TSP: Al-Khalid MBT rolls out

Sumair · Post by **Sumair** » 26 Jul 2001 08:51

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Rudra Singha: 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. 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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> How did you arrive at this conclusion? Pakistan could not make that deep a penetration in previous wars (Chamb not withstanding because of wrong calculations by our war planners and lack of intel) when they had superior weaponry. What makes you think they can achieve this now when there is such a huge disparity in favor of India? I don’t know about Rajasthan border but Punjab border is so heavily fortified, Pakistan cannot make deep penetration even if there was no armored to defend against them. There is a extensive network of twenty foot deep channels supported by River Bias, which when flooded can be any where from half to a kilometer wide. Secondly, what is the big deal about rolling out of Al-Khalids that has caused every one to predict doom and gloom? It is 300 HUNDERED TANKS IN SIX YEARS, of unknown capability. At best they are equivalent to Russian T90s, which we are going to have in thousands. Also by 2006 Indian army plans to induct 250 Light Attack Helicopters. This by the way is not some dream DRDO project but a very real one. HAL is working on this project with collaboration with EuroCoppter. Many sub systems are to be common with ALH. [QUOTE] PAF will provide 'business class' air cover for these incursions both against indian forces and IAF.[QUOTE]With what?

Sumair · Post by **Sumair** » 26 Jul 2001 08:54

Guys can some one please tell me what IIRC and IMHO stand for.Thanks in advance.

Rudra · Post by **Rudra** » 26 Jul 2001 10:04

How did you arrive at this conclusion? Pakistan could not make that deep a penetration in previous wars (Chamb not withstanding because of wrong calculations by our war planners and lack of intel) when they had superior weaponry. >> you mean t80u and al-khalid is worse than pattons ? it does not take very superior weaponry to achieve results, just right timing, training and tactics. I assume you shall deign to grant atleast that to the creme of the PA - the ARN and ARS ?What makes you think they can achieve this now when there is such a huge disparity in favor of India? >> India has a huge disparity in semi-obsolete and obsolete tanks at present. Ofcourse how to field all these tanks at the right points to gain this overwhelming advantage is to be seen ... you dont seem to have put some thought into it. A batallion of vijantas sitting on a siding in M.P. because some bridge was damaged by a SSG saboteur(s) isnt much use in Jammu. I don’t know about Rajasthan border but Punjab border is so heavily fortified, Pakistan cannot make deep penetration even if there was no armored to defend against them. There is a extensive network of twenty foot deep channels supported by River Bias, which when flooded can be any where from half to a kilometer wide.>> they said many such things about the 'line of death' in iraq, the maginot line etc. Secondly, what is the big deal about rolling out of Al-Khalids that has caused every one to predict doom and gloom? It is 300 HUNDERED TANKS IN SIX YEARS, of unknown capability. >> a prudent nation always prepares 10 times more than necessary. I am sure indian tankers would much prefer to face T-55s than a tank thats equal/better than the upgraded T-72s with some T-80U elements! its a big deal for them.this tank also has plenty mobility. 1200hp for a 45t tank is the upper end of scale.add 125mm DU sino-israeli ammo.At best they are equivalent to Russian T90s, which we are going to have in thousands.>> totally incorrect. the deal is for 300 only.Also by 2006 Indian army plans to induct 250 Light Attack Helicopters. >> again incorrect. HAL cannot produce that many for IA AND meet the navy and iaf demands at same time. no funds are there for such a huge fleet.PAF will provide 'business class' air cover for these incursions both against indian forces and IAF.[QUOTE] With what?>> Mirage-III for CAS, F-7MG for pestering IAF CAS.

