Indian T-90S a sub-standard tank ?

[pmaitra]

^^

I was arguing on the same lines, except that I made a pitch for unmanned turrets.

 

[p2prada]

^^

I was arguing on the same lines, except that I made a pitch for unmanned turrets.

There is no doubt the FMBT will be an Indian tank.

 

[pmaitra]

There is no doubt the FMBT will be an Indian tank.

What are your views on the unmanned turret?

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Arjun and the next phase of Arjun are deployed in Rajasthan and Punjab..

There are few bridges which handle more than 70tons ( 16 wheeler trucks carry dam equipment nearly 80tons ) and mostly canals, Arjun is a good swimmer..



Regarding other parts such as Northeast and Mountains, Light tank is needed..

For now T-72 are there..

 

[p2prada]

What are your views on the unmanned turret?

An unmanned turret means lesser volume for crew compartment and more space for armour. That large empty cavity is gone, all replaced by armour, so one can only imagine.

I guess that would mean the hull is larger, but crew can be 2 or 3 instead of 4. The turret can be made larger so it can carry a larger assortment of sensors, the Obj 195 is very tall as compared to regular tanks, I think by a metre. A large calibre gun like the Obj 195's 152mm can fire at longer ranges to take advantage of greater sensing capability at greater gun elevations. I am only talking about Obj 195s capabilities. A lesser capable tank like the one being designed for Armata may be what we may have in mind for FMBT.

The engineering challenge is greater because everything will be in the hull leaving less space for other tank components along with crew compartment. But then there is miniaturizing and automation that can alleviate size issues, like how CVRDE was talking about designing a 2000HP engine that will be half the size and weight of the current Arjun engine.

 

[methos]

Also after selling HDW submarines, the Germans would not be averse to selling India the tanks. Again in the present economic scenario Germany would be more than happy to sell Arms to India, with which they have a very good relationship.

You are underestimating the main reasons for Germany to sell weapons or to refuse selling weapons: Politics.
One example are the Turks - they wanted to buy the Leopard 2, but the Germans refused to sell them. Officially because of problems with the human rights and such stuff, but the main reason for not selling the tanks was in my opinion another. After the reunification of Germany the government did have a huge number of Soviet-designed vehicles. Originally it was planned to integrate large parts of them into the German army, but after the collapse of the Soviet Union this plans were discarded and the East-German vehicles were sold or scrapped. It happened that some of the vehicles were sold to Turkey, where they were filmed being used against members of the PKK, which lead to an uproar in Germany... not in the government, but in the public, even though the PKK was/is considered as terror organization in the EU.
Some years later the Leopard 2 tanks were simply sold, at this time the situation in the Turkey was calm. In the end KMW even offered them the licence to produce the Leopard 2 for own use, but the South Korean offer (transfer of technology from the K2 tank) was chosen. In terms of human rights the situation remained more or less the same the whole time.

Germany does not sell weapons for war, only for peace - this does not mean that they are not made for killing or are bad designed and do not work nice - in fact German weapons are often top-performers in comparative trials - but Germany is often not willing to sell weapons to someone who will use them, because of the public opinion. I don't think there are exact figures, but the majority of the Germans are pacifists, even the German consitution forbids wars. If they sell weapons to some war-country and some people from the media will report about it, then the majority of the Germans will probably think twice before voting for the ruling parties - the internal politics are here more important than the relations to other countries.

Some examples are Lybia and Saudi-Arabia. In Lybia the goverment forces used sometimes German G36 - but there was an embargo... this caused a lot uproar and even some police investigation, but in the end the rifles were bought from another country ilegally. Saudi-Arabia wanted to buy German Leopard 2s and the government agreed - the Saudis are/were under stress because of the Iran and therefore it would help the exterior politics to sell the tanks. But someone told the media about it (the German Federal Security Council which decides wether arms can be exported or not meets secretly) and then the public and the media criticized the government (because the Saudis fought civilians in Bahrain), which therefore canceled the deal and wanted to reevaluate the situation - it is possible that they will sell the tanks when the situation in Arabia is calm again. Qatar could simply buy the Leopard 2, because they did not have problems with civilians or their neighbous.

The thing is that selling some weapons is considered as more or less "ok" - like older rifles or handguns. This somehow does also include submarines atm, probably because they are used more seldom than IFVs and tanks or because they are not seen fullfilling their role. Tanks are having a very high prestige and are somehow the "personification" of warfare - selling them to some country which could actually use them for any other use than defending themselves is a total no-go.

The Germans are not on India's side nor on the Pakistani/Chinese side in any potential conflict involving India. They are neutral (and I think I am also neutral in this matter) and they don't want to sell large amounts/large weapons they controll on their own to one or the other side, because a simple provocation from on or the other side could lead to a total war. Their is no "just war" in the German point of view.

German did offered Leo 2a4 back in early 90s but Army refused as Army logistic chain and men are use to with Russian legacy tanks, Leo 2a4 was totaly different tank compare to T-72M1 and require training from beginning on both handling and maintenance..

The manufacturer does present the tank to countries, offer them and make deals. But the government decides wether the export will be allowed or not. Their are three examples (once the Turkey, twice Saudi-Arabia) where the tank was presented to a country and offered, but the government said "no".

Germany has been at the receiving end of punitive actions by India, given their laws that encourage bribery.

Which laws encourage bribery? I don't think that the Germans does, else you could send me the §. It seems for me rather to be a problem with the Indian procurement systems, since a lot of briberies happen in Inda (e.g. Bofors).

 

[Zebra]

Ha Ha Ha.... my two cents;

Stay away from Tank itself. Where is the place to employ tanks ??

Bhadra , which tank is good for IA ?

