Newbie Corner & Military Miscellaneous

manish.rastogi · Post by **manish.rastogi** » 20 Dec 2010 09:45

okay.....now i am quite clear about light fighter jets....its to stay in budgetary limits....they can perform almost like others with some compromises but perfect for peacetime....

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Dec 2010 10:01

manish.rastogi wrote:okay.....now i am quite clear about light fighter jets....its to stay in budgetary limits....they can perform almost like others with some compromises but perfect for peacetime....

They perform better than "others" in some respects so it would be wrong to say that others are invariably better. For example it would consume far less fuel to perform CAP with a light fighter than a heavy one. In addition - air to air missiles cannot be carried armed and ready like carrying a set of golf clubs in your car. Those missiles have a finite life and you can only ready them for combat and bring them back a limited number of times.

So if you have a plane that can carry 8 missiles - for CAP you are consuming the "life" of 8 missiles every flight as opposed to a light fighter carrying only 2 missiles.

The US is the only country in the world that has readily entered of provoked foreign wars away from its borders. But throughout the cold war the US used, within its own airspace, for air defence, a plane called the F-102 Delta Dagger which weighed pretty much the same as LCA. For other countries - 90% of flying is peacetime flying.

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 22 Dec 2010 22:59

Sjiv sir,
you have a mail...

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Dec 2010 17:45

I would like to play a non jingo game. Actually it is a bad news game because it is supposed to get people out of their comfort zone. I suspect that this is stuff that is done on a day to day basis by real air force people. I will try and make it simple and assume some things.

Assume that you are a squadron commander of 10 interceptors that can carry 2 to 6 air to air missiles each. Your job is solely to provide full 24 hours air cover against enemy air attack for a high value target. Assume again that this need for 24 hours air cover is for just 2 days (48 hours) during which time it is hoped that the enemy attacking forces back will be broken by intense attacks, SEAD and disabling of his airfields.

You have to protect a high value target. You have no idea how many missions the enemy will send against this target. You only know that the target is very high value and the enemy is highly likely to send missions to take out this target. Assume that your 10 interceptors have 100% availability during this 48 hour period and all are fit and ready to fly at any time.

You have some idea of what aircraft your enemy will send on an attack mission. You have no idea whether he will merely send 2 aircraft at a time. Or will he send four aircraft at a time. Or will he send four aircraft with four escorts.

You have the following limitations. Your aircraft can stay in the air for only 2 hours on CAP. Your air to air missiles have a pylon life of 40 hours. That is to say - if the AAMs have flown, armed and ready on a pylon for more than 40 hours, they become unreliable. And you have a stock of 40 AAMs.

Will you keep 2 aircraft in the air at all times for 48 hours? Will you keep 4 aircraft in the air. How many AAM's will you arm each aircraft with, knowing that the AAM can at most be used in 20 sorties of 2 hours each before it becomes useless? 2 AAMs? 4 AAMs?

Assuming that the enemy does not attack at all during these 48 hours and deliberately decides to wait to keep you guessing. What life useful will be left in your 40 AAMs after the first 48 hours so that they can continue to be effective for a short war that lasts for a total of 7 days (First 48 hours + 5 days). What would you do to preserve the maximum number of useful life in your precious AAMs?

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 23 Dec 2010 21:29

Shiv wrote: Assume that you are a squadron commander of 10 interceptors that can carry 2 to 6 air to air missiles each. Your job is solely to provide full 24 hours air cover against enemy air attack for a high value target. Assume again that this need for 24 hours air cover is for just 2 days (48 hours) during which time it is hoped that the enemy attacking forces back will be broken by intense attacks, SEAD and disabling of his airfields.

Ok, Sir.
What about Radar Coverage for my sector? And SAM/Anti-Air Defence support? the flight time from my base to HVA?
Here i am assuming that i have an advanced warning from a radar of about 5 minutes from the time it enters Indian Air space. I am also assuming i have support from elements of a battery of QR SR SAM which engages the target much before they enter my kill zone(pre-discussed with the ADGES control). Flight time from my base is about 3 minutes from Wheels up.

You have to protect a high value target. You have no idea how many missions the enemy will send against this target. You only know that the target is very high value and the enemy is highly likely to send missions to take out this target. Assume that your 10 interceptors have 100% availability during this 48 hour period and all are fit and ready to fly at any time.