VivekT · Post by **VivekT** » 26 Jul 2001 11:11

Just a small point, turbine engines (like those used in the M1 Abrams) can run on virtually any fuel - right from jet fuel to petrol, diesel and kerosene.The engine performance is similar with all the fuels, but jet fuel makes the engine last longer.as a side note Su-25s are designed to run directly off any fuel. You just have to drain the tanks of the previous fuel and fill them with whatever is locally available (I think it can even run on alcohol - but I am not too sure about this...quite a good idea though-running an airplane on vodka). I've also heard that the Mi-24 series has this possiblilty, but I heard that on another discussion forum and is unconfirmed. There is a version of the Mi-17 that runs on natural gas. It uses jet fuel for take off (when it needs maximum power) then switches to natural gas in-flight.

Nandai · Post by **Nandai** » 26 Jul 2001 14:09

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Vishak_kn: 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!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Are you sure, a GPS guided ATGM, it cant be very accurate, or does it have some other means of guidance too. There is a fire & forget Hellfire version under development, it has already been testfired and will probablt be fielded soon, the british Brimstone.

jrjrao · Post by **jrjrao** » 26 Jul 2001 18:00

Followingup on Vick's post and link earlier, do take a look at this slide-show (even more impressive than the video) of the Javelin missile disintegrating a T-72 tank. BTW, Javelin is a fire and forget anti-armor missile, with just a 6.4 kg warhead (tandem shape-charged). This slide show is annotated, and shows how the engine of the T72 got thrown about 65 meters from impact, and the tank-tracks even further. The cannon got separated and almost buried in the ground. It is amazing what damage such a small size warhead can do to a modern tank. Apparently, the Javelin will have similar success against all expected anti-Nato armored vehicles... <A HREF="http://home.hiwaay.net/~sickler/opforst ... deshow.ppt" TARGET=_blank>http://home.hiwaay.net/~sickler/opforst ... how.ppt</A>

Rudra · Post by **Rudra** » 26 Jul 2001 18:31

Over at tanknet, there a discussion of the similar looks of the new PRC heavy-ATGM called Red Arrow 9 to the Israeli Magat (?). Both are tow_2 derivatives designed to do better than tow_2. A big dog of a missile.May not be long before PA starts on it, as their TOW inventory is almost 10-15 yrs old now. Shelf life ? Anyway its not as easy as it sounds to bag a modern alert tank with a laser beam or radio command rider. suppose a APC 3000m distant, hull-down behind a sandberm lets loose a ATGM. A alert tank commander will spot the flash (esp at night), designate the target to the gunner who can nail the APC _thru the sand_.India doesnt have any a/c I believe with ATGM capability. only helos which again can be driven off my a dense MANPADS cover at the edges of the area. rockets will work against APCs or the engine area of tanks, probably wont against frontal armour. they are not sure shot bets. computer controlled release of dumb bombs wont have much of an impact of the tanks are weaving and running around. a cheapo laser/IR guided bomb like maverick is whats needed. or else a saturation carpet bombing with 6 x 1000lb each. or better yet, top-attack submunitions from a wind-corrected dispenser.I was amazed to see aerial photos of indo-pak 1971 wherein an area of sand with many Pak tanks destroyed by SU-7s was shown. the patterns were snakelike, I dunno how the pilots managed to 'lead' accurately with rocket fire against such weaving prey.Down with the PA!!

HariC · Post by **HariC** » 26 Jul 2001 23:51

Rama, I don't think your number of Pakistani T-85 tanks are correct. According to Jane's encyclopedia of Armor and Artillary Pakistan has about 600-800 T-85 in its inventory, and the number of T-55 is about 1200.

