrote:Here is a link to a 2004 road test performed by Autocar on Arjun. Very interesting read IMO.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/36514626/Arjun-Autocar-Report

On page 74, it indicates that the cross country speed is 40KMPH.
On the last page it indicates that the fuel tank capacity is 2000litre and the fuel consumption is 6.7lit/KM. This works out to a range of 300KM.

For kicks, I wanted to compared this with something other than T-90.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams
Abrams has a 1500hp engine, 1900l fuel tank and has a range of 479KM. The fuel consumption works out to 3.96lit/KM. something doesn't gel compared to the efficiency of the German engine in Arjun. Or there is a big opportunity for increasing Arjun's fuel efficiency with the new indigenous 1500hp "Bharat Power Pack" being designed for Mark II.

Are there any links/info available on the 1500hp engine being proposed for MKII.


One should not look too much into these numbers. They are when the machine is performing at design conditions in controlled (or favorable) environments.

It is similar to how the kmpl numbers quoted by the car companies are always more than what you get in routine. This is because those tests were done in a straight line with driving that was very conservative. A few years back Autocar got a Ford Ikon to get very good efficiency but they themselves mentioned that they had to drive like morons to get it and there is no way they would do that in routine.

Gas turbines are very efficient devices when operated near their optimal design conditions (in terms of rpm and power). But they incur a very heavy penalty compared to reciprocating engines when operating at other performance points (Idling, Partial Load, starting etc.). This is why gas turbines are favored over Reciprocating engines in power plants (where load demand is fairly constant) but not for vehicles.

Bharat Pack will be more efficient than current Arjun engine. It has to be considering the quantum leap in diesel technology achieved in the past decade.

GeorgeM
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 80
Joined: 09 Oct 2010 07:09

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby GeorgeM » 26 Feb 2011 02:28

For T 90 the advantages seen so far are
1) Lesser fuel consumption (both on and off roads) -- as per IDSA and IPCS articles along with websites
2) Reports of lower maintenance needs, less MTBF for engines etc.
3) Less support train needed (reports say, a T 90 needs 2-3 trucks, Arjun needs 4)

The impacts could be, a self sustained battle group going longer before needing to stop for replenishment.

Quick turn around of breakdowns/losses. Simpler to repair systems.

Lesser cost == more numbers


Also for point # 2 above, what is the sample size. Any time somebody throws statistics at me, the magic phrase I use is 'Sample Size'. This Mean Time Between Failures may be for 2 Proto Arjuns (may be with ball bearings in the oil sump :) ) vs a few 100 T-90's off a mature/stable production line. Show me MTBF from Stable production lines for both. Also I am in the diesel engine business. I can tell you that MTU engines would any day or night be far advanced and have higher durability and reliabilty than Russian engines, just becoz of the amount of capital, R&D etc each puts in. But then I am here for an education so somebody could give me a read on this Russian engine.
For Point#3, if I have 10 Bajaj Scootys, I might need 1 Autorikshaw to go along providing logistic support. But if I have a 10 BMWs, then me crying about needing 4 autorikshaws and still not able to catch up with those damn BMWs is hardly an argument against BMW.

niran
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5389
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 16:01

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby niran » 26 Feb 2011 05:43

RKumar wrote:I have no idea why and where this discussion between T-90 and Arjun is going.

My argument is there are enough old T-72 and older T-55 tanks in our inventory which simply can be replaced by Arjun.

There must not be any new orders for Russia (be it T-90M or FMBT) it should be be Arjun or Indian FMBT. There is no doubt that Arjun beat T-90 at given time. And IA have started building infrastructure, logistic, support and maintenance staff with initial order of 124. They must expand it today so in future we don't face any issues which we are discussing today..

just my 2 naya paisa.

exactly that is happening while mulla and gaziese here debate till the cows come home, they are MBTs, 1078 man hour of works goes in before T90 or Arjun can fire a single shell, it is all about logistics, IA is building logistics and will acuire Arjuns as they build it, meanwhile does it hurt if you have 2 kinds of MBTs? IMHO absolutely no?

