p2prada,
US army has several programmes on future combat vehicle and the 40ton is not the only one. US is focussing heavily on unmanned combat vehicle programme and in that case a 40ton tank is not a bad idea. US can able afford unmanned combat vehicles but we cannot, not even after 20 years. Do you think US will send their tank crew in a lightly protected tank and will pay their families million of dollar as insurance money on war causality.
On Japan, their military capability is completely defensive. They are not planning to invade Mongolia or China where heavy tank battle may possible. Within the island of Japan, a light may be air transportable tank has lot of advantage.
The theory that a heavy tank would be impenetrable as compared to a light tank is a myth. This is mainly an assumption on part of old tank veterans who have seen combat in the past but have not been able to keep up with modern materials due to obvious differences in education. The world can progress beyond glass laminates or steel composites. It is all super alloys and self healing technologies, meaning plastics. Present technology can even use water as armour. A plastic tank may have superior armour compared to the current generation tanks including DU protected Abrams if it is built right.
Also Japan does not have an air transportable requirement. The Japanese do not have any aircraft that is capable of carrying a 40 ton tank. You are also forgetting the use of APS in modern day battlefields.
In 2006, a rag tag bunch of separatists damaged or took out between 30 to 50 Merkava tanks using RPGs and ATGMs. Now imagine the losses if tanks, air force and artillery were also used by the Hezbollah. The Western Tank armies are yet to fight an enemy that has all the 3 wings intact and thoroughly modern.
On India, we don't know what we want. We want a 40ton tank because Japan and USA is going with it. We want a FMBT but we don't know what shall be the gun, weight or what are the technology we required except 1,500 HP engine.
No. It is you who does not know what India wants. The Army already knows what it wants and is already working on the GSQR. Also we aren't simply going for a 40 ton tank because the US and Japan are, it is exactly the opposite. We have been operating 40 ton tanks with low profiles over the last 40 years. We have moved on to 46 ton tanks like T-90 and are now looking at a similar class from 2020 onwards. It is US and Japan which is copying our model or rather the Soviet model.
Pls tell me why a 40ton tank requires 1,500 HP engine. Where will you keep all the fuel or you want to run on track as a racing tank
Don't worry about where the fuel tanks will go to. A 40 ton tank requires a 1500HP engine only because it has been requested for it. The superior acceleration a diesel hyperbar can provide is not challenged by any other engine type except maybe gas turbine.
How can you say that 60 ton tank is for past. The world doesn't become smaller, that is not able to withstand weight of a 60 ton tank.
Why is the F-15 and Su-30 the past? Why is the F-22 and PAKFA the future?
What if I say a 40 or even a 30 ton tank can have superior armour as compared to the Abrams? Who won't go for it? In the future the world can withstand the weight of a 60 ton tank but a high intensity battlefield may not be able to withstand it's "weight."
I could not get what you want to say by stating heavy tanks are not absolute in countries where air power is superior. Are you wanted to say that if we have 10,000 T90s, then we donot need air power.
A single reaper drone can take out half an Arjun tank regiment with a single fly past. That's the new world. Heavy tanks without stealth and low profiles are sitting ducks against a capable air force. If the air force like the USAF is powerful, then they are able to sanitize the air so enemy reapers cannot take out their tank regiments. So, their air superiority allows them to keep tanks that could be easy pickings from the air.
A tank vs tank battle can see an outcome that could be of advantage to either side. But an air vs tank battle has only one victor, the tank won't stand a chance.
But in conditions where the tank has to be strong enough to fight against heavy tanks as well as counter air raids, that's where the FMBT can come in. 10000 tanks won't cut it, even 1000 tanks which can avoid being blown up from an air attack is good enough.
On developing the new tanks, all the major armed force has their own tanks. We also have our own "Arjun". Pls let us know who are the major powers that doesn't have their own tank.
No. We don't have the Arjun. As of today we have only 101 Arjuns in service. That's not a tank regiment. Orders for 124 Arjun Mk1 were given in 2007, 4 years later we have only 101 Arjuns.
We cannot fight 50 days war because we import 70% of our defence equpment and we donot have military-industrial capability to produce military hardware. Bearing crude oil , all other indusrties can sustain war more than 50 days. I belive, if we stop oil consumption by privates, then our own oil production can sustain war more than 50 days. But that will be the extreme conditions. We shall not think on it.
That's because we are a poor country that has only now managed to find a place in the world. We are going to need another 20 years before we can field actual home grown equipment which can make a difference on the battlefield. If we dump all our current weapons and go purely for home grown equipment then we won't even last a week against Pakistan, let alone China. The 70% import requirement is only because a lot of our DRDO equipment is still substandard and useless. The Army has to import or they cannot fight.
What are you talking about?
