Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 26 Feb 2011 22:02

berwal sahab, the fiction has gone too far now. kindly stop making up stories here. use the scenarios thread if you absolutely can't control your creative urges.

pralay · Post by **pralay** » 26 Feb 2011 22:04

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

Are u suggesting that our soldiers are bad at shooting because they can't shoot accurately even after so much practice ?
Or will it increase the accuracy if we import russian soldiers as well ?

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

So berwal sir, you agree, that the GREAT accuracy of t-90 observed during the trials was its best one (as its accuracy does not dip).
Well, how can it drop further, its already low

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 26 Feb 2011 22:10

sameer_shelavale wrote: Are u suggesting that our soldiers are bad at shooting because they can't shoot accurately even after so much practice ?
Or will it increase the accuracy if we import russian soldiers as well ?

i am just stating fact,

you are at liberty to use your lohari logic and interpret as you want to!!!

So berwal sir, you agree, that the GREAT accuracy of t-90 observed during the trials was its best one (as its accuracy does not dip).
Well, how can it drop further, its already low

your lohari logic is not funny at all!!!

where did i say anything about T-90 TRIALS!!! I am saying on the basis of available info to me based on field firing exercisees and fire power demos.

pralay · Post by **pralay** » 26 Feb 2011 22:19

d_berwal wrote: your lohari logic is not funny at all!!!

Sir, But your logic about your favorite foreign maal is funny for sure

d_berwal wrote: where did i say anything about T-90 TRIALS!!! I am saying on the basis of available info to me based on field firing exercisees and fire power demos.

lol, you better not say about the trials

your favorite maal has lost its face in trials

the comparative trials have underlined the facts much better than heaps of your brochure information.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 26 Feb 2011 22:27

what Rahul

You do want to allow berwal to say that the T 90s were involved in some border incident where they absolutely blasted the Al khalids and T 80s and Chinese assorted armor??

What sort of anti jingo are you?

berwal was there you know

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 26 Feb 2011 22:36

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

Well as long as you can lase the target on the move , the missile will just follow the beam and hit the target at its max effective range , but like any LOS missile if you miss the target or just the target gets hidden or obstructed from view you will loose it.

Can one tank lase the target while other one fire Refeleks at the target ?

negi · Post by **negi** » 26 Feb 2011 22:51

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

This is not true

, the fact is we ordered for 352 WZT-3M ARVs from Poland in in 1999, 2002 and 2005 (obviously in the backdrop of the T-90 deal) and this is outside of 196 WZT-2 we already have for the T-72s. Oh btw the Polish WZT-2 is capable of servicing the German Leo2A4 .

Coming to bridge laying equipment The T-72 BLT claims to support a MLC60 class load over 20 meters and MLC 70 over 22 mtrs (Afaik MLC60 corresponds to ~60tonnes), and the CVRDE had come up with Kartik back in 1989 itself which has successfully demonstrated the capability to service Arjun sized loads.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 26 Feb 2011 23:12

negi wrote:the fact is we ordered for 352 WZT-3M ARVs from Poland in in 1999, 2002 and 2005 (obviously in the backdrop of the T-90 deal) and this is outside of 196 WZT-2 we already have for the T-72s. Oh btw the Polish WZT-2 is capable of servicing the German Leo2A4

They probably would have replace the older ARV , nevertheless that still does not take away the fact that T's have well established logistics base either old or newly purchased ,simply because they have been operating for more then 3 decades.

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 26 Feb 2011 23:28

Rahul M wrote:berwal sahab, the fiction has gone too far now. kindly stop making up stories here. use the scenarios thread if you absolutely can't control your creative urges.

Rahul sahab, where is the fiction in what i have said, if you find it fiction what can i do, you are allowed to interpret any information as you want to!!!

Since you cannot have discussion with people who do not conform to your view point and dont do yes Sir to you, and you let your emotions do the talking and tend to get personal very easily... what do you want to prove and why do you even reply back to post?

d_berwal · Post by **d_berwal** » 26 Feb 2011 23:39

Austin wrote: Well as long as you can lase the target on the move , the missile will just follow the beam and hit the target at its max effective range , but like any LOS missile if you miss the target or just the target gets hidden or obstructed from view you will loose it.

Can one tank lase the target while other one fire Refeleks at the target ?

Refeleks is Beam Rider (with increase in the guide beam and focusing) it is not Laser Homing so cannot be lased and fired by different entity.

negi · Post by **negi** » 26 Feb 2011 23:42

Austin wrote: They probably would have replace the older ARV

The point is the deal was done only after the T-90 deal was struck i.e the logistics were being procured for the platform and not the other-way round.

nevertheless that still does not take away the fact that T's have well established logistics base either old or newly purchased ,simply because they have been operating for more then 3 decades.