Sumair · Post by **Sumair** » 27 Jul 2001 04:59

“ you mean t80u and al-khalid is worse than pattons ? it does not take very superior weaponry to achieve results, just right timing, training and tactics.I assume you shall deign to grant atleast that to the creme of the PA - the ARN and ARS ?”I meant Paki weaponry was considered superior to that of India at the time, owing to its American origin. Why grant them anything, you are assuming all this while ignoring a very important variable, Indian Army.“India has a huge disparity in semi-obsolete and obsolete tanks at present.”If Indian armoured consisting of 2000+ T72s and 300 T90s among others is obsolete, then what would you say about Paki armoured in its present state: 600+ T55s, 1200 T59s, 200 T69s, 200+ T85s and 310 T80UDs. All Paki tanks are of Chinese origin other than T80Uds. (Definitely not a strength) “ I don’t know about Rajasthan border but Punjab border is so heavily fortified, Pakistan cannot make deep penetration even if there was no armored to defend against them. There is a extensive network of twenty foot deep channels supported by River Bias, which when flooded can be any where from half to a kilometer wide. >> they said many such things about the 'line of death' in iraq, the maginot line etc. “ Pakistan is no US and we are no Iraq. Besides crossing a 1000-meter fast flowing river is not as simple as going over or blasting through some sand dunes. Backside of this river is defended with armored brigades located in Firozepur, Amritsar, Bathinda, Kapurthala and jallandhar. All of this fall under western command that has its own strike corp based in Ambala designed to drive a wedge in the middle of Pakistan. Under new combat strategy where three forces work in a synergy, all army operation are to get combat air support from forward air bases located in Adampur, Bhathinda and Chandigarh. Air squadrons from these bases operate both ground attack and air superiority aircrafts.“ At best they are equivalent to Russian T90s, which we are going to have in thousands. >> totally incorrect. the deal is for 300 only” 1. During the deal George Fernandes was saying that India plans to build a lot more than just 300. 2. 10 Billion dollar defense cooperation deal with Russia mentions tanks. 3. Talk of 1000+ Vijayantas to be replaced with upgraded T72s and T90s. Draw your own conclusions. Also by 2006 Indian army plans to induct 250 Light Attack Helicopters. >> again incorrect. HAL cannot produce that many for IA AND meet the navy and iaf demands at same time. no funds are there for such a huge fleet. Crying poverty to further your argument is not prudent when you know India is not shying away from spending billions to modernize its armed forces: (10 billion with Russia on defence cooperation, 2 billion with Israel, 750 million for the a/c carrier, 700 million for T90s, 500 million iirc for scorpions to name the few) “PAF will provide 'business class' air cover for these incursions both against indian forces and IAF.[QUOTE] With what? >> Mirage-III for CAS, F-7MG for pestering IAF CAS.” You must be joking. Do you think Indias got some 116 Jaguars, 200 Mig27s, 70+ Mig29s, 50+ Mirages and 140 Su30s (not even counting a host of others) to showcase in a museum somewhere? OHH I get it, it must be that since we are facing ALMIGHTY Paki pilots there second generation planes are going to out perform anything that we throw at them. J

Rudra · Post by **Rudra** » 27 Jul 2001 06:16

Yah! tell that to Sumair...he wont believe you.

hegde · Post by **hegde** » 27 Jul 2001 11:33

prakash, TSP has mavericks? u mean AGM-65s?when did they get those, and are they supposed to be still working?what TSPAF planes support those?

rama · Post by **rama** » 27 Jul 2001 11:35

According to Vassily Fofanov's site the Indian T-90S has the original engine replaced with a new 1000hp V-92S2 diesel, rather than the 840hp original engine. I.e. it's P/W ratio is something like 21.7. According to him the T-80U also has a 1000 hp diesel. <A HREF="http://members.dencity.com/fofanov/Tanks/" TARGET=_blank>http://members.dencity.com/fofanov/Tanks/</A> Also the T-90 is better armored than the T-80UD (we dont know about Al Khalid), this is as per (IIRC) Jim Warford's data posted on BR some time ago. It shows in the firing tests also on the same site, where similar weapons did more damage to T-80 with or without ERA.How much better is Al-Khalid than the T-80UD?

hegde · Post by **hegde** » 27 Jul 2001 12:02

Guys look at pic of Al Khalid

what are those small pods on both sides of the turret? they look like midget rocket launchers. or are they some electronic sensors?