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9448
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Yagnasri » 26 Feb 2011 06:40

I think the fact that the Engine now is use is also a very old design may also be one of the reason. I hope the India engine will do better. By the way who is designing it? any news on the latest position?

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23314
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 26 Feb 2011 09:50

negi wrote:I have asked precisely the same question on last page in my first post i.e. what are these items purchased during SU era that qualify as logistics for the T-90 ?


Armoured Bridge laying equipment ,ARV,MEV etc , now just SU we did a big deal with Poland in 90's to buy huge numbers of these equipment if my memory serves me right , these are all designed to take care of any T series tanks with max 40 plus T category

No one is questioning the procurement policy of the 70s and early 80s when there were no alternatives however after the disintegration of USSR the same Soviet era MIC has in fact become a huge liability for us for the OEMs are now scattered across different countries; also post SU era the purchases from Russia are no longer subsidized.


Yeah in 90's there was a big issue of MIC getting scattered etc but now thats not an issue after consolidation , certainly Russia does not subsidized purchases but their equipment still comes at a cheaper cost compared to Western Type and with generous TOT and the establish logistics/production base and long working relationship and familiarity of their equipment gives them niche advantage , much like it would give any NATO country that advantage when they purchase American equipment over similar western types.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23314
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 26 Feb 2011 10:39

Sanku wrote: Russia is on record saying they cant buy more tanks because they have no money.


They would not buy old equipment is what they said but they have cancelled the T-95 in favour of T-90 further development. That is the equipment they are planning to purchase , you can read details on modernised T-90 here from the bosses mouth T-90 tank to get all new turret , most certainly they would have french TI link similar to Bishma.
The number of T-90 purchased in 2010 is around 250 plus as per Army chief link , also note that they are moving towards a small fleet of 10 thousand tanks by reducing the strength to half as part of Army rationalisation program, so reducing the types, standardisation and upgrade makes sense rather then introducing a new heavy type like T-90.

And can you please tell us which magical MBT will come through for them in next 5 years? All the projects are currently canceled.


All projects as in the T-95 is certainly cancelled but there is actively development of FMBT like we have our own program and in recent interviews they have confirmed that they would have a prototype ready before 2015 check this link check the relevant part to get an idea on the direction they are taking on FMBT

- Is based on T-95 to create a simplified tank ? It is often said that the tank development is very complex

We are working to create a single combat platform, it is in heavy development, I can say that there is achieved a new quality, we are developing it, of course, at the request of the military.

And it takes into account the experience of T-95?

- Certainly.

And when will be shown this new platform, developed, apparently by the ROC "Armata": up to 2015 or later?

Of course, we will not wait for 2015, it is too late. We are working on it, and on other platforms. Design and new engines - power of 1500 hp. and 1800 liters. they are tested, the most important thing is that their production had no problems . We are working on electric, it provides better fuel economy and smoothness. In general, the big advantage over traditional engines.

- The new unified platform will be electric?
Yes, it is likely.


That said when the FMBT gets inducting this decade it wont replace the newer T-90 but the huge fleet of T-72 they have , much like we have recently declared in that frontline interview iirc that our FMBT will replace the T-72 and not the Arjun.

jai
BRFite
Posts: 369
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 19:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby jai » 26 Feb 2011 11:13

Allow the CVRDE to export Arjun. Once it is sold to other armies in good numbers and it generates global feedback, IA would automatically pick it up and start ordering numbers. Just like The Russians "found" fondness for the new SU series (35, 34) after the success of SU 30 MKI, and now MIG 29K/KUB.

Vivek K
BRFite
Posts: 1964
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Vivek K » 26 Feb 2011 11:14

Have TATA take over exports. Then let them sell it to IA with all the grease guns for the procurement mafia. Watch the results!

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1829
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby uddu » 26 Feb 2011 11:16

Austin wrote:That said when the FMBT gets inducting this decade it wont replace the newer T-90 but the huge fleet of T-72 they have , much like we have recently declared in that frontline interview iirc that our FMBT will replace the T-72 and not the Arjun.

