TSP: Al-Khalid MBT rolls out

hegde · Post by **hegde** » 21 Jul 2001 12:44

TSP claims it has finished its Al Khalid MBT

Guys, it seems TSP is bullshitting once again regarding capabilities of Al KhalildUpon being handed over to TSP army, the following details were published. How much of this is actually true?It seems like typical puki hogwash to me.Excerpts from: <A HREF="http://jang.com.pk/thenews/" TARGET=_blank>http://jang.com.pk/thenews/</A> The first squadron of Al-Khalid tanks was handed over to 31 Cavalry, a renowned regiment of Pakistan Armoured Corps. The president said his government would provide all the resources to ensure a strong defence for stable Pakistan as being a developing country, it becomes all the more important for us to find cost effective solutions and to promote indigenous capability in the manufacture of arms to meet the defence needs.The president said armed forces are tasked to safeguard the frontiers of the countries and are constantly engaged in preparing themselves to meet possible threats, but wars today are fought not just by the armed forces. "The whole nation has to engage in economic, scientific, political and social endeavours as well as production in conceivable fields," he added. He said there is a need to take into account the excellent achievements made by the country in the field of defence production and utilise them in improving our economy to meet the development needs of the nation. "Over the years our nation has made sacrifices in the establishment of defence production facilities and it is time now that we start getting dividends by diversifying defence industry and promoting export of defence equipment," he added.The president said he was very confident that the weapons and equipment produced by our defence production establishments are of high quality and are available at competitive prices. "Our effort to further reduce costs by applying latest production and management techniques and utilising the potential of private sector in defence production must continue," he added.The president congratulated Lt Gen Hamid Javaid and his team on the successful completion of the gigantic project of national importance. The nation, he said, is proud of them. With the highest power to weight ratio in the world Al-Khalid has agility, which can be matched only by the German Leopard. Its ability to automatically track targets, similarly, is available only on the French Leclerc. "With Hunter Killer Day-Night Sight and a state-of-the-art Fire Control System Al-Khalid is truly a world class tank," he remarked.In his welcome address, Chairman Heavy Industries Taxila (HIT), Lt Gen Hamid Javaid said HIT went into serial production in 1980 to re-build T-series tanks and not only successfully accomplished this task but also contributed significantly by undertaking modernisation of a large number of T-59 tanks. "Further upgrade of tank T-59 to Al-Zarrar configuration is being undertaken shortly, which would provide the old fleet capabilities of modern tanks," he added.He said the development of Al-Khalid was initiated in 1990 in collaboration with M/s NORINCO of China and the first prototype was fielded for trials in July 1991, which was followed by manufacture of several prototypes incorporating progressive improvements as a result of test, trials and evaluation, by the Pakistan Army. "Unforeseen problems, as can be expected in a programme of this magnitude, were encountered, however, all of these were overcome during the development stage," he said and added that after extensive evaluations GHQ gave the final go ahead in early 1999 for production of the first batch of Al-Khalid.He said the development phase was thus completed in a period of approximately eight years with a cost of $20 million as against 25 years and $500 million spent by the Indians on the Arjun.He said the pilot production of Al-Khalid was initiated at axial in October 2000 and in accordance with the original schedule; the manufacture of the first batch of tanks was to be completed by February 2000. "With motivated efforts and hard work of engineers and workers of the Tank Manufacturing Factory under the able leadership of Brig Asad, we have been able to complete the production six months ahead of schedule," he added.The HIT chairman said Al-Khalid represents the ideal integration of fire power, mobility and protection with the highest power to weight ratio in the world, its performance and characteristics are not only comparable but in certain cases better than modern contemporary tanks. The tank has state-of-the-art features such as auto tracking, hunter killer, day/night sights, third generation stabilisation and unmatched armour protection, he said.He said besides the benefits of self-reliance, indigenous production would result in tremendous savings as Al-Khalid is being manufactured substantially below international prices. He said the technical support provided by our Chinese friends and the Ukrainian experts during pilot production has been commendable for which we owe special thanks to them.Al-Khalid carries a 125-mm smooth bore gun, which can defeat enemy armour effectively at long ranges. Composite materials and Explosive Reactive Armour provide protection to the crews against a variety of anti-tank weapons. Accurate weapon control is achieved both by the gunner and commander through Third Generation Image Stabilised, Panoramic Commander Sight, Thermal Imaging and Auto Tracking. The Global Positioning System (GPS) assists in operations especially in the wide-open desert spaces. Pakistan can indeed be very proud of this achievement. The tank has been designed to meet the requirements of Pakistan Army. It will be able to operate effectively over arduous terrain and in harsh climatic conditions. It is a product refined through stringent tests and trials covering thousands of kilometres of cross country running and firing consisting of thousands of rounds of ammunition. Al-Khalid has provided the Pakistan Army with a weapon system, which will remain technically current well into this century and will meet the nation's defence requirements. The design also caters for upgrades; development and induction of new sub-systems in the future, which will further enhance the life span of this tank [This message has been edited by hegde (edited 21-07-2001).]