hegde · Post by **hegde** » 27 Jul 2001 12:29

acually, they have conducted trials and i saw one video of that only, on their tv channel PTV world. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Vijay_R: Much of the prowess of the alleged 'Al Khalid' tin ka dabba junk is on paper. The puki rats have never conducted trials for public view. And IMHO, the manufacturing capacity is vastly exaggerated. The Takshashila factory I believe was originally constructed to rehaul chinese built tanks. I doubt it has the capacity to manufacture 'Al-Khalid' tin ka dabbas in such large numbers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aniruddha N · Post by **Aniruddha N** » 27 Jul 2001 13:02

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by hegde: Guys look at pic of Al Khalid

what are those small pods on both sides of the turret? they look like midget rocket launchers. or are they some electronic sensors?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> They are probably smokescreen dispensors or flare/chaff dispensers to counter ATGMs

Nandai · Post by **Nandai** » 27 Jul 2001 15:10

Hegde, do you mean the 2 squares on the side of the turrets, those are ERA tiles, them other things which look like they are stuck to the side of the turret are smokegrenade launchers.------------------ NandaiSince time began, the dead alone know peace. Life is like melting snow.

darshand · Post by **darshand** » 27 Jul 2001 15:11

The launchers on both sides of the turret are smoke grenade launchers - nothing new almost all tanks have them right there. Darshan

rama · Post by **rama** » 27 Jul 2001 21:19

Prakash, You may have to do better than "I dont believe that site". On tanknet Mr Fofanov has a fairly good rep - as far as I can see. Besides, on the armoring, BR has archived the armor thread and it was Paul Lakowski who provided hard data that backs up the claim. <A HREF="http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/ubb/Archi ... 02230.html" TARGET=_blank>http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/ubb/Archi ... 30.html</A> In that thread, there is mention of T-90's withstanding Konkurs *without* any ERA in Chechnya. Some of Chechnya as you will recall was the worst scenarios for MBT - ie urban fighting where light ATGMs can have the scenario they desire.Additionally, if India is buying the tank with an uprated engine of 1000 HP, it is easy for an armchair QB to conclude that this choice is "good enough".

JCage · Post by **JCage** » 27 Jul 2001 22:43

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by prakashkukreja: ramamy argument is T-90S has no proven record. I don't think even Russians have even fully deployed in their army. Is it confirmed that they have used them in Chechnya. Also, Russian army's proven record in Chechnya is not very good either.Also armour of a tank can be inproved later on such as addon armour and in a new tank such as al-khalid or arjun new technology can be deployed later on in casting the hull.T-90S even with a 1000hp engine is under powered. We need at least 1200 if not more.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The t90s like other russian "prototypes" did see service in chechnya.The russian have deployed a no. of T90S 's in their army..they cant deploy more because of a very basic reason..no money. Russian experience in chechnya isnt an indication that all their stuff is junk..it just shows that they underestimated their enemy....and there are a host of other factors-lack of motivation,corruption etc.when you refer to modular armour..fine..but note that the T90 employs ERA in much the same way.Casting the hull???Thats a job done once and finished with.Modular armour packages are applied for "high risk" areas -turret front,facets etc.Regarding mobility.1000hp is decent enough to get the job done.The IA would have had reasons to choose the T90 over the arjun(sigh!)..the prime criteria being mobility. Dont take asian age reportage as the holy grail...they are anything but that.Regards, nitin

rama · Post by **rama** » 27 Jul 2001 22:43

Oh, and the AlKhalid or the T80UD have combat records? Or -if needed- it is impossible for up-engining to be done later?The IA - clearly - has some $ constraints and logistical concerns in mind in addition to buying MBTs. So they have to go for "good enough" - not the best money can buy. There is no doubt that the "European style" MBTs (of which Arjun is one) are better than the "Russian style" ones (to which T90,T80, ALKhalid belong). If you are saying that T90 is worse than T80UD and/or Al-Khalid, please provide data to back it up. Other than ofcourse, engine HP because we are not necessarily comparing top speeds of MBTs. Armor, gun & ammo, FCS's, defensive suites - all of these matter, may be more. And the T-90 appears to be the same or better on all of these counts wrt the other 2.