:D Even with words you're struggling to equate Arjun==T-90. Will not succeed brother.
No lahori logic is going to help. Arjun is the best tank and rather than wasting money on T's India must invest and manufacture Arjun's and afterwards FMBT when it arrives. So Indian Army must have Arjun's and FMBT's in service and nothing else. No more useless Tincans.

pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby pragnya » 26 Feb 2011 11:31

some simple questions with respect to the T-90S -

1. T-90S is tom-tommed to have 1000hp engine but in reality that is not the case. russians themselves certified it at 846/910hp!!! now calculate what would be the power to weight ratio.

18.19 - 19.56 and not 21.5 as advertised against Arjun's 24.

now think what reserve power the T-90S has?? what about the mobility??

OTOH Arjun when derated also will have good reserve power that will not affect the mobility!!!

2. an APU on any tank not only saves fuel but also powers the electronics in 'idle' mode besides reducing the thermal signature and importantly increases the life of the engine.

is it not true that T-90S does not have an APU?? meaning it can't idle!!! what will happen to the 'fuel efficiency'? it is not that tanks keep running all the time!!!

3. it is said conveniently that Shtora can be retro fitted but the question is where this Shtora will draw the power from?? when the mobility itself takes a hit due to the underpowered engine??

4. is it not true T-90S needs an AC unit?? not only for elctronics but also to save the crew from fainting in the desert heat which can go upto 60d inside the tank?? 'if' there was an option to put the AC unit, the question still remains - where again this will draw power from??

how is it that Arjun can do without an AC unit?? not only was the elctronics hardened to operate in the 'indian' heat but the space it has as also better ventilation 'dissipates' the heat built up inside efficiently. this is the hallmark of a modern design.

5. why do T-90S crew have to sit on top of the ammunition?? what will happen in case of a hit?? will it not simply blow up??

OTOH Arjun has blow up panels to minimise the risk to the crew in case of a hit and has a separate ammo compartment. again a case of design superiority wrt crew protection and crew comfort is already in built into the design.

6. Kontakt ERA is illustarated as a super duper solution to protection. how will this stand up against a TANDEM warhead?? what about the standard armour of the T-90S?? is it better than the Kanchan??

7. the thermals conking out in the day is legendary. why is it like that?? solution like the AC unit means both space and power requirement. are both available in the T-90S?? that 'space' is a premium on the T-90S is a well known fact reason why the russians themselves find it obsolete and unupgradable (as per the links i gave in the last post) and 'power' is again a premium if one looks at point # 1 - raising a basic question on the mobility itself!!!

8. last i heard there is an issue with the commanders sight -

THURSDAY, AUGUST 06, 2009

Army For New Commanders Sight On T-90s

The Indian Army has decided to replace the main commander's sight on all current and future T-90S main battle tanks, and has issued a request for information for this. The T-90's PNK-4S commanders sight, manufactured by Russia's JSC Rostov Optical-Mechanical Plant (ROMZ), has been found to be far below what the Army wants, and it has therefore put out an RFI for an advanced thermal-imager based panoramic night sight.


http://livefist.blogspot.com/2009/08/in ... -main.html

9. 'logistic chain' is brought up as an issue. question is are you willing to move forward with technology or simply want to sit on the logistics for the comfort/ease?? a new modern equipment means a leap in capability and adding a punch to the offence. if the criteria to induct a better equipment is only based on 'logistics' of an existing equipment then we should only see Mig 35 for the MMRCA as the logistics and infra exists for Mig 29s. besides when T-72s were inducted logistics 'was created' for it because that was potent then!! same with T-90 and Arjun.

the point here is 'winning a war' as against maintaining the logistics for 'not winning the war'.

10. is it not true T-90S fires 2 piece rounds as against 'unitary' and longer rods of the ARjun??

11. doesn't the shorter barrel and lower elevation the T-90S limits it to a lower range against Arjun's??

