Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

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.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7463
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Pratyush » 27 Aug 2017 08:00

DavidD wrote:How much does the Arjun cost vis-a-vis the T90? The Russians always liked cheaper, easier to manufacture tanks that can be produced and replaced in numbers, does that philosophy fit with the IA?



Arjun id cheaper simply by the virtue of not having to pay any licence fee for it as a whole and for comments made in India.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17219
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Philip » 28 Aug 2017 13:43

What if? Useless Q most of the time,but had we planned a series of AVs based upon the Arjun chassis/tech at least two-gens. ago,we could've had an Arjun "familia" similar to what Russia has developed from the Armata platform/project. Though much reduced in number,probably due to budget cut,etc.,the Armata has finally been given the green light and 100 will be acquired by Russia before 2020.

Russian Defense Ministry to get 100 Armata tanks
Military & Defense August 24, 15:16 UTC+3
The tanks are expected to be delivered before 2020

Armata's design
Defense contractors are finalizing the Kurganets-25 medium tracked platform and the Armata heavy tracked combat platform, considering the remarks voiced by Russia’s Defense Ministry while further work is proceeding on schedule, Industry and Trade Minister Denis Manturov told TASS.
"We are working jointly with the Defense Ministry of Russia under the Armata and Kurganets-25 projects. The customer voiced some remarks. As of now, a detailed analysis has been held jointly with enterprises and chief designers and the completion of works has been planned," Manturov said.
The absolute novelty of most designed parts and assemblies, which should be unified under some works for different prototypes, is a major reason for the delay in the timetable, he said.
"Apart from this, the items were initially designed with imported assemblies, which has required in the current conditions to carry out additional measures for import substitution. The enterprises have done enormous work and now we are complying with the schedule," the industry and trade minister said.


http://tass.com/defense/961838

niran
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5386
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 16:01

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby niran » 28 Aug 2017 17:44

Armata looks eerily similar to Vijayant MBT

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 239
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ks_sachin » 28 Aug 2017 17:54

Philip wrote:What if? Useless Q most of the time,but had we planned a series of AVs based upon the Arjun chassis/tech at least two-gens. ago,we could've had an Arjun "familia" similar to what Russia has developed from the Armata platform/project. Though much reduced in number,probably due to budget cut,etc.,the Armata has finally been given the green light and 100 will be acquired by Russia before 2020.

Russian Defense Ministry to get 100 Armata tanks
Military & Defense August 24, 15:16 UTC+3
The tanks are expected to be delivered before 2020

Armata's design
Defense contractors are finalizing the Kurganets-25 medium tracked platform and the Armata heavy tracked combat platform, considering the remarks voiced by Russia’s Defense Ministry while further work is proceeding on schedule, Industry and Trade Minister Denis Manturov told TASS.
"We are working jointly with the Defense Ministry of Russia under the Armata and Kurganets-25 projects. The customer voiced some remarks. As of now, a detailed analysis has been held jointly with enterprises and chief designers and the completion of works has been planned," Manturov said.
The absolute novelty of most designed parts and assemblies, which should be unified under some works for different prototypes, is a major reason for the delay in the timetable, he said.
"Apart from this, the items were initially designed with imported assemblies, which has required in the current conditions to carry out additional measures for import substitution. The enterprises have done enormous work and now we are complying with the schedule," the industry and trade minister said.


http://tass.com/defense/961838


Philip,PLEASE CEASE AND DESIST!!!!

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17219
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Philip » 29 Aug 2017 08:04

Desist what? Where is the visionary thinking in the CVRDE? There is little lateral thinking in our AV projects where each appears to be a stand alone isolated venture not leveraging with other AV programmes. Take a good look at whst China has also developed over the last decade when compared with us.

Vivek K
BRFite
Posts: 1703
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Vivek K » 29 Aug 2017 10:00

ks_sachin - cease and desist is an asinine statement to this poster who obviously has motivation/interests that firmly tie him/his position to be aligned with roosi maal. Let me know how "cease and desist" works for you. I will not be holding my breath though.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17219
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Philip » 29 Aug 2017 11:07

One could say the same about those peddling the F-16 ,which no one wants,in the SE fighter td. as well!"Cease and desist!" But its a free country and I'm not complaining.I am not peddling anything but simply pointing out our abysmal lack of vision in defence systems,barring the efforts of the IN,which are exemplary. We've graduated to building nuclear subs,carriers,etc.,for a force which has the least amt. of the defence budget,while the IA and IAF can't get their act together in developing desi systems. We're struggling in both the Arjun and LCA,in fully developing and inducting them.