Harry · Post by **Harry** » 21 Jul 2001 17:45

Actually,the Chinese(Norninco) did everything and TSP takes the credit.I would'nt worry too much about it considering longewella,the pattons etc.TSP can't provide a sufficient amount of it's airforce for mass tank busting but the IAF can. Then again,it could just be a followup of the Shaheen,hatf strategies ie repainting one thing and claim it as "new".Grab the jane's armoured vehicles book and do a comparison of the Arjun and Al-khalid and you'll find the Arjun superior in most feilds.The major difference being that the Indian armed forces wanting a state of the art weapons platform and won't accept even minor flaws unlike TSP which will take just about any repainted thing for false "pride" value. [This message has been edited by Harry (edited 21-07-2001).]

Joeqp · Post by **Joeqp** » 21 Jul 2001 19:41

OK people, here's a close up photo of the new "Al Khalid" MBT, complete with its complement of crew in a battle-ready configuration. This is a highly classified photo, but I take it that you all will keep it to yourselves:<A HREF="http://www.transpakistan.com.pk/final%2 ... vals11.jpg" TARGET=_BLANK>www.army.pk/isi/super-secret/al-khalid. ... jpg</A>

shim george · Post by **shim george** » 21 Jul 2001 21:18

What do we have to counter this thing. Hopefully it will not be our T-55's. Di we get those T-90's yet? Also I am pretty sure the tank will have problems just like the Arjun did. But will they be producing a lot of the. For a nearly bankrupt country how will they produce sufficient numbers?

abhay · Post by **abhay** » 21 Jul 2001 22:12

A good strategist would never underestimate his adversary. The Pukes did in all the wars..and Indians were ready with what the Pukes never expected. IA should carefully look at their claims, and make sure we have all the means to counter them.Abhay

shyamala · Post by **shyamala** » 22 Jul 2001 00:40

Musharraf unveils Pak's Main Battle Tank Press Trust of IndiaIslamabad, July 20: Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf on Friday unveiled what Islamabad claimed was the "world's first Main Battle Tank (MBT) of the millennium". During the ceremony Musharraf said that the country could not lower its guard and must keep a "desired deterrent" against "misadventures" of its "adversaries". The tank was built in collaboration with China.Flagging off the first batch of 15 newly built MBTs, named Al-Khalid, Musharraf added that Pakistan worked for peace and tranquillity. "This, however, cannot be at the cost of security. We cannot lower our guard and must have the desired deterrent against misadventures by our adversaries. My government would provide all the resources to ensure a strong defence for a stable Pakistan."He said, the newly built "indigenous" MBT could be matched only by the German Leopards. "With the highest power to weight ratio in the world, Al-Khalid has agility that can be matched only by the German Leopard."Its ability to automatically track targets, similarly, is available only on the French Leclerc. With hunter killer day-night sight and a state of the art fire control system, Al-Khalid is truly a world class tank," he said. While describing the features of the newly built tank, the chairman of the Pakistan's ordinance factory, Heavy Industries Taxila (HIT), Lt Gen. Hamid Javed claimed that Al-Khalid was the world's "first MBT of new millennium."

Harry · Post by **Harry** » 22 Jul 2001 02:36

Manavendra,that disguised link idea was too good.

I'm sure everyone knows that how much outclassed Indian armour was compared to the Pattons and what became scrap at the end. Send a group of Mig-27s with some aircover against these Al-Khalids and they'll be the first tanks of the millenium to fly.

[This message has been edited by Harry (edited 21-07-2001).]

Michael · Post by **Michael** » 22 Jul 2001 04:07

One thing I find interesting is Pakistan's continued emphasis on offensive rather than defensive equipment. Over the last decade they've put a lot more spending into their army's armored strike forces (T-80U, Al-Khalid, Type-88). With Pakistan's endless claims of being scared of India, one would think they'd have sunk more money into beefing up on anti-tank weapons & platforms, mines, artillery, etc .. as opposed to building up these big tank forces.And look at their air force priorities. They put a lot of money into upgrading their existing Mirage-III's and Mirage-V's, and buying 50 of them from Australia, and equipping these for the dedicated CAS/interdiction role.Pakistan seems more intent on supporting a land thrust into India as opposed to planning a defensive strategy.Their navy priorities are offensive, too. ASW & coastal defense are an afterthought compared to the PN's obsession with submarines designed to strike deep into enemy waters - to threaten Indian shipping as opposed to protecting their own coast.Pakistan doesn't look defensive at all to me. Perhaps most amazing is that they have such disdain for Indian capabilities that they'd plan offensively. Wonder what they know (or think they know) that we don't?

