Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Mar 2017 21:59

Rakesh wrote:DRDO outlines future MBT requirements
http://www.janes.com/article/67154/drdo ... quirements

Speaking at the International Armoured Vehicles 2017 conference in London, Dr U. Solomon of the DRDO's Combat Vehicles Research and Development Establishment (CVRDE) highlighted some of the new requirements for the MBT design, which is intended to replace the Indian Army's fleet of T-72M1 'Ajeya' MBTs and is scheduled to enter service from the early 2020s.

Posting some of the requirements here for discussion....

Dr U. Solomon of the DRDO's Combat Vehicles Research and Development Establishment (CVRDE) highlighted some of the new requirements for the MBT design, which is intended to replace the Indian Army's fleet of T-72M1 'Ajeya' MBTs and is scheduled to enter service from the early 2020s.

Previously identified as having a requirement for a 120 mm main gun, the MBT is now set to be armed with a 125 mm gun, third-generation anti-tank guided weapon (ATGW), and an air-defence machine gun. It is planned that the main gun will have the capacity to fire guided munitions, with these understood to be Israel Aerospace Industries' Laser Homing Attack or Laser Homing Anti-Tank (LAHAT) missile. Other ammunition will include programmable airburst munitions and armour-piercing, fin-stabilised discarding sabot (APFSDS) natures.

The turret design will be unmanned, with the three-person crew seated in suspended seats below the turret - a configuration that is intended to enhance protection against underbelly blasts from mines or improvised explosive devices (IEDs).

The Bharat powerpack - set to replace the existing powerpacks of the Arjun Mk I and Mk II MBTs, as well as power the future MBT - is identified as a 2,200 kg unit powered by DHPP-A fuel. This is intended to operate at altitudes of up to 16,400 ft and temperatures as low as -20° Celsius. This requirement is likely a reflection of the Indian Army's need to operate in mountainous areas, particularly when deployed along India's border with Pakistan.

A dynamic track tension adjuster will also enable the MBT to maintain ground traction when crossing obstacles and soft or rough terrain.

Looks like a lot of improvements if they can pull it off.
The 125mm common gun for T-72 and T-90 is in the works with missile firing capability.
INVAR replacement was being tendered. Is it the LAHAT?
Bharat Power Pack is also in works.
I don't know the fuzes for the air-burst shells are in work or not.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 14 Mar 2017 13:25

If we can develop a desi FMBT similar in concept to the Armata which also comes within the IA's weight requirements,there is little way in which it can be discarded by the IA. Remember that the IA was willing to accept an Arjun of weight around 58+t. The proposed 3-man crewed MBT will be even smaller,lower profile and give better crew protection. The other features,defensive aids are "bells and whistles",which we may find difficult to develop in a short time frame. Like using SAAB's IDAS for Dhruv helos,some systems can and should be acquired for the first series from abroad until we can develop our own.It will help shorten dev. time of the MK-1 variant. In terms of armour,suspension,main gun,etc.,I don't think we have any problem at all; engine dev. critical ,but time is of the essence here. 2020 is just 3 years away. The prototypes must roll out before then as a severe testing regime will await it! Who knows when the IA will start demanding its FMBT and by 2020 there will only be one affordable (for India) FMBT available ,the Armata.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 14 Mar 2017 13:42

Armata is here and now. FMBT is pure fancy right now. Guess what the next tank will be when porkistan gets a heavy tank from somewhere. Even 1 regiment.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 14 Mar 2017 13:47

^ Sorry Philip ... your love for the arms is many more times than the nation. Ideally, for any SRDE it should be otherway around.

It keeps my blood boiling to read the mismanagement that our services are doing by keep Indian products to ransom of trails and keep inducting foreign products without basic testing. I can only say it is because of open and mutual personal benefitted corruption. I had high hoped from MP but he is gone - It is a short sight from BJP, lets see who is next in as full time DM.

We always knew MP was not happy in Delhi and his heart was in Goa. It might be personally good for him.

But BJP, they loved to rule a state then fix the nation's defense. Ah, the old story continues ....

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 14 Mar 2017 13:50

Prasad wrote:Armata is here and now. FMBT is pure fancy right now.

