Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Amitabh · Post by **Amitabh** » 31 Oct 2008 12:36

Man, is that one ugly beast, compared with Israel's Achzarit, the original T-55 conversion. Maybe you do need more top protection in an urban combat environment, but it sure won't win any design awards (and I am not sure about the "first rate human engineering" bit either).

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 Oct 2008 15:58

well not a Nemer for sure, but atleast its spacious and could be
ACfied if powers that rule relent.

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 31 Oct 2008 19:00

BMP series are just too lightly protected. We need heavier APC in the nature of ABHAY OR something built of chassis of T-72/90

narayana · Post by **narayana** » 04 Nov 2008 09:39

Polish defence minister to visit India

did he come to India to finalize the T-72 upgrade stuff?

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 04 Nov 2008 10:28

Pardon me if its too much of a newbie question, but looking at APCs and tanks of of other countries, one notices that their shape is different as compared to Indian vehicles like Arjun and APC posted above.

Indian armoured vehicles look blocky with no inclined slopes to deflect shells, while other vehicles like T-90, Abrams etc. have the external plates at some angle.
I was talking to a ex-serviceman who was a tank gunner in 1971 war. He said that its much more difficult to destroy such tanks.
Except for more space, is there any other advantage?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 04 Nov 2008 12:00

I know nothing about the t-55 APC above as soutikghosh hasn't enlightened us about the source.

but the arjun doesn't require sloped armour to protect itself, the current armour is adequate for that. trust me on this.

as a matter of fact the ceramic blocks themselves perform best when they are perpendicular to the projectile. to arrange ceramic blocks perpendicular to incoming projectile direction in triangular prismatic cavities would require oodles of space.
don't worry, have curry, as they say !

KiranM · Post by **KiranM** » 04 Nov 2008 15:33

Rahul M wrote: as a matter of fact the ceramic blocks themselves perform best when they are perpendicular to the projectile. to arrange ceramic blocks perpendicular to incoming projectile direction in triangular prismatic cavities would require oodles of space.

Considering that a projectile can be incident on the armor at different degrees wont an armor with curvature be the best (to fit the 90 degrees philosophy of ceramic armor)? Just fantasizing.

soutikghosh · Post by **soutikghosh** » 05 Nov 2008 05:21

Rahul M wrote:I know nothing about the t-55 APC above as soutikghosh hasn't enlightened us about the source.

!

Source is:
http://ofbindia.gov.in/products/data/armoured/9.htm

I think this APC is sure to have some Israeli influence as they are the only one in the world who uses tank base heavy APCs like ACHZARIT, NAMERA better suited for Urban warfare scenarios. Russians also have something on this line known as BTR-TZ or something which is based on platform of T-55/T-62 with troop entrance from the rear.
This thing may be an Israeli/Russian clout along with their OFB/MOD friend to push this APC as interim APC solution or make better use of disbanded T-55s which will also help them in making some sweet mollahs as these are pure urban combat APC and India does'nt face any urban combat hostilities/scenarios apart from Kashmir where such heavy tracked APCs are useless. There are number of shortcomings in this design like it's too boxy therefore making it easy target for RPG type projectiles without any slant edges to deflect the projectiles, the driver will be very uncomfortable driving this vehicle depending only on periscope to see around, based on very old chassis which are nearly atleast 35yrs+ age, will not be as flexible as mordern wheeled platform and in urban scenarios flexibility is the prime requirement. This platform will provide one thing for sure that is heavy protection but terrorists and foes are also innovating quite quicker these days, now a days instead of RPG attacks they are using multiple heavy IEDs some based on heavy 155mm shells which are even capable of ripping off and upturning heavy MBTs like M1A1 Abrams so how much use will our Indian project be will be a thing to be seen in future moreover Russian tank design are not suitable in urban closed scenarios and this has been proved many times over at various parts of the world. Israeli tanks/APC converts are especially suited for urban combats as they are of totally different design unlike other contemporary world design with super heavy armour, engine front nowadays also with active protection but still they suffered a few casualities in Lebanon. If this project gets ahead this will surely suck away money, focus/interest and talent/brain from important projects like that of future Indian APCs like ABHAY etc.