Peeyoosh · Post by **Peeyoosh** » 22 Jul 2001 11:37

MichaelThat is fairly easily answered:a) The PA has been spending on defenisive weaponry in the shape of canals, tank dicthes etc. quite extensively. b) The latest weapons are in consonance with the PA's basic defensive strategy - essentially given the size and the diversity of teh border along with the fact that a convventional war is going to last a few weeks at most before going nuclear or international intervention the risks and consequences of a purely defensive strategy failing are way too high. So they formulated the doctorine of "ripose" - a thrust designed to bite deep into Indian territory and grap land to be used for exhange in case of negotiationsc) Its a smart strategy and calls for a very strong "spear" that is fast, with a frearsome punch - cpable of sustaining momentum despite heavy lossesd) The IA and IAF is only too aware of this - hence the low flying tactics and the induction or more atry and choppers as well as MBRLsHope that helpsPeeyoosh

Rudra · Post by **Rudra** » 22 Jul 2001 20:24

defensive stuff like small ATVs, ATGMs and AT mines are usually purchased under the radar screen without any hype. We need pinaka with AT bomblets for tanks and HE bomblets for anti-arty mission mated to fire-finder radars. I wonder how the proj is moving along ? no news for many moons now....

hegde · Post by **hegde** » 22 Jul 2001 21:23

Ok I saw a video of Al Khalid's test run and manouvers on Puki tv... It was shocking to say the least. Tanks are supposed to be slow, bulky n steady. this thing doesn't fit the description of a tank, at least not the one we're used to.I don't know what they did, they probably decreased the weight significantly by compromising on armor, in which case it should be vulnerable in the battlefield. :k:Anyway, this thing doesn't deserve to be called a "tank". It is a vehicle, but the thing moved like a friggin animal on amphetamines. The driver put it into first gear, it gives off a puff of black smoke, the front jerks up high, it accelerates with teh speed of a CAR, while the front slowly rises, and then he shifts into the next gear, the front jerks up again, the thing accelerates so fast that i coudl not believe what i was seeing...normally we're not used to armor moving like that. one thinks "where'd teh weight go"then it goes through 360s, skids on the tarmac, spins around wildly at a very high speed while the cannon is stationary, stable, tracking one spot. it looked less of a tank and more of a circus display, perhaps that was the reason behind its creation n we should be glad that tis good only for teh circus

Harry · Post by **Harry** » 22 Jul 2001 21:51

The T-90 is the most manouverable MBT in the world and the Al-khalid is based heavily on the T-90.Ofcourse,the TSPians have nothing to be proud of considering NORINCO did everything and the Al-khalid is about as indeginous as the Mig-21 is to India.But what do you expect from a nation that even claims that the "Agosta" is indeginous?Checking janes,yes,the armour of the Al-khalid is pretty weak.However,I do think it's a sensible compromise considering that today,there are weapons readily available that would turn a heavily armoured vehicle into scrap metal in minutes. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by hegde: it looked less of a tank and more of a circus display, perhaps that was the reason behind its creation n we should be glad that tis good only for teh circus

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Don't say that.Much of the western world just loves to dismiss the Su-27/30/37 series as just an "Airshow attraction" ignoring how easily it would eat up an opponent in combat and how deadly it would be in combat.[This message has been edited by Harry (edited 22-07-2001).]

Prateek · Post by **Prateek** » 22 Jul 2001 23:22

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Michael Baxter: One thing I find interesting is Pakistan's continued emphasis on offensive rather than defensive equipment. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm not surprized at all !!! Who are they goind to defend from ? Talibans ? Idon't think TSP assumes that India will ever invade TSP. They know it very well. They also know the fact that they will be invading India any time in future, as if it's their birth right. Hence their offensive build looks normal and natural to me.More over as we all know, Offense is the best form of defence ! Unfortunately only TSP seems to have understood this and it appears that India will never be able to realize this truth.!

Harry · Post by **Harry** » 23 Jul 2001 00:39

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by prakashkukreja: The report also analyses three of India's biggest defence projects - the Prithvi missile, the Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT) and the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA). It says the three projects have not been able to achieve the intended goals of self-reliance. The Prithvi missile has about 15-20 per cent of foreign components and materials, the report says, adding it will be difficult to modernize its basic design without including foreign-developed sub-systems. Almost half the components of the Arjun MBT are German, while 70 per cent of LCA's components are imported, it says. The report says India's aerospace industry has also declined progressively. Quoting the example of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL), the report says it has a "massive infrastructure, poor productivity and efficiency, high overheads, obsolete production technology, no experience with competition and significant idle capacity due to declining IAF orders." The DRDO, it says, is currently plagued by cost overruns, obsolete production equipment and inadequate planning. It lacks strategic focus, except in a few isolated areas. Ends.____________________________________________ <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What a load of junk!Where did you get this crap?Is it one of pakdeaf's madeup articles or did brian clueless clod cloughley write this?Not a single fact in that pile of rubbish?Please post the link.LCA -70% foreign?Prithvi w/ 20% imported parts?If genuine,the author's factual knowledge is disgusting.x(