I wounder if Russia, Philip and IA's DGMF will agree to have Armata and Arjun MK-2 trials in India. If Armata wins, scrap T-90 procurement and buy Armata. DRDO close Arjun project and work on Future Future FMBT.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 Mar 2017 14:42

the armata seems be in 55t range going by its dimensions and 6 road wheels ... and this is before heavy-ERA and slat armour which is a must these days. the old monstrous mine plough that IA put on the Arjun will also need to be attached in interest of fairness.

the T90 itself is 50t with ERA!

and nobody is sure if it has all the bells and whistles that IA demands and how it will shape up in the dust and heat here.

cost is going to be high, this is not a cheap throwaway tank at all.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 14 Mar 2017 15:02

Seriously. Right now,another new MBT isn't a top priority for the IA and I mean what I say. The problem is production at Avadi. We have a thousand+ T-72s to be upgraded ,hundreds of T-90s to be built,hundreds of specialist AVs too,keeping costs of locally made T-90s less than Ru built ones,etc.,etc.There was a recent report saying that the T-90 will still lack some critical defensive aid (no moolah?) which we haven't or can't develop.
The management of our DPSUs leaves a sour taste in the mouth.

Arjun's chequered history has been debated for so long that I'm not visiting that tome here. There is a disconnect between some DPSUs and the end user,the 3 services.We've recently seen it with the IN's fatwa on the NLCA,fed up with DRDO refusing to listen to its needs.The IAF is also a reluctant customer for the LCA MK-1.There are hits and misses. HAL has performed far better with its desi helo development (ALH,LCH,LUH,MH to come) than the aircraft division,which has produced over a thousand aircraft in the last few decades but under licence,never attempting to emulate the great creativity of the '60s with the HF-24,Gnat/Ajeet dev. Improvements to the SU-30 to MKI std. and Jags to Darin-3 std. are signal achievements,but do not constitute a major breakthrough in aircraft self-sufficiency from design,dev. to production in qty. The "misses" of the IJT and earlier BT come to mind.

5 years ago when they were facing consistent resistance from the IA on Arjun,with various reasons being trotted out for not wanting it,the MOD/DM should've organised a DRDO/CVRDE brainstorming session with the IA and asked it to give (in writing) what kind of MBT it wanted as an improvement of the Ru T-series (T-72.90) .This document should've been framed like a marriage cert. and an embedded high-ranking general, armoured warfare/tank specialist in the programme. MP himself made some scathing comments about the performance of DPSUs recently ,existing in their "cocoon of comfort". Therefore,unless such a bonding is made to exist between the services and DPSUs,we'll continue to regrettably be a magnet for the world's arms manufacturers.

There is another fundamental reason.How much do we spend on R&D? Technology isn't static.We spend a pittance when compared with other major nations.It makes our successes in space tech look simply magical.ISRO deserve a temple of their own! There is no alternative to the GOI opening its purse strings and making generous funding for def. R&D.The pvt. sector too can be given spl. subsidies so that it can get loans,etc. for the same,speeding up results.There is such a mind-boggling hourly growth in scientific knowledge globally.Imagine 3-D printing for MBT components (Armata). The media had a few days ago a pic of a 3d printed house. The Russians and others are talking today of fielding robotic tanks in the future,"Terminator" style. When we've developed our 4th-gen MBT,will we then see the RMBTs arrive ?

Defence planning has to dream big and attempt to envision what futuristic tech will be around say by 2050.Certainly there will be a glut of unmanned weapon systems around by then and AVs definitely.Here,the experience of the end-user,services is vital.They are the ones who do the fighting and should be able to forsee the future .The DRDO and scientific labs can develop a spectrum of exotic technologies with spin-offs in the civil world.The synergy between the two is vital for any project to succeed. Now that the RDO is thinking of developing an FMBT somewhat on the lines of the Armata,they should enter into a partnership with the IA just as the IN has been doing for decades with the shipbuilders,and get results.

Just for the record,if you look at the Armata concept,it is a series of AVs based upon a distinctive platform/tech developed.But here we have the pvt. sector developing our ICVs on their own,apparently without any input from the DRDO which in the Arjun dev. has made great strides as far as some critical tech is concerned.There was a nice pic of the unmanned 12.7mm AA gun developed vy the DRDO for use aboard MBTs. Surely the same gun can be used for the AVs being made in civvy street. The IN did something similar,using a variant of the 30mm cannon for their OPVs/FACs.The synergy between the services,DPSU/'DRDO and pvt. industry must be established at the outset when new programmes commence.