Let me give you an example.A recent piece in a def. mag written by a retd. general,pointed out the good news of second order for Pinaka,but the glitches too.Pinaka-1 has a range of 30KM.The IA wants PInaka-2 instead with double the range.However,even with P-1,there have been major quality problems.The poor quality of rocket rounds (OFB) has resulted in barrel bursts,short range,etc.,etc. we know how the OFB cut corners on T-72 barrels (posted) causing them to burst. The article also said that "the OFB had a v.poor cap[ability of absorbing tech".Added to this a massive backlog in tank production at Avadi. Dhanush/desi Bofors is now facing something similar,recent reports,and we're trying to discover whether the ammo or barrel was at fault.

Now with this track record,what happens? Crores wasted,forcing us to buy firang systems/ammo yet again,time wasted,enabling our enemies to forge ahead and disillusionment in the armed forces,why they prefer firang systems being more reliable in general. Take the situ with AVs. Legacy BMP_2s are to be upgraded.How capable will they be when compared with more modern AVs? In decades gone by,the BMP-3 arrived and now you have their successor ,the Kurga whatever,part of the Armata family. After developing Arjun,the same tech acquired could've similarly been used to develop an AV ,using elements common to the MBT. There was the independent development of "Tank-X" which no one wanted. We're now seeing that a light tank may be needed in the Himalayas where China has deployed its latest light tank.There may be areas where transporting T-72s may not be poss. whereas a lighter tank could. Given the Arjun experience,there seems to be a huge communication gap between the IA and the DRDO/CVRDE reg our AV requirements,etc. There is a lack of clarity as to where we're going in the future. My pointing out the revolution in MBT design tx. to the Armata,which has spawned a family of AVs out of one programme. Western OEMs are now in an urgent race to catch up .Where are we?

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 921
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Thakur_B » 29 Aug 2017 14:36

Philip ji, there is a Russian weaponry thread. It's a request that you use it. It's rather tiring to wade through your barely relevant posts in each thread.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 239
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ks_sachin » 29 Aug 2017 15:57

Vivek K wrote:ks_sachin - cease and desist is an asinine statement to this poster who obviously has motivation/interests that firmly tie him/his position to be aligned with roosi maal. Let me know how "cease and desist" works for you. I will not be holding my breath though.

Don't hold your breath. Bad for you! Can cause untold problems!
In any case Thakur_B has summarised my thoughts rather well.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17219
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Philip » 29 Aug 2017 20:19

You've not answeted my Q.Where are we?What is our roadmap for the future of AVs for the IA? This is nothing to do with Ru .Please don't conveniently ignore our poor quality of production which badly affects the fighting capability of the services.Protecting the shabby performance of some DPSUs appears to be a full time job for some.you don' t like my posts don' t read them.

Vivek K
BRFite
Posts: 1703
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Vivek K » 29 Aug 2017 22:09

Poor quality of the Arjun (aka OFB)? If I recall correctly, the T-90 couldn't compete in the motherships' biathlon because it kept breaking down every few km - and the Armata had to be towed back from its first public outing. The Arjun in tests has done more miles than the Indian T-90s in battle.

Vivek K
BRFite
Posts: 1703
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Vivek K » 29 Aug 2017 22:12

Can anyone provide a roadmap? Here let me propose one

a) Test Arjun Mk2 to Mk3 till it has covered 5 million miles without break down of the "torsion bar" or its "transmission".
b) Induct the Armata (2,000 Qty) because - Arjun cannot be produced at 500 tanks per year for the IA's 100 tank order.
c) Ask the DRDO to develop TI, BMS and network centric capabilities for the Armata since roosi stuff will break down anyway.
Added later
d) Integrate an Indian engine into the Armata and the T-90 since roosi maal was not made to fight in the Thar desert and pukis don't want to wait for winter to fight.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3703
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Rakesh » 29 Aug 2017 22:45

I disagree with points C and D. Roosi maal is just fine. We Indians do not know how to operate it.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 239
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ks_sachin » 30 Aug 2017 08:08

Philip wrote:You've not answeted my Q.Where are we?What is our roadmap for the future of AVs for the IA? This is nothing to do with Ru .Please don't conveniently ignore our poor quality of production which badly affects the fighting capability of the services.Protecting the shabby performance of some DPSUs appears to be a full time job for some.you don' t like my posts don' t read them.