12. why do T-90S has to stop and shoot and move?? while Arjun shoots on the move with higher accuracy!!!

T-90S is simply no match for the Arjun.

with so many issues still troubling the T-90S it is simply amazing that IA accused that Arjun was not ready and there were issues to be rectified when even after 11+ years of induction so many issues of T-90S stare in the face!!! why is our armed forces so stringent with local products when that is a non-issue for the imported equipment?? and even when they prove themselves they are short shrifted?? and why does IA support a tank which is obsolete by design and unsuited for indian climate support it when the russians themselves are refusing them.

beats me. fwiw.

akimalik
BRFite
Posts: 133
Joined: 14 Apr 2010 11:27

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby akimalik » 26 Feb 2011 11:46

A simple question I ask:
If IA is so satisfied with T-90 and Arjun is considered sub-par (for whatever myraid reasons...). Why can't DRDO sell the Arjun designs/Production lines to the highest bidder?
I mean DRDO (plus the Indian Govt) has spent money to develop the Arjun, let us accept that IA finds Arjun unfit for large-scale induction, but let us also see if others hold the same thoughts as IA.

akimalik
BRFite
Posts: 133
Joined: 14 Apr 2010 11:27

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby akimalik » 26 Feb 2011 11:52

dear Sirs,

I just want to understand this better

Sanku wrote:I dont get it;

arnab wrote: he did point out induction of more 'Arjun' MBTs at this stage would only mean India lagging behind in the technological race in armoured fighting vehicles.

...
??


So while Arjun is a contemporary tank whose induction in larger numbers => India lags in the Tech race;
At the same time we plan to induct much larger numbers of T-90 which has in turn been found wanting when compared against Arjun?

Secondly w.r.t the survivability vs. the range factor is concerned you may consider the following:
during WWII, the biggest reason for the success of the P-51 was the fact that it had the range to escort the bombers all the way to mainland Europe.
However, if we look at the Pacific front, the US a/cs were mostly larger and much better armoured than the IJN a/cs. Between mileage and ability to "bring the pilot back home", the latter was the focus of their designs. In fact several of the IJN fighters did not even have simple safety features like self-sealing fuel tanks etc (all this was sacrificed in favour of range & performance). As a result, while the IJN fighters did have an initial impact, they soon were on the defensive.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66493
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 26 Feb 2011 12:03

a decade ago we heard that Polish "drawa FCS" and some other french kit would be used to update the T72...that went on for a while...meantime there was talk of some israeli eqpt being brought in because the polish FCS was found unsatisfactory.
a decade later, whenever there is talk of a indo-pak tank war, 'sources' within the army claim that 80% of our tanks are night blind.

it is very unclear to me how many exactly of our T72 fleet were updated with what equipment and what is their real capability at night and in adverse conditions ? are their sensor and FCS equalized to the T90 std ? in what areas do they lag ? which FCS was used for the upgrade ?

I sense another set of scandals and H&D saving face hiding in the T72 ... but nobody wants to point out the nude man walking around in the marriage hall.

Pogula
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 41
Joined: 22 Jan 2011 08:04

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Pogula » 26 Feb 2011 12:21

pragnya wrote:why is our armed forces so stringent with local products when that is a non-issue for the imported equipment?? and even when they prove themselves they are short shrifted?? and why does IA support a tank which is obsolete by design and unsuited for indian climate support it when the russians themselves are refusing them.

beats me. fwiw.


WHy does it beat you? It is very simple. Our PSUs do not have the moolah to grease the hands of IA/MoD decision makers, while Russian Defense Lobbies do :wink:

By the way, your 12th point in itself is a deciding factor in placing Arjun over the T-90, even if you cut it slack on everything else.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8053
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 26 Feb 2011 14:49

I never thought that I will ever use the words Indian Army and Lahori Logic in the same sentence. But the news reports of a hiatus of 30 months in the Arjun line, while the T 90s are going to constructed in an uninterrupted manner, will make me use the words.