PS: Experts show some light in this regard, my points may be wrong.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 05 Nov 2008 09:01

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=10414

The 155 mm ERFB ammunition, developed for Bofors gun, is designed to achieve an extended range of 32 km, which is 25 per cent more than its normal range,"

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 05 Nov 2008 10:45

Army gives Israeli twist to Arjun tale

Wants machinery to be improved as suggested by Israel Military Industries

Josy Joseph. New Delhi

The army has added a few new twists, including an Israeli factor, to the ongoing Arjun tank saga, by agreeing to hold comparative trials between the indigenous tank and T-90 and T-72 tanks bought from Russia.
According to authoritative sources, army chief Gen Deepak Kapoor has written to defence minister AK Antony agreeing to hold the comparative trials, but it has put down several conditions for accepting the 124 Arjun tanks ordered earlier. This is the latest twist in the story of the indigenous Arjun tank, which has been under trial for 14 years now.
For the first 62 tanks, the army chief suggested several corrections based on the findings of the army team, which carried out exhaustive field trials of the tank. But what has added a new twist is the army demand that the second batch of 62 tanks be improved according to the standards laid down by the Israel Military Industries (IMI).
DRDO had called in IMI last year to assist it in design improvement and production engineering. But the IMI suggestions have become a fresh albatross around the research agencys neck, as it struggles to get the army to accept the Arjun.
The appointment of IMI as a consultant was surprising for many, but now the army has seized on the DRDO move. The army demand could further delay induction of the entire 124 tanks. “All the 124 hulls are ready. We dont know how we can now carry out major changes,” says a source involved in the Arjun project.
Ministry sources say they are looking at “getting at least 14 of them ready by February so that they can take part in summer trials alongside the T-90s and T-72s.” The army had for a long time resisted carrying out any comparative trials, but the army chief has now agreed to such trials.
Sources said the army chief has said the first 62 would be accepted with improved firing accuracy, better transmission system and some other minor changes. The transmission system, supplied by a German firm, would need some hardware improvement besides the software improvement carried out recently.
[email protected]

http://epaper.dnaindia.com/showstory.as ... %2012:00AM

Cheers....

Nitesh · Post by **Nitesh** » 05 Nov 2008 10:58

oops another twist in the saga, why everything needs to be so perfect when it is an indigenous system?

Anabhaya · Post by **Anabhaya** » 05 Nov 2008 11:13

because the IA wants to kill the Arjun come what may. Simply hopeless.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 Nov 2008 11:15

I assume the Abhay IFV is long dead and buried?

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 05 Nov 2008 13:45

If army wants to Kill Arjun then what is our super duper honest PM and DM doing?

Jaeger · Post by **Jaeger** » 05 Nov 2008 15:27

Singha wrote:I assume the Abhay IFV is long dead and buried?

there was some report couple of months ago that talked about the Abhay "Technology Development project" being completed successfully... I think we know what that means...

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 05 Nov 2008 15:34

"postmortem has been completed"

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 05 Nov 2008 15:38

Raj Malhotra wrote:If army wants to Kill Arjun then what is our super duper honest PM and DM doing?

I dont know about the DM. But IMHO, the PM is too high an authority to look into such issues. Agreed, its a matter of great concern (defence of our country/ efforts of our scientists blah, blah...) but i doubt if it merits the PM's intervention. The DGMF needs to get its screws tightened, thats all. If any external intervention is indeed desired, i hope it comes in the form of Dr. APJ.A.K.

Sontu · Post by **Sontu** » 05 Nov 2008 22:37

India tests indigenous main battle tank

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=10418

Says "The official Proof and Experimental Establishment (PXE) conducted trials of the Arjun and its advanced Bofors gun at Chandipuron."

Bofors gun on Arjun..how ? when ?

I knew Arjun had an Indian 120 MM rifelled Gun ...not sure is there any new experiment was done with fielding 155 MM Bofors Gun on Arjun Chasis like earlier "Bhim" with Dennel T-6 ?

sunilUpa · Post by **sunilUpa** » 05 Nov 2008 23:11

Sontu wrote:India tests indigenous main battle tank

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=10418

Says "The official Proof and Experimental Establishment (PXE) conducted trials of the Arjun and its advanced Bofors gun at Chandipuron."

Bofors gun on Arjun..how ? when ?

