MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 10 Jan 2016 21:48

thakur b, me culpa posting from a small mobile device. i didn't observe clear.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 Jan 2016 09:27

This post from Jhujar in the AV td will clear a lot of "fog" about the IA's MBT acquisitions.

http://www.ibnlive.com/blogs/india/saur ... 48711.html
A look at the Indian Army's Main Battle Tank programs
Quote:
In August 2014, the Defence Acquisition Council(DAC) finally gave the go ahead for 118 Arjun Mk-2 MBTs for an order value of about Rs 6600 crores.This signalled a return to production for the Arjun MBT line at Heavy Vehicles factory (HVF), Avadi that had been lying idle since 2010-11 when the last Arjun Mk-Is rolled out. Nevertheless the piecemeal order is indicative of the fact that the Indian Army (IA) continues to insist upon the demonstration of a potent missile firing capability from the Arjun Mk-2's gun before it places an indent for a much larger order. And a much larger order, as has been known to the Ministry of Defence (MoD) is absolutely needed to make it viable to indigenize various sub-systems in the Arjun Mk-2. Meanwhile, the IA continues to face issues with its pool of T-90S MBTs and is increasingly turning to the Defence Research & Development Organization(DRDO) to upgrade these tanks with domestically developed technologies .As of now DRDO has dropped the LAHAT from its Arjun Mk-2 MBT plans and is instead pursuing the Canon Launched Guided Missile (CLGM) being developed indigenously at the Defence Research and Development Laboratory (DRDL).
The missile firing capability requirement grew out of the fact that though the Arjun Mk-I with a score of 25.77 beat the T-90S with a score of 24.50 in the firepower criteria during the 2010 comparative trials if the T-90S's missile firing capability were to be kept aside, the T-90 fared marginally better in the overall final score primarily on account of its Invar missile firing capability.

So, the T-90S upgrade path is similar to that followed for modifying T-72M1s to the CIA standard which includes indigenous ERA, navigation aids, an uprated 1000 HP power pack, fire suppression system, new displays and sights. Almost a 1000 CIA's have been delivered to the IA, which now probably feels that the time is ripe for upgrading older T-90S lots besides building new ones with the improved features, since production seems to have finally stabilized at around 90-100 units a year.
The T-90S's domestic production at HVF after all has been a difficult process with the Russian OEM refusing to transfer technology for vital assemblies such as the gun system (including the barrel) and turret armour plates. For the first 175 T-90s produced at Avadi, the gun system had to be imported off the shelf from Russia. However starting 2012, an indigenous 125 mm smooth bore gun developed by DRDO with a 'modified chemistry barrel' of the existing T-72 gun has gone into production having completed trials in 2010.This modified chemistry barrel has also successfully completed a life cycle test conducted at Armoured Corps Centre & School Ahmednagar. The last two years have also seen the indigenization of the T-90S's commander hatch control unit, indigenous production of 50 types of critical optical components of the T-90Sand indigenously developed cable harnesses for the same. Overall the latest batches of T-90Ss will be between 80-90 percent indigenous by value. At the moment HVF is racing to fulfil the old indent of 300 tanks (of which 80 percent may have been delivered) and is looking to commence production for some 236 more tanks as per the December 2013 indent given to it by the IA. Overall the number of T-90Ss in the IA's inventory today is just over 900 units.ven as the domestic production of the T-90S stabilizes there may be a move underway to procure some 354 T-90MS tanks from Russia directly to counter the Chinese at some points on the LAC. Proposals for any more direct import from Russia however is a little strange given that the focus instead should be on producing sizeable numbers of Arjun Mk-2s and deploying them in the Punjab and Jammu sectors as well which would free up enough domestically built T-90Ss to be deployed against China. With a power /weight ratio of 21.0, and the nominal ground pressure (NGP) of 0.95 kg/cm2 the Arjun Mk-2 is more than capable of being deployed in these areas. Moreover the .feasibility report by the railways has confirmed that the movement of Arjun loaded wagon anywhere is not a problem. The Arjun Mk-2 is strategically mobile enough to be deployed to Punjab especially given that enough bridging equipment of maximum load class 70 is available anyway.
A larger production run for the Arjun Mk-2 say of the order of about 500 units will allow its developers to indigenize about 70 percent of its systems, from the current 40 percent. This is important because having domestic suppliers for these systems with stabilized quality will make it easier to productionize the proposed FMBT at a future date which will use sub-systems of this variety that have been refined and improved. It must be noted that while CIA induction is well and good many of the IA's T-72s will run out of their designed service lives by the early 2020s which would mean that new tanks would have to replace them given the IA's authorized tank strength of some 3717 units.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 11 Jan 2016 09:42