This above sentence is as polite an expression as I can use.

rgsrini
BRFite
Posts: 738
Joined: 17 Sep 2005 18:00

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rgsrini » 26 Feb 2011 15:01

One way to overcome all issues faced by Arjun and keep the manufacturing facility busy, all in one shot, is to move the manufacturing facility to Poland or Russia. Once we start importing Arjun all the problems will suddenly vanish and Arjun will become the best tank in the world, good for the next 3 decades.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8053
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 26 Feb 2011 15:09

SARC Alert on................

FMBT SAGA....................

Begin project..........

The IA studies the brochures of all the MBTs under development in the world.

Comes up with the GSQR for the tank, DRDO & associated lab burns the midnight oil to meet it. They take 4 to 5 years and meet it. Only to find out that the IA has moved on and issued the nest GSQR for the the tank. Another 5 years gone. While the BRits are sharply divided both for and against the project.

In the meantime the Indian army citing the Pakastani purchase of the M1A1/2 decides to buy the T 100 MKX which is a renamed upgrade of the T 72. Without any trials and competitions. Only to realize post purchase the TI and the Engines don't work as advertised. While the full Spec FMBT is made to run in endless circles in an attempt to prove it self. While the IA comes up with another list of things that are wrong and need to be changed in the Nearly perfect FMBT. While the ordering the imperfect T 100 MKX by the hundreds.

While the experts of BRF sing praises of the T 100 MKX as to being the best tank on the planet this side of the T 34.
SARC Off..

Pogula
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 41
Joined: 22 Jan 2011 08:04

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Pogula » 26 Feb 2011 15:30

@ Pratyush

This time the FMBT will be stumped by an American tank, not Russian. Keep watching!

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8053
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Pratyush » 26 Feb 2011 16:12

^^^

I sure hope not. But will keep my fingers crossed.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby chackojoseph » 26 Feb 2011 16:37

Some random thoughts on Russian armor. Nothing coherent

The defense ministry was only recently looking for armor plate made in Germany to fit Russian combat vehicles (RIA Novosti, August 6).

Iveco’s M-65 armored vehicles was purchased.Over the indigenous Tigr and Volk armored vehicle, produced by Russkie Machiny within Oleg Deripaska’s conglomerate (RIA Novosti, Kommersant, August 6).

In July 2008, Popovkin announced during an arms show in Nizniy Tagil in the Ural region, that a contract had been signed with the French company, Thales, to provide new T-90S tanks with modern night vision infrared TV cameras. Popovkin announced, “Modern military equipment is so complex, we will need foreign know-how, while continuing our own military research” (RIA Novosti, July 9, 2008). This month, Russia began assembly, under license from Thales, of French night-vision TV cameras for tanks and other armor in Vologda, north of Moscow (www.gzt.ru, May 20).

Popovkin made clear that Moscow wants the full equipment and armaments (except the helicopters, which Moscow wants to supply) to be sold or licensed by France to Russia, along with the ships. He spoke scathingly about the quality of Russian armor plate and armored vehicles (“coffins”), possibly implying that Russia wants to buy the French armored vehicles that form the amphibious landing capability of this warship class (Interfax, ITAR-TASS, RIA Novosti, April 7, 8).

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36293
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby SaiK » 26 Feb 2011 19:53

The bharat power pack 1500hp should be comparable with MB 873 Ka-501 1100kW engine

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cac ... nWHcz9Ixyw

d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby d_berwal » 26 Feb 2011 19:58

pragnya wrote:5. why do T-90S crew have to sit on top of the ammunition?? what will happen in case of a hit?? will it not simply blow up??

OTOH Arjun has blow up panels to minimise the risk to the crew in case of a hit and has a separate ammo compartment. again a case of design superiority wrt crew protection and crew comfort is already in built into the design.


- ARJUN does not have blow out panels, M1A2 are the only operational mbt with blowout panels.
There are so many pictures of ARJUN can you point out where do you see the blowout panels?

- Arjun MK1 does not even have ammo containerized, so if the hull is breached it will have the same effect as in the case of T-xx.