In the final analysis ,the political will is vital. The BJP has made good progress in sev. instances,but the battle against babudom hasn't been won as yet.Sandeep U's recent IT cover feature "Unmade in India" highlights the bottlenecks,obstructionists,etc. that plague the issue,making India self-sufficient in the defence industry.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 Mar 2017 17:01

Singha wrote:the armata seems be in 55t range going by its dimensions and 6 road wheels ... and this is before heavy-ERA and slat armour which is a must these days. the old monstrous mine plough that IA put on the Arjun will also need to be attached in interest of fairness.

the T90 itself is 50t with ERA!

and nobody is sure if it has all the bells and whistles that IA demands and how it will shape up in the dust and heat here.

cost is going to be high, this is not a cheap throwaway tank at all.

Specs

http://tanknutdave.com/armata-t14-main-battle-tank/

http://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_r ... tures.html

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 14 Mar 2017 17:07

Rosoboronexport has spent millions in payoffs to middlemen. There had to be some quid pro quo. Killing off the Arjun program was fairly doable.

Mr Choudhrie and his family run a global business empire that includes hotels, healthcare and aviation.

But an investigation by BBC Panorama and The Guardian suggests he is also one of the world's biggest arms dealers.

Leaked documents from the Choudhries' Swiss bank show that the family's companies were paid almost 100m euros by Russian arms firms in one 12-month period alone.

One company owned by the Choudhrie family, Belinea Services Ltd, received 39.2m euros between October 2007 and October 2008. Another company, Cottage Consultants Ltd, was paid 32.8m euros in the same period, while a third company - Carter Consultants Inc - was paid 23m euros.

The leaked documents say one of the Russian arms firms paying the Choudhries "makes cruise missiles".

Link

Sid · Post by **Sid** » 14 Mar 2017 18:28

I think all this discussion comparing T-90/Armata with Arjun is self defeating.

Purpose of Arjun was not to beat these tanks, but to be self reliant. Basic things you need to fight a war these days (guns/tanks/planes). And one by one we have been retracting on all above 3 categories.

A self sustained MIC is "neighbors envy, owners pride".

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 15 Mar 2017 11:40

We could've learnt some lessons from the Chinese.Near virtual clones of Sov/Ru eqpt. at lower cost. why couldn't we have come up with an improved T-72/90 as a parallel programme to the Arjun? There was the rejected Tank-X project. Had we developed a desi 3-crewed MBT ,it would've on thw eight issue had no problem with the IA . The disconnect between DPSUs and services is due to misconception on both sides. DPSUs expect the services to " take it or leave it" and that the GOI will shove their wares down the services' throats. The services (barring the IN) think that if they can highlight the flaws in desi products strongly enough,the GOI will always allow them to buy alternatives from abroad. The reality is that the GOI doesn't always have the huge funds needed fo firang imports and in cases,has even been stingy with money for desi projects. Whereas in the case of China and Pak,their military mindset makes them focussed on the military requirements first and funding for the military is almost always available.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 15 Mar 2017 13:11

Here the Iranians are trying to gop the Chinese way,developing their own MBT based upon the T-72/90.

https://sputniknews.com/military/201703 ... nk-karrar/
Xcpt:

Despite Striking Resemblance Iran's Newest Tank is no Match to Russia's T-90 © AP Photo/ Iranian Defense Ministry
13.03.2017
Recently, Iran unveiled its advanced domestically-manufactured tank named Karrar. The tank has already hit mass production. Military expert Vladimir Bogatyrev underscored the semblance of the newest Iranian tank to Russian tanks.
"It is based on the T-72 platform, but it also has something from the American Abrams and M-60 tanks. Some elements are borrowed from the M-48 and the British Chieftain tank. They took all these elements and tried to design their own tank," Bogatyrev pointed out.
The expert suggested that in terms of certain military capabilities the Karrar is unlikely to match the Russian T-90.