From the above post I could see the following.

1. Arjun scored very well and could have been ordered as back as 2010. Yet no serious commitment was shown by the IA.
2.IA ordered 236 units of T90 in December 2013 even though there is local option of Arjun 1 available.
3. Railways and bridging problems which were shown as the reasons for a decade or so proved to be false or since sorted out.
4. No problem for deployment in J&K and Punjab regions.
5. Even now IA is looking to import further T90s even when Arjun 2 is available.
5. Some of the T72s will be up for retirement in 5 years. We need to order replacements now. Yet no orders are given.

Now not giving reasonable amount of Arjun orders will kill it and also further tank development projects in India. That is what is being done with proposed Russian order.

Hobbes · Post by **Hobbes** » 17 Jan 2016 09:41

Latest tweets from Saurav Jha:

* Arjun propulsion upgrade plan -> 1400 > 1500 > 1800 HP.
* Bharat Power Pack development is progressing well. DGMF is pushing for it.
* Drop in 1500 HP engine for T-72 upgradation being considered. Arjun MK-2 will feature a 1800 HP engine in the 2020s.

aditp · Post by **aditp** » 17 Jan 2016 21:59

Does anyone know if the indigenous engine is an ab initio design or built on a donor engine?earlier there was talk of the base engine being from Cummins. Is that still true? If so which model?any info?

Picklu · Post by **Picklu** » 18 Jan 2016 20:25

The hoops are being prepared for the next round of jumping .......

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 18 Jan 2016 21:52

Agree! Arjun is ready to fight in its current form. An order of 1,000 Arjuns must be released immediately!

member_29294 · Post by **member_29294** » 19 Jan 2016 02:47

Vivek K wrote:Agree! Arjun is ready to fight in its current form. An order of 1,000 Arjuns must be released immediately!

Agreed. Why on earth are we wasting our time on those tin can T-72s for upgrades and to re-engine them? We all know how easily T-72 are being destroyed in Syria by a bunch of untrained Islamists with cheap 2nd and 3rd generation ATGMs. It is a flawed and outdated platform.

Instead of trying to put lipstick on a pig, IA should just order Arjuns in mass to replace them.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 Jan 2016 03:10

The pig is the T-72, the pig with lipstick is the T-90. No?

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 19 Jan 2016 03:19

T-72s and T-90s are operational tanks in the Indian Army. There is a limit to which name-calling can be supported here. The above is beyond that limit. Please be warned.

member_29294 · Post by **member_29294** » 19 Jan 2016 13:27

NRao wrote:The pig is the T-72, the pig with lipstick is the T-90. No?

I meant the T-72 is an outdated platform (pig) by IA's own standards and so now they are trying to modernize it (lipstick), but that won't change the fact that it is still a tank designed for the 1970s, over 40 years ago.

I actually really like the T-90A and T-90MS. Before the Armata, it was the ONLY modern designed tank under 50T. Especially when you consider how much poorer the infrastructure was in the early 2000s, the acquisition made a lot of sense for the time. Cold Start is difficult if your tanks are too heavy for the mud and weak bridges.