But then the WTZ-2 is capable of servicing the Leo2A4 which is in the same weight class as the Arjun. The Bridge layers as I mentioned earlier are capable of hauling up Arjun's weight .

All in all the logistics argument in this case is a straw-man.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 27 Feb 2011 00:08

negi wrote:The point is the deal was done only after the T-90 deal was struck i.e the logistics were being procured for the platform and not the other-way round.

If you plan to add like 1000 plus tank then you better have equipment necessary to back it up , plus we do not know if the existing T-72 had enough they would have taken that opportunity to just add on to the numbers , any ways from early 90 till late , you could just count the number of deals we made ,probably handful and that too after mid 90's , financial crunch just made sure we mothballed most of our stuff in 90's

But then the WTZ-2 is capable of servicing the Leo2A4 which is in the same weight class as the Arjun. The Bridge layers as I mentioned earlier are capable of hauling up Arjun's weight .

Does that mean that it services Arjun too becuase it does for Leo ? Atleast there is no reference that I found to your claim.
http://www.tanknutdave.com/component/co ... rticle/508

In April 1999, India has ordered 44 WZT-3 ARV‘s, this order was followed by another two orders in April 2002 (another 80 vehicles) and in July 2005 (228 vehicles) – that gives the total number of 352 WZT-3 ARV’s ordered by India. Vehicles are used to support units with T-72 and T-90 MBT. Deliveries began in 2001 and has pushed the WTZ-3 to become the post exported ARV in the world.

How many BLT has been made till date , the fact that we imported 300 plus ARV gives a good idea that we could not lic build in the numbers we needed them and perhaps Kargil would have just added more urgency to it.

All in all the logistics argument in this case is a straw-man.

Well I can understand that , most people just hate the T-90 and there is some heartburn based on their personal opinion logic argument , so any valid reasoning will not hold ground .

Any ways to end this discussion I just think the IA/MOD did the right thing as far as T-90 deal goes and I have no complains , specially after looking at the long discussion we had here and some interesting point brought out by Sanku, d_berwal and many others both for and against it , T-90 looks to me a good tank , good enough for the task it is meant for and justifies the number we went for.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 27 Feb 2011 00:47

d berwal wrote:no that is not blow out panel...

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

Dude you are so confused, that at times its hard to even bother to respond to your statements. But don't worry, you are not the only one. There are others like you adept at arguing and wasting time based on their self appointed expertise.

The Arjun MK1 already has containerized ammo. There is no "catheterazed ammo", whatever that is supposed to mean.

You asked for pictures, and now you have the picture, you remain in denial. There is no reason for the panel to be there apart from venting ammunition explosion. It is placed directly over the ammunition rack, and there is no equivalent on the other side. Plus, the Arjun was designed to have blow off panels, just like the Leopard 2A4. Pictures of Arjun interior in videos, show each ammo round is in a metal case with a lock and metal cover, not just a wire stopper. Again, no reason to do so unless there is an intent to keep the round protected.

And don't quote that latest article which appeared in some media about "ammo containerization" in MK2. All that tells us is that they are evaluating more layout possibilities. In Merkava, the basic nature remained same, but layout changed over MK1, MK2 to MK3 and then MK4.

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

Go on, point out when did I say the T-90 cannot fire on the move. All I said was that its not particularly good at it when compared to a tank with a better FCS, like the Arjun or the latest French and other tanks. Stabilization in Arjun has better performance (azimuth, elevation), gun has better optics, better suspension. It all adds up.

Plus, the T-90 has a big problem since it does not even have a thermal imager which can work in sustained heat during day hours. The Thermal Imager is meant to be the primary source of acquisition in day and night. But with heating problems, its doubtful the T-90 can even do that.

As recent as November 2010:
http://www.tehelka.com/story_main47.asp ... efence.asp

The entire article needs to be read by fans like you. Bottomline, the thermal imaging issue continues to trouble the T-90. There is still no solution. And in trial after trial, exercise after exercise, this problem is appearing, and the Army is yet to solve the problem.

The Indian Army has detected flaws with the thermal imaging system of the Russian-built T-90 main battle tanks (MBTs), inducted in its fleet three years ago, causing an estimated loss of Rs 620 crore.

Rechristened as ‘Bhishma,’ T-90s’ flaw came to light during its comparative trials with the indigenous MBT Arjun during peak summers in the Thar Desert of Rajasthan.

According to the report submitted by the Indian Army, the French Catherine thermal imaging (TI) camera giving T-90s its night vision capability and higher precision is not “adequately tropicalised.” It simply cannot function in the extreme condition for which it was supposed to function. Because of this the thermal imaging camera is prone to malfunction in extreme temperature conditions of Rajasthan, where it is deployed.

