MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Rishi_Tri · Post by **Rishi_Tri** » 09 Nov 2017 07:47

http://www.janes.com/article/75533/indi ... at-vehicle

MBT.. FICV.. FMBT .. Now FRCV.. The acronyms are making my head spin.

Is this the reason why nothing has happened on either FICV or Arjun Mk2?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Nov 2017 07:58

Philip wrote:Terrain ,thanks to the Almighty prevents the dragon from rushing in with large numbers of MBTs through the Himalayas ,why they"re fielding only light tanks in the mountains. The overwhelming superiority we need is mainly against Pak in Jammu, Poonjab and the desert terrain further south.

Philip, Lets look at the comprehensive anti-tank posture comprising : tanks, ATGMS : Milan, AT6, Invar, CLGM , RCL, 155mm, Pinaka, BM-21 rocket artillery. Add the helicopter launched ATGMs and rockets.

I think tank on tank battles will be after all these have neutralized the enemy forces. Then there are the Prithvi at the Command level with sub-munitions.

Rohitvats has written about the vast number and variety of ATGMs in his blogs.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Nov 2017 09:42

True but armour will be spearheading the thrusts both ways.Better ERA armour will reduce losses to ATGM/RPG
rounds and attack helos and GA/CS aircraft will suffer losses due to AAA fire.Max. losses by the IAF in our wars was due to ground fire.Around 60%+.Same situ at Kargil where both helos and aircraft were brought down by enemy MANPADS.

We do not possess heavily armoured flying tanks like SU-25s or RU attack helos.Apaches were slaughtered in Afghanistan and in one instance after taking heavy damage/loses in the first attack were never used again! I've posted this much earlier when we bought Apaches at $70M a pop!

Most new MBTs today or upgraded one's, also possess better self-defence against ATGMs ,RPGs,etc. Armour's mobility and use of camouflage and concealment can make locating it difficult, plus decoy air and land/arty strikes as well.Read the Balkans history and the ineffective NATO air strikes against Serb armour.They hit everything-carts,tractors,etc. except Serb armour!

Even in urban warfare as we've seen in the ME,ground troops have to be supported by armour to achieve results.
In the Rajasthan sector mostly desert terrain,we can expect heavy usage of armour to make deep thrusts to seize large swathes of territory-used as bargaining chips after the inevitable cease-fire.

sahay · Post by **sahay** » 09 Nov 2017 10:58

Rishi_Tri wrote:http://www.janes.com/article/75533/indi ... at-vehicle

MBT.. FICV.. FMBT .. Now FRCV.. The acronyms are making my head spin. Is this the reason why nothing has happened on either FICV or Arjun Mk2?

Link to the RFI: https://indianarmy.nic.in/writereaddata ... v%2017.pdf

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Nov 2017 11:54

A-2.According to one recent report,the IA has "lost interest" in A-2 becos of the experience with A-1! Apparently "55%" of the A-1s components are firang,and supplies of spares,etc.,"are drying up".A-2 with 93(?) improvements asked for by the IA has increased the weight of A-2 to 68.6t from A-1's 62t. Therefore,according to the IA,A-2 cannot be fielded in the W/SW sector where the terrain is better for the A-series,due to logistics,transportation and other problems.The IA also says it is a 3rd-gen MBT.There are those within the (retd.) IA parivar who are for more A-2s and those against it.However,all seem to feel that we should move forward on the FMBT,learning from the lessons of the A-series,T-series,etc. with all stakeholders (IA,DRDO,CVRDE,Pvt. industry,etc.) involved right from the beginning in a "coordinated" programme.

Just for the record,going back to the birth of the A-programme ,some 3 decades ago,The IA was equipped with both Western (Vijayanta,older Centurions,AMX light tanks) and Eastern (T-54/55 and T-72 series).The former were 4-crew tanks and the latter T-72 3-crewed.With both the cost and non-availability of Western MBTs,which became even larger,heavier and more costly during the Cold War,India bought large numbers of T-72s from the Soviets which became its principal MBT.Large numbers,resulted in cost-effectiveness and with local production,a better supply chain for components,etc.The T-72 was also v,affordable leading to greater numbers acquired/built.Depending upon sources,we seem to have between 2000-2400 T-72s,of which a large number are being upgraded to almost T-90 std.,and another 1500-2000 T-90s.Another 460+ T-90s was approved in the pipeline.This would make our inventory when that happens,approx. 4000+ MBts.Of this no. there may be between 250-300 A-series MBTs,again depending upon which source is accurate.Some say that we want an inventory of 4500 MBTs by around 2020,and say we have 4000 T-series tanks,around 500 should be of the A-series.