Do not need to. Its not as if what you have written is new. Its been discussed threadbare. That in itself is not grating as is the gratuitous reference to Russian equipment willy nilly.

And no its not a binary world - just because I don't like your posts does not make me a DPSU or OFB defender....

You are one of the long standing members Philip. I used to enjoy your posts. Now now unfortunately.

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1457
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby vasu raya » 03 Sep 2017 01:09

Now that the Munthra is ready, can they port the remote control sections to other vehicles? say to the construction equipment used by BRO who are as usual behind schedule, if these construction vehicles are made to operate remotely even during winters and nights with minimal human presence on site? hopefully they speed up the process.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3703
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Rakesh » 14 Sep 2017 06:20

India Wants to Match China's Mountain Tank
https://warisboring.com/india-wants-to- ... tain-tank/

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1360
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby srin » 14 Sep 2017 21:39

Not sure why we need light tanks. We can get MBTs to Ladakh as it is.
Even otherwise: Against other armoured vehicles on Tibetan plateau, a tank destroyer like Namica would be quite potent. Against infantry, BMPs are more than adequate. Would be good to have a BMP-based 120mm mortar carrier. And against chopper and UAVs, a Tunguska/Pantsyr with 30mm guns and short-range missiles would be quite effective.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6551
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Prasad » 14 Sep 2017 21:41

We will have Namica, mbts, ifcv, manpads, choppers plus IAF. Do we need a light tank?

negi
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 12894
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Trying to mellow down :)

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby negi » 14 Sep 2017 22:13

Tanks primarily shoot or engage in LOS mode so I wonder in Himalayan terrain if countering a platform with a same platform makes sense that is like reacting to a threat rather than responding to it . I think in that terrain arming our men with high Pk ATGMs which are light and compact might make a lot more sense . Even in the short term if you look at responding to the threat in 'time' our chances of arming our men with a capable ATGM in numbers like Spike/Javelin are much better as against floating a RFP for a LBT which will take at least half a decade to conclude.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 463
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby nam » 15 Sep 2017 00:04

IA already has T72 CIA in Ladakh. If T72 works, then T90 will work.

So what advantage does light tank provide over T72/90?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47532
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ramana » 15 Sep 2017 00:46

nam wrote:IA already has T72 CIA in Ladakh. If T72 works, then T90 will work.

So what advantage does light tank provide over T72/90?


Less fuel consumption may be?


Due to difficult logistics trail in the mountains maybe the idea is to conserve fuel while carrying adequate gun.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47532
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ramana » 15 Sep 2017 01:11

BTW read the 5th September report by Defense News Vivek Raghuvanshi

Indian Army shows interest in light tanks



Indian Army shows interest in light tanks for defense along Chinese border




By: Vivek Raghuvanshi    September 5



NEW DELHI ― As preparation for a possible conflict with China in high, mountainous areas, the Indian Army’s armored directorate has begun setting requirements for a small tank order, :eek: according to a source in the Ministry of Defence.

{Small order means they already have a vehicle they want to buy. If not they don't know what it takes to design, develop and manufacture a new tank.}


Military planners in the MoD :?: asked the Army to draw up requirements for a light tank after China tested its homegrown light tank, Xinqingtan, which is equipped with a 105mm main gun and a 1,000-horse-power engine.


The Xinqingtan was tested in July 2017 in the Tibet region bordering India.



Currently, India only uses the Russian-made T-72 and T-90 as well as its homegrown Arjun tank, which is too heavy for the mountainous regions and is made for the desert along the border with Pakistan.

Military planners want lighter tanks that can be airlifted to elevated areas along the Chinese border, the source explained.


