Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[ppgj]

Because Russian government was waiting to see if the industry could make modern armour technology. Now they are tired of waiting and turning to Europe.

you are right Armand. i had also alluded to forum talk on - Russia importing "armour plates". seems it's coming true. here is a link -

06/22/2010, 15:34:39

Russia to establish production armor on German technology

The Russian Defense Ministry intends to produce light armor on the German technology at Russian enterprises, said on June 22 RIA Novosti .

According to Deputy Defense Minister Vladimir Popovkin, currently the Russian side is negotiating with a German company for the purchase of technology light armor. This armor will be installed on light and medium armored tracked and wheeled.

Popovkin also said that the installation process produced in this way reservation on the Russian technology could be applied to experience the Italian company IVECO, also used in the German armor.

The fact that the Russian Defense Ministry intends to buy armor for vehicles and light armored vehicles to ensure security of personnel, became known in April 2010. Then Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov , however, reported that the light armor for vehicles intelligence, armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles and other armored vehicles will be purchased in Germany.

At the same time, as previously pointed Popovkin, in addition to purchasing the technics, all prisoners by Russian companies contracts will also involve and technology transfer.

google translation - http://translate.google.com/transla.../lenta.ru/news/2010/06/22/armour/&sl=ru&tl=en

original - http://lenta.ru/news/2010/06/22/armour/

 

[san]

Next Russia is going to buy engine and gun from Germany. Strange that they choose armor, I think russia is still strong in armor technology. Cancellation of T95, shows Russia's disadvantage technological poistion vs western. I will be not surprise if future Russian MBT will be around 60 Tons, Leo type but with an outoloader and 3 crew

 

[p2prada]

As i have mentioned before we already operating three different type of logistic supports for three different tanks, namely T-55/72/90 this also include BMPs, In coming days we will get-rid of T-55 and 72, besides Arjun logistics are no different from T-90s on ground, Also we can maintain the logistic easily as we are doing now..

Besides T-72 don't even share the same engine oil with T-90..

Engine oil is obviously different cause of different engines. But there are so many parts that share the same logistics. I am talking about the small parts, nuts, bolts, springs, cogs, brackets, bearings et al. The Arjuns would be different and the logistics supply for a different type of tanks will be huge.

Also, buying additional transports and paying additional transport costs to the railways will cost too.

You can't bring the T-55 into the picture because they are our reserves. More importantly, they are being phased out as we speak. By 2015 there will be no T-55s, Only T-72s and T-90s. So, T-55 does not come into the picture at all.

Earlier logistics supply included T-72s and T-55s, the future supply chain will include T-72s and T-90.

I doubt the army will think about opening up a third chain for a tank that's too few in number.

No body forced actually, Its media who liked to shout unnecessarily, IA agreed that Arjun is good and will be induced and media reported Arjun is forced into service..

Not true. IA never agreed to induct the first batch of 124 tanks. It was the MoD who pressurized the Army into buying it. I am still wondering where the army will use 200 tanks out of the 248 to be purchased. 6 regiments is interesting. It will only end up supporting the T-90 or will end up being used for training.

No army except IA is buying a token number of tanks to keep the critics happy.

further their were few problems in Tank back in 2000 and Army itself mentioned that it will be rectified with DRDO cooperation and here our Home media call our own project FAIL, Its the media language what people talk mostly and mostly it is very wrong..

Sir, I am not talking about media at all. They can shout all they want. Army does not operate under the aegis of the media. Heck if they are not bothered about the media storm about the NE Army Act, why will the army bother about some random ex service journalists over procurements.

We all know the Arjun failed the trials in the 2000 period. Had the Arjun cleared all trials, given a definitive plan of action for its future upgrade and logistics, the army would have gone with the Arjun. But nothing came. The Arjun couldn't move a few hundred kilometres without needing an engine replacement and couldn't shoot to hit at 100 metres.

The Arjun's problems was not created by the media. The problems were there and rectified only in 2005(except engine).

Their is no upgraded Kanchan after 2002, The same module in Arjun will be implement on T-90S/M, Still compare to Arjun it will have less thickness coz of its deign and hence less protection....
The application of Kanchan is done to reduce the cost of T-90S/M for mass production within the country..