I apologize for perhaps making too brash of a statement, but I do still believe the T-72 upgrades feel odd. What future can the T-72 possibly have? Upgrades will take until 2020, so platform will be kept all the way until 2030?!? Even an upgraded T-72 will be worse than a T-90M, which is now a full generation behind the Armata. This doesn't sound accurate for a country that will have the third highest budgeted military by mid 2020s.

It seems Arjun Mk2 will never be inducted in large numbers when we consider this. So either there has been some doctrinal shift where IA doesn't seem to think tanks are the highest priority, DRDO is promising something really special with an Arjun Mk3/FMBT that won't be ready until 2025, or IA is waiting for Armata orders for Russia to be completed by 2020 and then get the export variant a few years after when it is ready.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Jan 2016 01:01

Whew, saved by a post ................. I did not have to explain the situation that was started by you. Thanks.

I meant the T-72 is an outdated platform (pig) by IA's own standards and so now they are trying to modernize it (lipstick), but that won't change the fact that it is still a tank designed for the 1970s, over 40 years ago.

Glad at least the two of us are on the same page. I took your post to mean that "lipstick" was an upgrade.

So, let me explain where I am coming from: Here

The T-90 has its origins in a Soviet-era program aimed at developing a singular replacement for the T-64, T-72 and T-80 series of main battle tanks. The T-72 platform was selected as the basis for the new generation of tank owing to its cost-effectiveness, simplicity and automotive qualities. The Kartsev-Venediktov Design Bureau from Nizhny Tagil was responsible for the design work and prepared two parallel proposals - the Object 188, which was a relatively simple upgrade of the existing T-72B tank (Object 184), and the far more advanced Object 187 - only vaguely related to the T-72 series and incorporating major improvements to the hull and turret design, armor, powerplant and armament. Development work was approved in 1986 and the first prototypes were completed by 1988. The vehicles resulting from the Object 187 program have not been declassified to this date, but it was the lower risk Object 188 upgrade that would be approved for series production as the T-72BU.[8]

Nothing to do with me - just quoting. Appears that the T-90 is a tank based on the T-72 (give and take some) - unless I am missing something.

I think the alternative (Object 187) was a complete redesign of the T-72, not the one selected. ????? And, from what I have read here, India did not get everything for the T-90 either. So apparently it was dumbed down version of an already not so advanced unit. Besides the Arjun beat it handily. So, even though it is operational, one has to question the reasoning that went behind making it so.

Cold Start is difficult if your tanks are too heavy for the mud and weak bridges.

I had done a quick survey of bridges, form open sources, I just do not think it is that bad. Besides, in all this time it took to make that as a reason they could have easily replaced a bunch with prefab bridges - at reasonable cost too. It would have helped a national cause and jump start a strategic project too.

We have vids of Arjun being transported by rail - so we know that is not a problem outside some minds.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Jan 2016 01:08

On bridge loading, did a very, very quick search and found the following two docs:

AMENDMENT TO CLAUSE No. 204 OF IRC: 6-2010 “STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
AND CODE OF PRACTICE FOR ROAD BRIDGES, SECTION II – LOADS AND STRESSES”

Looks like 100T is the new std (for bridges too).

Also, what about roads?

member_29294 · Post by **member_29294** » 20 Jan 2016 08:25

NRao wrote:Whew, saved by a post ................. I did not have to explain the situation that was started by you. Thanks.
I meant the T-72 is an outdated platform (pig) by IA's own standards and so now they are trying to modernize it (lipstick), but that won't change the fact that it is still a tank designed for the 1970s, over 40 years ago.
Glad at least the two of us are on the same page. I took your post to mean that "lipstick" was an upgrade.

So, let me explain where I am coming from: Here

I had done a quick survey of bridges, form open sources, I just do not think it is that bad. Besides, in all this time it took to make that as a reason they could have easily replaced a bunch with prefab bridges - at reasonable cost too. It would have helped a national cause and jump start a strategic project too.