“During the trials it was observed that the temperatures inside the tank goes up to 55-60 degree Celsius resulting in the blurring of images taken by the camera,” a senior Indian Army officer told Financial World on condition of anonymity as he was not authorised to speak to media.

Following the repeated delay in the MBT Arjun project, the Indian Army had opted for Russian-made T-90 tanks to counter-balance Pakistan’s acquisition of Ukraine-built T-80 tanks. Majority of T-90s would be deployed in the western sector bordering Pakistan, where mercury soars to intolerable levels during summers.

The report describes the thermal imaging cameras as the ‘eyes’ of the tank. While the tank costs around Rs 12 crore, each of these systems cost (including) Rs 2 crore. Prolonged use of the tank in extreme weather conditions has already rendered 80-90 of such systems “unserviceable.”

The Indian Army is deliberating to get a locally effective air conditioning system for the thermal imaging camera. However, nothing concrete has happened on this front.

French defence major Thales Land and Joint Systems had signed a contract with Russian Rosoboronexport to supply Catherine thermal imaging cameras for T-90s in 2007. The camera operates in the 8-12 micrometre infrared frequency band and is designed to be retrofitted into existing main battle tank fire control system. Russia started licensed production of the cameras earlier this year.

This is not the first time the T-90 project has run into problems. In 2001 India had contracted for 310 T-90 tanks for Rs 3,625 crore. Out these 310 tanks, 124 were purchased off the shelf, while the rest 184 were bought in semi-knocked down conditions and were to be assembled at Heavy Vehicles Factory (HVF) at Avadi in Tamil Nadu. There was a follow-on contract for 330 T-90s.

Under the contract, Russia was to complete transfer of technology to India for indigenous manufacturing of 1,000 T-90s at HVF by 2006. However, following chronic delay in technology transfer the first indigenous T-90 tank rolled out of the factory only in 2010.

Earlier, lack of cooling systems inside the tank led to uninhabitable temperatures of 60 degree Celsius. This made the Indian Army scout for an air conditioning system for the tank. The fire control systems of T-90s also suffered malfunctions on various occasion.

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

They can practise all they want, but speed is not conducive to accuracy on difficult terrain, which is why the standardized trials to judge best FCS performance are done at speeds significantly slower.

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

Now I have to explain this? The Refleks homes in on a reflected basket of laser energy from the target, and its a slow missile, which takes some ten odd seconds or more at maximum range. In other words, its essential for the FCS to keep tracking a target, and the laser to be on spot. Its hard enough as it is, for a gunner to track a fast moving target, when you are at 20-30 kmph, and here you have a target moving at the same speed, what happens when there is a bump in terrain, the target changes course etc, deploys countermeasures. In the case of a Kinetic round, it is hpervelocity, and hence the FCS/gunner have an initial look, lock and fire and the target is toast. Plus, instead of investing in better kinetic rounds and guns, the Russians came up with this overpriced, over-engineered weapon. Not only can it be targeted by active defense systems, its method of working makes it slower and more vulnerable.

negi · Post by **negi** » 27 Feb 2011 01:02

If you plan to add like 1000 plus tank then you better have equipment necessary to back it up , plus we do not know if the existing T-72 had enough they would have taken that opportunity to just add on to the numbers , any ways from early 90 till late , you could just count the number of deals we made ,probably handful and that too after mid 90's , financial crunch just made sure we mothballed most of our stuff in 90's

I don't see what is the point you are trying to make here . Lets stick to the topic at hand here. Economics of the procurement in fact should be the last leg you should try to base your argument upon; a lot of money has gone unaccounted for in the name of ToT for both Refleks and T-90. The ARVs bought from poland obviously wouldn't have been needed for Arjun based BLT has already been demonstrated, similarly mounting a crane and a winch system on a Arjun chassis would have given us a robust ARV.

Does that mean that it services Arjun too becuase it does for Leo ?

What is an ARV ? It is just a vehicle that has a winch to pull out a disabled tank , with a crane to lift the engine and a tool box for repair kit , it might have additional stores for fuel too. Nothing tightly coupled to the make of a MBT it is supposed to service . The only key factor is the weight of the MBT; Arjun is in same class as the Leo2A4 moreover the WZT-3M has even more powerful engine as the WZT-2.

Poland has more than 120 Leo2A4s in it's service. How do you think they intend to service them ? With just 10 Bergepanzer 2A2s in their service ? Their WZT family of ARVs are well equipped to service the Leos.

How many BLT has been made till date

The T72-BLT claims to support loads upto MLC60/70 so the numbers are same for the T-xx series as well as the Arjun.

the fact that we imported 300 plus ARV gives a good idea that we could not lic build in the numbers we needed them and perhaps Kargil would have just added more urgency to it.