Sir, the kanchan has undergone multiple modifications since it was developed. Some in the composition, some in the manufacturing process and some in the assembly. Tank armour is ever evolving. New designs and modifications of the Kanchan are coming out every 2 or 3 years. This is a part of the tank development. Out of many variants one is chosen by the army. Unfortunately we will never know how many and which one was chosen.

It highly possible coz of K-5 size which is way big than normal ERA tiles, It is obvious that opponent tanks will hit the same place twice, The chances of hitting that place increase within 1500-1000m for T-80UDs..

It is nearly impossible. The tank guns accuracy is greater than the dimensions of the ERA tile. Hitting the same spot again is a matter of luck.

Dont count T-72s or 55s also the first 300 T-90s..

T-55s will not exist pretty soon, half way before the production of the T-90 ends.

Why would Russia uprate an engine design they view as obsolete? Popovkin said it was obsolete and now he has been promoted to deputy defence minister. Medvedev is traveling across Europe and the US securing defence technology. There will be no uprated engine based on old designs, they want Western engines.

Uprating an engine is basic. Even people on streets uprate existing engines to boost power. We can do it ourselves too.

They may go for German engines in the future, maybe reverse engineer them. But the T-90s we have will need some kind of upgrades anyway.

Yet the Leclerc can travel 500km, it must not be a heavy MBT.

Leclerc has bigger fuel tanks. The fuel consumption is nearly one and a half times that of the T-90. It is not an advantage.

Yet Indian T-90s lack APUs while the Arjun has one, go figure.

Huh! T-90 has a superior FCS, has a superior armour rating against all projectiles, has a decent gas mileage, cheaper on production and operation. You are comparing all that to the APU?

Tanks need APUs, it is that simple. It is not 1941 when tanks didn't have electronics.

Tanks need to be cheaper too. APU isn't a huge advantage, especially in the world of battlefield surveillance radars and CAS.

Next Russia is going to buy engine and gun from Germany. Strange that they choose armor, I think russia is still strong in armor technology. Cancellation of T95, shows Russia's disadvantage technological poistion vs western. I will be not surprise if future Russian MBT will be around 60 Tons, Leo type but with an outoloader and 3 crew

That's what they were looking at with the T-95.

Anyway the Russians are going for equivalent in western markets because they are not able to financially develop it on their own. They have lost a lot of their best minds to the west as well as to bigger design houses like Sukhoi.

They don't have the finances or the manpower to do the smaller things like light armoured vehicles, transport aircraft, new cargo helicopters etc. So, they will obviously look to the west for fulfilment. This will take some years to achieve.

But, their biggest projects are going well, like tank design, PAKFA, aircraft carriers etc.

It is not that they can't do it. It is just that it is cheaper to get a German contract than a Russian who will take a longer time to setup the infrastructure that has been lost.

Why we are going for JVs and why they are going for JVs are 2 different reasons.

 

[Armand2REP]

Uprating an engine is basic. Even people on streets uprate existing engines to boost power. We can do it ourselves too.

They may go for German engines in the future, maybe reverse engineer them. But the T-90s we have will need some kind of upgrades anyway.

You are missing the point, the T-90s engines are not only inefficient, they are obsolete. Will explain further...

Leclerc has bigger fuel tanks. The fuel consumption is nearly one and a half times that of the T-90. It is not an advantage.

Don't make things up to make a point. Here are some on-road stats with fuel drums for you to compare...

T-90 with 840hp
max fuel = 1600 litres
max range = 650km

T-90S with 1000hp
max fuel = 1600 litres
max range = 611km

Leclerc with 1500hp
max fuel =1700 litres
max range = 650km

Considering the Leclerc is dragging 10t more armour and providing 660 more hp, the Leclerc engines are far more fuel efficient than either Russian engine. It is pretty obvious why T-95 never came around, the engines are too weak and fuel hungry to drag its fat ass very far.

Huh! T-90 has a superior FCS, has a superior armour rating against all projectiles, has a decent gas mileage, cheaper on production and operation. You are comparing all that to the APU?

Superior FCS?? The comparison trials proved Arjun has superior accuracy. The armour rating of a T-90 without ERA is a joke. T-90 has fuel hungry engines for the torque it provides. Based on Russian costs of T-90S, it is not that much cheaper to produce nor is it to operate.

Tanks need to be cheaper too. APU isn't a huge advantage, especially in the world of battlefield surveillance radars and CAS.