Arjun started off as a desi replacement for our Vickers tanks clearly following Western tank concepts (T-72s to replace old T-54/55 tanks),in particular the German leopard MBT,which also uses the same engine. However,to cut a long story short,by the time it arrived and one has to admit that the IA which was not the head of the programme,was lukewarm to it.By the time it arrived and a small batch of 124 ordered,it was clear that it could never become the IA's principal MBT both for the present and the future both from technical/logistic reasons, low prod. rate ,large inventory of around 3000 T-series MBts and the cost factor too. The IA appears to have embraced the Soviet philosophy in tank warfare as explained in many earlier posts by members.mass production and building up a large inventory of just one or two similar/incrementally improved types (t-72 and T-90),which also come in at reasonable cost.Thus the die was cast long ago reg. the direction of IA thinking on its armoured warfare doctrine.
One can clearly see from the above stats. that the IA has for sev. decades decided to plump for extra T-series MBTs to outnumber the Pakis yet possessing a high std. of quality (read an earlier post on the US taking a lesson from the T-90) .The T-90 acquisition was spurred on as a knee-jerk reaction to the Paki acquisition of ex-UKR T-80UDs,superior to our T-72s.

I am only giving a historical account of understanding where we are today with respect to our armoured warfare procurement of MBTs.In the current context of ordering more A-2s,leaving aside the weight and other technical issues,remember the cost factor,which is significant.Arjun reportedly costs $8.3M as against just $4.5M for a T-90MS. The ball is in the IA,MOD and Fin.Min's court.Remember that the Fin.Min. have from time to time exercised its veto/objections,esp. with respect to the extra costs for the Scorpenes which PC strongly objected to before the deal was sealed.There are many hidden dangers that could trip up an approval for a weapon system for the services in the "Great Maze of the Babu" in the corridors of power in Delhi.

nash · Post by **nash** » 09 Nov 2017 12:27

As per RFI,

Weight : 43-57 T
RFP - June-2018.

who all are in for OEMs and SPs, any info?

seems like Armata is coming

Kersi · Post by **Kersi** » 09 Nov 2017 13:19

nachiket wrote:
ramana wrote:

They are merely searching for reasons to avoid buying Arjuns.

THE FINAL CONCLUSION

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 09 Nov 2017 14:30

Philip wrote:[b
I am only giving a historical account of understanding where we are today with respect to our armoured warfare procurement of MBTs.In the current context of ordering more A-2s,leaving aside the weight and other technical issues,remember the cost factor,which is significant.Arjun reportedly costs $8.3M as against just $4.5M for a T-90MS. The ball is in the IA,MOD and Fin.Min's court.Remember that the Fin.Min. have from time to time exercised its veto/objections,esp. with respect to the extra costs for the Scorpenes which PC strongly objected to before the deal was sealed.There are many hidden dangers that could trip up an approval for a weapon system for the services in the "Great Maze of the Babu" in the corridors of power in Delhi.

Common Philip in operational config with Night vision equipments etc added the T-90 is costlier than the low volume Arjun produced, if Arjun is mass producced it will be cheaper.

Why are comparing Bare bones price of T-90 with fully loaded cost of Arjun. Aplles to oranges?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Nov 2017 16:08

Please,I am using open open info available on costs,not .y own figs. There are several media reports reg. the T-90 deals,made in batches. Common sense also dictates that a tank weighing less by 20t ,2/3 rd the size of an A series,will cost approx. proportionally less.The most favourable comparison still puts the A-1 at $1.7M more expensive than a T-90MS.,around 25% costlier.
Most western tanks are in the $8M range.A-2 Will definitely cost at least 10-15% more.

Raveen · Post by **Raveen** » 09 Nov 2017 22:43

Philip wrote:Common sense also dictates that a tank weighing less by 20t ,2/3 rd the size of an A series,will cost approx. proportionally less.

ROFLMAO

Only if you're buying a tin can from the local kabadi wala/junkyard.
If all there is to a tank is metal wt therefore metal cost, then lord save us all.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 09 Nov 2017 23:02

sahay wrote:
Rishi_Tri wrote:http://www.janes.com/article/75533/indi ... at-vehicle

MBT.. FICV.. FMBT .. Now FRCV.. The acronyms are making my head spin. Is this the reason why nothing has happened on either FICV or Arjun Mk2?
Link to the RFI: https://indianarmy.nic.in/writereaddata ... v%2017.pdf

Yep

(e) Engage low flying manned and unmanned rotary wing aircraft.