Lets do away with 'perhaps' and 'probably' to make a point for it lends no credence to the pov in question.

The fact is the 352 WZT-3Ms were ordered after the T-90 deal was made which only goes to show that the argument that T-90 was procured because of pre-existing logistics does not hold good.

Well I can understand that , most people just hate the T-90 and there is some heartburn based on their personal opinion logic argument , so any valid reasoning will not hold ground.

Valid reasoning ? for instance post WW-II era ARVs like WZT-2 in IA service were a key factor in deciding as to what MBT was to serve as mainstay of IA in 21st century ? What do you mean by 'hate T-90' ? What is your opinion based on ?
I made a simple point i.e. the folks who raised the Logistics issue are merely clutching at the straws which I proved by listing down the procurement numbers and time period for the WZT-3M. What have you listed down Austin ? Just riding on what d_berwal has spun out of thin air. I think I have had enough of this chai-wallah nonsense, do you think only d_berwal has chai-wallahs ?

Misraji · Post by **Misraji** » 27 Feb 2011 05:16

Bounce ....!!! Just would like to keep this thread at the top of thread-list.

D_Berwal and Austin, please respond back/explain the awesome claims ....

1. M1A1 is the only operational tank with blow-out panels.
2. T-90's logistical chain was setup after the purchase of T-90.
But nevertheless, T-90 is better placed than Arjun because it fits into the pre-existing infrastructure.

Everyone is eagerly awaiting an answer.

Regards,
~Ashish

rgsrini · Post by **rgsrini** » 27 Feb 2011 05:59

Austin wrote: T-90 looks to me a good tank , good enough for the task it is meant for and justifies the number we went for.

.

May be so... But it delayed the absorption of Arjun into IA and reduced the quantity as well. IMHO it is not justified considering the excuses peddled are as good as snake oil. I have a hunch that one day the skeletons in the closet will come tumbling down just like everything else. Afterall, Satyameva Jayate!

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 27 Feb 2011 09:02

Arjun's has a difference from T-90 as Arjun 3 crew sit in turret and it is insulated from the ammo box (driver far away from ammo box). The canisters are also blast proofed. T-90 crew sit directly on ammo box. Hence, Arjun is more safer. This is a very simple explanation.

BTW, here is some good info on T-90 armor. Link

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 27 Feb 2011 09:08

negi wrote:I don't see what is the point you are trying to make here . Lets stick to the topic at hand here. Economics of the procurement in fact should be the last leg you should try to base your argument upon; a lot of money has gone unaccounted for in the name of ToT for both Refleks and T-90. The ARVs bought from poland obviously wouldn't have been needed for Arjun based BLT has already been demonstrated, similarly mounting a crane and a winch system on a Arjun chassis would have given us a robust ARV.

Like I said those ARV are being procured for T-72 and T-90 and most certainly you cant deny the fact we didnt procure any thing but 1 or 2 big stuff before Kargil , its for no reason 90's is called the lost decade of military modernisation. It is possible a lot of older ARV procured were too short or needed urgent replacement/buffering , the fact that these ARV can service T-72 and 90 proves the point.

Every defence deal has unaccounted money gone some where ,but lack of any evidence puts it in the realm of conspiracy theory.

What is an ARV ? It is just a vehicle that has a winch to pull out a disabled tank , with a crane to lift the engine and a tool box for repair kit , it might have additional stores for fuel too. Nothing tightly coupled to the make of a MBT it is supposed to service . The only key factor is the weight of the MBT; Arjun is in same class as the Leo2A4 moreover the WZT-3M has even more powerful engine as the WZT-2.

All that I said is we have no evidence to prove that these ARV services any thing other then T's atleast I have never come across any , that link clearly says its for T-72 and 90. So right now we can say we do not know for sure ,may be they could may be they cant.

The T72-BLT claims to support loads upto MLC60/70 so the numbers are same for the T-xx series as well as the Arjun.

Well atleast DRDO has displayed a BLT based on Arjun chasis , so you could be right or they will have to build one based on its chasis.

The fact is the 352 WZT-3Ms were ordered after the T-90 deal was made which only goes to show that the argument that T-90 was procured because of pre-existing logistics does not hold good.

Dont jump to conclusion , it could just stock up what exisits and build up new ones for T-72/90.

Pre existing logistics and weight is a consideration in many ways , else why would they design an FMBT on T class weight and not on Arjun plus class heavy tank. Logistics may affect in so many ways that you need to be in the armed forces and on ground to figure that out.

In a chat forum you can beat some guy with some brownie points and so called links to back up , but that may not be the absolute truth or just a very narrow view of things that are and the way it works.