You have some idea of what aircraft your enemy will send on an attack mission. You have no idea whether he will merely send 2 aircraft at a time. Or will he send four aircraft at a time. Or will he send four aircraft with four escorts.

You have the following limitations.
1.Your aircraft can stay in the air for only 2 hours on CAP.
2.Your air to air missiles have a pylon life of 40 hours. That is to say - if the AAMs have flown, armed and ready on a pylon for more than 40 hours, they become unreliable.
3.And you have a stock of 40 AAMs.

1. Will you keep 2 aircraft in the air at all times for 48 hours?
2. Will you keep 4 aircraft in the air?
3.How many AAM's will you arm each aircraft with, knowing that the AAM can at most be used in 20 sorties of 2 hours each before it becomes useless? 2 AAMs? 4 AAMs?

Answers:
I would keep 2 aircrafts with only one aircraft carrying 2 AAM's flying CAP for 2 hours. Using just 4 missiles for 2 such aircrafts. I'll have 2 sets of ORP, each of 3 aircrafts, first one for 1 minute scramble and the other for 3 minute scramble. this schould be sufficient force to tackle an enemy attack. The missiles on the first ORP would fully loaded and the next one would be 2 each. With a total of 8 aircrafts either flying or on alert gives me 2 aircrafts on ground ready 2 fly out.

Assuming that the enemy does not attack at all during these 48 hours and deliberately decides to wait to keep you guessing. What life useful will be left in your 40 AAMs after the first 48 hours so that they can continue to be effective for a short war that lasts for a total of 7 days (First 48 hours + 5 days). What would you do to preserve the maximum number of useful life in your precious AAMs?

With only 4 missiles using up their flight time, i still have about 36 missiles that have full reliability. And if the first 4 are used up then the next set of 4 come up and the earlier 4 get relegated to the wing men, as deterence if nothing else.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Dec 2010 06:17

Bala Vignesh wrote: With only 4 missiles using up their flight time, i still have about 36 missiles that have full reliability. And if the first 4 are used up then the next set of 4 come up and the earlier 4 get relegated to the wing men, as deterence if nothing else.

Thanks for trying Bala. I think you have grasped the picture accurately. If fact even if 8 aircraft are used for 6 x 2 hour sorties and each of these aircraft carry 2 missiles - you are still using up only 12 hours pylon life of 16 missiles. At the end of 48 hours you will still have 24 missiles with the full pylon life and the other 16 will have 24 hours of pylon life left.

I cooked up this scenario to show how carrying more missiles on multiple missile launcher racks looks good on paper but is not necessarily and advantage in real terms.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 24 Dec 2010 06:21

IIRC the R-77 had one of the lowest flying lives of AAMs and that was >100 hrs. modern AAMs should have much higher values.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Dec 2010 07:04

Rahul M wrote:IIRC the R-77 had one of the lowest flying lives of AAMs and that was >100 hrs. modern AAMs should have much higher values.

The funny think about AAMs is that you can try as hard as you like but no manufacturer or user makes certain details pubic. Range, seeker details, and shelf life are shared ONLY between the customer and user. One Russian missile is quoted by Googal Unkal to have a pylon life of 40 hours.

The other thing of course is that carrying 12 missiles or 18 missiles at a time is a pointless exercise - and that is why it seems to be more of a PR exercise or jingo dream than reality. Even if most practice flying is done with dummy missiles - even with routine peacetime flying the pylon life of missiles will gradually be getting exhausted ensuring that a certain proportion of anyone's missiles will not have their full pylon life at the start of hot war even if pylon life is 200 hours for a new missiles. If you start with all new missiles - it means you haven't used them or tested them. If you have - then you will also have used up part of their pylon life. It is more about inventory control management/stewardship rather than blind slinging of missiles on multiple ejector racks.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 24 Dec 2010 07:18

>> and shelf life are shared ONLY between the customer and user.
perhaps not even then. left to the user to find out on his own.

>> The other thing of course is that carrying 12 missiles or 18 missiles at a time is a pointless exercise - and that is why it seems to be more of a PR and jingo dream than reality

pointless exercise in the scenario you describe. however, air sentry duty is not all the air force does. to use a down to the earth analogy, it makes no sense for a sentry to carry rocket launchers and AGL's but that does not mean there aren't situation where the carl gustav is not useful.

any number of scenarios can be thought up (as realistic as the one you described) which calls for larger number of missiles to be carried.

in the scenario you described what if four are re-assigned by Air HQ; leaving you with 6.