Phil · Post by **Phil** » 29 Jul 2001 00:26

Army officers have stated that the army cannot manage three tank programs at the same time due to financial constraints, i.e. T-72M1 upgrade, T-90 purchase and Arjun Mk.1 development. The question is how do we go about this problem? The Army, under Operation Bison, plans to 'fully' upgrade only 200 tanks and the remaining will be 'partially' upgraded based on their battleworthiness. 200 upgraded T-72M1s means only 3+ armoured regiments @ 55 tanks per regiment. Not enough to counter the 320 T-80UDs and the now-being-inducted Al-Khalid.What is the maximum output of the Heavy Vehicles Factory at Avadi? Are we producing a limited number of tanks because of financial constraints or because the infrastructure can support only that much? Has production of the T-72M1 at Avadi stopped? With the delays in Arjun Mk.1, it is likely that additional T-90s will be produced. I say that let Arjun take its time to develop (who knows when!), license produce T-90s and upgrade the T-72s - partially or completely. Isn't that what they are doing now?

Rupak · Post by **Rupak** » 29 Jul 2001 00:37

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Feroze: What is the maximum output of the Heavy Vehicles Factory at Avadi? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>HVF has a capacity to produce 400 tanks a year and OF Medak can produce upto 700 BMPs a year.

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 29 Jul 2001 01:19

incompetent indians have built 32 Arjuns plus LRP of 15 and producition of 124 is on.What i wanted to know how many Al khalids have actually been built?is there are thing called prototypes or imports in pakistan or they have already perfected the green paint in colloboration with ICI. though i heard one paki got caught/arrested trying to smuggle titanium powder for the paint. hence they have switche to black Tar.

Phil · Post by **Phil** » 29 Jul 2001 01:26

HVF has a capacity to produce 400 tanks a year and OF Medak can produce upto 700 BMPs a year.How many T-72M1s are actually being produced at HVF? How many are entering service?700 BMPs, yet production stands at only 100/year. Damn these budget constraints!

Rudra · Post by **Rudra** » 29 Jul 2001 01:27

All said and done the Al-Khalid ~45t and T-98 is 48t. same for T-90.So you can guess how much protection and redundancy they can have compared to NATO sized MBTs. the smallest among the biggies starts around 56t. The obese M1a2 sep comes in around 68t.

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 29 Jul 2001 05:21

You guys are forgetting the most important concept and simple concept that even the first year IA cadets will never forget or they will find themselves cleaning the latrines for a year. LOGISTICS!! LOGISTICS!!The reason why IA did not go for the Arjuns because it would totally screw up their logistics system. The government was unwilling to give the money to build the infrastructure necessary to support and maintain the Arjuns at a combat and military tempo. So with the given amount of money, IA realized that they could accomplish a great deal of things in terms of operational art if they get T-90s because of their compatibilities with existing infrastructure built for current T-72s tanks. Ask any tanker that buying 500 Abrams tanks will automatically give you superiority. The tankers will ask you, "Are we gonna get the trucks that carry those tanks, support vehicles that will support those tanks, facilities that can service and maintain those types of tanks, and are you gonna give us a bigger budget for gas, lubricants, and wheels bills? " IF you say no to any one of these questions, he will say, "are you out of your f***ing minds?" IA asked those types of questions to MoD and DRDO people. DRDO did not come up with support vehicles and maintenance vehicles necessary to maintain those Arjun tanks. MoD was unwilling to give any more money. SO there you have it. A T-90s, a tank that performs below Arjun's performance, but can coexist with IA's existing infrastructure for little cost and can satisfy the most impressing and necessary needs of modern tank warfare, and leave money to buy more trucks(the unsung backbone of any professional army), rifles, wheels, night vision goggles, missiles, training, pay raises(the most important indication of a professional army) to satisfy IA's other needs, OR Arjun, a tank, that performs better than any tank except Abrams and Leopard or Merkava, but requires enourmous investment in building infrastructure and retraining men to take apart, examine, fix and putting back together, rebuilding the bridges(most brideges on the border of Indo-Pak border are too weak and narrow to support Arjun tanks), such enourmous cost that it will take away money from other sectors such as training, weapons procurements such as trucks, rifles, night vision goggles, radios uniforms, food etc.The choice wasn't that hard to make. Now make the same analysis to PA armour. Do they have any existing facilities to service and maintain those new fancy toys? If they do, then they are a serious threat. If not, then it proves that the PA are a bunch of idiots. So any analysis to be meaningful, we must examine their logistics system and see what kind of assets and capabilities. Only then we can make some sort of assessment of their fighting capabilities, regardless whether they have Khalids, Abrahms, or some Star Wars All Terrain Assault machines.[This message has been edited by Hitesh (edited 28-07-2001).]