A T-90S internal fuel tank only holds 705 litres. Sitting in idle running the AC, radios, and thermals will burn out that fuel in 16 hours. A Leclerc can run all of that off the Turbomeca APU for a week. This allows tanks to sit in hunter-killer mode with a low IR signature while the T-90 will be a huge bright target and run out of fuel. If IAF does its job, none of those things you listed will matter. The only alternative for the T-90 is to turn off the engines and all the electronics using their portable gear for surveillance. If the tank crew isn't spotted first with their ammo box blowing the turret off, they will have to power everything up, which takes time. The AC will have to get running long enough to cool the scopes down, in the desert is probably 2-3 minutes. Within that amount of time, you are dead.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Engine oil is obviously different cause of different engines. But there are so many parts that share the same logistics. I am talking about the small parts, nuts, bolts, springs, cogs, brackets, bearings et al. The Arjuns would be different and the logistics supply for a different type of tanks will be huge.

Regarding small parts like bots and springs its similar to T-Tanks, as i said before logistics is not a problem on ground..

Also, buying additional transports and paying additional transport costs to the railways will cost too.

Its been done not only for Arjun but for future requirements..

You can't bring the T-55 into the picture because they are our reserves. More importantly, they are being phased out as we speak. By 2015 there will be no T-55s, Only T-72s and T-90s. So, T-55 does not come into the picture at all.

No, not at all, T-55 is the main strength of northern command and in western it is operational with T-72/90s i have recent picture of her from many exercises..
2017-20 their will be no T-55/72 only Arjun and T-90..

Not true. IA never agreed to induct the first batch of 124 tanks. It was the MoD who pressurized the Army into buying it. I am still wondering where the army will use 200 tanks out of the 248 to be purchased. 6 regiments is interesting. It will only end up supporting the T-90 or will end up being used for training.

Thats what media thinking not the Army..

Sir, I am not talking about media at all. They can shout all they want. Army does not operate under the aegis of the media. Heck if they are not bothered about the media storm about the NE Army Act, why will the army bother about some random ex service journalists over procurements.

Indeed but it effect on common citizens thinking and that's the reason why we see wrong ideas abt IA capability..

We all know the Arjun failed the trials in the 2000 period. Had the Arjun cleared all trials, given a definitive plan of action for its future upgrade and logistics, the army would have gone with the Arjun. But nothing came. The Arjun couldn't move a few hundred kilometres without needing an engine replacement and couldn't shoot to hit at 100 metres.

Regarding mobility and firepower Arjun preformed poorly back in 2000 ( cant shoot 100m is a ?!?!! knows ) but after 2002-5 it was ready for induction, But by then Army already planed to replace all T-72 by T-90s and Induce Arjun afterward..

Sir, the kanchan has undergone multiple modifications since it was developed. Some in the composition, some in the manufacturing process and some in the assembly. Tank armour is ever evolving. New designs and modifications of the Kanchan are coming out every 2 or 3 years. This is a part of the tank development. Out of many variants one is chosen by the army. Unfortunately we will never know how many and which one was chosen.

Let me correct you here, Armour of a tank do goes under various changes but 2-3 years is not it take decades to make a improved type over a obsolete type in case of Arjun and T-90M the Kanchan will be of 2002..

It is nearly impossible. The tank guns accuracy is greater than the dimensions of the ERA tile. Hitting the same spot again is a matter of luck.

You need to understand that the K-5 era tiles are over a 60cm in length and +70cm in width, its one huge era tile, And i saying coz i have seen them in person....

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Don't make things up to make a point. Here are some on-road stats with fuel drums for you to compare...

T-90S with 1000hp
max fuel = 1600 litres
max range = 550-611km

Leclerc with 1500hp
max fuel =1700 litres
max range = 650km

If the data abt T-90 is true than i am suprised to say that Arjun rating were good compare to T-90
Max Fuel = 1610 L
Range = 450-550km
Engine = 1400HP

Not bad for a 60 ton monster..

 

[Armand2REP]

If the data abt T-90 is true than i am suprised to say that Arjun rating were good compare to T-90
Max Fuel = 1610 L
Range = 450-550km
Engine = 1400HP

Not bad for a 60 ton monster..