DIA expects that the attack could be as large as a full squadron worth of enemy fighters, as many as 16. what would you rather do, still send up fighter with 4 missiles (2 CCM and 2 BVR AAM) each ?

won't it be better to have one up in the air round the clock with a medium load but keep 4 of them primed with max loadout of missiles ready to at an instant with early warning ?

even now most BVRAAMs are ineffective when fired at max range, at most they can buy some time for you by forcing the enemy to undertake evasive maneuvers. 2 or even 3 missiles might be needed to bring down a fighter.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Dec 2010 07:48

Rahul M wrote: won't it be better to have one up in the air round the clock with a medium load but keep 4 of them primed with max loadout of missiles ready to at an instant with early warning ?

even now most BVRAAMs are ineffective when fired at max range, at most they can buy some time for you by forcing the enemy to undertake evasive maneuvers. 2 or even 3 missiles might be needed to bring down a fighter.

There can be several different optimal configurations. But the idea of the exercise is to point out that blind loading of large numbers of missiles on fighters comes with a penalty. And that penalty is not just in terms of pylon life. The scenario can be taken further.

Imagine two scenarios

1) 2 aircraft on CAP with 2 missiles each
or
2) One aircraft on CAP with 8 missiles

If two attack aircraft come in with two escorts, which of the above two would be a better bet given that BVR at extreme ranges is less effective.

The permutations and combinations are endless - but unless one can actually work out possibilities and outcomes a blind desire to sling on a huge number of missiles on one aircraft cannot be assumed to be a superior proposition. That is what I am trying to say.

Arya Sumantra · Post by **Arya Sumantra** » 26 Dec 2010 01:12

shiv wrote: There can be several different optimal configurations. But the idea of the exercise is to point out that blind loading of large numbers of missiles on fighters comes with a penalty.

Shivji, Keep the product: missiles x fighters x missions constant to get a desired objective against enemy (assume that # of missions is constant too (maximum allowed by maintenance)).

So m1 x f1 = m2 x f2

(a) either you load fewer missiles per plane AND increase your fighter numbers strength or (b) you increase number of missiles loaded per plane with multiple rack like solution

Although it would be nice to have more fighters, but given that we are always stretched on the numbers, the option b) seems more cheaper and likely to do. Our squadron strengths are not increasing any time soon.

Besides the ability to carry more missiles like in multiple rack does not mean it will be always carrying more. So why not build an option.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Dec 2010 11:03

Arya Sumantra wrote:
shiv wrote: There can be several different optimal configurations. But the idea of the exercise is to point out that blind loading of large numbers of missiles on fighters comes with a penalty.
Shivji, Keep the product: missiles x fighters x missions constant to get a desired objective against enemy (assume that # of missions is constant too (maximum allowed by maintenance)).

So m1 x f1 = m2 x f2

(a) either you load fewer missiles per plane AND increase your fighter numbers strength or (b) you increase number of missiles loaded per plane with multiple rack like solution

Although it would be nice to have more fighters, but given that we are always stretched on the numbers, the option b) seems more cheaper and likely to do. Our squadron strengths are not increasing any time soon.

Besides the ability to carry more missiles like in multiple rack does not mean it will be always carrying more. So why not build an option.

The equation fails to take into account exhaustion of pylon life of missiles. Should you exhaust all or most of the life of a few missiles, leaving the rest untouched, or should you spread it out so that at the end of 48 hours all your missiles still retain a usable life?

Arya Sumantra · Post by **Arya Sumantra** » 27 Dec 2010 11:00

shiv wrote: The equation fails to take into account exhaustion of pylon life of missiles.

Because it does not matter to pylon life of missiles whether they are distributed few on large number of planes or loaded on fewer planes with multiple rack pylons, the number of missions being same. If you load 2 missiles on each of 6 planes or 4 missiles on each of 3 planes, if none is fired in mission, all 12 missiles have same residual pylon life. And how many total missiles(12 in this case) you would send for the mission is based on enemy threat assessment by mission planner.

shiv wrote: Should you exhaust all or most of the life of a few missiles, leaving the rest untouched, or should you spread it out so that at the end of 48 hours all your missiles still retain a usable life?

Just because a plane has multiple racks does not mean it will be flying with all racks loaded. It can still carry them spread out over multiple missions. But what happens when missions are already maxed out in war like situation?