Rupak · Post by **Rupak** » 29 Jul 2001 05:24

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Feroze: 700 BMPs, yet production stands at only 100/year. Damn these budget constraints!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>HVF has seldom turned out over 200 tanks per year.

rama · Post by **rama** » 29 Jul 2001 22:38

To be fair on the Arjun debacle - the development was started when Pakistan had access to/ desire for western systems. When Arjun was being conceived, it had to be developed with the possibility of facing tanks like the M1. That did not happen, and it is very clear now what IA's opponents may look like.Hence some of their GSQR requirements may be somewhat irrelevant to IA. In which case they would be understandably reluctant to get a much smaller number of Arjuns in preference to T90.

Paul_L · Post by **Paul_L** » 30 Jul 2001 02:21

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Rudra Singha: All said and done the Al-Khalid ~45t and T-98 is 48t. same for T-90.So you can guess how much protection and redundancy they can have compared to NATO sized MBTs. the smallest among the biggies starts around 56t. The obese M1a2 sep comes in around 68t.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The problem with this logic is that the internal volume of Western tanks is 19-23 m^3 while the same volume of Russian/Chinese tanks is about 10-11m^3. Thus the armor component in a russian tank weights half as much as the same thickness on a western tank.Compare LEO-1 to T-72 the volumes are 16 m^3 and 11 m^3 and the weights are about the same But the T-72 armor mass reaches about 37-38cm steel on the front turret and 32-33cm armor mass on the glacis. While the max armor on the LEO-1 is about 23-25cm LOS thickness and the hull is about 14cm LOS thickness.These ultra high armor mass are achieved partly due to the increased concentration that the reduced volume affords .However the min front armor on the T-72 is 18cm -20cm steel , not that different from the LEO-1 armor mass.

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 30 Jul 2001 19:38

Paul I have been dying to ask this q:-If you want to achieve say LEO-II type of armor thickness what would a T-72 weigh with its smaller internal volume?

Sumair · Post by **Sumair** » 01 Aug 2001 02:42

This is the difference between TSPians and us. We have the guts to criticize ourselves because we are really striving to be better. Pakis OTOH pretend to be the best. They hide their shortcomings hoping they will just go away. They gloat on Indian failures while forgetting for each failure there are ten successes. We fail because we try.

advitya · Post by **advitya** » 01 Aug 2001 06:50

What's the big deal about rolling out a single pre-production prototype?

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 01 Aug 2001 14:54

Some more details on the T-72 upgrade. <A HREF="http://www.stratmag.com/page02.htm#a01" TARGET=_blank>http://www.stratmag.com/page02.htm#a01</A>

Phil · Post by **Phil** » 02 Aug 2001 04:55

HVF has seldom turned out over 200 tanks per year.Rupak, do you know if T-72s are still being produced? If so, how many? Or has production stopped? The Stratmag link above since T-72 were inducted from 1970 to 1986.