What have you listed down Austin ? Just riding on what d_berwal has spun out of thin air. I think I have had enough of this chai-wallah nonsense, do you think only d_berwal has chai-wallahs ?

You can just check above on what I have listed

d_berwal and sanku argument I find it more balanced and rational , most certainly I have spoken with friends in media etc and though most do agree that Arjun is a good tank and has made its impact , no body disputes or says T-90 is a bad tank and Infact beyond BRF I have rarely come across any one even die hard western supporters of their heavy tank who would say T-90 is a bad tank , even they tend to have a healthy respect for it.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 27 Feb 2011 09:16

on left rear corner of the arjun turret behind the loader station, on top surface of bustle area - there is a single large flat panel that looks like a blowout panel.
http://defenceforumindia.com/gallery/sh ... inal=1&c=3

in 2004 BHarry defexpo pics there is a pic of that corner, but the panel is shown secured with bolts.
http://www.acig.org/artman/uploads/arjun2.jpg

can anyone pls confirm or deny if its a blowup panel or just a hatch for gaining maintainence access into the ammo storage rack?

looks quite similar to that on abrams tank
http://static.hlj.com/images/vym/vympe35209.jpg

this media report on induction says blow off panels are present on Arjun

http://www.domain-b.com/defence/general ... _tank.html

Arjun incorporates heavy composite armour and significant crew protection measures, including ammunition separated from the crew, and blow off panels on the turret bustle, and an integrated fire detection and suppression system.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 27 Feb 2011 09:31

Austin, please tell us one thing. If pre-existing logistics and weight is such a big argument against the Arjun, why the phuck did the Army issue GSQRs for a heavy tank that had pretty much nothing in common with the existing T-72s?
The Arjun is big and heavy because the Army wanted protection levels and crew comfort which wasn't possible in T-xx class tanks. They should have known that some of their current logistical capabilities would not suffice for the Arjun and that new ones would be needed as they are when any new equipment is inducted. If they wanted a 50 tonne tank they should have asked for a 50 tonne tank and lived with the lower levels of protection and crew comfort that it would obviously come with.

Misraji · Post by **Misraji** » 27 Feb 2011 09:34

Before Tin-can lovers start questioning the importance of blow-out panels:

When the first two SABOT rounds failed to penetrate, a third round finally penetrated the turret¹s outer skin, causing the stored ammunition to detonate. But rather than destroying the M1, the blast was vented upwards through a blowout panel, and the onboard fire suppression system snuffed out the fire before it could do any damage to the electronics systems in the crew compartment.
When finally pulled from the mud, the M1 was found to be still operational, with only the sights out of alignment from the blast of the ammunition cooking off. After its damaged turret was replaced, the tank was returned to action.

Clicky

~Ashish

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 27 Feb 2011 09:37

@d_berwal sir,

most people have already answered your points. let me just draw your attention to these 2 of which one is from the BR itself -

Protection: The Tank Ex utilizes the state of the Art composite armor-"kanchan"-especially over its frontal arc(Turret as well as glacis) giving excellent protection against both Kinetic and Chemical rounds. The usage of the Arjun turret design indicates that the Tank-Ex may also have its "ready" ammunition stored in the bustle (as in the Arjun),separated from the crew and provided with blow off panels. This would be a significant protective feature in line with "western" design practices. Kanchan is an extensively tested and successful armor, which is available for retrofit to other IFV programs. The Tank Ex also has fully integrated Nuclear Biological and Chemical (NBC) protection The usual turret mounted 81mm antithermal smoke grenade launchers are also standard on the Tank-Ex.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/I ... nitin.html

and -

The Arjun MBT has some design similarities with German Leopard 2. It utilizes Kanchan heavy composite armor, which is broadly similar to British Chobham armor. If necessary explosive reactive armor blocks can be added for improved protection. Arjun MBT also incorporates significant crew protection measures, including ammunition compartment separated from the crew with a blow-off panels in the turret bustle.

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/arjun.htm

hope that addresses your question.

regards the shooting on the move - my point was more to do with accuracy. why would anybody wants to shoot in the dark?? just to prove that it can shoot while on the move??

btw i have not seen an indian T-90S shooting the Reflex. can you post me an image of it doing so??

fyi Arjun in mark 1 demonstrated shooting the LAHAT long back -

it is another matter IA did not go for it.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 27 Feb 2011 09:54

Misraji wrote:Before Tin-can lovers start questioning the importance of blow-out panels:

When the first two SABOT rounds failed to penetrate, a third round finally penetrated the turret¹s outer skin, causing the stored ammunition to detonate. But rather than destroying the M1, the blast was vented upwards through a blowout panel, and the onboard fire suppression system snuffed out the fire before it could do any damage to the electronics systems in the crew compartment.
When finally pulled from the mud, the M1 was found to be still operational, with only the sights out of alignment from the blast of the ammunition cooking off. After its damaged turret was replaced, the tank was returned to action.
Clicky

~Ashish

Ashish,

You really ought to learn to distinguish between Khan propaganda and the reality promised by the Natasha. ie They will say that this never happened.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 27 Feb 2011 09:55

As I interact with most think tanks around the world, including Russian, I find some info which is little different from what is normally discussed. Russians themselves are having a re-look at their own arms industry and are sane enough to understand their weaknesses. They graduated from USSR to bankruptcy and now when they have the money, they are willing to equip their forces with best available, including imports.