Sumair · Post by **Sumair** » 23 Jul 2001 10:23

From all the tall claims made by Pakistan Al Khalid does seem like a good tank, but one cant really is sure until it is deployed in actual battlefield: (Pattens in 65 war). Further more if it is that superior a tank then why aren’t Chinese inducting it into their services? After all it is a renamed Chinese T 90-II M tank with Paki color schemes. Instead Chinese are going for T 98. Although cautious, we need not really worry about Pakistan’s armored. Most of it is T55s and T59s. Only modern tanks in their inventory are 300 T80UD, unspecified number of Chinese T88 and now Al Khalid which they cannot field a substantial number for next few years. Even then India would have a numerical superiority. Also with phasing out Vijayantas and replacing them with T90s and upgraded T72s, we would be qualitatively at par if not better. T72s can be upgraded into T90s at nominal cost of 2.5 crore rupees. (Recent selection of Israel in this regard is very interesting) Finally no matter how strong a tank column, is not effective without complementary air cover. This has been demonstrated over and over again. From Longewala to Gulf war to name the few. Pakistan’s strategists conspicuously seem to have been ignoring this fact. India would have complete air superiority in any future conflict with Pakistan. Thus I am not really worried by these Al Khalids. What I’m really anxious about is development of Light Attack Helicopters armed with Nags, so that we can bid an appropriate Al Vida to these Al Khalids.J

Peeyoosh · Post by **Peeyoosh** » 23 Jul 2001 11:54

SumairAgree completely. the best counter to the tank acquisition is an AWACS capability! KO the air cover, then the tanks are so many tin cans.Peeyoosh

davidn · Post by **davidn** » 23 Jul 2001 13:25

im not too good with the nitty gritty in tanks so could someone explain what the difference is between a rifled and a smooth bore gun and some disadvantages/advantages of each? just about all tanks today such as M1 abrams and T-90 seem to have the smoothbore so why did we go for a rifled? is it new technology? which leads into why cant the rifled gun be adapted to fire the Anti-Tank missile such as the Refleks?as for the attack choppers, wasnt there something in the news about india looking to acquire 200? I think that india should go for kamovs help in developing something similar to the Ka-50. even though a bit $$ their manoueverability, fire power and fairly heavy armour makes it a formidable foe, with several terrain/weather advantages with kamovs trademark coaxial contra-rotating rotor config. It also has some great features like the dual ammo boxes etc..

neeraj · Post by **neeraj** » 23 Jul 2001 13:39

Just how many t-90 tanks is India getting. Is it 310 or many more will be manufactured locally

Harry · Post by **Harry** » 23 Jul 2001 19:51

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by prakashkukreja: I have to admit that this report came from a TSP news paper, but this is not their analysis. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ahaa!!!There goes it's credibility.That junk's purpose is to delude 250 million TSPian fools who'll happily swallow it and we should'nt waste our time on it.Ofcourse it's their own "analysis" but which TSPian paper did it come from?Please post a link.PS AFAIK LCA is 70% indeginous without the Kaveri engine. [This message has been edited by Harry (edited 23-07-2001).]

Sumair · Post by **Sumair** » 23 Jul 2001 20:32

Hello Parkash, “If you haven’t read about pattons then please do so in above threats, tank battle has changed since 65 or 71, and we have to STOP living in the past. “ Yes it has changed only in the sense there are no more one-on-one tank battles. In modern warfare tanks are basically used as mobile firepower platforms, which move in for, mop up duties after the air force or a missile attack has completely destroyed the target area. Reiterating my point armored by itself is not effective without complimentary air support. And in an event of an Indo-Pak war Indian Air Force is going to have complete air superiority. (I’m not exaggerating. Just look at the equipments that IAF is going to have compared to Pakistan) As for the Cobras that Pakistan has. They have 18 not 20. Regardless, attack helicopters are highly venerable in a hostile sky. India has Mi-35 HIND in substantial numbers and is buying more. The light attack helicopter an attack version of ALH is slated to come out in 2005. ”T-98 and al-khalid are the same, the difference between T-98 and T-90II is that T-90II is the export model of China. doesn't matter if its a renamed, recolored tank, its still a tank.” I don’t think they are the same tanks. I read on the tanknet some time back that there were some tech differences even though they have the same chassis and powerplant. Gun is supposed to be different beside other things. “They are also phasing out T-55s, and we have T-55s also but, theirs are upgraded. “ Their T-55s or may be T-59s are not upgraded yet but are going to be into Al Zarars. Again this will take time. “they are in talks of buying more T-80UDs. 320 to be exact.” If Al Khalid is such a great tank then why are cash strapped Pakis buying more foreign tanks. Doesn’t that tell us something? Moreover Russians have refused to supply parts to Ukraine under Indian pressure, so 320 T-80UDs is a dead deal. ” We have Vijayanta's in the biggest quantity, so when we phase them out, the numbers drop significantly. facility at Avadi is only operating at 40% of its full capacity, so I assume the process won't be that fast. And do you assume they would be sitting quietly waiting for us to catch up? no sarcasm intended ” There is talk of one on one replacement with T 90s and T 72s. Avadi is operating at 40% not because of inefficiancy but because it isn’t required to be running at 100% at present. ” And who told you that T-72s can be upgraded into T-90s” T90 is an evolution of T72. They are based on the same chassis. During the T90 deal, Mr. Mulayam Singh (former defense minister) raised this question in the parliament, as to why we are not simply upgrading T72s, which are being produced locally instead of buying T90s at a considerable higher price. “ First we have to make DRDO and army engineers work together and come up with a solid tank fast, based on experience gained from Arjun shouldn't take that long. and then also work on T-90 deal, bring them in fast and have them as front line tanks, and develope a 2nd line of defense lighter tanks. maintain only two types of tanks in large quantity.” Agreed. Also considering there is Isrealy help on the way. J