I knew Arjun had an Indian 120 MM rifelled Gun ...not sure is there any new experiment was done with fielding 155 MM Bofors Gun on Arjun Chasis like earlier "Bhim" with Dennel T-6 ?

DDM combined test of Arjun's FSAPDS ammo and Bofor 155mm ammo.

rkhanna · Post by **rkhanna** » 05 Nov 2008 23:29

I assume the Abhay IFV is long dead and buried?

The ABHAY was always designed from a Prototype (Tech Validator) point of view. The Project has been completed and all lessons/Technology learned.

2 Other projects are currently underway. 1 is the Automated BMP-II System and the Second is the T-55 APC Conversion. There has also been talk of the the BMP-2T (BMP-II Chasis mated to the BMP-III turet)

ALl of the above 3 are again technology development tools for the Armies Next Gen APC/IFV requirements. Most likely the final product could be a Mix-Match of all above + New systems.

skher · Post by **skher** » 05 Nov 2008 23:51

neerajbhandari wrote:Army gives Israeli twist to Arjun tale

Wants machinery to be improved as suggested by Israel Military Industries
....
For the first 62 tanks, the army chief suggested several corrections based on the findings of the army team, which carried out exhaustive field trials of the tank. But what has added a new twist is the army demand that the second batch of 62 tanks be improved according to the standards laid down by the Israel Military Industries (IMI)
...
The appointment of IMI as a consultant was surprising for many, but now the army has seized on the DRDO move. The army demand could further delay induction of the entire 124 tanks. “All the 124 hulls are ready. We dont know how we can now carry out major changes,” says a source involved in the Arjun project.
...

What's surprising?Just do 2+2=5.

http://georgians.in/article_detail.asp?aid=404

On July 22 and 23, tank experts from across the world gathered in Delhi to advise the Army on designing its next generation of armoured vehicles — the Future Main Battle Tank (FMBT) and Future Infantry Combat Vehicle (FICV).
...
Experts at the seminar — including Israeli tank legend, Maj Gen Yossi Ben-Hanan, who designed that country’s successful Merkava tank — pointed out that tank design is evolutionary, each design building upon the previous one.

The Israelis began designing their Merkava-1 MBT in 1970; today they have the world-class Merkava-4. The Russians started in 1940 with the T-32 tank; that experience led to the T-55; the T-72 followed, which was further refined to today’s T-90.

India has rejected this well-tested path. The Combat Vehicles R&D Establishment (CVRDE) in Chennai, which has designed the Arjun, is now offering an improved Arjun-2 with more modern electronics. But last month, the Army’s top tank-man, Lt Gen D Bhardwaj, trashed two decades of indigenous design work on the Arjun; he declared that the Army would buy just 124 Arjuns for its 4,000-tank fleet. On July 23, Maj Gen Yossi Ben-Hanan warned the audience, "A decision taken today to build an Indian tank will yield an MBT only 15 years hence."

DRDO launched counter-attack to save Arjun, contacting people who knew better.
Hence,IMI comes in picture.It surprisingly didn't respond.

DGMF launched counter counter-attack by engaging India with Russia for a future PAK-FA like tank project....a well thought stalling tactic as the design is on the drawing board and nothing has been finalized.

But DRDO was relentless and pushed for Arjun very aggressively by asking for comparative trials and pleading on indigenous tech plank.

So DGMF has done a tactical retreat (more time stalling) by giving permission to comparative trial and as a security added the IMI clause.

The arjun is now effectively stalled for 10 months at least...Lt.Generals can now easily sip vodka and speakeasy to their comrades.

In 10 months,govt. changes and DRDO is stuck again. Merry Christmas!

But the comparative trial is the biggest loophole in the strategy...herein DRDO has to perform a rope trick (vertical subsystems development) and snake charming (breaking DGMF's thrall on IMI's engagemen.).
IMI is an expert reverse engineering firm.It can deliver if rewarded well with resources and a little time....things which are likely to be denied.

...
IA is the only armed force (perhaps in the world) that still insists on having best of the world while IAF and IN have started pursuit of having best in the world.
...

P.S. :The DGMF folks seem to be experts at political maneuvering...why don't they float a party to resolve the pay scales issue? Please retire early for resolve this and let junior officers more sympathetic to Arjun manage the project

.

narmad · Post by **narmad** » 06 Nov 2008 02:35

P.S. :The DGMF folks seem to be experts at political maneuvering...why don't they float a party to resolve the pay scales issue? Please retire early for resolve this and let junior officers more sympathetic to Arjun manage the project

Why would they do that ? The salary is a trivail matter to them anyways.