We have vids of Arjun being transported by rail - so we know that is not a problem outside some minds.

NRao wrote:On bridge loading, did a very, very quick search and found the following two docs:

AMENDMENT TO CLAUSE No. 204 OF IRC: 6-2010 “STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
AND CODE OF PRACTICE FOR ROAD BRIDGES, SECTION II – LOADS AND STRESSES”

Looks like 100T is the new std (for bridges too).

Also, what about roads?

Cold Start doctrine was conceived and implemented after the 2001 Parliament attacks by Pakis, don't compare bridges +10 years later to the ground realities of that time. Also, you can't just think about Indian bridges, you have to keep in mind about the infrastructure and conditions on the Paki side as well, as Cold Start demands pushing hard and fast into Paki territory so they would be nuking themselves if chose to use their nukes against the Army. T-90 was the best option to mass induct during the early 2000s, it was ready and could be MII at OFB and was with a sanctions immune partner. While Arjuns would have been caught up in the nuclear sanctions issues if any attempts were made to induct in large numbers. Remember, it uses a German engine for the time being and US had more than enough leverage to halt the German engines imports at the time of the early 2000s.

So you can't really complain of the large inductions of T-90, it was doctrinally sound, operationally ready, and sanctions immune. There was no other choice up until sanctions ended towards the end of the first decade of the 2000s, given the imported subsystems of the Arjun. I am aware that the T-90 is derived from the T-72, but that doesn't make it a poor platform as it was designed for modern combat, they simply made the changes they had to without breaking the bank. Everyone does this.

Now, more recently Army had a chance to induct the Arjun Mk2 in mass to replace the aging T-72s inducted in the 80s, which will be nearly 40 years old by 2020. Instead they chose T-72 upgrades to keep them for another decade, and won't be phased out now til 2030, making them half a century old since they were first inducted. Which means either Armata or FMBT/Arjun Mk3 only by ~2025. A decision I don't think you or I particularly like, as Arjun Mk2 is evidently the best overall tank according to the trials and ordering ~1000 of them would be a massive boost to indigenous technologies and self-reliance. But I digress, as IA has made their choice, so there is not a whole more to talk about here.

member_27845 · Post by **member_27845** » 20 Jan 2016 08:28

If the weight of Arjun is a deal breaker for IA , then maybe DRDO / CVRDE can offer bridge manufacturing + logistics as an integrated battlefield solution to the IA to overcome their apprehensions

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 20 Jan 2016 11:29

Chakra.in wrote:Also, you can't just think about Indian bridges, you have to keep in mind about the infrastructure and conditions on the Paki side as well.

I suppose everyone else with a non-tincan tank had enemies with bridges graded for above 100 tons.

Chakra.in wrote:German engine for the time being and US had more than enough leverage to halt the German engines imports at the time of the early 2000s.

Aren't you conveniently forget the TI on the tincan-90, without which for all this cold and hot starts it is pretty much useless at night, quite like the tincan-72? Are the French that sanctions immune? Russians sure learn't otherwise.

Chakra.in wrote:operationally ready

Without a working a TI and electronics that work in the desert heat (and still does not)?

Chakra.in wrote:There was no other choice up until sanctions ended towards the end of the first decade of the 2000s, given the imported subsystems of the Arjun.

Did you even bother to check which, if any, subsystems were sanctioned with regard to Arjun?

Chakra.in wrote:I am aware that the T-90 is derived from the T-72, but that doesn't make it a poor platform.

It does. All those cooked up in both tincans stand testament to this, while most of those hit in a Western/Israeli tank have lived to tell the tale.

Chakra.in wrote:they simply made the changes they had to without breaking the bank. Everyone does this.

In that case why bun the tincan-90 at all, why not just produce upgraded tincan-72s (there is hardly any difference)?

Rest of the stuff I agree with.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Jan 2016 11:50

I am aware that the T-90 is derived from the T-72, but that doesn't make it a poor platform as it was designed for modern combat, they simply made the changes they had to without breaking the bank. Everyone does this.