rama · Post by **rama** » 23 Jul 2001 22:41

I dont think - by any means - that the Vijayanta's are our numerically largest content of the MBT fleet. This may have been the case 15 years ago, but now T-72's are the backbone.On upgrades: it is a question of $ and the judgement of where is the best expenditure of it. India has prototyped extensive upgrades for T-55's, Vijayantas and the T-72's. ERA, improved FCS, night vision systems etc are all covered in terms of available technology. In fact even composite armor upgrades had been worked on for T-72.Does anybody know of any proposals/plans re IA T-72 that included ATGM capability?

Nandai · Post by **Nandai** » 23 Jul 2001 22:55

Prakash, what do you mean with "every nation has kinds of tanks"? Do you mean that they have two diffirent kinds of tanks or two or more generations of the same tank. And the Ukrainians still need russian parts for their tanks, like guns for example, atleast the last time I checked.------------------ NandaiSince time began, the dead alone know peace. Life is like melting snow.

JCage · Post by **JCage** » 23 Jul 2001 23:30

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by prakashkukreja: Harry i think its debatable, how much foreign part LCA uses. I think currently it might be true but 3 years down the road it won't be. I have to admit that this report came from a TSP news paper, but this is not their analysis. I think engine in LCA is the key foreign part which won't be very soon, lets hope for that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Quite a bit of the original prithvis guidance systems-gyros etc were imported from france and elsewhere..later a system loosely based on the jags ins was adopted.Off the shelf purchases save on devpt time..no need to go on reinventing the wheel.The 70%imported is bull crap when it comes to the the ones other than TD1/TD2.The remaining will be 70%++ indigenous.The first planes had their stuff imported while the indigenous tech was being productionised. eg topflight cockpit from sextant.

JCage · Post by **JCage** » 23 Jul 2001 23:43

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by prakashkukreja: SumairSitting in a hotel room and reading your post, I must say you make life look so easy.__________________________________ 2. T-98 and al-khalid are the same, the difference between T-98 and T-90II is that T-90II is the export model of China. doesn't matter if its a renamed, recolored tank, its still a tank.3. They are also phasing out T-55s, and we have T-55s also but, theirs are upgraded. 4. And we have none, and they are in talks of buying more T-80UDs. 320 to be exact.5. Not T-88, but T-85II and III which are fitted with european FCS and other improvements. Also, we would have the same issue when we get T-90s which haven't even started to come yet. 6. We have Vijayanta's in the biggest quantity, so when we phase them out, the numbers drop significantly. facility at Avadi is only oprating at 40% of its full capacity, so I assume the process won't be that fast. And do you assume they would be sitting quietly waiting for us to catch up? no sarcasm intended

7. Again facility at Avadi is not at its 100% capacity. And who told you that T-72s can be upgraded into T-90s8. We said the same thing, air cover is important, they have 20 cobras, we have no fast attack choppe and seems like we are not even considering them, wonder why.9. Development of fast attack chopper hasn't even started yet, plus nag hasn't been fully tested and DRDO has been having problems with it as of last reports. South Africa was interested in buying these for their chopper but then the deal never came through.I wish we would really get out of this fantasy world and get with the program, We keep wishing for unrealistic goals. first we have to make DRDO and army engineers work together and come up with a solid tank fast, based on experience gained from Arjun shouldn't take that long.and then also work on T-90 deal, bring them in fast and have them as front line tanks, and develope a 2nd line of defense lighter tanks. maintain only two types of tanks in large quantity.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>2.Type98 is not being given to pakisatan.Its the type-90-2,norinco...which is being man. as the alkalid.3.T55's-T59's in paki-chinese parlance are being brpought upto alzarrar standard.They ill at best be a poor mans t72.Indian t55s were upgraed with a new fcs,and L7105mm long time back.Admittedly,the 105mm is an old piece as compared to teh 125mm they're shoehorning into the cramped old t59 cabin.4.We do.5.??6.Avadi was operating at 40% capacity because of lack of funds..nothing else nothing more. Not something which the CAG-beancounter extraordinaire realises.7.The t72 upgrade conceived by DRDO is pretty comprehensive...not T90 standards butmost of the same.8.we have quite a few Mi25's/35's..going thru a comprehensive avionics upgrade.Besides,which the IAF has an overwhelming adavantage when it comes to CAS. Regards, nitin

Prateek · Post by **Prateek** » 24 Jul 2001 03:09

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by nitin: 8.we have quite a few Mi25's/35's..going thru a comprehensive avionics upgrade.Besides,which the IAF has an overwhelming adavantage when it comes to CAS. Regards, nitin<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I don't think so .... IAF only has a marginal advantage over TSP. I say this considering the fact that, if we are at war with TSP next time, We not only will have to overwhelm TSP, but should be in a position to deter the Chinese airforce.