However, Bogatyrev highly appreciated the capabilities of the Iranian defense industry.
"The production of tanks and anti-aircraft systems is well-developed in Iran. They are also trying to develop other types of weapons. In the terms of the defense industry, Iran should not be underestimated," the expert concluded.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Mar 2017 03:20

Philip, Take a look at the battles in Middle East since the First Gulf War.
How did the T-72s fare against the Abrams?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 16 Mar 2017 05:49

T-72s exported to ME states were not the same std. as MBTs meant for Russia.It is a well-known Ru export strategy why their wares are much cheaper than western wares.However India has always got top line eqpt. from Ru.not second best. The US too with the JSF has differing dtds.
for client states depending upon their amt. invested in the project.

Furthemore,the ME states that bought such eqpt.
never expected a US led invasion..See how US MBTs are being whacked in Yemen also.In the ultimate analysis,no tank can be 100%invulnerable.The rev. in design of the Armata series is mainly the turretless design with the crewsafely ensconced within the hull.

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 16 Mar 2017 10:43

However India has always got top line eqpt. from Ru.not second best.

Which then had to be rushed to our desi DRDO to be fixed or improved ?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 16 Mar 2017 11:57

Incremental improvements after years of operating the systems and actual battle experience. Even these have been made along with the OEM.There is no denial that operating in the sub-continent's varied terrain has required many improvements for eqpt. some of which was fundamentally designed for colder climes. Initially,even our Kilo subs had to get better batteries,which were eventually developed in India,better than the originals.The usual word used was "tropicalised".This was required even for western milware.Heat,humidity and dust,affected performance,extra cooling of AVs,etc. to combat the desert heat. If you look at many of the components that required improvementns,several were due to climatic conditions.But even here,the last report about the xtra T-90s on order was that they would not come with a key defensive item becos we couldn't develop it and the Israeli one was rejected becos it was a "siingle vendor" issue! Let's hope that Mr.Modi's coming visit to Israel will sort this issue out apart from other key projects.tech reqd. by us.
http://in.rbth.com/news/2017/01/19/indi ... 90s_684148

Will · Post by **Will** » 16 Mar 2017 13:55

Arms dealers are too well entrenched in the Indian system. All this rigmarole of modifications and testing and more modifications and testing of the Arjun is just to make a case for an emergency purchase of Russian maal. Compare the weight of western tanks and its about the same as the Arjun, some even heavier. How have Russian tanks fared against western ones in the gulf? The argument that the Arjun is to heavy to be transported has been rubbished multiple times.Someone seriously needs to take charge and spank some sense into the army here. Well guess it will be left to the new defence minister seeing that Parrikar went back to where he wanted to be

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 17 Mar 2017 12:53

The Gulf wars were not between equals.Let's get that fact straight.The Iraqis had virtually no airpower whatever,their aircraft flew to Iran for safety! Saddam also buried a MIG-25/31 in the desert sand. Secondly,these T-72s were not the std. of Sov. MBTs,but inferior,"export" std. In the recent wars in Yemen,Lebanon,etc.,western tanks including the M-1,Merkava ,etc. have been destroyed by footsoldiers of the enemy with lowly RPG rounds. Therefore ,one would have to compare a Russian std. MBT of RuA std. in actual combat with a western MBT.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Mar 2017 13:18

ramana wrote:Philip, Take a look at the battles in Middle East since the First Gulf War.
How did the T-72s fare against the Abrams?

large tank vs tank WW3/ODS type battles will become increasingly rarer. airpower, precision networked artillery, agile ATGM teams, minefields can take their toll well before any man to man frontal fire-on-move combat. even in tank vs tank people seem to prefer digging in behind berms and in holes to get additional protection and more accurate fire.

look how small and portable the kornet is...even its sight is below the tube unlike the bulky old TOW. the terrain is typical of the indo-pak southern punjab sindh dry belt - large urbanized villages, few berms (roads , canals), about 2km LOS fields of fire.....whether al khalid, t90, or arjuns the ATGMs teams are going to have a field day UNLESS the tanks keep moving, behind artillery barrages and dig themselves into cover when halted. and put up smoke fields with drones in air looking for atgm threats. automatic missile detectors and grenade and smoke launchers are MUST.