Anabhaya · Post by **Anabhaya** » 06 Nov 2008 10:01

Not throwing around accusations but if anybody reads this : seriously people, IA procurement sucks!

kit · Post by **kit** » 06 Nov 2008 12:04

The Russians did field a 155 mm gun on a MBT !

kit · Post by **kit** » 06 Nov 2008 12:23

What are Arjun s options ? Continue to evolve ... or die a natural death ? DRDO being a GOI organization should take the army in as a equal partner right from the designing stage as well as financial commitment and focus on a new derivative.When will the Indians stop going to the Russians for almost everything.The South Koreans sold off their MBT designs (not TOT but literally the entire blue prints) to Turkey for much less than 1 billion $ .Why keep T90 s which have basic design flaws (maybe ideology is not to keep the crews alive !) The Chinese are reportedly stocking up on depleted uranium ammo ostensibly to counter the Indian armor .Yeah i know the Chinese border is not exactly tank terrain but most of the army people should know what i am talking about.At least i hope the IA gets some decent attack helos (again not the Hinds ! .. but dedicated choppers like the Apache)
Maybe some one should start a thread on how asymmetrical warfare is actually going on by the Chinese ! There is not going to be war like the 1960 s in the beginning at least .

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 06 Nov 2008 14:15

Arjun is going the way of many non-protected species in the country,let alone the protected ones! The earlier news about the Russian/IA talks about a "family" of new armoured vehicles and an FMBT based upon a new modular concept is most probable the reason why the Arjun is receiving "second-wife's child" treatment by the army.One presumes that the DM/MOD are acutely monitoring the controversy that has the potential to scuttle India's indigenous armoured vehicle design future.The Israeli general was also right though.Arjun was perhaps too ambitious to develop a new contemporary tank without any previous experience,barring assembly of the Vijayanta and the T-72.It took a few decades.However,as has been the case on many programmes,a working relationship between the end-user and designer/developer/manufacturer if not firmly grouted at the inception of the project will end in controversy and failure.We in our country are pastmasters in the art of pulling each other down and professional jealousies abound in every sphere.POride and ego cost the nation hundreds of crores,as it appears to be doing so in this case.

If the LCA in its initial avatar is acceptable to the IAF despite being underpowered and not fully meeting its parameters-that too with much foreign input and hardware,there is no reason why the 124+ Arjuns should not be inducted if only as an interin/experimental exercise,in order that Indian desi technology developed for Arjun (apart from the engine,etc.) can be validated.If one remembers an earlier post of mine,the Russians wanted to include in the FMBT some Arjun technologies like the HP suspension,etc.! I'm at a loss to see how and why we should follow the Israeli code-especially if you remember how well their tanks fared in the last Lebanon war,when they were picked off at will by the Hiz with only their RPGs ! The DRDO should demand an explanation as to why we should suddenly follow foreign standards from a country that has NOT exported /transferred its tank technology,but bought many years ago ex-IA Centurion tanks! I can understand if the IA wanted Russian standards adopted-it is understandable,given that the bulk of the IAs tanks are from Russia or Russian designed.Perhaps we should also invite the Hizbollah to give us the benefit of their experience at destroying tanks and let them have a go at Arjun and the T-90!That would make much sense.

zef · Post by **zef** » 06 Nov 2008 17:54

well said Philip, those words actually reflect the anguish of many,.... Arjun is a good tank, we all know, wish some of our baboos and afsars can for once give way to something indegenious.