And why look at pylon life of missiles in isolation? If spreading missile use across more missions helps keep more missiles "virgin", then the repeated flying missions decrease engine residual life. Costs come into picture in different forms: loss of pylon life of missiles OR loss of engine residual life OR cost of procuring more fighters. Take your pick

It is M(i) x F(i) x N(i) = your impact on enemy. Number of missions, N(i), will be maxed out as allowed by maintenance, in a war like scenario. Number of fighters in use F(i) too will be maxed out in a two front war like situation since we are always in need for more given that both neighbours' total or dragon alone is big in numbers. So what's left? No of missiles loaded per plane,M(i)

Of course from survivability point of view it would be nice if you have more fighters loaded for optimal kinematic performance rather than overloaded slugs. Once bvraams are fired slugs become light again. But we are always stretched out on number of fighters and sanctioned fleet strength and cost constraints for getting more fighters.

Having an option to load more doesn't hurt. Don't understand the reluctance.

JMT

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Dec 2010 17:32

Arya Sumantra wrote:
shiv wrote: The equation fails to take into account exhaustion of pylon life of missiles.
Because it does not matter to pylon life of missiles whether they are distributed few on large number of planes or loaded on fewer planes with multiple rack pylons, the number of missions being same. If you load 2 missiles on each of 6 planes or 4 missiles on each of 3 planes, if none is fired in mission, all 12 missiles have same residual pylon life. And how many total missiles(12 in this case) you would send for the mission is based on enemy threat assessment by mission planner.

I think you have misread or misunderstood the original question. And you have not actually tried to answer it. Please read the question again.

Just state how many planes will you send for each CAP. 2. Or 4 or 6 or whatever. How many missiles will they carry? 2 or 4 or 6 each. Or whatever you choose. I believe you are conveniently sidestepping a simple hypothetical practical question and not actually committing yourself to an answer. If you ask me for my answer I will state my answer. But you seem to have presented yourself with equations - not answers. That is brain power. Not a solution.

Just imagine that I am your underling who implements your orders to the word and I am too stupid to understand the math and should not be burdened by the output of an agile and well informed mind. How about a specific answer like " I would send X planes carrying Y missiles per sortie for 48 hours"? where you state the numerical value of X and Y

Gurneesh · Post by **Gurneesh** » 28 Dec 2010 04:43

The aircraft on right has different missiles than the other two. Could someone please tell what the missile that is. The other two are carrying r73's i guess.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 28 Dec 2010 04:52

^^ It's the R-60.

prabhug · Post by **prabhug** » 28 Dec 2010 11:32

Hi
Can anybody help me joining aero modelling classes in bangalore ? I saw one at the HAL heritage museum .

Thanks

Prabhu.G

AdityaM · Post by **AdityaM** » 28 Dec 2010 16:47

The plane on the right has different missile hard points then the other 2. Why would this be the case?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Dec 2010 18:42

AdityaM wrote:The plane on the right has different missile hard points then the other 2. Why would this be the case?

The plane on the right has no pylons fitted other than the missile pylons. The middle one has two wing pylons on each wing. The plane on the left has a full complement of 3 pylons on each wing. Nice photo - first time I am seeing how the pylons relate to the ogival thingummies on each wing.

Keshav · Post by **Keshav** » 30 Dec 2010 05:10

I didn't know where else to post this question but hopefully someone can help me out.

I am writing a story about post-apocalyptic India and would like to know what the ethnic breakup of Indian Armed Forces are (Army, Navy, Air Force)? So, what percent are Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims, Rajput, Maratha, Gujjar, Bengali, Tamil, etc.?

Is this information even available?

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 30 Dec 2010 10:48

Indian Jags are equipped with Harpoons? Is this DDM or something I missed earlier?

India has already purchased HARPOON Block II missiles for integration on the Indian Air Force Jaguar aircraft and will have no difficulty absorbing these weapons into its armed forces, it said.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=14073

Sriman · Post by **Sriman** » 30 Dec 2010 12:29

http://www.flickr.com/photos/torqueavia ... /lightbox/

Are those Panavia Tornado's in the middle?

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 30 Dec 2010 16:11

Sriman wrote:Are those Panavia Tornado's in the middle?

Yes. RAF Tornados.

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 30 Dec 2010 18:39

Shameek wrote:Indian Jags are equipped with Harpoons? Is this DDM or something I missed earlier?