You tell me now. Can the arjun fly? No? Rejetted onlee.
Cannot fathom the thinking for an open RFI for your next tank when you have your own design team and production factory sitting idle!

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 09 Nov 2017 23:54

Like I said before the MoD can put a stop to these shenanigans very quickly if they have the capacity to understand the situation.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 10 Nov 2017 00:38

Philip wrote:Please,I am using open open info available on costs,not .y own figs. There are several media reports reg. the T-90 deals,made in batches. Common sense also dictates that a tank weighing less by 20t ,2/3 rd the size of an A series,will cost approx. proportionally less.The most favourable comparison still puts the A-1 at $1.7M more expensive than a T-90MS.,around 25% costlier.
Most western tanks are in the $8M range.A-2 Will definitely cost at least 10-15% more.

That is what local products are up against - lack of common sense as displayed in this post from an ex-armed forces poster. And the "total" cost of the T-90 is higher than the Arjun Mk1. Add all hidden costs like the missile, etc. and you will find it. There was probably a CAG paper on this as well. The poster knows he is telling an untruth, but it helps his motivations and so is OK. Sab chalta hai!!

ArjunPandit · Post by **ArjunPandit** » 10 Nov 2017 00:39

I am willing to bet my two eyes on the fact that this drama will continue till time we do not have a strong/intellilgent personality as RM. MP was our hope, but he preferred Goan delicacies over national defence.
Surprised to know philip is ex services.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 10 Nov 2017 00:54

Philip sir,

By same measure, is the T-90 2/3rd as capable as the Arjun?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Nov 2017 01:19

CLAWS has an article.

Please post the excerpts:

http://www.claws.in/1421/the-arjun-a-bl ... atoch.html

kit · Post by **kit** » 10 Nov 2017 02:25

Raveen wrote:
Philip wrote:Common sense also dictates that a tank weighing less by 20t ,2/3 rd the size of an A series,will cost approx. proportionally less.

ROFLMAO

Only if you're buying a tin can from the local kabadi wala/junkyard.
If all there is to a tank is metal wt therefore metal cost, then lord save us all.

Pretty sure Philip didnt mean that way

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 10 Nov 2017 11:22

Philip wrote:Common sense also dictates that a tank weighing less by 20t ,2/3 rd the size of an A series,will cost approx. proportionally less.

No.

The most expensive component of any platform is its sensors (EO, ALNS, APS, for Arjun/T-90, AESA radar + other electronics for fighters, Elta 2048 for Kolkata). Upgrading electronics is a major opex as well. Just like common people paying exorbitantly for upgrading mobiles every 2-4 years.

The next expensive component is weapons (INVAR/LAHAT missiles, guns, different ammo. A set of double digit Invar missiles is as expensive as a whole T-90 tank minus ammo)

The third expensive component is propulsion (engines, gearbox, drive train). This is proportionate to weight but cannot negate the cost impact of above two.

The hull, turret & road wheels are the least expensive components.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 10 Nov 2017 11:47

I had a discussion with a Brigadier commanding an Independent Armoured Brigade. Posting generic points.

His PoV was most current Western tanks were like Japanese battleship Yamato with 18" guns ineffective against aircraft and obsolete the day it was launched. They have only front & side protection and gun firing APFSDS that is LOS dependent.

Western tanks are built around firing APFSDS & protecting against APFSDS and war has move beyond that. The primary threat to tanks are proliferating RPG, mines, cheap ATGMs, helicopters and finally tanks. He said Longewala was the last tank battle fought in the Indian Subcontinent and it wasnt tank vs tank. Large Tank vs Tank battles, while appealing, will be rare in future. More common would be Battle of Basantar that saw tanks leading combined arms forces.

Presently, BMPs with Konkurs are the primary strike element with T-72s engaging enemy tanks that evade Konkurs.

T-90s use INVAR more against tanks & other fortifications than APFSDS because of its non LOS capabilities.

His PoV was just like ships dispensed armour and went with CIWS/ECM/Active Counter Measures and knights dispensed armour suits because they couldn't stop bullets, tanks will soon discard armour for Active Protection Systems, DIRCM & Laser Jammers.

Apparently the US had massive air superiority that allowed engineering elements to support heavy tanks. In India and Pakistan, there is a proliferation of canals for irrigation and some like Ichhogil Canal were built for defence of Lahore. Without massive air & artillery superiority as well as heavy engineering for mineclearing & bridgelaying, ferrying heavy tanks across will be vulnerable to enemy attacks.