Some of us speak with same zest about Russian technology, which I find in Pakis wrt Chinese technology. Fortunately, its limited to discussions and propaganda.

In India, the Navy has been doing what Russia is trying to do today. Build what possible, promote indigenous and buy what is the best. They have a fine balance. IAF has got its act correct too. IA is fragmented. It has some very good sections in engineering, communications etc. But, terribly bad ones too like Armor, Artillery etc.

Specifically wrt T-90, here is what I am aware of what Russians themselves think of

1) It is an go between tank to be ordered out of compulsion (interim).
2) They are not happy with the performance of some of its electronics. They are most vocal of the sights as it has to be procured from elsewhere.
3) The armor plates. They believe that West has lighter ones which can do similar or better job. For example, the above link I have given about BBD Armour (bulging armour: steel plated dipped in resins). If they go for titanium it will be heavier.

DRDO NERA is supposed to be better than what T-90 has now. But, cost of replacing them will be higher. Also, there is an attitude which I learn't sometime back. Soldiers are not given the best bulletproof jackets due to cost constraints and error in purchases (best is meant for VIP's).

The final proof of the pudding of Arjun lies in the fact that IA is lining up to DRDO with requests for features on T-90 similar to Arjun. They have not asked for vice versa.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 27 Feb 2011 10:19

nachiket wrote:Austin, please tell us one thing. If pre-existing logistics and weight is such a big argument against the Arjun, why the phuck did the Army issue GSQRs for a heavy tank that had pretty much nothing in common with the existing T-72s?

I think that is where they screwed up , they probably thought PA would get Abrams eventually and that it was just a question of time , SU did not have a heavy tank and Arjun was the only choice to match it.

The Arjun is big and heavy because the Army wanted protection levels and crew comfort which wasn't possible in T-xx class tanks. They should have known that some of their current logistical capabilities would not suffice for the Arjun and that new ones would be needed as they are when any new equipment is inducted. If they wanted a 50 tonne tank they should have asked for a 50 tonne tank and lived with the lower levels of protection and crew comfort that it would obviously come with.

The FACT that they want a 50 T tank for FMBT nullifies the big heavy debate and trades it off for mobility and smart tank. Finally they see why T's weight is just right for FMBT

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 27 Feb 2011 10:31

nachiket wrote: The Arjun is big and heavy because the Army wanted protection levels and crew comfort which wasn't possible in T-xx class tanks. They should have known that some of their current logistical capabilities would not suffice for the Arjun and that new ones would be needed as they are when any new equipment is inducted. If they wanted a 50 tonne tank they should have asked for a 50 tonne tank and lived with the lower levels of protection and crew comfort that it would obviously come with.

You are right on that. Army has never specified the weight of Arjun Tanks at the first place. Secondly, their specifications have led to the tank being 60 tonn.

kvraghav · Post by **kvraghav** » 27 Feb 2011 11:31

Even Pinaka production lines will be idle for 2 yrs is int it after passing all trials and a token run??

pralay · Post by **pralay** » 27 Feb 2011 11:34

Austin wrote: The FACT that they want a 50 T tank for FMBT nullifies the big heavy debate and trades it off for mobility and smart tank.

Austin ji, Why they want FMBT if your loved Tin-90 is of highest quality and most advanced as you proclaim?
Or is mother russia not going to provide any upgrades for your highest quality boy?

Army has stated need for FMBT which is in t-90's weight class before even completing induction of the tin-cans.
Doesn't that mean that tin-cans are not suitable for the role they are purchased for?
Army wants FMBT to replace the tin cans.

Austin wrote: Finally they see why T's weight is just right for FMBT

now last point remaining for for Can-Lovers seems to be only its weight.
point of logistics seems no longer able to defend their loved boy

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 27 Feb 2011 11:51

Since Army wants 50 ton FMBT, it means T-90 with weight 46 tons has been rejected Army.

Lahuri logic

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 27 Feb 2011 12:12

sameer_shelavale wrote:Austin ji, Why they want FMBT if your loved Tin-90 is of highest quality and most advanced as you proclaim?