and in exchange for all these resources used to protect it, what does the tank give? highly precise 120mm shell out to 2km range. for those with the means like the US they wont even be using tanks much imo - they will use hellfires and SDBs from air platforms for same effect and indirect guided rounds from tube and rocket artillery. their IFVs will help the infantry.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Mar 2017 14:07

b4 anyone beats me up as usual I am saying tanks should occupy 20% of our attention and resources vs 80% for the "rest of it" which would include

- next gen tracked IFV
- next gen wheeled IFV that uses common drivetrain if possible, variants with 30mm cannons, 105mm guns, 155mm soft recoil low velocity direct fire guns
- family of 4x4 recce vehicles (ref kmw dingo)
- tens of thousands more x-country trucks 4x4, 6x6, 8x8
- 155mm truck and towed artillery in scary numbers
- LOH/Rudra for all needy - on a cash and carry kirana shop basis
- UAV UAV and more UAV with brigade commander having UAV platoon under his control - NOT div, NOT corps and certainly not indep UAV squadrons under IAF control

p.s. IAF can run with the huge global hawk type UAVs for intel gathering and strike assessment.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 17 Mar 2017 14:12

^^^each of the above can be taken out by ATGM (both heavy and light) and other lesser capable weapons like RL. So, how does more of these and less number of tanks argument works?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Mar 2017 14:18

^^^ way more mobility , intelligence & mass for the horde than a few tank platoons going out ahead to "fight it out" backed up less and inferior assets like foot infantry and rusty IFVs to exploit whatever little hole they open up. with so many assets and intel you can economize on the direct brawling weapons and "drive around" prepared enemy strongpoints .... this in effect is what I believe Khan did in the deserts. they moved as a organic whole, fast and deep and arrived at locations where the iraqis were unprepared for combat from unexpected lines .... after that it did not matter if the iraqis has export model tanks or Leopard2a5.....they were relatively fixed, lacked air and artillery support and had zero initiative .... they were destroyed in short order. iraqis could have used Leopards and khan used M60s and the results would exactly the same. the superior organism and network will usually win. bradleys and apaches with basic TOW missiles killed as many tanks as the famous abrams. infact the aeging F111 with a laser pod went around unhurriedly killing hiding tanks from high level at night.

its time to put this dinosaur on the back burner and think of other means. victory is victory whether one uses a PGS weapon or the more glamourous old school tank round through the door.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Mar 2017 14:22

IA is partly right in avoiding mountains of metal like arjun km2 or merkava
but they are wrong in imaging the T90/armata is the solution to their firepower problem.

build the ecosystem to kill tanks properly and nobody needs to afraid of whatever the chinese bring to the table.

domestic industry will get a lot of creative design and production work vs cobbling together and painting T90 tanks from CKD kits supplied from urals factory. even a small product from PRD stage to FOC is a huge +ve mental leap for young cos and engineers.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 17 Mar 2017 14:47

Singha wrote:and in exchange for all these resources used to protect it, what does the tank give? highly precise 120mm shell out to 2km range. for those with the means like the US they wont even be using tanks much imo - they will use hellfires and SDBs from air platforms for same effect and indirect guided rounds from tube and rocket artillery. their IFVs will help the infantry.

They look more like Metis then Kornet , The black smoke is a give away for Metis.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Mar 2017 15:22

^^ well thats even better half the weight - cheaper for sure.

in our case a important project like the Nag which could have been 8-packed onto Rudras and LCH and 4 packed onto LOH apart from a TOR style 16 pack VLS salvo from a basic wheeled or BMP2 type launcher to fire from under cover has been allowed to wither and die on the vine, while people run around and salivate and trip over PARS-LR/Spike/Javelin..carefully setting higher and higher hoops for the local boy to jump through .

why cannot pinaka1 have anti tank IIR bomblets to saturate a detected area in top attack mode. same can be said for 155mm shells too - let the 40kg shell release 3x12kg bomblets...6 guns can deploy 18 in one salvo and 72 in one minute. enough to shatter a tank regiment if cued properly.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Mar 2017 15:32

cancelled us project called EFOGM. 8 round launcher. 15km range, fire from under cover.
cheap hummer vehicle. why cant be put nag or halina and get a shitload of these 4x4 in support of our infantry ? rather we waste time on manually loading the konkurs in bmp2 or cool gun launched atgms.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 17 Mar 2017 15:47

Singha wrote:cancelled us project called EFOGM. 8 round launcher. 15km range, fire from under cover.
cheap hummer vehicle. why cant be put nag or halina and get a shitload of these 4x4 in support of our infantry ? rather we waste time on manually loading the konkurs in bmp2 or cool gun launched atgms.