India has already purchased HARPOON Block II missiles for integration on the Indian Air Force Jaguar aircraft and will have no difficulty absorbing these weapons into its armed forces, it said.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=14073

Shameek sir,
Even wiki quotes the same. It goes on to say that another 21 missiles were purchased for the P-8i Poseidon aircraft. Can't post the link now since i am posting from my mobile.

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 03 Jan 2011 10:15

Got few question on the recent aerostat tested by DRDO.

How much payload can this thing carry?
Can a variant of a ground/sea based AESA radar be tested with this?
What are the protection systems it will carry, considering it is a huge floating bag of helium?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 05 Jan 2011 09:27

Sriman wrote:http://www.flickr.com/photos/torqueavia ... /lightbox/

Are those Panavia Tornado's in the middle?

Those are the Air Defence version of Tornado....please read here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panavia_Tornado_ADV

Arya Sumantra · Post by **Arya Sumantra** » 07 Jan 2011 04:00

From China Military Watch thread:

indranilroy wrote:
Arya Sumantra wrote:quote="Austin"
"What are the disadvantage of lifting body design over design like J-20/F-22 that uses classic wings for lift ?"

If the fuselage body also generates lift besides the wings then isn't it a constraint for fuselage side profile shape? Merely a flat underbelly will not make fuselage lift-generating. Just like the wing's cross-section, the longitudinal cross section of fuselage will now have to be shaped, optimized for lift which will be affected by the profile of bubble canopy, its location, contour profile of rest of fuselage in side profile etc. As opposed to a wing-lift-only design where fuselage shape is only drag minimized, here there would be additional restrictions too, isn't it?

JMT
Arya, you are right and wrong.

You are right that the fuselage is optimized for drag.

You are wrong that there are restrictions on the canopy placement. The point is that nobody would do that. Nobody cripples his design by restricting the percentage of lift that the body has to create. as I said it does the other way around.

Not restricting the lift. To achieve a certain amount of lift generated by fuselage section alone, you would have to conform the fuselage cs into a certain airfoil cross section as determined by simulations. That becomes a restriction on the longitudinal contour profile of fuselage, any alterations in which could produce lesser than required lift.

Am not really an aerodynamics expert.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 07 Jan 2011 05:27

Yes you would be right if you had to produce x Newtons of lift from the body.

Generally it goes the other way. After you design the fuselage, you say, I am getting x Newtons of lift.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 07 Jan 2011 05:28

Can somebody teach me how to resize the pictures in a post!

Gurneesh · Post by **Gurneesh** » 07 Jan 2011 07:54

What camo scheme does the IA tanks use in desert. Because all the Arjun pics that I have seen have a multicolored camo like this

While I have seen t-90's stationed at Patiala and all (which can be seen from the road) are light brown in color like this

The light brown color might actually make more sense, specially for Arjun since it was supposed to be stationed in Rajasthan (IIRC

)

I have seen a number of forums that convert big pics into thumbnails that are large enough to fill the page but do not warrant a horizontal scroll. Clicking on the image increases it's dimensions. Does BR support this ?

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 07 Jan 2011 10:06

indranilroy wrote:Yes you would be right if you had to produce x Newtons of lift from the body.

Generally it goes the other way. After you design the fuselage, you say, I am getting x Newtons of lift.

Exactly. It's an added advantage. Wings are there specifically to do that. Regarding airfoil cross section to generate lift, even cylindrical objects like missiles produce lift. IMHO any object should generate lift if given a positive AOA though the L/D ratio is an altogether different issue.

Cheers....

Arya Sumantra · Post by **Arya Sumantra** » 08 Jan 2011 17:31

indranilroy wrote:Yes you would be right if you had to produce x Newtons of lift from the body.

Generally it goes the other way. After you design the fuselage, you say, I am getting x Newtons of lift.

That's surprising. Because the weight of plane and payload it would have to carry is pre-decided as requirements prior to design initiation. So you know right at the onset that you need x Newtons total lift = y newton lift from wings + z newton lift from fuselage. Unless of course if the designer designs to get all lift required(x) from wings itself and treats any lift from the fuselage as a Bonus- a method that would work if lift from fuselage(z) is way too small compared to that from wings.

aniket · Post by **aniket** » 11 Jan 2011 13:02

Arjun seems to have a fatal flaw, it does not have sloped armour in the front. According to what i know isn't it better to have sloped armour at the front as the attacking round has to go through a greater mass when the armour is slanted as the effective thickness of the armour increases.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 11 Jan 2011 16:07

aniket wrote:Arjun seems to have a fatal flaw, it does not have sloped armour in the front. According to what i know isn't it better to have sloped armour at the front as the attacking round has to go through a greater mass when the armour is slanted as the effective thickness of the armour increases.