Nitesh · Post by **Nitesh** » 13 Nov 2008 13:25

http://**************/2008/1 ... nning.html

The above illustration graphically illustrates how exactly the Arjun Mk1 MBT will be employed in a future armoured campaign, as visualised by the Indian Army's Directorate General of Mechanised Forces. It is in such a scenario that the Arjun Mk1 MBT will be subjected to competitive firepower and mobility trials against the T-90S MBT early next year. As the Arjun Mk1 comes equipped with a battlespace management system (BMS) and the T-90S does not, the former will have a decisive edge against the T-90S when it comes to enhanced situational awareness, as the Arjun Mk1 will be able to get real-time SITREPS on enemy dispositions and movements from the Army's Corps-level BMS (which in turn derive their real-time inputs from UAVs) and be able to engage in decisive manoeuvre warfare of the type not possible at the moment with either the T-90S or the T-72M1 Combat Improved Ajeya MBTs. No wonder the Indian Army is coy about subjecting the Arjun Mk1 MBT and T-90S to competitive performance trials. It's that simple--Prasun K. Sengupta

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 13 Nov 2008 20:30

Raj Malhotra wrote:If army wants to Kill Arjun then what is our super duper honest PM and DM doing?

Let's see the same as RG, VPS, PVN, Deve Gowda, IK Gujral, and ABV. They say "ask a silly q...... get a silly a....."!

A Vijay · Post by **A Vijay** » 13 Nov 2008 22:45

Nitesh

Post subject: Re: Artillery and Armor thread Reply with quote
http://**************/2008/1 ... nning.html

Image

The above illustration graphically illustrates how exactly the Arjun Mk1 MBT will be employed in a future armoured campaign, as visualised by the Indian Army's Directorate General of Mechanised Forces. It is in such a scenario that the Arjun Mk1 MBT will be subjected to competitive firepower and mobility trials against the T-90S MBT early next year. As the Arjun Mk1 comes equipped with a battlespace management system (BMS) and the T-90S does not, the former will have a decisive edge against the T-90S when it comes to enhanced situational awareness, as the Arjun Mk1 will be able to get real-time SITREPS on enemy dispositions and movements from the Army's Corps-level BMS (which in turn derive their real-time inputs from UAVs) and be able to engage in decisive manoeuvre warfare of the type not possible at the moment with either the T-90S or the T-72M1 Combat Improved Ajeya MBTs. No wonder the Indian Army is coy about subjecting the Arjun Mk1 MBT and T-90S to competitive performance trials. It's that simple--Prasun K. Sengupta

Nitesh looks like you did not read the comments below the blog. one of it says this,"ha ha ha ha ha hilarious. sengupta you have outdone dishonesty to ludicrous proportions this time. this is simply a formation diagram from a previous exercise (desert strike?) and has absolutely no bearing on the arjun/bhishma trials. i have a copy of this diagram in a press handout and it was given out some three years ago. and incidentally they are not going to be mobility trials you idiot. why dont you STFU if you dont know anything.

it's unbelievable how much some people can lie. for once do something truthful and honest in your life."

By the way I have always seen such comments on whatever Prasun has to write but seldom on Ajai's stuff.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 13 Nov 2008 22:53

please keep prasun and strategypage out of BR.
prasun's links are acceptable only when they show brochures and photographs. his own work is better left for his blog.

A Vijay · Post by **A Vijay** » 13 Nov 2008 22:56

Exactly my point....

kumar_k · Post by **kumar_k** » 23 Nov 2008 17:34

This article is about the T 95 MBT

Excerpts:

warfare.ru:

A new new Main Battle Tank, which was initially planned to enter service in 1994, remains in development due to financial restrictions. It is under development at the Uralvagonzavod Plant in Nizhniy Tagil [Potkin's bureau] which was responsible for all recent Russian tanks apart from the T-80. "URALVAGONZAVOD" (Ural Carriage-Building Plant) in Nizhny Tagil has manufactured a variety of products, ranging from universal type 8-axle rail cars and tanks of the highest quality to the T-34 tanks which had no rivals in World War II.

State acceptance trials of the new tank started at the Kubinka Proving Ground in August or September of 1998. Very little information is publicly available concerning this vehicle, including the official designation, which is apparently still designated under the developmental "ob'ekt" nomenclature. It is suggested that this new tank will weigh about 50 tons, though with a lower silhouette than other recent Russian tanks. The primary armament is reportedly a 152mm smoothbore gun / ATGM launcher with an ammunition load of at least 40 rounds, which may be placed in an unmanned gun pod on top of the hull to lower the silhouette and increase survivability. The new design also places far greater emphasis on crew protection than in previous Russian tank designs through a unitary armored pod inside the hull.

This new tank is apparently in competition with the T-80UM2 "Black Eagle" modification, and may remain unable to secure production funding due to its higherr cost and the potential for upgrading the existing T-80 inventory to the "Black Eagle" standard.