Sumair · Post by **Sumair** » 24 Jul 2001 04:33

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by prakashkukreja: Also, when two enemies are next to each other and the total battle field is 400 miles wide then, massive aerial bombing is not that easy. What we keep forgetting is they are not going to sit and watch. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Would you kindly explain why it is not easy, considering the a very small size of their air force, which is still operating 2nd genration air crafts other than 32 F16s. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> By the way most of our ground attack aircraft need upgrades except Jaguars, as far as I know.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> At present our fleet of Jaguars is more than enough for the job. Soon they will be joined by multirole aircrafts like Su30MKI, LCAs and S 37s. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>if fast moving and small Cobra's are venerable, then how do you think Mi-35s would survive. Russians had the highest rate of loss for the Mi-35s. There was a good article done on them in World Air Power Journal. I would suggest you to read it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You seem to be ignoring IAF's superiorty. Both choppers would be operating in different environments. Indian choppers would not be threatened by air attacks. As for MANPADS, though a nusense would not be deciding factor. The reason I don’t feel too threatened from the Al Khalids is because: 1. Pakistan cannot field a significant number in near future (300 by 2007) 2. Unlike Pakistan, Indian war planners don’t see armored columns as the primary offensive force. Air force is designated for that role. Tanks go in for mop-up and occupation only after the air force has softened the target area. T90s (India is in negotiation to produce in large quantity under license) and T72s which are light and highly menuverable are very suitable for that job.

rama · Post by **rama** » 24 Jul 2001 04:50

Muddur, Nitin was talking specifically about IAF's superiority in CAS and it is hard to argue that he is mistaken. Look at PAF's strike platforms: Mirage III/V's are notorious for mediocre low altitude/low speed handling and A-5's are being retired and in any case had the endurance x loadout of a baby sparrow. In the meanwhile IAF pilots kill themselves, literally, to sharpen their low flying skills in Mig21/Mig23/Mig27 and Jaguars. Mobility of MBT's: Here's the kicker, superior logistics. PA does a lightning thrust and makes gains in a specific sector, to find.... IA MBT squadrons in front of and behind them dropped in the dead of the night - courtesy IAF Il-76's. Want mobility, buy more Gajraj's. IA's de-emphasis on spending $ on MBT's makes sense. Tank battles and large gains of territories are probably history in the Indo-Pak scenario for political/strategic reasons. If PA wants to blow money on them, all power to them. Meanwhile we can buy some stuff we will actually use - like artillery that shoots the daylights out of them if they try another Kargil. With WLRs to spot them first. And self propulsion to get out of the way when they eventually spot us.

Shirish · Post by **Shirish** » 24 Jul 2001 05:51

Rama one IL76 can carry only 1 T-72 or 2 BMP2s. T-72s are not airdropped. How is a fleet of IL-76s going to land in the middle of battle, in day or night ?

rama · Post by **rama** » 24 Jul 2001 07:39

IA merely seems to have de-emphasized MBT's, not totally junked them. More specifically, they have shied from making too many $ investments in them - specifically Arjun. PA has the momentum on MBT's right now, but that *has* to be recognized as a temporary situation. A few years ago the situation was IA ( 1000 T72's, 1000 Vijayantas, 1000 T-55s) vs PA ( 100 T85, 1000 T55, 500 M47/48) , i.e. IA had a clear quantitative and qualitative edge. Today it is IA ( *2000* T72, 500 Vijayanta, 500 T55) vs PA ( 300 T80, 200 T85, 1000 T55, 200 M47/48). A few years from now ,it looks like it will be IA (500 T90, 1000 T72 upgraded to quasi-T90 standards, 1000 T72, 500 T55s upgraded to quasi T72 standards) vs PA ( 300 AlKhalids, 300 T80, 200 T85 and 500 T55 upgraded to quasiT72 standards). This is a very superficial (since I know didly about MBTs) view of the situation and the numbers are very very approximate to reality. But it makes the point, namely that given the current trends IA will regain a qualitaitve parity/edge wrt PA in MBT's while holding on all along to a decisive numerical edge. *All* os IA's MBT fleet is available to counter PA. MBT's are not very useful against China.Also, while discussing things like "why dont we pour money into MBT's" it is most important to consider war strategies, because if we are second guessing the people who are actually doing the stuff - we ought to be limited by their constraints as well.Shirish: The Il-76 scenario described was somewhat facetious, but only just. Suppose tomorrow hell brakes loose, and in a particular sector a regiment of Paki T84's manages a breakthough. Will they rumble all the way to the Red Fort. No! We may very well see even our limited Il-76 fleet rushing a couple of regiments of T-72s (yes one sortie at a time) to the nearest forward airbase and changing limited local scenarios literally overnight - i.e. exactly counter the kind of breakthroughs PA is dreaming about. [This message has been edited by rama (edited 23-07-2001).]