Those stats are for both with fuel drums. Leclerc internal fuel is 1,300 L while the T-90 is only 705 L. A T-90 without drums will be running out of gas real quick. With 1610 litres internal on the Arjun she will be able to go far deeper into enemy territory as no tank will go into combat with fuel drums. With the APU she can stay autonomously on-station far longer. Arjun is the superior strike tank to T-90S.

 

[ppgj]

@armand

while i agree with most of your view above, some nitpicks though -

T-90S engine V-92-S2 is supposedly designed for 1000 hp but gives only 846/910 hp in reality and this according to "russian test certificate". here

http://cdm.ap.nic.in/casestudies/casevol362/Induction of tank T90s.pdf

however the internal fuel held by T-90 is not 705 but 705 + 495 and an additional external barrel for 400. total - 1600 litres.

Arjun carries 860 + 720 internal and an external barrel of 400 giving a total of - 1980 litres.

http://frontierindia.net/dissimilar-combat-arjun-mbt-vs-t-90s-specs

or may be Kunal Biswas or yourself can correct me on the "track guard tank". does it constitute internal or external??

Leclerc carries as you said 1300 internal + an external barrel of 400 for a total of - 1700 litres.

another point is range. as per my link below, Leclerc has 550 kms with external tanks.

http://www.giat-industries.fr/index...catid=41:arme-blindee-genie&Itemid=86&lang=en

ranges for T-90S and Arjun can be seen in the frontierindia link.

IIRC as per forum talk, india tried to get the more fuel efficient 1500 hp engine from MTU but were not given and had to settle for the bigger and not so fuel efficient 1400 hp engine. however with an APU on, this factor is addressed partly in addition to lesser IR signature, a silent mode operation and longer life for the engine.

hope the drdo which is trying to get it from "Cummins india" will be fruitful.

"We plan to source engines from Cummins India for future orders. If more orders come by, we can reduce the imported content to 25 percent," Sundaresh added.

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal...-indigenous-arjun-tank-hi-tech_100159572.html

 

[Kunal Biswas]

@armand

Kunal Biswas or yourself can correct me on the "track guard tank". does it constitute internal or external??

Its External though i am not sure..
Note the 5 & 6 are track guard fuel tanks..

 

[ppgj]

Its External..
Note the 5 & 6 are track guard Fuel Tanks..

ok. thank you sir. i had my doubt and hence the question. i stand corrected and Armand is right.

added later :

however as per the diagram 5 & 6 are not jettisonable like the barrels at the rear. why is not considered as internal??

 

[Armand2REP]

@armand

while i agree with most of your view above, some nitpicks though -

T-90S engine V-92-S2 is supposedly designed for 1000 hp but gives only 846/910 hp in reality and this according to "russian test certificate". here

http://cdm.ap.nic.in/casestudies/casevol362/Induction of tank T90s.pdf

Who can argue with Russian marketing? =omg=

however the internal fuel held by T-90 is not 705 but 705 + 495 and an additional external barrel for 400. total - 1600 litres.

If the tanks are outside the hull, it is external as on T-90.. I believe, don't quote me on it, that Arjuns are inside the hull.

Arjun carries 860 + 720 internal and an external barrel of 400 giving a total of - 1980 litres.

or may be Kunal Biswas or yourself can correct me on the "track guard tank". does it constitute internal or external??

That means they are only protected by side-skirts so technically, they are external. At least on the T-90. I am not sure on Arjun.

Leclerc carries as you said 1300 internal + an external barrel of 400 for a total of - 1700 litres.

I mentioned the internal capacity and external capacity, 1700 litres. The Leclerc does not place fuel in a vulnerable position under skirts, 1300 litres is armoured in the frontal hull while the fuel drums have automatic ejectors when going into combat. They must be ejected or the barrel will not have 360 degree coverage.

another point is range. as per my link below, Leclerc has 550 kms with external tanks.

That is for unpaved roads, paved is 650km

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/leclerc.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/leclerc-specs.htm

ranges for T-90S and Arjun can be seen in the frontierindia link.

360km and 410km? Don't buy that.

IIRC as per forum talk, india tried to get the more fuel efficient 1500 hp engine from MTU but were not given and had to settle for the bigger and not so fuel efficient 1400 hp engine. however with an APU on, this factor is addressed partly in addition to lesser IR signature, a silent mode operation and longer life for the engine.