Rupak · Post by **Rupak** » 02 Aug 2001 05:16

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Feroze: Rupak, do you know if T-72s are still being produced? If so, how many? Or has production stopped? The Stratmag link above since T-72 were inducted from 1970 to 1986.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Feroze, there are way too many inaccuracies in the Stratmag report. The T-72 was, IIRC first entered service during the first half of the 1980s. In 1970, we were still buying T-55s! Perhaps someone can fil you in on an exact date for the T-72.HVF, to the best of my knowledge is no longer producing T-72s. Although the last tanks were delivered as recently as 1998. During the 15 odd years that the T-72 has been built HVF has truned out well over 1,100 T-72s. The total T-72 procurement stands at around 1,800 tanks in some 35-36 regiments.

Pennathur · Post by **Pennathur** » 02 Aug 2001 05:19

What a laugh!! Dr.Bhatty of the Yawn can't think of quoting anyone else but Prem Shankar Jha!! A has been political correspondent is now being quoted on military matters!!!If the TSPA is going to rely on such ignorant analysts like Bhatty and Jha they need to have their heads examined!!

durvasa · Post by **durvasa** » 03 Aug 2001 15:54

We need to remember, unlike in previous wars, in future we don't need to reserve many land-based armour to counter possible China/East pakistan

thrust!! Most of the armour will be available for the Welcome ceremony!! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Type 2000 MBT is now being manufactured smoothly as AI Khalid Pakistan. NORINCO source released that Pakistan will finish assembling 15 tanks of this type by the end of this June ... by prakashkukreja..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> How do you now production process is SMOOTH!! Funny for an Indian (i suppose) to say this!! I thought they as of now have just 15, probably operationalised (pre-production as per Janes article)prototypes which they assemble/bought in the last 2 years!!For pukis (or even us Indians) to mass-produce a resonably advanced tank 'smoothly' is like saying US is producing their son-of-star-wars laser-blasters smoothly off the assembly line!! The skills required are way above previous puki experience!! India atleast has good past tank designing and building experience!! Any Idea how many of these are being inducted by PLA. If they are that good & Cheap, I am sure China must be looking for at least a couple of thousands for itself and exports (in addition to what it is doing to Pukis). Another Q!! Are there any tanks ( T72, Vijyanta, Arjun, Bhim, T90 whatever) being produced by us as of now or in next 3 years !! How many?? What are HVF or other factories doing?? assembling Daewoo Matiz!! -Pmittal[This message has been edited by durvasa (edited 03-08-2001).]

Rudra · Post by **Rudra** » 03 Aug 2001 19:09

The key to a strong army is a strong automobile industry. Every great producer of tanks (us, uk, france, germany, italy, japan) has a mightly auto industry which ensures design skills, engine, transmission, suspension, assembly line & supply chain.India govt must give all boost to auto industry so that these folks can also supply parts and sub-systems for final assembly maybe at HVF or wherever.Japan's aerospace industries is busy pushing the govt to allow them export of parts and complete systems.

Skanhai · Post by **Skanhai** » 03 Aug 2001 20:21

Rudra, you're forgetting the former USSR. Now big automobile industry, but they produce top of the line tanks. Just y thoughts.

George J · Post by **George J** » 04 Aug 2001 01:37

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Skanhai: Rudra, you're forgetting the former USSR. No(w) big automobile industry, but they produce top of the line tanks. Just y thoughts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <A HREF="http://neptune.spaceports.com/~andyscar/gaz3111.html" TARGET=_blank>http://neptune.spaceports.com/~andyscar/gaz3111.html</A> It looks better than the ubiquitous LADA or the CCCP polibureau ZIL.Just coz they dont make lousy Grand Ams that does not mean they dont have an respectable automobile industry ya know. [This message has been edited by George J (edited 03-08-2001).]