Globalsecurity:

T-95 (Objekt 775 / Item 195)

A new new Main Battle Tank, which was initially planned to enter service in 1994, remains in development due to financial restrictions. It is under development at the Uralvagonzavod Plant in Nizhniy Tagil [Potkin's bureau] which was responsible for all recent Russian tanks apart from the T-80. "URALVAGONZAVOD" (Ural Carriage-Building Plant) in Nizhny Tagil has manufactured a variety of products, ranging from universal type 8-axle rail cars and tanks of the highest quality to the T-34 tanks which had no rivals in World War II.

According to the information leaked into the Russian media in early 2008 this the last and the only version of the principally new tank, the project of which started nearly 25 years ago under a soviet program "Molot" (hammer). The first design offered by the Leningrad based designers was called 477, but never came to life. State acceptance trials of the new tank started at the Kubinka Proving Ground in August or September of 1998. Very little information is publicly available concerning this vehicle, including the official designation, which is apparently still designated under the developmental "ob'ekt" nomenclature. The first official mention of this tank, which the media have dubbed the T-95, was made by Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev in March 2000.

This new tank is apparently in competition with the T-80UM2 "Black Eagle" modification, and may remain unable to secure production funding due to its higher cost and the potential for upgrading the existing T-80 inventory to the "Black Eagle" standard. The Omsk-made Black Eagle is another option of the same idea, however, it is highly likely that "Cherny Orel" will be ever commissioned too. Independent experts point out several outstanding technologies introduced on the Black Eagle: its shots are fixed to the gun like the cartridges of the machine gun, having used it the tank just "drops" it; its turret can carry a gun of any caliber, the shell are separated from the staff's compartment etc. However, because of the fate of Omsktransmash this project has too little chances.

The only more or less viable project which can be regarded as a derivate of the product 477 is "product 195" of designed by Nizhny Tagil KBTM. Years ago the design of T-95 started under the same technical tasks as BTR-90, so most likely the dimensions / weight will be sacrificed to unification. However, T-95 will suit for placing practically kind of arms, guns or missiles.

By one account in 2008 the tank has a new multi layer armor, classical powder gun, active system of protection "Arena" in addition to the already "obligatory" passive dynamic protection. The crew would consist of 3 persons: the commander, aimer and driver. It will be placed in the forward part of the hull. Engine and transmission is behind. The gun is put outside, on the top part of the hull and can be of any caliber (basic version not less than 130 mm). The location of the ammunition will be, most likely, classical, like in ?-72 and ?-90. However, the crew will be separated from them with a reinforced armor. The tank's weight, most likely, will exceed 50 tons.

It is suggested that this new tank will weigh about 50 tons, though with a lower silhouette than other recent Russian tanks. The primary armament is reportedly a 152mm smoothbore gun / ATGM launcher with an ammunition load of at least 40 rounds, which may be placed in an unmanned gun pod on top of the hull to lower the silhouette and increase survivability. The new design also places far greater emphasis on crew protection than in previous Russian tank designs through a unitary armored pod inside the hull.

In spite of all the work that went into this tank, development was not yet complete as of 2008. This may be due in part to the workload imposed by the T-90 export contracts on UVZ and the design bureau. It is reported that during the negotiations over the first contract for deliveries of T-90S tanks to India, Indian experts expressed a strong interest in the future Russian tank that was said to be at a high level of development at that time.

In January 2008 it was reported that the Chief of Arms of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and the Deputy Minister of Defense general Nikolay Makarov said that in 2008 Russia will start the tests of the principally new tank. According to the newspaper Nezavisimaya Gazeta the general meant the T-95. Allegedly he said that the new tank will be conceptually new, surpassing all existing samples. It will have new chassis, power-plant, control system of arms and aiming. Though, as has it was also declared by Nikolay Makarov, some enterprises of the Russian MIC are no more capable of making certain accessories.