You may or may not find this interesting,

http://www.mtu-online-shop.de/fileadmin/dam/download_media/import_print/D_23017E_0601.pdf

hope the drdo which is trying to get it from "Cummins india" will be fruitful.

The engine selection from MTU is pretty good. I wouldn't wan't to be dependent on US Cummins engines.

http://www.mtu-online.com/mtu/produ...-armored-vehicles/engines-for-heavy-vehicles/

 

[ppgj]

@armand

just wanted to know a comparison in terms of SFC between V-92-S2 & MB 838 Ka-501 based on this -

V -92-S2 consumes 180 g/hp-h (from the pdf i provided in my last post) and i don't know about the MB 838 Ka- 501 and i could not decipher from the graph in the MTU pdf you linked. which one is more fuel efficient??

 

[Kunal Biswas]

ok. thank you sir. i had my doubt and hence the question. i stand corrected and Armand is right.

added later :

however as per the diagram 5 & 6 are not jettisonable like the barrels at the rear. why is not considered as internal??

Yes as these are not jettison type we can call them Internal..
Also their are some find regarding Arjun external fuel capacity, According to the article above Arjun carries 860 + 720 internal and an external barrel of 400 giving a total of - 1980L, Also in times of need for more fuel their are additional fuel drums carried on the sides of the tank, I don't have the exact capacity for these drums but they will surely increase the full capacity above 1980L..

 

[Armand2REP]

@armand

just wanted to know a comparison in terms of SFC between V-92-S2 & MB 838 Ka-501 based on this -

V -92-S2 consumes 180 g/hp-h (from the pdf i provided in my last post) and i don't know about the MB 838 Ka- 501 and i could not decipher from the graph in the MTU pdf you linked. which one is more fuel efficient??

V-92-S2 consumes 230g/kwh at maximum RPM, the MB838 consumes 248g/kwh at max RPMs. Compare that to a Russian engine with 910hp max to one pulling 1400hp... the German engine is better.

 

[ppgj]

V-92-S2 consumes 230g/kwh at maximum RPM, the MB838 consumes 248g/kwh at max RPMs. Compare that to a Russian engine with 910hp max to one pulling 1400hp... the German engine is better.

actually later, this, i did think looking at the graph in the MB838KA501 pdf (i get 248/kwh) but could not get T-90's fuel intake at max or min RPMs. the pdf i linked to you spoke of only 180g/hp-h without specifying at what RPM. hence my query.

thanks.

can you link me to the V92S2 SPECS with the info you just provided?? would appreciate that.

 

[ppgj]

Yes as these are not jettison type we can call them Internal..
Also their are some find regarding Arjun external fuel capacity, According to the article above Arjun carries 860 + 720 internal and an external barrel of 400 giving a total of - 1980L, Also in times of need for more fuel their are additional fuel drums carried on the sides of the tank, I don't have the exact capacity for these drums but they will surely increase the full capacity above 1980L..

sir, the picture shows both internal and external fuel tank points. now as i understand, the main internal fuel would be under the frontal hull which is heavily protected. the "internal fuel tank point" your picture depicts is some thing which is completely different. does it mean as what Armand was referring to which i quote -

I believe, don't quote me on it, that Arjuns are inside the hull.

post # 248.

or am i reading too much into the picture.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

sir, the picture shows both internal and external fuel tank points. now as i understand, the main internal fuel would be under the frontal hull which is heavily protected. the "internal fuel tank point" your picture depicts is some thing which is completely different. does it mean as what Armand was referring to which i quote -
post # 248.
or am i reading too much into the picture.

Well their is not much info on internal fuel tanks on Arjun, though the chassis was deigned back in 1980 so most probably it was inspired by T-class tanks chassis, therefore the bulge behind the turret may also have fuel-tanks in it, just like T-class have fuel-tanks at rear..

Still this is a speculation, It is also possible that fuel-tanks may be placed inside the hull..

 

[p2prada]

Sorry for the late reply. I have been away for the weekend.

Regarding small parts like bots and springs its similar to T-Tanks, as i said before logistics is not a problem on ground..

Sorry Sir. I beg to differ. This is the biggest problem for any tank regiment. Tanks have nearly 16000 parts. More than 4000 parts are under constant threat of decaying due wear and tear. In our weather conditions the materials wear and tear simply increases. The T-72 and T-90 have common parts and looks like the T-72s may get the same engine as the T-90s. Our entire policy on T-72 upgrade program is not fully implemented.