He said German heavy tanks performed superlatively in WW2. He cites a Brad Pitt movie (that I havent watched) that realistically shows a German Tiger knocking off multiple US Shermans. His PoV was despite the proven superiority of the Tiger against the Sherman, the Sherman could go where German tanks couldnt and influence the battle.

Hence an ask for medium tanks for riverine environments of Punjab & Bengal and hilly terrain of Himachal, Jammu, Ladakh & Sikkim.

His view was just like ships moved from guns to missiles for anti ship, anti air, anti missile & land attack, tanks too need to evolve.

More specific to Arjun in my next post.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 10 Nov 2017 11:51

Vivek K wrote:
Philip wrote:
in this post from an ex-armed forces poster

Philip, did you serve in the forces?

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 10 Nov 2017 12:06

T sarkar.

1 . Taking the brigadiers view to it's logical conclusion. Even the t 90 is very heavy and obsolete. Like Yamoto With protection just in the frontal arc. Which is augmented by ERA.

2. Taking it to further. A missile firing Jeep is the ultimate vehicle for morden war fare. It is cheap can kill a tank at up to 5 kms or more and is cheap to acquire in large numbers.

3. Where mobile firepower is needed you can always have wheeled vehicles fitted with guns. Fit it with active protection and you increase protection to high degree. I am thinking of vehicles like the striker or the Centaro or the Japanese MCV on 8x8 platforms. Why have any kind of tanks.

Or have I totally lost it.

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 10 Nov 2017 12:21

Tsarkar sir. Good post (as posts from services usually are). Eagerly waiting for the post on Arjun.

Pratyush ji. Good points you make. However electronics do have a disturbing tendency of acting funny or sub-optimally under extreme conditions. IMVHO always better to have backup (dumb) measures. Kind of like the uber F22 still carrying an internal cannon.. thus good old armor in addition to the active protection systems

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 10 Nov 2017 13:13

This is my own PoV. The Officer in question has occasionally seen the Arjun but never operated it.

In the event the Indian Army moves to Arjun, there needs to massive investment in associated mine clearing, engineering & bridging infrastructure presently factored to their heaviest load - T-72/T-90.

At one point of time, the Armoured Corps did a lot of innovation - like upgunning Shermans with guns from AMX tanks and these tanks performed superbly in 1965 & 1971. The innovator went to head Vehicle Factory Jabalpur. However, with DRDO & OFB becoming separate services on their own right, the distance has grown.

Army Officers working on Arjun Development go on limited tenure deputation, hence the engagement lacks depth. Once people change, then perspective also changes. The Arjun was developed to tackle the Abrams, that miserably failed its tests in Pakistan when its gas turbine filter couldnt filter fine Thar sand. In addition, its engine overheated. The changing dynamics of operations never got communicated to CVRDE & DRDO folks. CVRDE & DRDO too have peripheral interaction with ACC&S Ahmednagar and not Rajasthan, Punjab, Jammu, Ladakh or Sikkim. There needs to be more interaction between the two services. Within the Armoured Corps, field innovation hasnt kept pace with development in technology, and technology awareness is mostly influenced by events like Defexpo, Foreign OEM demos or joint exercises. There was just sending requirements rather than true joint development.

One thing DRDO needs to do is more roadshows and field trips with its equipment across regiments in different geographies. User confidence is hugely built when one experiences an equipment first hand. DRDO scientists too need to spend time at different operational locations to understand the local conditions rather than once in a while trip for summer/winter trials.

Lastly, there needs to a joint program office for tanks or infantry weapons. This doesnt exist today, so neither party understands the capabilities and limitations of the other.

Going by the Navy's example, its organization has -

https://www.indiannavy.nic.in/content/staff-branch-i

DNuSMAQ Directorate of Nuclear Submarine Acquisition
DNSPI Directorate of Nuclear Submarine Project & Infrastructure
CWP & A Controller of Warship Production & Acquisition
DSMAQ Directorate of Submarine Acquisition
DND (SSG) Directorate of Naval Design (Surface Ship Design Group)
DND (SDG) Directorate of Naval Design (Submarine Design Group)
DACP Directorate of Aircraft Carrier Projects
DSP Directorate of Ship Production
IFA (N) Integrated Financial Advisor (Navy)
DSCT Directorate of Strategy, Concepts & Transformation
DNP Directorate of Naval Plans
DW Directorate of Works
DSR Directorate of Staff Requirements
DONA Directorate of Naval Armament
DNAI Directorate of Naval Armament Inspectorate

https://www.indiannavy.nic.in/content/materiel-branch

DME Directorate of Marine Engineering
DFM Directorate of Fleet Maintenance
DNA Directorate of Naval Architecture
DOI Directorate of Indigenisation
DODY Directorate of Dockyard
DEE Directorate of Electrical Engineering
DWE Directorate of Weapons & Equipments

While it may seem overstaffing, please note that each of these Directorates are themselves huge repositories of know-how, knowledge and innovation.