Nag is 152 mm class weapon so you cant carry enough number say 4 or 8 with reload on a humveee like vehical , then you need the FC system to track & target integrated with weapons , then you need all the electronic and cooling system ,power for it , then you need atleast 2 crew to man all these , if you need cross country mobility then you need tracked vehical , which mean you need bigger vehical , also you need some protection of crew from small arms , snipers etc

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 17 Mar 2017 16:04

Singha wrote:cancelled us project called EFOGM. 8 round launcher. 15km range, fire from under cover.
cheap hummer vehicle. why cant be put nag or halina and get a shitload of these 4x4 in support of our infantry ? rather we waste time on manually loading the konkurs in bmp2 or cool gun launched atgms.

The modified Avenger and the New Avenger can both carry the Hellfire (and Brimstone) and the Aim-9x compared to the original VSHORAAD setup that used stingers. The number of missiles and configurations depends upon the vehicle it is being integrated on but the new systems start off at the JLTV range and go up from there and include tracked vehicles and trucks.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Mar 2017 16:20

Necessity is mother of invention. Lacking a existential crisis our process are sluggish and oriented to unobtainium rather than running with ball and experimenting.

Lateral thinking example. Iraqis needed something to stabilize their grenades from quadcopter drones. What flies through air fast and is stable and easy to buy and cheap? A badminton shuttle!!

Pix in link https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/20 ... ed-drones/

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 17 Mar 2017 17:06

Singha wrote:^^^ way more mobility , intelligence & mass for the horde than a few tank platoons going out ahead to "fight it out"

^ +1

And also easier to produce /jugaad-ify/maintain as compared to the long time and effort required for manufacture of unobtanium magic metals/amazing alloys which will give Abrams level protection in T90 weight and size. Or wait for the translation of the relevant documentations from Rodina. Or having to wait for the Pakistan Roads Organization to be kind enough to build up the roads/bridges/canals et al to be able to bear the weights of our heavies

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 17 Mar 2017 18:01

We need a separate thread where such suggestions of doing X, Y or Z in terms of equipment or strategy should be put up. And debated to see whether they hold merit or our BRF version of Tom Clancy fantasies.

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 17 Mar 2017 19:36

What may seem like fantasy today may seem like a good idea tomorrow. Threats keep changing, weapons keep changing, procedures keep changing, economics keep changing.

Good idea if thread discipline can be maintained.. else more headache for the mods

The build your own fighter thread is a good attempt..

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 17 Mar 2017 21:31

Singha wrote:IA is partly right in avoiding mountains of metal like arjun km2 or merkava
but they are wrong in imaging the T90/armata is the solution to their firepower problem.

build the ecosystem to kill tanks properly and nobody needs to afraid of whatever the chinese bring to the table.

domestic industry will get a lot of creative design and production work vs cobbling together and painting T90 tanks from CKD kits supplied from urals factory. even a small product from PRD stage to FOC is a huge +ve mental leap for young cos and engineers.

We are unnecessarily focused on the term 'tank' and the image it conjures. Start from the requirements. Whats needed is protection, mobility and firepower to attack enmasse in unexpected/weakly defended areas. The same requirements are there even to reduce heavily defended strong points such as cities, that can not be pounded with arty. These three fundamental needs of the battlefield and indeed, war itself, have not changed since the days of Mahabharata. We can add two other important needs for a modern battlefield: communication and battlefield visibility to the fighter.

Protection: Given the state of the technology we have, protection against kinetic energy darts, chemical exp. shaped charges, buried IEDs/mines can only be offered by something protected by composite armor. Even if you add some kind of active protection to protect against increasingly sophisticated missiles, you need composites to protect against KE darts.

Mobility:Given the weight of composite armor, it needs to be on tracks to satisfy the mobility requirement. Anything that can stop a 120mm kinetic dart or an EFP or a shaped charge will be at least 40-50 tonnes. Tracks are non negotiable. If you talk of strategic mobility (airlifting heavy divisions) then the overall weight of the tank also comes into consideration.