An Indian Army official said: “The requirement of rapidly deployable, protected and mobile fire power, which can result in precision engagement in the mountains in view of terrain and technology advantage enjoyed by China, has always remained high in the desirability matrix.” :?:

{Looks like some sales brocure was read. Desirability matrix is sales jargon. In soldier talk either you want it or not.}


The light tank requirements come in the wake of a standoff between India and China over a small strip of land along their borders called Doklam. The standoff, which saw soldiers from both countries standing eyeball to eyeball in the area since June, has now been resolved. Soldiers have been withdrawn, said an official with India’s Ministry of External Affairs.


The Indian Army wants its light tanks to weigh about 22 tons and be capable of operating at heights of more than 3,000 meters in hilly terrain, according to another Army official. [b]The tanks would need to be able to penetrate highly protected armored vehicles and main battle tanks from a distance of more than 2 kilometers, as well as be able to fire highly explosive anti-tank shells and guided missiles.[/b]

So they want T90 capability in a 22 tonne tank. Unless they want ATGM separate launch capability in which case it will exceed 22 tonne}


There are some areas in the mountains where light tanks will be useful, and the Chinese are possibly trying the same (developing light tanks),” said Rahul Bhonsle, a defense analyst and retired Indian Army brigadier.

{will always find an expert who will justify anything. He says two things: 1) such a light tank with heavy weapons is useful and 2) the Chinese are possibly developing it!!! Chinese already showed off their 37 tonne tank. So what is he saying? }



“Light tanks, which can operate in high altitude, are a better option than modified T-72 tanks,” Bhonsle added..

The Army currently has T- 72 tanks and armored personnel carriers stationed in select areas along the border with China.


The process for procuring the light tanks after the requirements are finalized will depend on how urgently they’re needed, the MoD source said. :rotfl:


{IOW its buy not a make.}

In 2009, the Army issued a request for information for light tanks, but it was later shelved and no formal tender was issued.

The state-owned Defence Research and Development Organization has encouraged the MoD to grant it the light-tank development project. DRDO had developed a light tank in the 1990s, but the project was closed in 1994 due to a lack of demand within the Army.

”The DRDO project can be revived; however, this will have to be undertaken jointly with the Indian Army so that there is user confidence and assurance of support,” Bhonsle said. :idea: :idea: :idea:

The Indian Army has about 4,000 tanks, including the T-72 and T-90 tanks as well as the Arjun tanks, 248 of which have been contracted and of which 118 have been delivered. :?:



In the aftermath of the 1965 war, after Gn. J.N. Chaudhri retired, the AMX-13 tanks etc., were allowed to wear out as the expectation was that medium tanks were the need of the future wars with Pakistan. JNC had seen the need for light tanks against China forces and wanted to procure more light tanks. These were kabashed.


In 1990 the DRDO created a light tank and the army showed no interest. In 2009 the Army issued an RFI and DRDO did not respond as the old project was disbanded.

Now they want the lightest tank with the maximum weaponry.
Tell me how can you package all that in a 22 ton tank?

Is it fair?

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 470
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ArjunPandit » 15 Sep 2017 01:29

^^Irony just died under the tracks of Arjun tank
If an Indian made tank can happen then it can happen only under this govt in next 3-5 years, else we should contract russia to supply us tank for next 50 years

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2116
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby tsarkar » 15 Sep 2017 12:16

^^ Do we really need to waste bandwidth on Prasun Sengupta and Vivek Raghuvanshi articles?

Indian Army has BMP regiments with Konkurs-M missiles in Anti Tank role in Ladakh and NAMICA will be a natural replacement. Is there an actual IA RFP in the first place?