Here. The table on this page might help you
http://collinsj.tripod.com/protect.htm

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 11 Jan 2011 16:52

Shiv sir, according to the table the Al khalid has better armor protection than the arjun. Could verify whether it is true???

negi · Post by **negi** » 11 Jan 2011 17:12

Boss I cannot comment on the accuracy of figures listed in the above site however we do have a confirmation of the fact that back in Jan 2000 at Proof & Experimental Establishment (PXE), Balasore Arjun armor withstood hits from all available HESH and FSAPDS rounds including Israeli FSAPDS rounds (and there was another report mentioning the fact that even Rusi BM-42M was not able to defeat the Arjun armor).

Btw the guy who compiled the list perhaps copied JCage's post from Tanknet verbatim (note the use of word 'ChiCom'

).

Also from the same link

Israeli M711 (Romanian CL3254) 125mm tungsten 560mm at 2km (1995) (20:1 L/D) (also imported by India in 1999)

So if PXE's Balasore facility did indeed use Israeli FSAPDS then Arjun's frontal protection figure (500-570mm) is definitely an underestimate also this figure is without ERA.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 11 Jan 2011 17:29

aniket wrote:Arjun seems to have a fatal flaw, it does not have sloped armour in the front. According to what i know isn't it better to have sloped armour at the front as the attacking round has to go through a greater mass when the armour is slanted as the effective thickness of the armour increases.

this should answer your question.
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 41#p873641

note to self : start gathering the answers for FAQ thread questions so that this circularity can be avoided.

Bala Vignesh wrote:Shiv sir, according to the table the Al khalid has better armor protection than the arjun. Could verify whether it is true???

this is a set of figures somebody pulled out of where the sun does not shine. most people in army or DRDO itself would not know the actual figures, because they remain classified. do you think this blogwallah does ?

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 11 Jan 2011 17:53

Rahulda.. Of course but it could be possible that a he could have got it from a chaiwalla or a rumour and decided to put it in his blog.
Anyways, no more questions on this. Will consider these details as classified till revealed by the IA itself.
:running for cover from BRedators;

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 11 Jan 2011 19:31

Bala Vignesh wrote:Shiv sir, according to the table the Al khalid has better armor protection than the arjun. Could verify whether it is true???

Maybe it has. Good for the Pakis no? Anyway they are superior to short, dark rice eating, dhoti shivering Indians on all other counts.

More seriously - I think that for any modern battle tank - the armor may be a little variable this way and that. If I have 20 mm more armor than you I can say "nyahaha I am better" - but I think actual tank battles tend to get a bit more complex than that.

For example an armor piercing shell fired from range X may penetrate the armor - but what if the range is X plus something and the angle is a bit off? The whole idea of reactive armor arose because armor itself, inclined or not inclined tended to get defeated by something or the other. And then there is top attack - i.e hitting from an area where the tank has least protection.

That said - most tanks are deadly and dangerous and there is no guarantee for anyone. When I was researching to make my Longewala battle video I discovered that Indian armor was already across the Pakistani border to attack something in Pakistan. In the meantime the Pakis attacked from somewhere else and theer was no Indian armor to counter them. Luckily the IAF was at hand. Phew!

So just like there is no guarantee that a gen 5 plane will meet gen 5 plane in combat - the is no guarantee that Al Khalid will meet Arjun or T-72 or whatever. And no guarantee that any particular side will win because its tank's armor was listed as better in an internet table.

Here are my tank battle stories. Dramatized - but based on research.

Longewala
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fy3XLnWsok

Asal Uttar
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHSVJNNsQ4U

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 11 Jan 2011 20:06

Bala Vignesh wrote:Rahulda.. Of course but it could be possible that a he could have got it from a chaiwalla or a rumour and decided to put it in his blog.
Anyways, no more questions on this. Will consider these details as classified till revealed by the IA itself.
:running for cover from BRedators;

all I can say is that if it is indeed from a rumour, it has nothing to do with reality. or the chaiwala doesn't know his tea from coffee.