Note how Design, Acquisition, Production & Maintenance are separate Directorates with focus on these functions.

There is a deliberate overlap between Directorate of Naval Design, Directorate of Naval Architecture & Directorate of Marine Engineering to ensure adequate know how within the organization.

The FInancial Advisor is embedded in the organization.

Note the DG for special projects like Varsha & Seabird.

The depth of expertise goes beyond this. There is a Naval Construction Wing in IIT Delhi
https://www.indiannavy.nic.in/content/n ... -new-delhi

There is a Scientific Advisor to CNS who is a senior DRDO scientist advising the CNS.

https://www.indiannavy.nic.in/content/n ... dviser-cns

Unlike the Army sending personnel to projects on 3 year deputation, Naval personnel spend decades in projects. A batchmate who joined Project 17 as a Lt. Cdr. has continued there and is now a Commodore in newer projects. He did operational stints in between for sea experience.

I will be happy to be corrected if similar institutions & structure exist in the Army or IAF.

With this depth of technology & know how, the IN is able to decide its equipment unlike the Army or IAF going through multiple RFPs for fighters or tanks.

Navy's equipment plans is on a much stronger footing rather than IA or IAF.

Its ironical IA & IAF buying IN developed weapons like BrahMos or Barak-8 LRSAM as their MRSAM.

Unless the Army builds organizational structures like this merging its operational requirements with available technology & production capabilities, it will keep floundering, whether small arms or tanks.

There is no sponsor of Arjun in the Army.

Pinaka is on a better footing because its great performance and the expense of Smerch and its imported rockets. Production issues need to be sorted out but there is user confidence on those issues being sorted out.

Dhanush & ATAGS have superlative performance and any imported alternatives are too expensive.

tsarkar · Post by **tsarkar** » 10 Nov 2017 13:27

Pratyush wrote:Taking the brigadiers view to it's logical conclusion.

His solution was a NAMICA with lots of cheap missiles for anti tank, anti bunker, anti helicopter & anti UAV with no armour and an Active Protection System, DIRCM & laser jammer. Possibly a remotely operated 12.7 mm gun for close in work.

Apparently a US Bradley version called Cavalry Scout that does the same as BMPs in IA. It carries TOWs & Stingers that are fired by troops carried inside.

The ideal vehicle is going into the realm of speculation, so I'll stop here. Such cheap multipurpose missiles dont exist. Despite BDL being the world's largest producer of tank fired INVAR missiles, they're very expensive.

Pratyush wrote:A missile firing Jeep is the ultimate vehicle for morden war fare

The missile boats did their job in Karachi.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 10 Nov 2017 14:24

tsarkar wrote:I had a discussion with a Brigadier commanding an Independent Armoured Brigade. Posting generic points.

His PoV was most current Western tanks were like Japanese battleship Yamato with 18" guns ineffective against aircraft and obsolete the day it was launched. They have only front & side protection and gun firing APFSDS that is LOS dependent.

Western tanks are built around firing APFSDS & protecting against APFSDS and war has move beyond that. The primary threat to tanks are proliferating RPG, mines, cheap ATGMs, helicopters and finally tanks. He said Longewala was the last tank battle fought in the Indian Subcontinent and it wasnt tank vs tank. Large Tank vs Tank battles, while appealing, will be rare in future. More common would be Battle of Basantar that saw tanks leading combined arms forces.

Presently, BMPs with Konkurs are the primary strike element with T-72s engaging enemy tanks that evade Konkurs.

T-90s use INVAR more against tanks & other fortifications than APFSDS because of its non LOS capabilities.

His PoV was just like ships dispensed armour and went with CIWS/ECM/Active Counter Measures and knights dispensed armour suits because they couldn't stop bullets, tanks will soon discard armour for Active Protection Systems, DIRCM & Laser Jammers.

Apparently the US had massive air superiority that allowed engineering elements to support heavy tanks. In India and Pakistan, there is a proliferation of canals for irrigation and some like Ichhogil Canal were built for defence of Lahore. Without massive air & artillery superiority as well as heavy engineering for mineclearing & bridgelaying, ferrying heavy tanks across will be vulnerable to enemy attacks.