All I found was,"according to sources in..." which probably is just his fertile imagination.

rkhanna
BRFite
Posts: 993
Joined: 02 Jul 2006 02:35

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby rkhanna » 15 Sep 2017 12:57

A Light tank could also form the core of a Dedicated Marine Infantry arm. (which if the rumors are to be believed is in the workings)

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17219
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Philip » 15 Sep 2017 13:01

I said this aeons ago long before Doklam and people asked me ? when there was no need! I again repeat,where is our roadmap for AVs? Our entire AV acquisitions in the last few decades has been a knee-jerk response to Pak first acquiring TU-80UDs,we then rushed into buying T-90s,lethargic attitude to developing and refining Arjun,which one must admit also came with its larger/heavier baggage. Now after Doklam and the sudden dawning upon our MOD stalwarts that we need a light tank for the mountains! If only the IA/MOD had listened earlier to Uncle Phillipov... :rotfl:

For the sake of repetition,here goes. It will take another decade for us to develop a light tank and for a few paltry hundreds,not worth it. The need of the hour is NOW.
The BMPs too aren't perfect,long in the tooth and need major upgrading.The available alternative is thus,"the light tank for all climates,seasons,terrain,etc."...watch the video.

2S25 Sprut SD: Extremely Dangerous "Flying" Tanks Of Russian
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELKxVHDCY_w

125MM main gun,outgunning the Chin piglet.H'pneumatic suspension,ATGMs can be fire from the main gun.Auto-loader.3 man crew.Amphibious,70km speed,Can be air-dropped with crew aboard! Weighs only 18-20t,would fit into our IL-76s and C-17s,and can have additional ERA modular armour fitted if need be.Watch the v.good v-clip. Wiki has more detailed specs,history,etc.An interesting feature in that it can reduce its height by 2ft. and can operate at alt. of 4000M,well above the IA requirement.

Possessing a high power-to-weight ratio of 28.3 hp/tonne, the 2S25 can operate in high altitudes of up to 4000 m, while the installed rubber-clad shoes or snow-riding tracks expand the vehicle's capabilities in various climates.[4] According to the manufacturer, the 2S25 can also be employed as a light amphibious tank by rapid deployment forces, airborne, marine and special purpose units. With its low weight, it can become essential in mountains and swamps regions, where heavy equipment cannot travel. The 2S25 is designed to be parachuted from aircraft such as the Il-76 with the crew inside, allowing nearly immediate combat readiness upon landing to provide high firepower alongside paratroopers.[6]

Like other tank destroyers, the Sprut-SD is designed to fight and destroy modern main battle tanks such as the M1A2 Abrams or the Merkava IV. The large caliber can be used to destroy armored personnel carriers and other mobile armored targets as well; giving fire support to paratroopers at any time. The 2S25 can be used to destroy strongholds and defensive structures using its Sprut anti-tank gun. While amphibious, it can climb onto ships under its own power during a combat mission.[10]


Specifications
Weight 18 t (20 short tons; 18 long tons)
Length 9.77 m (32 ft 1 in) (gun forward)
7.08 m (23 ft 3 in) (chassis)
Width 3.15 m (10 ft 4 in)
Height 2.72 m (8 ft 11 in)
Crew 3
Armor Turret – Welded steel
Hull – Aluminum alloy with composite skin
Main
armament
125 mm 2A75 smoothbore gun
Secondary
armament
7.62 mm PKT coaxial machine gun
Engine 2V-06-2S water cooled diesel engine
510 hp (380 kW)
Power/weight 28.3 hp/tonne (21.1 kW/tonne)
Suspension Hydropneumatic suspension with variable height control (190 mm−590 mm)
Operational
range
500 km (310 mi)
Speed 70 km/h (43 mph) (road)
45 km/h (28 mph) (off-road)
10 km/h (6.2 mph) (water)

PS:RK spot on! This has also been my wet dream,that we posses our own MC akin to the USMC,but much smaller.These light tanks could be extremely useful should another BDesh like situ arise,postioning such AVs in our island territories,etc. and of course using hundreds of these tanks in the mountains as well as in the riverine/canal plains in the Punjab,esp across the Paki canal defences on the other side.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17219
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Philip » 15 Sep 2017 13:27

Some more details about the SDM-1,the improved version,which also uses the same ammo as those on the T-72/T-90 MBTs. The multi-terrain ability of these tanks would be most useful,as they can be swiftly transported by air and fight on the plains,deserts,beaches,swim rivers/canals,and fight in the mountains upto 4000m. 2010 estimates of the Sprut was around $4.5M/unit.At today's prices,it should not be more than around $5+M if bought in large numbers.For just $500M we could acquire 100 of these v.capable light tanks.