In July 2008 Sergei Mayev, head of the Federal Service for Defense Contracts (Rosoboronzakaz) stated that- Russia's armed forces will start receiving new-generation tanks superior to the famed T-90 main battle tank (MBT) "after 2010". At that time there were over 25,000 MBTs in service with the Russian Ground Forces. However, relatively modern T-80 and T-90 models accounted for only 30 percent of the current fleet of tanks and even these tanks require constant upgrades to incorporate modern weaponry, protection and electronics systems. "The T-90 MBT will be the backbone of the armored units until 2025. T-72's and T-80's will not be modernized and will be eventually replaced by new-generation tanks, which will start entering service after 2010," Sergei Mayev told a news conference.

The new-generation MBT, which still does not have a designation, was said to feature better firepower, maneuverability, electronics and armor protection than the T-90 MBT. Its speed will increase from 30-50 kph to 50-65 kph (19-31 mph to 31-40 mph).

Images:
Credits: btvt.narod.ru

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 23 Nov 2008 19:07

Why bother when India & Russia have already negotiated a Smart Tank Creation!!.

Code: Select all

It will have the gun of up to 152mm and its control system will provide for getting tactical data from spying jets and satellites. The designers will equip the tank with a new weapon-control system, enabling the crew to detect targets in optical, infra-red and radar spectra. www.kommersant.com

like Brah-Mos, we could have this with an intentional name - Ara(B)altic!

sum · Post by **sum** » 24 Nov 2008 19:15

we could have this with an intentional name - Ara(B)altic!

What are the words with which Ara(b)altic is formed?

skher · Post by **skher** » 25 Nov 2008 02:36

What are the words with which Ara(b)altic is formed?

Arabian [sea] + Baltic [sea].

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 26 Nov 2008 17:49

The design for the "T-95" is most intersting,with the giant gun all that projects above the hull.However,I wonder how good the visibility is for the crew and commander with only periscopes/cameras to look at.One presumes that the "display/dashboard" will resemble a modern fighter cockpit with glass flatscreen displays.I do think that below the barrel's lowest depression, there is enough space to provide a commander's cupola,pillbox style,giving him all round vision which he can use by automatically elevating his seat.This would give him the added capability in case his other viewing systems fail.In order that the "armoured capsule" for crew protection is not compromised by this,an automatically sliding protective plate of laminated composite material could be located beneath the cupola above the commander's head ,or the cupola top could be suitably armoured along with armoured glass blocks instead.The design looks as if the tank is extra long but narrow to allow two compartments for the armoured crew compartment and the ammo magazine.There appears to be no anti-air/helo weapons ,but one could attach to either side of the gun ,two packs of vertical MANPAD size missile modules with 8-16 missiles carried.The same hull could also be used for a more advanced anti-air system like the Tunguska.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 27 Nov 2008 19:31

irrelevant post edited.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 28 Nov 2008 11:12

Army gives Israeli twist to Arjun tale

speaking from experience, anytime a third party gets involved throwing in its 2 cents towards the end of a project to redesign this and that, it always ends in a big mess.

i'm afraid the army is just taking a piss here.

they should be asked to put up money before any further changes are made. otherwise drdo is just being given the run around by babus who will end up not buying the tank after wasting everyone's time getting them to make changes.

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 19 Dec 2008 13:11

Boforsphobia, red tender tape bind Army
Indian Express

Boforsphobia, red tender tape bind Army
Manu Pubby
Posted: Dec 18, 2008 at 0318 hrs IST

New Delhi: In 1999, when a brief but bloody battle was being fought to evict Pakistani intruders from strategic heights along the Line of Control, one of the most important lessons learnt was that the Army was woefully short when it came to artillery guns. The Government even had to make emergency purchases of ammunition from South Africa to arm the guns after Army stocks ran out.

A decade after the Kargil conflict, nothing seems to have changed. The Army has not received any new artillery gun in the last 20 years, three separate proposals to buy new guns have been stuck since 2000, the backbone of the Army’s air defence dates back to the Second World War and the Artillery regiment still depends on obsolete equipment that was designed in the 1950s.

“After the Kargil war, we decided we needed more 155 mm artillery guns. Till date, nothing has been added to the kitty. So we have made no progress on the artillery front,” says General (retd) VP Malik who commanded the Army during the Kargil conflict.

A flawed procurement procedure, government indecision and the ghosts of the Bofors scandal have hit the Army where it hurts the most.
The artillery, all experts agree, is the weakest point in India’s defence armour. The Army, warn military analysts, will be hard pressed to deploy enough guns even if a limited conflict broke out all along the LoC.