Nandai · Post by **Nandai** » 24 Jul 2001 14:53

Sumair, why did you go and bring in a technology demonstrator into your reasoning, thats all the S-37 is, and will continue to be.------------------ NandaiSince time began, the dead alone know peace. Life is like melting snow.

Vick · Post by **Vick** » 24 Jul 2001 23:39

This is what a modern shoulder fired AT missle can do to a T-72 or derivatives. Pretty impressive. <A HREF="http://home.hiwaay.net/~sickler/opforst ... eVsT72.mpg" TARGET=_blank>http://home.hiwaay.net/~sickler/opforst ... T72.mpg</A> [This message has been edited by Vick (edited 24-07-2001).]

Vishak · Post by **Vishak** » 25 Jul 2001 00:28

Hello, Well, the reason why we can't use a gas turbine engine in our Arjun or any other tank, is due the problem of over heating in deserts...Right? Howcome, M1A1's proved to be pretty successful in Iraq? If I'm right, at the initial stages of conflict, about 10 M1's were ambused by around 28-30 Iraqi T-72s and the outcome was, all T-72s got shot down without any loses of Abrams. My question here is, didn't US face the problem of over heating during 'Operation Desert Storm'? Is T-95 operational? Just my thoughts

. Thank You.

Rudra · Post by **Rudra** » 25 Jul 2001 01:50

afaik, whatever problems were there in initial M1s were meticulously fixed since time & expense were not a problem. I think PA had some sand ingestion problems during their trials (yah, those were the days for PA, M1A1s in pipeline, f16s in the skies, yindoos set to be thrashed...)the main objection to gsa_turbine was - none except avco-lycoming(USA) has a 1500hp proven plant around late 1970s when arjun plant was decided. relations with USA were less than cordial.- krauss-maffel had good experience with integratin the MTU engine. infact it was all a sunk investment for the leo2A4 project. krauss-maffel must have called the initial design shots.- high cost of jet fuel needed to run the plant compared to cheap & economical diesel.

Peeyoosh · Post by **Peeyoosh** » 25 Jul 2001 09:28

Most of Punjab and Rajasthan is not very good chopper territory - low rolling pains without much tree cover. It would be BI/CAS oeprations using Mig 27s/Jags and Mig 21 Mongols.The emphasis my be on throttling supply columns feeding any push as much as the spearhead itself.More to the point manpads do not provide an effective deterrent agasint air ops. I would have thought Kargil demonstrated that.Peeyoosh

Rudra · Post by **Rudra** » 25 Jul 2001 20:30

it will take time , money and willingness to sacrifice some territory in the short term if IAF is to be the main force to deal with their Strike corps.I fully support this strategy instead of devoting our own strike corps to a reactive mode trying to block or deter their armour thrusts. we should be out seeking our own opportunities in the flanks or what not.Bagging their tanks with artillery is very tough. you would need constant real time UAV surveiilance (day + night) to direct arty fire with any chance of success at a moving convoy. moreover as demoed in kargil, they seem to have enuf fire-finder radars in working order to make life very bad for guns that dont change position quickly. this takes time and hard work and meantime the column keeps advancing.same problem for MLRS, real time data is needed. maybe the searher/nishant armed with a thermal camera is a soln but these are very vulnerable to Manpads.these columns will halt at some point to re-arm, rest (maybe change crews) , small repair etc. But again, PA will be smart enuf to camoulflage them quickly, perhaps with heat containing metallic lined blankets and vegetation that will escape the eye of roving thermal cameras. I think thats when a long range Smerch or IAF strike has best chance to wipe them out if they can be located. but thats a penetration of around 40-50km on day1 which Indian politicians will need to accept as the ebb and flow of the war. They must not panic and push the alarm bells to sue for peace.PAF will provide 'business class' air cover for these incursions both against indian forces and IAF.given the improvement in India's international relations, maybe this new strategy is based on the understanding that unlike in the past the international community would be willing to sit aside and let India prosecute a 1-2 month war to destroy the offensive capability of PA/PAF as long as Paks existence is not seriously threatened....unlike the 2-week wars of past.PA is going with its usual strategy of striking hard , fast and then crying and calling on the Faithful to answer their prayers when it looks like India's mobilization is complete, the first offensive has run out of steam and India is poised to strike some of its own blows. this is probably the 14th day mark. all our efforts should be to drag it out as long as feasible.

Vick · Post by **Vick** » 25 Jul 2001 21:22

I agree with Rudra, India's advantages of numbers and depth come into play in a long drawn war of 2-4 months. While TSP's strength is in quick blows where they choose the time and place.I guess the an analogy that comes to mind is that TSP is a motor-bike and India is a steam roller. A mo-bike can make quick strikes but once the steam roller gets the mo-bike it's all over for the mo-bike. Please don't criticize me too much for that analogy.