12. why do T-90S has to stop and shoot and move?? while Arjun shoots on the move with higher accuracy!!!


T-90s does shoot both its missile and main gun ammo while moving at it max cross country speeds.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36293
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby SaiK » 26 Feb 2011 20:07

IA has already accepted DRDO's honeycomb hybrid NERA packs.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17897
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 26 Feb 2011 20:38

d berwal wrote:- ARJUN does not have blow out panels, M1A2 are the only operational mbt with blowout panels.
There are so many pictures of ARJUN can you point out where do you see the blowout panels?

- Arjun MK1 does not even have ammo containerized, so if the hull is breached it will have the same effect as in the case of T-xx.


This is total rubbish. There is so much information on the net and so many discussions on the topic already.

Arjun turret has blow out panels, clearly visible from the top.
http://www.funf.tw/upload/dirk/090212/A ... %20CAD.jpg

What else do you think that large panel above the ammunition storage is? That panel is not for ammunition storage, rounds are put into Arjun turret individually into each container.

Nor is the M1A2 the only tank that has blowout panels. Tanks with blow out panels include the Leopard 2 series which has blow out panels for the turret and Leclerc which has blow out panels also for the turret ammunition. The only difference is the Abrams has blowout panels for both turret and hull ammunition. Several tank designs have chosen to avoid this approach because it leads to a weakened zone in the hull, which designers then need to compensate for.

Merkava tanks in contrast, use containerized storage for individual rounds, similar to Arjun approach.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... -specs.htm

And Arjun MK1 has ammo containerized, each round is in its own armor shell (like Merkava 3 and 4), with a locking mechanism to seal the cover and lock it in place. It is simple but rugged.

The layout is far better than that of the T-90 and T-72 series which have unsecured two piece rounds located all over the tank. The driver has several rounds placed near his cabin, there are others in turret. Unlike in Arjun, the rounds are not centralized, with the vulnerable turret rounds having blow out panels. Instead, they are fixed to the sides of the turret wall via clamps. Not only do the crew sit surrounded by ammunition, the ammunition system using modern cellulose composition is more vulnerable, to tearing and can put combustible powder into the tank turret.

T-90s does shoot both its missile and main gun ammo while moving at it max cross country speeds.


With what accuracy? The Refleks accuracy dips substantially when tank is on the move, especially against moving targets. Nobody fires at max cross country speeds. Usual practise for proper range and otherwise is to move at a steady pace, keeping formation intact, and engage targets.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5038
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 26 Feb 2011 21:42

cmon marten be nice

berwal is impartial :mrgreen:

meanwhile

from red herrings it now down to Goebbels like propaganda

M1 is only tank that has blow out panels - wow- running with natashas can cause serious damage
Last edited by Surya on 26 Feb 2011 21:46, edited 1 time in total.

d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby d_berwal » 26 Feb 2011 21:45

Karan M wrote:
This is total rubbish. There is so much information on the net and so many discussions on the topic already.

Arjun turret has blow out panels, clearly visible from the top.

What else do you think that large panel above the ammunition storage is? That panel is not for ammunition storage, rounds are put into Arjun turret individually into each container.


no that is not blow out panel...

only Arjun MkII will have catheterized ammo... MkI does not have it!!!!



With what accuracy? The Refleks accuracy dips substantially when tank is on the move, especially against moving targets. Nobody fires at max cross country speeds. Usual practise for proper range and otherwise is to move at a steady pace, keeping formation intact, and engage targets.


now you agree if fires on the move? so you take a 360 degree turn?

for you info IA does practice on firing on max sustained cross country speeds (40-45kmph)

refeleks accuracy does not dips... as claimed by you... the tank/ Target you if one can lase it on the move, why should the accuracy dip..?

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6809
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby nachiket » 26 Feb 2011 21:53

pragnya wrote:
T-90S is simply no match for the Arjun.



Forget the Arjun. I fail to see how it is supposed to be a match for the much maligned Al-Khali dabba. To say nothing of the new heavy versions of the Type 99.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bart S and 25 guests