He said German heavy tanks performed superlatively in WW2. He cites a Brad Pitt movie (that I havent watched) that realistically shows a German Tiger knocking off multiple US Shermans. His PoV was despite the proven superiority of the Tiger against the Sherman, the Sherman could go where German tanks couldnt and influence the battle.

Hence an ask for medium tanks for riverine environments of Punjab & Bengal and hilly terrain of Himachal, Jammu, Ladakh & Sikkim.

His view was just like ships moved from guns to missiles for anti ship, anti air, anti missile & land attack, tanks too need to evolve.

More specific to Arjun in my next post.

Very interesting post. This encourages me to put a point that I have been thinking over for a while now, which I didn't dare putting on BRF before looking at how even Doval was poopooed when he said that tank battles is a thing of past (to be frank even I was not convinced at that time about what he said, but then he is NSA for a reason perhaps). Why not do away with Tanks altogether, (in phased manner perhaps), and tackle tank attacks from enemies using anti-tank measures such as Attack helis, armoured UAVs, MANPADs, PGMs and as you mentioned lightly armoured vehicles with anti-tank missiles..? What is it that tanks still bring on table for us considering our requirements vis-à-vis bakis and chinis..?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Nov 2017 16:07

Oui! I serve in the farces.Jokes aside,many a chum and kinsmen 2 in farcical situs.Costs for tincans and A series
ckd. many a time.Pl read the Yanqui appreciation for the T-90 too,posted earlier. Each beast has its attributes and negatives.As I said,the IA's doctrine was determined decades ago when Arjun was yet to be born.Unfortunately,the DRDO/CVRDE chose the western route when the IA had taken the eastern route.

TSarkar's post v.illuminating coming from a Brigadier who unusually has a good knowledge of naval affairs.I was just rewatching that great film ,"Tora,Tora,Tora," last night and in an early scene there is a heated debate between sr.Japanese officers about the proposed plan of attack.One admiral speaks of the impending arrival of the "unsinkable new battleships",Yamato and Musashi,while his colleague ,an aviator,sarcastically says that "anything that floats eventually sinks!"

Today armour without infantry get pasted - Israeli Merkavas in Lebanon by the Hiz. Infantry without armour against armoured columns, the less said the better- too many examples.Armour vs armour without air support- read GW1&2, where Saddam's armour got pasted by coalition/US aircraft and attack helos. The Syrian conflict and intense urban warfare has taken us back to the days of Bomber Harris too! A holistic ,balanced attacking force and control of the skies will be essential in the future.Large scale use of UCAVs,kamikaze munitions like Harop,etc. waiting for the next big show.

Western vs eastern (Ru) AW philosophy intriguing.High mobility warfare where poss.Why the Sprut light tank (destroyer) has a 125mm main gun but is v.lightly armoured. Numerical superiority appears to be a key element of the IA's doctrine.The smaller T-series acquired in large numbers ,affordable,with a good all round capability, virtues mentioned ad nauseum,
are with us now making up approx. 95% of the inventory.Even if A-2 orders are given,only 10% max of our armour in 3-4 yrs time (50-100 A-2/yr) will be Desi.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Nov 2017 16:10

PS:Remember the Yom Kippur war in '73 how the Egyptian army brilliantly breached the Suez Canal.We'll need good innovation and lots of bridging eqpt. on the road to La-whore.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 10 Nov 2017 16:12

Philip wrote:Pl read the Yanqui appreciation for the T-90 too,posted earlier.

That T90 which cannot even finish a simple competition under ideal conditions..? What can be expected from it under War conditions where nothing goes as per plan...? Even junk Chini maal was faring better...

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Nov 2017 16:28

Too late Jay.Whether you like it or not the IA does and is saddled with 3500 T-series MBTs with another 460+ upgraded T-90s to come for us to fight the next war.One is only trying to fathom why and how we have got here.I don't have a "tincan" parked in my garage, though would like to gift one to my old school.An AM let me down over a MIG-21.Must write again to the new chief...

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 10 Nov 2017 17:18

JayS wrote: That T90 which cannot even finish a simple competition under ideal conditions..? What can be expected from it under War conditions where nothing goes as per plan...? Even junk Chini maal was faring better...

Was the reason for the breakdown disclosed ?