The point was about "pig" and "lipstick".

Outside of that there is absolutely nothing in your post that has not been beaten to death on BR, including Arjun's weight in Pakistan.

So, let it rest.

habal · Post by **habal** » 20 Jan 2016 12:10

All those cooked up in both tincans stand testament to this, while most of those hit in a Western/Israeli tank have lived to tell the tale.

kindly confirm this with the saudis who were killed by houthis firing rpg & konkurs at their abrams m1.http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/houthi ... 1726478735

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 20 Jan 2016 12:17

^Oh please. Don't bring in the barbarians into any discussion about proper soldiers and their hardware. Anyway, everything is comparative and tincans are comparatively less survivable (a lot so).

habal · Post by **habal** » 20 Jan 2016 12:55

even I used to have poor opinion about T-72, plenty of plain-jane 'export-quality' T-72s got hit in Aleppo. Truly a tin can, but some have been upgraded with ERA by russians for the SAA and doing OK in Syria. A lot less of tank getting hit by ATGM videos by syrian rebels in 2015 and 2016 on youtube as compared to the peak year of 2014, 2013. Now this is a true battlefield and test for weapons like Tanks. But the T-90 with Shtora and Arena is different cup of tea. Not a single T-90 has even been 'hurt' in operations. Btw those operating TOWs in Syria are Turkish sF, ex-Jordan sF and UK sF and so on, so the TOWs are operating at best of their potential. T-90 is a nimble tank and looks exactly like the T-72 except for the Shtora appendages at the turret. It is difficult for a TOW operator to figure out it is T-90 and often mistake it for T-72. Now if he fires a TOW and defence mechanism works well and he misses, then he is exposed. So this is a very good asset to have. If you have a MBT that has all the defence systems the TOW operator may not take a chance, and if he does not take a chance then there is little chance of him getting exposed. This is a real battlefield advantage.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 20 Jan 2016 13:18

Habal you have to be joking if you compare a T-72 or a T-90 with a M1. Anyone serious wouldn't.
The M1 has a worldclass crew protection system with its separated and containerized ammunition system. To this date, its the leader. The T-90 is full of exposed rounds. The M1's TIS+FCS are better than that on the T-90, its frontal arc armor is equivalent or better, its FSAPDS ammunition is the best in the world today (unless DM63 derivatives cross that). In short, the T-series platforms are nowhere as survivable as the standard 120mm M1 series.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 20 Jan 2016 14:17

In all the video and discussion we had on Levant thread and Yemen , The M1 pretty much looked vulnerable even to 2nd gen ATGB like Konkors or Milan when it is not protected by assault chopper or troops , In some cases an M1 hit the crew managed to run and survive and in some they got toasted , The Iraq experience of M1 is no different , The front armour of M1 is quite stong but the sides and back are vulnerable to even tandem RPG.

French Leclerc performance seem no better , vulnerable around the track where where were ambushed and hit, other lighter vehicle Bradley , BMP and Scorpene got toasted as well. Yemen conflict shown Without tactics and co-ordination from assault helicopter all the heavy and light armour seems very vulnerable to even 2nd gen ATGM and ambushes with RPG's

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 20 Jan 2016 16:41

It is always a contest between armour and firepower. Just like well trained and drilled infantry with fire arms made cavalry useless and like long bows and pikes made knights cavelory useless, the powerful man-portable missiles and RPGs are slowly gaining and posing a serious threat to Tanks.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 20 Jan 2016 16:55

^Actually you are a step behind. The zenith of the RPG/ATGM threat to tanks have already been reached and is past. Now its the beginning of the age of active defense, which will lead to missiles so big and complicated with multiple/tandem warheads that it will be a challenge to make it man-portable. As laser defenses improve, it might even render missiles altogether obsolete against actively defended targets ships/tanks/etc. (except maybe the hypersonic+ variety). But some of this is far into the future, others not so much.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 20 Jan 2016 17:06

So the time for light cavalry Mongol forces with their powerful horse bow with long and devastating range? Time for NIMCA type wheeled light armored car with powerful gun - say 105mm and advance active defense? I think in a decade you will see that also.