The issue is that despite lessons drawn from the Kargil conflict and the 2001 Op Parakram troop mobilisation, the Army has not acquired an edge that will back up efforts of “coercive diplomacy” in the wake of the Mumbai Terror attacks.

“In case a conventional war is fought, you need a decisive edge. Guns are the crux of the whole issue. What we haven’t got is the edge. You can’t talk about coercive diplomacy if you are at parity,” says former Army Chief General Shankar Roychowdhury.

And not without reason. The mainstay gun of the artillery is the Russian 130 mm M-46 that was due for replacement in the 1990s. The most advanced gun is the Bofors 155 mm Howitzer that was supposed to replace the M-46 but supplies stopped after it got embroiled in the scandal.

The problem lies in numbers. While 410 Bofors guns were purchased, less than 300 remain in active service after spare parts stopped coming in once the company was blacklisted by the government. The M-46 guns are being slowly upgraded by Soltham (Israel) but the results have not been very satisfactory. Pakistan, on the other hand, has bought 115 new 155 mm howitzers from the US under the War on Terror pact.

While the Army had planned replacements for these guns, all three procurement processes got stuck and delayed by a decade. The Army wanted to replace all its M-46 guns with new 155 mm howitzers. When a new tender was finally issued in 2001 after the Bofors scandal, it took six years of trials and evaluations for the Army to say that none of the contenders were good enough.

While there was buzz that the tender was cancelled because the Bofors again emerged as the best of the lot, the Ministry of Defence maintained that no contender qualified for the tenders. A new tender has been put out this year but the procurement process has been pushed back by a decade.

“This tendering, re-tendering and the phobia (of signing deals) is really crippling the Army. It is very disheartening that just because the name Bofors pops up, even if it performs well, things get dropped. We should get over the phobia,” says Gen Roychowdhury.

Other programmes, including one to procure 155 mm Self Propelled (Wheeled and Tracked) guns, have been stuck for close to a decade. While the tracked project got scrapped after eight years of joint development that started in 1999 after Denel was blacklisted, the Army was unable to find a suitable gun for the other tender.

This, after a Parliamentary panel told the Ministry of Defence in 2000 that it should speed trials and procure at least 120 self-propelled guns by 2002. But the guns are nowhere near procurement. A fresh tender has been issued this year, three years after the last procurement process was quashed.

Worse off than the Artillery is the Army’s Air Defence network. The network, set up to protect Army field formations and vital installations from air attack, still relies on guns that date back to the World War II. The Bofors L 40/70 guns that forms the backbone of the AAD are relegated to museums in most countries that used it till the 1980s and early 1990s.

While the guns have been modified, Gen Roychowdhury says it is a “laughable sight to see that the Bofors air defence guns, almost of WW II vintage, cosmetically modernised, still form the backbone of the Army Air Defence”. Despite the changed scenario in threat perception from the air and raising of new commands, the AD gun levels have remained constant over the past three decades.

Experts warn that India will have to pay a heavy price for this glaring “operational gap” in firepower in the event of any outbreak of conventional hostilities. Any conflict on the western border, the experts point out, will be a battle of attrition rather than invasion.

“With Pakistan making clear that its nuclear threshold is low, a deep manoeuvre into the country will be too great a risk. In such a case, victory will be achieved by destroying the war-making machinery of the country. For that we need firepower and we are not adequately prepared,” says Brigadier Gurmeet Kanwal, Director of the Centre for Land Warfare Studies (CLAWS) and a former artillery officer.

Artillery

105 mm Indian field guns: In service for over 30 yrs, obsolete. Need replacement.

130 mm M-46: Backbone of artillery. Was due for replacement in ’90s. Being upgraded to 155 mm by Soltham as interim step, results not satisfactory

155 mm Bofors: 410 were purchased in the late 1980s, spare parts stopped after ban. Fewer than 300 in service

Procurement

155 mm towed: Tenders in 2001, scrapped after 6 yrs. Fresh tendering on, will take 5 yrs

155 mm self-propelled (wheeled): Most firms rejected in 2005. Fresh tenders issued. Expect 5-yr delay

155 mm self-propelled (tracked): After 7-yr trial, Denel selected.

Pause after firm blacklisted; fresh tenders issued. Delayed by another five years