Added later - It was reported that 'engine problems' which were reported actually occurred because the fan belt snapped in the first tank. The reserve tank was then deployed for the race but it's entire engine oil leaked two kilometers before reaching the finish line. My question, is this the final official statement or are there any more findings.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 10 Nov 2017 18:24

The chinese tank did well, even after one of its wheels went kaput

Shiv,
To your point about getting rid of Armour on our side, I agree that Armour is not quite as useful in defence against invading Armour - one needs nimble multiples to incessantly attack from all possible directions and stop invading armour dead in their tracks

But Armour is the only thing that can invade, terrorize the enemy and then hold territory. It is the spine around which Infantry operates and deploys

sum · Post by **sum** » 10 Nov 2017 19:15

Gagan wrote:The chinese tank did well, even after one of its wheels went kaput

Shiv,
To your point about getting rid of Armour on our side, I agree that Armour is not quite as useful in defence against invading Armour - one needs nimble multiples to incessantly attack from all possible directions and stop invading armour dead in their tracks

But Armour is the only thing that can invade, terrorize the enemy and then hold territory. It is the spine around which Infantry operates and deploys

Just a nitpick:
The Chinese tank wheel was from last year. The Chinese tanks performed pretty well this year without major issues

Rishi_Tri · Post by **Rishi_Tri** » 10 Nov 2017 19:18

Tank battle being a thing of past - IA does not think so that is why the RFI. What ever cloak they might shroud it under.

Think that in doctrines it should not be a case of either or .. it should be both.. thinking of a scenario.. we give up tanks.. and the adversary comes up with tank based doctrine and gets advantage on the battle field..

If there is no need of tanks on ground.. then there is no need of Rafale's in air..

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 10 Nov 2017 19:20

FRCV: India’s Mega Future Battle Tank Contest Opens
https://www.livefistdefence.com/2017/11 ... opens.html

The Indian Army has just signaled what could finally be the start to a major contest for the country’s next battle tank platform to replace an ageing fleet of 2,414 Soviet-origin T-72 tanks. The Army this week invited interest from industry across the world to develop of a Future Ready Combat Vehicle (FRCV), an armoured platform that will be the base, primarily, for a main battle tank, but also other fighting vehicles in the future, totaling nearly 2,000 units. The Army hopes to see the first of these enter service in the 2025-27 time frame. The FRCV isn’t to be confused with the similarly large Future Infantry Combat Vehicle (FICV) programme, that involves a contest to build and supply over 2,000 new vehicles to succeed the Army’s BMP-IIs, a contest currently being fought by Indian private sector firms including L&T, Tata, Reliance and Mahindra.

India currently operates fleets of Russian origin T-72 and T-90 tanks, with a much smaller fleet of indigenously developed Arjun tanks. The latter platform has fought for years for relevance and numbers in a system that appears bent on moving on from the troubled programme. The FRCV, in many ways, only amplifies the Army’s push for a big refresh in the fighting vehicles sphere, stripped of past afflictions and cross-purposes. To acquire a sturdy and modular base platform that can quickly be spun off into a variety of specialised fighting vehicles.

The Army’s request for information published this week calling the attention of interested vendors is only the latest leg of a process that gathered pace over two years ago. In June 2015, setting down the contours of its interest, the Army had said it was seeking “[D]evelopment of futuristic combat vehicle for induction by 2025-27. This fighting vehicle needs to be developed on a modular concept as part of a family of combat vehicles. The Tracked Main Battle Tank will be the primary/base variant and the entire project will be called the Future Ready Combat Vehicle (FRCV). A ‘Future’ Combat Platform design must cater for ‘future’ battlefield environment and technological possibilities. To address the future battlefield scenario and the envisaged force profile in the coming years, the FRCV needs to be developed on a modular concept with a high degree of flexibility in a manner that, as a tank platform, it can address the varying requirements of different terrain configurations. At the same time it can provide the base on which a ‘Family of Vehicles’, catering to the operational needs of various arms of the Army, can be developed.”

To be driven by the ‘Make’ category under the MoD’s Make in India rules, the Army describes the FRCV as a ‘medium weight (45-50 ton) platform required to operate across developed / semi desert/desert terrain and in high altitude areas across the entire spectrum of conflict’. The three-stage contest begins with a design competition, for which global tank houses will drawn in through an RFP. The Directorate General of Mechanised Forces will then then choose a winner, passing them down to a prototype development and production stage. The three-stage process is unprecedented in Indian Army contracting history.