Toyota half-trucks with RPG firing jihadis (ISIS and Taliban) and massive fortifications armed with is already thousands of ATMs ( Lebanon) are already there.

Abhisham · Post by **Abhisham** » 20 Jan 2016 18:32

With my limited interaction with the 43 Armored Regiment, Arjun is a great tank and far surpasses any tank in the Indian inventory including T-90 (nothing we didn't know!) and all officers and soldiers vouch for the tank. With limited induction in the army a lot of internal opinions are based on news articles. The Arjun tank is a victim of organizational corruption, inertia and group think mentality. I have personally no hope that Arjun will see any major service in the IA.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 21 Jan 2016 02:46

Abhisham

Please and I urge you to exploit your limited contacts and bring out some stories from the 43rd.
Maintenance schedules , turn around times, fuel tolerance, electronic performance

you shall be doing us and your country a favour.
Please bring some stories in the open ... they might inspire those people to be more vocal with the others too.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 21 Jan 2016 03:51

Second that.

member_29268 · Post by **member_29268** » 21 Jan 2016 04:40

I have known an ex-Army who has test driven the Arjun on multiple occasions (Vijayanta, 72 among others), and he was all praise for the handling (read steering, and bracking specifically) characteristics of Arjun as compared to the others. He went on to say that shifting gears is Makhan and very quickly you could go to the highest gear and to sum up he said "Its really really fast!!

"

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 21 Jan 2016 09:23

khedar wrote:I have known an ex-Army who has test driven the Arjun on multiple occasions (Vijayanta, 72 among others), and he was all praise for the handling (read steering, and bracking specifically) characteristics of Arjun as compared to the others. He went on to say that shifting gears is Makhan and very quickly you could go to the highest gear and to sum up he said "Its really really fast!! "

Second that!

I drove Arjun tank after experiencing T-72 and T-55 (T-90 hadn't come by then), and in every aspect, it seemed to be a different beast. The pictures of Arjun driver compartment that have recently been published are a bit different from what I saw (remember, these were the first lot which came to 43rd Armored Regiment). But a further improvement, I'm sure. 43rd Armored also had Vijayanta's with them.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Jan 2016 10:15

active hemispherical defence using bomblets + radar significantly drives up cost. I do not think any army can deploy it across tanks. IFVs and trucks all of which are fair game for missiles. ATGMs and LAWs like Shipon are cheap, rugged and easy to use.

Abhisham · Post by **Abhisham** » 21 Jan 2016 10:29

rohitvats wrote:
khedar wrote:I have known an ex-Army who has test driven the Arjun on multiple occasions (Vijayanta, 72 among others), and he was all praise for the handling (read steering, and bracking specifically) characteristics of Arjun as compared to the others. He went on to say that shifting gears is Makhan and very quickly you could go to the highest gear and to sum up he said "Its really really fast!! "
Second that!

I drove Arjun tank after experiencing T-72 and T-55 (T-90 hadn't come by then), and in every aspect, it seemed to be a different beast. The pictures of Arjun driver compartment that have recently been published are a bit different from what I saw (remember, these were the first lot which came to 43rd Armored Regiment). But a further improvement, I'm sure. 43rd Armored also had Vijayanta's with them.

Compared to the T-series tank it was much simpler to drive as well, the interior is very spacious. The officers and soldiers were upbeat about besting the T-90 in the comparative trials.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 21 Jan 2016 11:19

Singha wrote:active hemispherical defence using bomblets + radar significantly drives up cost. I do not think any army can deploy it across tanks. IFVs and trucks all of which are fair game for missiles. ATGMs and LAWs like Shipon are cheap, rugged and easy to use.