Currently Russia is the only country in the world to operate airborne tanks. Other airborne tanks are the US M8 Buford, which did not entered service and the Chinese unidentified light tank, which was recently developed, but its current status is unclear. So development of the Sprut-SDM1 light tank shows the high level of resources Russia is devoting towards its airborne forces and offensive capabilities.
The Sprut-SDM1 weights just 18 t. Mobility, rapid redeployment and air transportability are the key factors of this new light tank. Though this comes at a cost of limited armor protection. Its front arc withstands only 12.7 mm round hits. All-round protection is limited to 7.62 mm fire and artillery shell splinters. So protection of this light tank is very weak. Armor protection can be increased with add-on armor. Add-on skirts can be fitted for a higher level of protection. This combat vehicle is equipped with an NBC protection and automatic fire extinguishing systems.
Despite weak armor the Sprut-SDM1 has firepower of a modern main battle tank. It is claimed that in terms of firepower it is comparable to that of Russian T-72 and T-90 series tank. It is armed with a fully-stabilized 2A75M 125 mm smoothbore gun. It can fire all standard 125 mm ammunition used by T-72 and T-90 series tanks. Maximum range of fire is 2-2.5 km. There is an automatic ammunition loading system. It allows to have a crew of just 3 men, as there is no need for the loader.
The Sprut-SDM1 can launch anti-tank guided missiles in the same manner as ordinary projectiles. This feature is common to all modern Russian tanks. The laser-guided anti-tank missiles are derived from 9M119M1 (Invar-M) missile. These have a range of up to 5 km and can also target low-flying helicopters.
A total of 40 rounds including missiles are carried for the main gun. The autoloader holds 22 of them. Remaining 18 rounds are stored inside the hull. Typical ammunition load consists of 20 HE-FRAG rounds, 14 APFSDS anti-tank rounds and 6 anti-tank guided missiles. This tank has a rate of fire of 7 rounds per minute. Spent cases are automatically ejected behind the turret.
There is a coaxial 7.62 mm machine gun. The Sprut-SDM1 is fitted with additional remotely controlled weapon station, armed with a 7.62 mm machine gun.
The Sprut-SDM1 is fitted with new fire control system. It has new sights from the T-90MS main battle tank. One of the most important improvements is an independent commanders sight with thermal vision. It allows to acquire and engage targets faster. Once the tank commander spots a target, it is selected and the gun is laid on the target automatically. The gunner completes al the aiming and firing process. During that time commander looks for the next target. Such engagement method is called "hunter-killer" and is present on all modern main battle tanks.
This light tank is operated by a crew of three, including commander, gunner and driver. Commander and gunner are seated in the two-man turret.
The Sprut-SDM1 comes with new engine. It is powered by a UTD-29 multi-fuel diesel engine, developing 500 hp. The same naturally-aspirated engine is used on the BMP-3 infantry fighting vehicle and recent BMD-4M airborne combat vehicle. It is more modern comparing with the original 2V-06-2S engine of the previous Sprut-SD light tank. Some modifications were made to suspension. It uses unified components of the BMD-4M. This light tank has a hydropneumatic suspension with variable height control. Such suspension also the tank to be paradropped on platforms. It also allows the vehicle to lean in any direction.
The Sprut-SDM1 is fully amphibious. On water it is propelled by two waterjets. Maximum amphibious speed on water is 7 km/h. Vehicle is sea worthy up to Sea State 3. Even when afloat it can fire its main gun in limited traverse range. This light tank can embark and disembark from amphibious assault ships on its own.
The Il-76 cargo aircraft can carry two of these light tanks. The Sprut-SDM1 can be paradropped with the crew on board.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 782
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Manish_P » 15 Sep 2017 15:54

Philip wrote:The 2S25 is designed to be parachuted from aircraft such as the Il-76 with the crew inside, allowing nearly immediate combat readiness upon landing to provide high firepower alongside paratroopers.