Firepower: For firepower sufficient to kill armored beasts and concrete bunkers, you need a big gun and missiles. If you add support to defensive infantry to the list of tasks, you will need a mortar (as the Merkava has). If you add urban combat to the list of tasks, you will need a machine gun that can be trained at really high angles, such as the T90 and most other modern tanks have. The modern tank troop will also have an integrated UAV or some other kind of air feed to surveil the areas its heading into.

A single modern tank, such as the Arjun, Abrams, T90S or even the upgraded T72 ajay will either scatter or slaughter technical type vehicles. They emphasize one aspect of the basic battlefield requirement (mob, firepower, protection) at the cost of others and are completely inappropriate for a modern army, seeking to take on other modern armies. With the advent of active protection systems, all kinds of missiles are going to be obsoleted really fast and the tank is poised to regain an upper hand in the battle between armor and protection just as people are writing it off, again.

** Added later: Then there is the NBC requirement, tanks are clearly suited to fighting in this environment rather than lighter humvees etc.

srai · Post by **srai** » 20 Mar 2017 03:40

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Mar 2017 11:25

The future is unmanned. In every service. In the near future,the ground war is going to be vastly complicated by hundreds of UCAVs ,like swarms of locusts in recce mode and hunting for AVs,and targets of opportunity.Like the Harpy drone,many of them will be kamikaze weapons. They will be able to hunt for AVs,locate and destroy them,something that arty/MBRLs cannot do unless target locations have been provided. UCAVs/drones,have become so numerous in type,new manufacturers sprouting by the day,that it is becoming almost impossible to track their development .Flying mini-vehicles are also being developed.

Nevertheless,the latest gen . of MBTs like the Armata also have a suite of defensive weapons,both active and passive. Their armour has also been significantly improved. With crews in armoured hulls, AVs should be able to soldier on even after being hit. The further dev. of unmanned AVs will still educe the size of AVs, Today's media has reports that robots have now begun to "speak" to each other in their own lingo! The "terminator" era is about to arrive. In naval warfare,UUVs are already in service,small unmanned surface platforms being used for harbour defence and the USN has its own dev. of an ocean-going v.long endurance UUV sub-hunter.This is not to say that the end of manned weaponry is on the horizon.The human brain is the best "smart" system on the battlefield and will remain so,"Deep Blue" notwithstanding!

We should first as said earlier,lock down on the "food" on our plate.Production of new T-90s,upgrades to the huge stock of late model T-72s and other specialist AVs reqd. Whatever Arjun orders that may given and support for the 124 already in service. At this point in time,instead of acquiring an FMBT asap,the IA should fast track the large-scale induction of the LCH and armed ALHs,as we are woefully short of attack helos. Tanks on the ground should have their compatriots,"f;lying tanks" in the air as well!

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 20 Mar 2017 12:05

Has Russia announced flying Armatas?

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 20 Mar 2017 12:25

Marten wrote:Has Russia announced flying Armatas?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Mar 2017 19:03

Ha!Ha! Nyet comrade,but it has another beast called the KA-52,the flying tank.watch it in action here.

https://sputniknews.com/videoclub/20170 ... elicopter/

Watch Russian Ka-52K Naval Attack Helicopter in Action

VIDEOCLUB
20:00 19.03.2017(updated 20:02 19.03.2017) Get short URL 0 2433235
Kamov Ka-52K is a Russian carrier-based attack helicopter, a potent weapon designed for providing air support during naval and amphibious landing operations.

These helos along with a large no. of ASW helos could've given another lease of life to the Viraat used as an ASW/amphib support carrier. IN sources say that the vessel could've soldiered on for many more years but ws retd. becos of lack of Sea Harriers.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 21 Mar 2017 00:58

Phillip
stop please.
He is actually not interested in the Ka or the Armata.
He was really mocking your blind following for anything Russian.

And you are just playing into his hands much to the delight of all BRFites.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 21 Mar 2017 02:00

Philip will never stop. That's what makes him Philip.

Can you imagine Khalsa Saar if there was a single engine, 4th gen, Russian plane?