Lets put this the other way , why would you want FMBT is Arjun in Mk1 and Mk2 meets all requirement and is such good tank.

The fact is by the time FMBT comes out that would be like 12- 15 years from now , the T-72 will reach obsolescence and you will need replacement , neither T-90 nor Arjun will replace it , it will be the FMBT.

Army has stated need for FMBT which is in t-90's weight class before even completing induction of the tin-cans.Doesn't that mean that tin-cans are not suitable for the role they are purchased for?

Well much like they stated FMBT needs before inducting Arjun Mk2 whats your point ? These are just lahori logic.

The fact remains that future MBT will be in 50 T class and will emphasis more on mobility and smart system , with hopefully most indiginous component mainly its powerplant.

But if some one thought tanks of future will be heavy becuase it is means better armoured etc etc will just have to swallow their pride , no harm for a change

vic · Post by **vic** » 27 Feb 2011 12:13

Personally I believe that Due to benefits of logistics, MMRCA deal should not be pursued and more upgraded Mig-21s should be ordered due to commonality with logistics. Now how does it sound? Stupid?

Incidentally, lasers also have a “spread”. This spread is required to keep missile in the beam. Now much is this spread at 5km or so, it not open source. This spread has less impact when the target is directly lasered or when dropping 2000 pound bomb but when the missile is to be placed, within 1x2m box or so, then it matters.

Do we know that in around 50% of cases, the explosive jet in ATGM may not form properly (at right angle) to kill the tank? Or that this problem increases with tandem warheads?

Cost of the missile? I think is around 50 lakhs to One crore each

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 27 Feb 2011 12:17

The wishlist in 50 ton FMBT

stealth be built into the FMBT from the ground up

Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) system

New reliable and secure mobile communication system capable of data transmission, audio and video conference

Protection in the form of soft-kill system requires IR detectors, laser warning, radar warning and devices to instantaneously integrate these signals and control a countermeasure suit

Hybrid electric vehicle technology

in order to achieve ‘extraordinary’ acceleration, the Army observes that it is necessary to couple the conventional diesel engine of the proposed tank to a turbine. The ‘Hyberbar’ engine will be able to accelerate from zero to full power at 1,500 hp in 2.8 seconds

The Army wants an active suspension system with sensors, control units, and a hydraulic power source in combination, to automatically alter the suspension characteristics

FMBT needs Infra Red (IR) detectors, target identification systems, laser warning systems, radar warning receivers and devices

muzzle velocity of projectiles is theoretically limited to approximately 2,300 m/s. Contemporary tank guns still offer a considerable growth potential, and electronic guns will be able to exceed this and become an attractive proposition.

The Army says it is reasonable to expect development of high velocity KE missiles with heavy-metal, long-rod penetrators to defeat current and future tanks both within and beyond line of sight

The high/medium-energy level (100 kJ) vehicle-mounted laser is expected to be a lethality option against rockets, air vehicles, light ground vehicles, antennas of armoured vehicles and electro-optical sensors.

Hard-kill system to provide full-spectrum defence against top attack weapons, ATGMs, guided missiles and gun-launched KE and HEAT rounds.

Fire Control System (FCS): Ground sensors, non-line-of-sight launch system and the network capability

And most important: All of this in 50 ton weight

I propose the villian from the movie "Predator" -- Stealth, armor and deadly weapons.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 27 Feb 2011 12:21

Well no one is certain if that is Armys wish list or Shiv Aroor's opinion list

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 27 Feb 2011 12:40

This whole Arjun wont fit the current logistics so its a dead duck onlee is very much akin to the cart pulling a horse! The logistics should be tailored to the MBT and not the other way around. Somebody's head is not screwed right if thats the case with IA. Economics etc definitely play a role but citing that to avoid a better product is asinine.

pralay · Post by **pralay** » 27 Feb 2011 12:45

Austin wrote:
sameer_shelavale wrote:Austin ji, Why they want FMBT if your loved Tin-90 is of highest quality and most advanced as you proclaim?
Lets put this the other way , why would you want FMBT is Arjun in Mk1 and Mk2 meets all requirement and is such good tank.

Austin ji, You are not answering my question(and are not able to) and trying to throw it back to me with same Lohari logic(as u call it)

Austin wrote: The fact is by the time FMBT comes out that would be like 12- 15 years from now , the T-72 will reach obsolescence and you will need replacement , neither T-90 nor Arjun will replace it , it will be the FMBT.

ROFL this is the joke of day...

Why your best tank in the world the greatest tin-90 can't even replace t-72 even though it is just next version of t-72 ?
If it can't even replace t-72 as you agree, is it worth purchasing ?
you also seem to agree by your statement that tin-90 will be absolute in 12-15 years as it cant even replace age-old t-72.