Uncle Fillipov, wouldn't that be possible in some other vehicles also.. i mean it's not like all other vehicles (like APVs, Trucks, Jeeps) are air-dropped in parts and have to be assembled on the ground. There might be some good reasons not to drop the vehicles with the crews strapped in. If you look at the video and see the violent buffeting of the vehicle as it exits the aircraft, you will understand one reason...

nam
BRFite
Posts: 463
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby nam » 15 Sep 2017 16:19

ramana wrote:
nam wrote:IA already has T72 CIA in Ladakh. If T72 works, then T90 will work.

So what advantage does light tank provide over T72/90?


Less fuel consumption may be?


Due to difficult logistics trail in the mountains maybe the idea is to conserve fuel while carrying adequate gun.


I assume 100 to 200 tanks should not have major fuel problems. There will be more APC, IFV, trucks in a offensive than tanks. If fuel is a major problem, prioritize it for tanks over APC or trucks.

One area light tanks might be useful is if they need to be transported over high angle roads and curves that you generally find in mountains. The transporter may not be to lug it up the roads. However our T72s are already in Ladakh.

Bala Vignesh
BRFite
Posts: 1854
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Bala Vignesh » 15 Sep 2017 16:57

Personally I find this whole hoopla about meeting the Chinese light tank threat symmetrically is not the right way to handle it. It would be more better to handle it assymetricaly by increasing the no of anti tank missiles in the theatre and if required mounting them on jeeps or 4*4 pick ups with a LMG/MMG mounted for fire support.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7463
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Pratyush » 15 Sep 2017 17:28

A fool and his cash being parted and all that common knowledge.

Bala Vignesh
BRFite
Posts: 1854
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Bala Vignesh » 15 Sep 2017 19:38

Pratyush wrote:A fool and his cash being parted and all that common knowledge.

Care to elaborate a bit, Pratyushji??

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7463
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Pratyush » 15 Sep 2017 19:54

T 90.
Last edited by Pratyush on 15 Sep 2017 19:58, edited 1 time in total.


Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17219
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Philip » 15 Sep 2017 20:33

The LKT req. is not just for the mountains,but a genuine all-rounder. Had we been foresighted,it would've been the Chins catching up with us by now,instead of us trying to catch up with them.Underscores my point,we have no roadmap for AVs whatsoever.

PS:Remember the huge role played by the venerable PT-76s in '71?
Last edited by Philip on 15 Sep 2017 22:02, edited 1 time in total.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5004
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby jamwal » 15 Sep 2017 21:14

Not that I trust Raghuvanshi and warisboring blog for scoops like his, but if this new light tanks requirement is true, then god save this country.

Bala Vignesh
BRFite
Posts: 1854
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Bala Vignesh » 15 Sep 2017 22:12


Kakarat
BRFite
Posts: 1076
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Kakarat » 15 Sep 2017 22:25

Image
Image
Image

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3403
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Kartik » 15 Sep 2017 23:55

India's OFB expects Indian Army order for 700 T-90S tanks in 2018

India’s state-owned Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) expects to receive an order in early 2018 to licence-build a total of 700 T-90S main battle tanks (MBTs) for the Indian Army (IA) by 2022, R K Khanna, the OFB’s director general, told Jane’s on 15 September at the Defence and Security Equipment International (DSEI) 2017 exhibition in London.

The order will provide the IA with enough tanks to equip two new regiments and replace the retired T-55 MBTs. The move will also allow the OFB to increase its production share of the tank to 96% by manufacturing most of the electronics and mission systems, said Khanna, adding that a few essential elements will remain with external suppliers for the time being.

The OFB has completed a technology transfer from Russia for the tank, which is designated the Bhishma in Indian service, and is already capable of manufacturing 74% of it without external assistance.

The order, which is expected to be placed in April next year, will require a maximum capacity effort to produce 140 tanks a year and meet the completion date in 2022, Khanna added.

Plans are also afoot for the ‘Bhishma 2’, which is a comprehensive upgrade programme proposed for the T-90S and also forms part of the 700 platform order. The upgrade will include the installation of a new panoramic sight and fire-control system for the tank commander, along with the installation of a completely digital architecture to ensure that the tank can be upgraded in the future.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2054
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby kit » 16 Sep 2017 00:24

ramana wrote:BTW read the 5th September report by Defense News Vivek Raghuvanshi

Indian Army shows interest in light tanks



Indian Army shows interest in light tanks for defense along Chinese border




By: Vivek Raghuvanshi    September 5



NEW DELHI ― As preparation for a possible conflict with China in high, mountainous areas, the Indian Army’s armored directorate has begun setting requirements for a small tank order, :eek: according to a source in the Ministry of Defence.