Its been done not only for Arjun but for future requirements..

250 tanks have limited infrastructure.

No, not at all, T-55 is the main strength of northern command and in western it is operational with T-72/90s i have recent picture of her from many exercises..
2017-20 their will be no T-55/72 only Arjun and T-90..

Firstly, we are not even sure if the light tanks requirement will materialize. Old T-72s are being phased out and being replaced by the T-90s. Newer T-72s are being upgraded for being combat worthy for the next 10, maybe 15 years. Also the requirement for 300 light tanks has nothing to do with the phasing out of the T-55s. It is to be employed in J&K and North East and none of them are particularly for Pakistan, meaning they will not cross the borders.

Arjun inductions are on a tight rope. Simply because the tank has been successful now does not mean the Army may have the resources to commit to an entirely new tank. That's why the DGMF has asked for a new tank, Mk2. A future order of more T-90s will kill the Arjun Mk1 project.

Regarding mobility and firepower Arjun preformed poorly back in 2000 ( cant shoot 100m is a ?!?!! knows ) but after 2002-5 it was ready for induction, But by then Army already planed to replace all T-72 by T-90s and Induce Arjun afterward..

I was being sarcastic with the 100m comment. As of today, the highest officials have already said the army is ready to wait for a new generation tank. The Arjun Mk1 inductions till today have been token measures to take away pressure coming from the MoD.

Let me correct you here, Armour of a tank do goes under various changes but 2-3 years is not it take decades to make a improved type over a obsolete type in case of Arjun and T-90M the Kanchan will be of 2002..

Sir. New armour types are designed. The best ones are chosen and tested. Testing takes the longest time and that results in the time delay. There is no guarantee the composition of the T-90 Kanchan and Arjun Kanchan will be the same. There are multiple designs on the Chobam too and the kanchan and Chobam development time lines are similar, Chobham being older. The Kanchan of 2002 could be different from the Kanchan of 2010. Of course, that does not mean the Arjuns armour cannot be upgraded with future production orders.

Perhaps the next step may include a DU lining. Who knows? Our tank development is still not complete and will not get over any time soon, at least till 2020.

You need to understand that the K-5 era tiles are over a 60cm in length and +70cm in width, its one huge era tile, And i saying coz i have seen them in person....

There are different types of K-5s used. The ones on top and turret front are different from the biggest side ERAs

however as per the diagram 5 & 6 are not jettisonable like the barrels at the rear. why is not considered as internal??

The internal tanks are under the main armour of the tank while external are outside the main armour.

5 and 6 are not jettisonable because they do not interfere with the Tank's main gun while the barrels do. Also, nobody like fuel tanks being dragged around by the tracks.

You are missing the point, the T-90s engines are not only inefficient, they are obsolete. Will explain further...

Agreed. They are old. Everybody knows that. So, is the Arjun's engine.

Don't make things up to make a point. Here are some on-road stats with fuel drums for you to compare...

Considering the Leclerc is dragging 10t more armour and providing 660 more hp, the Leclerc engines are far more fuel efficient than either Russian engine. It is pretty obvious why T-95 never came around, the engines are too weak and fuel hungry to drag its fat ass very far.

ppgj gave you Arjun's stats. I am sure Leclerc has superior engines, but that is not the same with Arjun. Arjun's indigenous engines are far from ready.

In the desert, the Arjun's mileage is nearly 13 LPK compared to 8-9 LPK for the T-90. Leclerc has never seen Indian conditions. That's why the French Catherines are going to need an AC. Bring the Leclercs here, it will not move.

Superior FCS?? The comparison trials proved Arjun has superior accuracy.

Things go beyond shooting a barrel or a big tile. Tank warfare has changed. The French Catherine is more modern compared to the Israeli equivalent used on the Arjun. Thermals have to go through smoke and fire at targets that can protect itself and fire back.

The armour rating of a T-90 without ERA is a joke.

T-90 will come with ERA.

T-90 has fuel hungry engines for the torque it provides.

Do you have comparative figures of torque on Arjun to the T-90?