The FRCV programme is, in essence, the Army’s rejection of a handful for indigenous proposals that it clearly isn’t comfortable with.. The existing efforts include the DRDO’s Future Main Battle Tank (FMBT), which tentatively looks to give the Army a brand new indigenous main battle tank, and the short-lived Tank-X effort. The FMBT’s thrust has been severely hampered since it had hoped to draw momentum and energy off the success of the Arjun project. The latter, now in a delayed Mk.2 development trial process, will never be fielded in large numbers. Certainly nowhere near the economics necessary to amortize investments in it, or to brandish it as a reason to look forward to the proposed FMBT. With the FRCV in the mix, the Army’s new armoured orbat settles as follows: the T-90/T-90S tanks remain the overwhelming mainstay followed by a much smaller fleet of modernised/modified T-72s. A handful of Arjun Mk.1/Mk.2 regiments — more more than four — will form the tail end. The FRCV’s ambitious expanse means the Arjun just got squeezed a whole lot more.

ParGha · Post by **ParGha** » 10 Nov 2017 20:00

JayS wrote:What is it that tanks still bring on table for us considering our requirements vis-à-vis bakis and chinis..?

In general MBTs and heavy IFVs,

1. with the correct anti-radiation lining and filtration systems have the ability to continue operations around the edges of NBC contaminated zones where thin-skinned vehicle crew and infantry would die like flies, and

2. with enough manual overrides they have the ability to provide impressive protection and fire-support even after an EMP attack that fries all electronic-based defenses and missiles.

Vis-a-vis Pakistanis, #1 is important in bridging forces in case of a proxy-NBC attack on certain choke-points (ex Akhnoor, Kargil, etc). Vis-a-vis Chinese, #2 is important because the Chinese are investing in denial/degradation weapons to face the electronics-dependent US and Japanese forces.

srin · Post by **srin** » 10 Nov 2017 20:03

tsarkar wrote: T-90s use INVAR more against tanks & other fortifications than APFSDS because of its non LOS capabilities.

Isn't INVAR laser beam riding, and hence requires LOS from the tank for designation ?

Venkarl · Post by **Venkarl** » 10 Nov 2017 20:09

That brad pitt movie is Fury.

srin · Post by **srin** » 10 Nov 2017 20:10

tsarkar wrote:I had a discussion with a Brigadier commanding an Independent Armoured Brigade. Posting generic points.

His PoV was most current Western tanks were like Japanese battleship Yamato with 18" guns ineffective against aircraft and obsolete the day it was launched. They have only front & side protection and gun firing APFSDS that is LOS dependent.

Western tanks are built around firing APFSDS & protecting against APFSDS and war has move beyond that. The primary threat to tanks are proliferating RPG, mines, cheap ATGMs, helicopters and finally tanks. He said Longewala was the last tank battle fought in the Indian Subcontinent and it wasnt tank vs tank. Large Tank vs Tank battles, while appealing, will be rare in future. More common would be Battle of Basantar that saw tanks leading combined arms forces.

Presently, BMPs with Konkurs are the primary strike element with T-72s engaging enemy tanks that evade Konkurs.

Yes ! someone who finally agrees with me

Self-quote from the past ...
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6844&p=2183959&hilit=tank#p2183959

srin wrote:Not sure why we need such heavy calibre main gun in a "light" tank. Won't the turret itself weigh tonnes ?

Even a BMP can fire ATGMs these days. So, it might be better investing in very cheap ATGMs and equipping these tankettes with a couple of dozen of them. And maybe a 30mm gun to attack other IFVs, and choppers.
A modified BMP might do the trick.

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 10 Nov 2017 22:31

Presently, BMPs with Konkurs are the primary strike element with T-72s engaging enemy tanks that evade Konkurs.

T-90s use INVAR more against tanks & other fortifications than APFSDS because of its non LOS capabilities.

The heyday of ATGMs knocking out tanks is past with the advent of active protection systems and even ERA. There are multiple active protection systems out in the market illustrating both the feasibility and also likelihood of achieving success with available technology.

Demonstration of a Chinese APS. Note that the interception is of a top attack TOW2 type missile.

If this is system is deployed on Paki armor, how exactly will BMP firing ATGMs deal with such a threat? The only thing that might be able to take out a tank protected by such an APS is going to be air strikes killing its logistics chain or a large APFSDS firing canon or a yet to be invented EFP warhead that is able to fire its EFP from outside the APS range.

A modern tank with an APS, heavy ERA and aircover is an unstoppable monster that will make any defending commander shit his pants.

Weapons are bought to suit ones strategy, but we continue to drone on about tank performance in civil wars fought in builtup areas where legacy tanks suffered due to their design. Is it a part of Indian strategy to fight in built up areas?

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 10 Nov 2017 23:46

srin wrote:
tsarkar wrote: T-90s use INVAR more against tanks & other fortifications than APFSDS because of its non LOS capabilities.
Isn't INVAR laser beam riding, and hence requires LOS from the tank for designation ?

Yes INVAR/Refleks requires LOS.