Austin wrote: The fact remains that future MBT will be in 50 T class and will emphasis more on mobility and smart system , with hopefully most indiginous component mainly its powerplant.

The statement a bit corrected.
The fact remains that future MBT will be in 50 T class and will emphasis more on mobility and smart system like Arjun , with hopefully most indigenous component mainly its power-plant.

They want a compact version of Arjun in FMBT, and not a t-90.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 27 Feb 2011 13:41

sameer_shelavale wrote:Austin ji, You are not answering my question(and are not able to) and trying to throw it back to me with same Lohari logic(as u call it)

They means Russia or IA , in case its IA they known if DRDO start working on FMBT today they would get it by 2025 time frame and as DRDO scientiest mentioned the FMBT would replace T-72. It quite normal for industry to start working on new program quite early on.

Why your best tank in the world the greatest tin-90 can't even replace t-72 even though it is just next version of t-72 ?

Money what else , you need money to replace it and they would rather upgrade it since it has enough life then replace it now , if IA ever gets those kind of budget ever they would replace every thing with new system and wont replace.

They want a compact version of Arjun in FMBT, and not a t-90.

Yeah , One needs to invent reason since "heavy is better" is not the flavour for FMBT

sum · Post by **sum** » 27 Feb 2011 13:44

Personally I believe that Due to benefits of logistics, MMRCA deal should not be pursued and more upgraded Mig-21s should be ordered due to commonality with logistics. Now how does it sound? Stupid?

Think that this one analogy should end all this strawman tactics of "logistics".. Here, we are having a situation of a tank being discriminated in the name of logistics against because it actually followed the GSQR issue by who else but...wait for it...the IA itself!!!

Why in $%#^ name did IA not issue a GSQR for a T-xx type tank if logistics was the all so important issue which makes or breaks the induction of the system in the great armoured corps of the IA?

pralay · Post by **pralay** » 27 Feb 2011 14:18

Austin wrote:Money what else , you need money to replace it and they would rather upgrade it since it has enough life then replace it now , if IA ever gets those kind of budget ever they would replace every thing with new system and wont replace.

do you mean that FMBT will be cheaper than t-90?

Austin wrote: Yeah , One needs to invent reason since "heavy is better" is not the flavour for FMBT

"Lighter, Blind, Underpowered and Inaccurate"(tin) is also not flavour for FMBT

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 27 Feb 2011 17:01

>> The ‘Hyberbar’ engine will be able to accelerate from zero to full power at 1,500 hp in 2.8 seconds

wow that would likely put even a lamborghini's power transfer to shame? I wonder where they got the 2.8 figure from, why not 3.0 or 2.5 .... it has to be picked up off some exotic car brochure the karnails 16 yr old teen kid had lying around

Bihanga · Post by **Bihanga** » 27 Feb 2011 18:13

Anujan wrote:The wishlist in 50 ton FMBT
stealth be built into the FMBT from the ground up

Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) system

New reliable and secure mobile communication system capable of data transmission, audio and video conference

Protection in the form of soft-kill system requires IR detectors, laser warning, radar warning and devices to instantaneously integrate these signals and control a countermeasure suit

Hybrid electric vehicle technology

in order to achieve ‘extraordinary’ acceleration, the Army observes that it is necessary to couple the conventional diesel engine of the proposed tank to a turbine. The ‘Hyberbar’ engine will be able to accelerate from zero to full power at 1,500 hp in 2.8 seconds

The Army wants an active suspension system with sensors, control units, and a hydraulic power source in combination, to automatically alter the suspension characteristics

FMBT needs Infra Red (IR) detectors, target identification systems, laser warning systems, radar warning receivers and devices

muzzle velocity of projectiles is theoretically limited to approximately 2,300 m/s. Contemporary tank guns still offer a considerable growth potential, and electronic guns will be able to exceed this and become an attractive proposition.

The Army says it is reasonable to expect development of high velocity KE missiles with heavy-metal, long-rod penetrators to defeat current and future tanks both within and beyond line of sight

The high/medium-energy level (100 kJ) vehicle-mounted laser is expected to be a lethality option against rockets, air vehicles, light ground vehicles, antennas of armoured vehicles and electro-optical sensors.

Hard-kill system to provide full-spectrum defence against top attack weapons, ATGMs, guided missiles and gun-launched KE and HEAT rounds.

Fire Control System (FCS): Ground sensors, non-line-of-sight launch system and the network capability
And most important: All of this in 50 ton weight

I propose the villian from the movie "Predator" -- Stealth, armor and deadly weapons.

Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) system, this thing definetly need some sort of Transponder like system on board FMBT in order to have positive identification.