A T-90S internal fuel tank only holds 705 litres. Sitting in idle running the AC, radios, and thermals will burn out that fuel in 16 hours. A Leclerc can run all of that off the Turbomeca APU for a week. This allows tanks to sit in hunter-killer mode with a low IR signature while the T-90 will be a huge bright target and run out of fuel. If IAF does its job, none of those things you listed will matter. The only alternative for the T-90 is to turn off the engines and all the electronics using their portable gear for surveillance. If the tank crew isn't spotted first with their ammo box blowing the turret off, they will have to power everything up, which takes time. The AC will have to get running long enough to cool the scopes down, in the desert is probably 2-3 minutes. Within that amount of time, you are dead.

ACs and Electronics work on APU and not on tank engine. A 1KW APU is already installed for electronics and another APU will be by DRDO to run the AC. Only tank gun cannot be moved or fired and that's the only disadvantage.

Something about the T-72 upgrade program from Shukla.

http://news.rediff.com/report/2010/...spend-rs-5000-crore-on-obsolete-t72-tanks.htm

An auxillary power unit (APU) to generate power for the tank's electrical systems. Each APU will cost Rs 0.16 crore.

IR signature etc are all gone when it comes to network warfare. This is the world of Battlefield surveillance radars. You are detected from 30 kms away no matter what you are doing. The Phalcon AEW&C is capable of detecting armed soldiers from 50kms away, so detecting a tank is child's play.

 

[Neil]

the real problem of our armored regiments is they are night blind atleast most are....T-72 dont have a night fighting visions which seriously questions are capabilities......
are T-90 equiped with night fighting devices....??

 

[Armand2REP]

Agreed. They are old. Everybody knows that. So, is the Arjun's engine.

MTU doesn't make old engines, whatever the date of the initial design, they are made to modern standards.

* Highest power concentration with regard to weight and volume
* Fulfills MIL standards such as "nuclear hardening" and "electromagnetic shielding"
* Latest technology, such as starter generators and CAN bus communication
* Low fuel and oil consumption due to use of modern engine management systems and common rail injection systems

Russian engines do not have this.

ppgj gave you Arjun's stats. I am sure Leclerc has superior engines, but that is not the same with Arjun. Arjun's indigenous engines are far from ready.

Who is talking about domestic engines? I am talking about German MTUs, the premier exporter of MBT engines.

In the desert, the Arjun's mileage is nearly 13 LPK compared to 8-9 LPK for the T-90. Leclerc has never seen Indian conditions. That's why the French Catherines are going to need an AC. Bring the Leclercs here, it will not move.

Leclercs have been tropicalised to operate in the deserts of the Arab peninsula and the jungles of Africa, it can handle India. The Arjun has less fuel consumption per KwH than the T-90 by a large margin. Stick the V-92 in the Arjun and it won't go half as fast or half as far.

Things go beyond shooting a barrel or a big tile. Tank warfare has changed. The French Catherine is more modern compared to the Israeli equivalent used on the Arjun. Thermals have to go through smoke and fire at targets that can protect itself and fire back.

Using a Catherine might give you the ability to see the target first, but a superior FCS allows you to hit the other target first. Arjun would win a gun duel with a T-90, Al-Khalid, or a Type 99.

T-90 will come with ERA.

But you don't make it and Russia won't sell it. Getting the picture yet?

Do you have comparative figures of torque on Arjun to the T-90?

I already posted the fuel consumption of both vehicles at maximum torque/RPM.

ACs and Electronics work on APU and not on tank engine. A 1KW APU is already installed for electronics and another APU will be by DRDO to run the AC. Only tank gun cannot be moved or fired and that's the only disadvantage.

According to the information I have, T-90 does not and will not have an APU in the foreseeable future. The T-72 is a different upgrade. The T-90's electronics work off the battery which is charged by the engine. If the engine don't run, you don't have power, at least only what the battery can provide.

IR signature etc are all gone when it comes to network warfare. This is the world of Battlefield surveillance radars. You are detected from 30 kms away no matter what you are doing. The Phalcon AEW&C is capable of detecting armed soldiers from 50kms away, so detecting a tank is child's play.

Most of the land based BSRs in use today are for artillery spotting, not tracking troop movements and that is definitely the case in S. Asia. India has a bunch of short ranged BSRs but the tactical advantage is minimal. It really isn't the world of BSRs in Pakistan or China. Phalcon as a BSR, not really...