Once the Indian war machine gets going it will be pretty hard for TSP to manage. Their best bet is for quick and deep (50km) penetration and then whine for peace. India's best bet is to absorb the initial blow while minimizing losses and then once the pieces are in place, sledgehammer them.

JCage · Post by **JCage** » 25 Jul 2001 23:19

Rama, Thanks.Peeyoosh, Punjab etc not Chopper country..good point...but the Mi25/35 series chaps are for fast hit and run sorties.They arent going to loiter around behind features/terrain and designate and launch.All previous reports have mentioned to the sock and scram type of attack.Of course,the puki cobras will be more of the hide and seek types. But it does seem that fast ,hit and run attacks will be prone to manpads and consequent attrition...if done in daylight and prone to detection. The upgrades also confer a *night attack* ability...very important..coz if the attack is at night(unless the pukes decide to have a stroll in the day)..it doesnt matter if the terrain is featureless..no tree/ravines etc...they cant detect the chopper till it is way too late..the sound of the blades is iirc cant be used to get a "fix"..might be anywhere.Regards, nitin [This message has been edited by nitin (edited 25-07-2001).]

Amitabh · Post by **Amitabh** » 25 Jul 2001 23:50

More to the point manpads do not provide an effective deterrent agasint air ops. I would have thought Kargil demonstrated that.Hmm. I thought Kargil actually showed how effective manpads are. The IAF was forced to strictly control the flight paths of its strike aircraft, and to make sure that they did not stray from these. The burden of attacks shifted to Mirages with stand-off bombs.Attacking moving tanks will necessitate rocket attacks and the like. I suspect manpads like Anza and RBS-70 will take a toll. I have heard Indian army folks say that Igla will take care of the Cobras. That might be hyperbolic, but perhaps Anza/RBS-70 will be as effective against Mi-35s/MiG-27s? You can't assume away the AD "bubble". Even if the PA does another Longewala.

Which brings me to the last point (that has already been made I think), that air superiority over an attacking Pakistani force will probably be contested. They don't have much, but they will concentrate their F-7s right in that area and try and disrupt our air attacks.[This message has been edited by Amitabh (edited 25-07-2001).]

Vishak · Post by **Vishak** » 26 Jul 2001 00:02

Hello, I'm unable to understand India's situation on rotor wing aircrafts. Are these people satisfied with the peformance of Mi-25/35? I read an article in 'India Today'(about 4-5 months back edition), about a report about the status of existing helicopters in IAF: "The existing Mi25/35 attack helicopters cannot operate at altitude excess of 15,000ft. This was a major handicap to the IAF during Kargil, as most of the fighting took place around this altitude. Moreover, these helicopters are severly vulnerable to shoulder fired SAMs. Although, an upgradation is going on by Taman Division of IAI of improving the avionics, which includes night attack capability, the IAF has expressed its desire for the acquisition of more 'dedicated' attack choppers like the Ka-50, Roovialk-2 (is the spelling correct...?). The Mi-25/35 is further vulnerable due to its poor maneuverability" [Please note that, I've posted only the gist of the article and not the complete article itself

]. So, well...what is India's decision about purchasing these new 'dedicated' attack copters? As many of you have posted here, the best way to defeat armored vehicles especially tanks is by copters+ATGMs (my thoughts...

). Well, if India invests more on copters than tanks, wouldn't be more fruitfull? I remember reading in Janes about a variant of Hellfire either being developed or already developed, which uses GPS for guidance. This means 'fire & forget' capability! Does any Russian ATGMs like AT-9, AT-12 or AT-16 have this type of capability or is being developed? Thank You. Vishak.

Vick · Post by **Vick** » 26 Jul 2001 00:14

Let's not forget that the IA still has numbers. A lot of people flog the line that TSP is better at armor because they can crank out more Al-Khalids than we can Arjun-MBTs but there is a flip side: While the T-72 may not be as apt as the Al-Khalid the IA has 1100+ T-72s in various states of upgradation.A misconception can be that tank-on-tank battles only involve tanks. That is not so, it also involves APCs and logistics. In that case as well the IA is ahead in numbers. The IA can throw more tanks, APCs, and infantry with Milan ATGMs, more logistic vehicles than the Pakis can.Also, the IA can maintain a higher operational status even after taking higher losses.With the Al-Khalids and T-80s let's assume a best case availability in the desert of 90% (worst case being ~70-75%) that gives them 550 frontline tanks (worst case 420-450) after day two without sustaining any losses. Next let's say about an optimistic (for Pakis) scenario where ~15% (unoptomistically 30%) are lost as casualties. That will leave them with 468 tanks in a best-best scenario (294 in a worst-worst scenario) after two days of fighting.Now we can do the same for rest of their tanks and come out with some sort of numbers. Then we can do that with IA tanks and see after the end of two days of fighting where things stand numerically.BTW, I pulled out the 90% availibity from British armor performance during GW1.[This message has been edited by Vick (edited 25-07-2001).]