{Small order means they already have a vehicle they want to buy. If not they don't know what it takes to design, develop and manufacture a new tank.}


Military planners in the MoD :?: asked the Army to draw up requirements for a light tank after China tested its homegrown light tank, Xinqingtan, which is equipped with a 105mm main gun and a 1,000-horse-power engine.


The Xinqingtan was tested in July 2017 in the Tibet region bordering India.



Currently, India only uses the Russian-made T-72 and T-90 as well as its homegrown Arjun tank, which is too heavy for the mountainous regions and is made for the desert along the border with Pakistan.

Military planners want lighter tanks that can be airlifted to elevated areas along the Chinese border, the source explained.


An Indian Army official said: “The requirement of rapidly deployable, protected and mobile fire power, which can result in precision engagement in the mountains in view of terrain and technology advantage enjoyed by China, has always remained high in the desirability matrix.” :?:

{Looks like some sales brocure was read. Desirability matrix is sales jargon. In soldier talk either you want it or not.}


The light tank requirements come in the wake of a standoff between India and China over a small strip of land along their borders called Doklam. The standoff, which saw soldiers from both countries standing eyeball to eyeball in the area since June, has now been resolved. Soldiers have been withdrawn, said an official with India’s Ministry of External Affairs.


The Indian Army wants its light tanks to weigh about 22 tons and be capable of operating at heights of more than 3,000 meters in hilly terrain, according to another Army official. [b]The tanks would need to be able to penetrate highly protected armored vehicles and main battle tanks from a distance of more than 2 kilometers, as well as be able to fire highly explosive anti-tank shells and guided missiles.[/b]

So they want T90 capability in a 22 tonne tank. Unless they want ATGM separate launch capability in which case it will exceed 22 tonne}


There are some areas in the mountains where light tanks will be useful, and the Chinese are possibly trying the same (developing light tanks),” said Rahul Bhonsle, a defense analyst and retired Indian Army brigadier.

{will always find an expert who will justify anything. He says two things: 1) such a light tank with heavy weapons is useful and 2) the Chinese are possibly developing it!!! Chinese already showed off their 37 tonne tank. So what is he saying? }



“Light tanks, which can operate in high altitude, are a better option than modified T-72 tanks,” Bhonsle added..

The Army currently has T- 72 tanks and armored personnel carriers stationed in select areas along the border with China.


The process for procuring the light tanks after the requirements are finalized will depend on how urgently they’re needed, the MoD source said. :rotfl:


{IOW its buy not a make.}

In 2009, the Army issued a request for information for light tanks, but it was later shelved and no formal tender was issued.

The state-owned Defence Research and Development Organization has encouraged the MoD to grant it the light-tank development project. DRDO had developed a light tank in the 1990s, but the project was closed in 1994 due to a lack of demand within the Army.

”The DRDO project can be revived; however, this will have to be undertaken jointly with the Indian Army so that there is user confidence and assurance of support,” Bhonsle said. :idea: :idea: :idea:

The Indian Army has about 4,000 tanks, including the T-72 and T-90 tanks as well as the Arjun tanks, 248 of which have been contracted and of which 118 have been delivered. :?:



In the aftermath of the 1965 war, after Gn. J.N. Chaudhri retired, the AMX-13 tanks etc., were allowed to wear out as the expectation was that medium tanks were the need of the future wars with Pakistan. JNC had seen the need for light tanks against China forces and wanted to procure more light tanks. These were kabashed.


In 1990 the DRDO created a light tank and the army showed no interest. In 2009 the Army issued an RFI and DRDO did not respond as the old project was disbanded.

Now they want the lightest tank with the maximum weaponry.
Tell me how can you package all that in a 22 ton tank?

Is it fair?


If the army has a design house let them develop one in paper at least :lol:
Last edited by Indranil on 18 Sep 2017 04:16, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Poster warned for unsavoury comments towards the Indian Army.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Anoop, nithish, Shakthi and 38 guests