 

[p2prada]

German laws do not allow sale of weapons to a country which has the potential of going to war. But I don't think they are averse to selling to India if the potential market is as big as what we offer. However when sh!t hits the fan there is no telling what Germany will do in case we go to war against Pakistan with the Leo 2s. They have sanctioned us many times before anyway.

If we are to go for a European tank, then Leclerc is the best option if politics is considered. It has the distinction of being the only western country to not have sanctioned India for the Nuclear tests. But I think weapons supply was withdrawn for the duration of Kargil war and resumed after.

 

[Damian]

Leclerc is not manufactured for a long time now. I do not know if NEXTER still have manufacturing capabilities.

 

[p2prada]

Yeah. Setting up a new one will be extremely expensive, but Leclerc is the only good option if geopolitics is considered. All others come with very big strings attached.

If we are looking for a tank competition, then the best bet are Ukraine, Russia and S Korea. Israel too, but the company is banned, so no point.

 

[Damian]

As for Israel, well, IMI might be blacklisted, who cares, Merkava, Namer and Namera are not IMI products, nor any Israeli company in fact, it is manufactured by IDF Ordnance Corps/MANTAK, it is the only tank actually manufactured by military that use it. Only components are made by Israeli or foreing companys, for example engine is GDLS GD883 a US licence version of German MTU MB883.

Sorry a small correction. Sub company of GDLS that was manufacturing GD883 was bought by L-3 company, and now is manufacturing engine under it's original German designation MB883. Sorry for a misinformation.

 

[p2prada]

You are right about it. But IMI is still one of the primary contractors. They provide the guns too.

I don't know how far the ban stretches to anyway.

 

[mayfair]

You are right about it. But IMI is still one of the primary contractors. They provide the guns too.

I don't know how far the ban stretches to anyway.

I thought the ban only extended to dealings with OFB.

 

[Zebra]

India to Freeze Relations with IMI
Arie Egozi
6/3/2012

Israel Defense | India to Freeze Relations with IMI

 

[methos]

If India would buy any NATO tank (or a NATO compatible tank), then they would need to introduce further logistic chains, while buying tanks from Russia/Ukraine still means that some parts of the logistics can be shared (like ammunition).

The Leclerc still includes some German technology (the engine is based on MTU technology bought by GIAT, the export version featured a MTU engine and Renk transmission, the cannon is also based on German technology according to Strategie & Technik [a former German defence magazine] and the ammunition is co-developed with a German company). Since they just bought the technology for their homemade tanks it seems unlikely that Germany could do something against the export, but the export version could very likely be blocked (but the blocking seems very unlikely).
But Japenese and South Korean tanks are also fitted with key components made or designed in Germany, this includes guns (not sure but the K2 here) and engines (K2s will be made with MTU engine until the South Koreans manage to make one which does work properly). Both of these tanks seem to feature very thin side armour only, which means that in terms of survivability they are not much better than the Arjun.

 

[Bhadra]

Bhadra , which tank is good for IA ?

So far None has proved good in real war. Most of these spend shelf life in garages !!

 

[Damian]

So far None has proved good in real war. Most of these spend shelf life in garages !!

By such logic, the only really modern tanks that were participating in full scale war also fighting with other tanks and armored vehicles and encountered modern anti tank weapons, would be M1A1/M1A2 series, Challenger 2 and Merkava Mk4... Other modern tanks were used only in some peace keeping operations and in environments where there are more mines than modern tani tank weapons (main difference between Iraq and Afghanistan, in Afghanistan there are actually not many anti tank weapons used, so even USMC seein bigger threat in IED's, deciced that their M1A1's in Afghanistan will get only C-IED belly armor, safe seats and IED jammers from TUSK kit, while side ERA tiles will not be used to not add additional weight, especially that as I said, no serious RPG/ATGM threat is seen there compared to Iraq).

 

[methos]

So far None has proved good in real war. Most of these spend shelf life in garages !!

Same goes for soldiers, with the exception that they don't live in garages.

 

[Bhadra]

By such logic, the only really modern tanks that were participating in full scale war also fighting with other tanks and armored vehicles and encountered modern anti tank weapons, would be M1A1/M1A2 series, Challenger 2 and Merkava Mk4... Other modern tanks were used only in some peace keeping operations and in environments where there are more mines than modern tani tank weapons (main difference between Iraq and Afghanistan, in Afghanistan there are actually not many anti tank weapons used, so even USMC seein bigger threat in IED's, deciced that their M1A1's in Afghanistan will get only C-IED belly armor, safe seats and IED jammers from TUSK kit, while side ERA tiles will not be used to not add additional weight, especially that as I said, no serious RPG/ATGM threat is seen there compared to Iraq).

Damain,

If India were to enter a war with Pakistan, her anti tank environment would not be same as Iraq or Afghanistan. It would be intense anti tank environment with every thing right from ditches, obstacles, mines, A/tk weapons, missiles, air, ICVs and tanks thrown in by both sides. It is going to be a battle of Krusk. There is neither spaces for manoeuvres nor the terrain for that.

Hence, any comparison with Iraq or Afghanistan would be dishonesty. Those were never tank battles ! One sided battles.

 

[Damian]

Damain,

If India were to enter a war with Pakistan, her anti tank environment would not be same as Iraq or Afghanistan. It would be intense anti tank environment with every thing right from ditches, obstacles, mines, A/tk weapons, missiles, air, ICVs and tanks thrown in by both sides. It is going to be a battle of Krusk. There is neither spaces for manoeuvres nor the terrain for that.

Hence, any comparison with Iraq or Afghanistan would be dishonesty. Those were never tank battles ! One sided battles.

If You say so, this only means You don't know much about 1991 ODS and 2003 OIF operations. If You think that was a simple walkthrough for allied forces, then You are very, very wrong.