It will come down and become more efficient as the technology progresses. It is all just a matter of time. Just another phase in the defense versus offense equation.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Jan 2016 13:04

but in parallel top attack ATGMs with F&F will also proliferate down to VL packs being deployed from behind cover by jihadi toyota trucks. its the old SAM vs ASM thing.....a long range proliferation of ASM even of doubtful value forces the enemy to lock in more cells with SAMs vs useful SLCM weapons.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 21 Jan 2016 13:32

^Regardless, I think the evolving advantage will be for defense vs offense (guided missiles). Missiles cost a lot of money and new ones that would have a prayer of a chance at defeating mature active defense systems will be costly as heck. So, frankly I do not see any jihadi handling these things. That may be not the case for regular armies, but when you do a cost-benefit analysis, a lightweight armored vehicle (someone suggested this above) with a high-velocity gun (rail-gun/laser in the future?) might be better in a tank destroyer role than something with missiles.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Jan 2016 14:25

There is a psychological component too. If the jihadists or attacker finds the defenses pretty good , need not be a 100%, it is good enough.

And miniaturization will help reduce costs. Who the he'll expected Iron Dome and the like? Now we need an anti-missile missile for the air craft. Much like the AAD.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 21 Jan 2016 14:29

^+1. I think people kept talking about the demise of armor for so long, they are having inertia in their thought process. They still haven't started moving in this direction for most. Even smart weapons are going to face this hurdle with regard to static targets.

The age of offense had been going on for long. I think the age of defense is dawning again.

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 21 Jan 2016 21:19

Don't forget the underbelly.... IEDs...VBIEDs et all

Our tanks will encounter those in paki land

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Jan 2016 23:04

The age of offense had been going on for long. I think the age of defense is dawning again.

I think it is more of an age of massive, very rapid, disposable information. The one who is able to super compute faster than the other will have an upper hand - does not mean that person will win.

Look at Iron Dome. It actually calculates the certainty with which an unguided missile, launched from the Palestine areas, may hit a populated area within Israel. And, if it computes that a missile will hit a populated area then that missile is intercepted with a missile of its own. The complexity lies in he ability of the radar to track ("intercept") and then determine where it may land.

Seems like they are successful enough to have attracted Indian interest. I would think India has enough brain power to handle such needs. ?????

F-35 too: information. Both in terms of getting to know about the enemy quicker/faster AND letting the enemy know about it much slower. That delta is what a plane like this depends on. And, it does it with super computing (across a network - not as a single entity, which i can do too).

Don't forget the underbelly.... IEDs...VBIEDs et all

Our tanks will encounter those in paki land

The US faced its biggest challenge in IEDs. Towards the end they were a far lesser threat. IIRC, India also has seen a decrease in number of IED related injuries. Detection and neutralization technologies for such scenarios are on the rise. Radar that see through tree canopies, etc are becoming rather common - no place to hide, no place to run.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 Jan 2016 23:18

Austin wrote:In all the video and discussion we had on Levant thread and Yemen , The M1 pretty much looked vulnerable even to 2nd gen ATGB like Konkors or Milan when it is not protected by assault chopper or troops , In some cases an M1 hit the crew managed to run and survive and in some they got toasted , The Iraq experience of M1 is no different , The front armour of M1 is quite stong but the sides and back are vulnerable to even tandem RPG.

French Leclerc performance seem no better , vulnerable around the track where where were ambushed and hit, other lighter vehicle Bradley , BMP and Scorpene got toasted as well. Yemen conflict shown Without tactics and co-ordination from assault helicopter all the heavy and light armour seems very vulnerable to even 2nd gen ATGM and ambushes with RPG's

Every tank is vulnerable when deployed by half trained troops but only someone with a good sense of humor would state that the T series tanks and the Abrams are equivalent in design and the former is equal to the latter. The T-90 is vulnerable to all that the Abrams is vulnerable to.