Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Austin]

interesting read by Viktor Murakhovsky on the tests of 3BM42 APFSDS "Mango", in service on Russian tanks since 1986 :

" 125-mm 3VBM17 round with 3BM42 APFSDS projectile «Mango» was put into service in 1986. The advanced power projectile is designed to modern updated armored vehicles with combined armor protection. It has complicated structure, which includes solid ballistic and armor-piercing cap, armor-piercing damper and two penetrators made of high-duty tungsten alloy.

The penetrators are fixed in the hull by a steel body made of low-melting- temperature alloy. When it penetrates, the steel body melts and the penetrators move to the penetrating pipe without consuming energy to leave the hull.The sabot is made of V-96C1 alloy with advanced characteristics.

When the projectile was tested the projectile engaged a multilayered armor, which simulates the armor of than cutting-edge tanks: seven- layer armor at an angle of 30 and 60 degrees; three-layer armor at an angle of 65 degrees; steel homogenous armor plate. The tests proved that the 3BM42 APFSDS projectile penetrated the armor which is the same as used in the main battle tanks M1, M1A1 «Abrams» etc. "
....................
.....................

It continues specifying that the round had a guaranteed piercing performance, at a distance of 2000 m and 0/60 degrees, of 450/230 mm and an average piercing performance at a Distance of 2000 m always at 0 degrees of 500 mm

​

 

[Damian]

Yeah,potential and how many are you buying? Bottomline, you need exports for a success. We don't. India and China can buy hundreds of tanks to finalize their design,but you cant.

I think You still don't understand, Anders is not a light tank, it is UCP, our needs for Anders is approx 1000 vehicles minimum to replace all non MBT tracked vehicles with armor, now ou understand? It is Universal Combat Platform, it is not here to field a LT and replace old IFV's with new ones, but to replace all obsolete non MBT vehicles on tracks... so yes we can.

This is about a pointer to the scale of industry being developed.

Oh, we also have good engeeners, we also have money, the problem is money is not because we don't have them but because we have stupid politicians that waste these money than invest them.

Bottomline is today India is making its own design and finessing it. Your chaps need cheap KMW Leo2s to bulk up your forces. What about tomorrow?

We needed Leo2's to equip our armed forces with good design untill something else will not be affordabale, in this case and current situation, such ope for our own modern MBT is Wolf program, with a bit lower demands on armor protection and gun penetration capabilities and a better funding there is a hope for success, and with modularity, current high demands (even very high!) can be used later when there will be money for them.

So with a more orientated on strenghting industry and military goverment, we are abale to do so, citizens also have a very high thinking about our military contrary to many west european countries, so there would be a rather strong support to such actions from citizens.

BTW.

your doomed charge against German armor,

This is propaanda myth made by Germans and later used by Soviets, our cavalry never did that, in fact cavalry have real anti armor assets like Bofors anti tank guns, one of the best at that time, and they were fighting on foot like light infantry, horses were used only to manouver or travel long distance, nothing else.

Oh well, it seems that myths are still in very good shape.

What do you know of Indian military experience? Have you even done a cursory research? India was the largest contributor of volunteer manpower in WW2.

Go look up who fought along with Polish troops to capture Monte Cassino, or fought the Japanese in Asia or even the Germans in Africa and elsewhere.

What you have said, just ignores the amount of experience the Indian Armed forces have.

I never said that You did not have experiences from WWII, and here complete respect for soldiers, but there is also such thing as technology experience from war, such experience can be gained only by these that manufacture weapon system and use them in real combat, they then see weak points, upgrade them, then another weak points, they upgrade and on and on.

This is the difference, nor my country, not yours have it, we need to base many of our designs on experiences of other countries.

Your chaps learnt what COIN is when they went to Afghanistan.

Nah, first experiences we gained in former Yugoslavia, then Iraq was first hard lesson, Afghanistan was something very much different and we were much better prepared for it.

 

[Damian]

The tests proved that the 3BM42 APFSDS projectile penetrated the armor which is the same as used in the main battle tanks M1, M1A1 «Abrams» etc. "

M1 yes, early Leo2's yes, M1A1, the light M1A1 perhaps, but M1A1HA is protected over frontal arc way beyond capabilities of 3BM42, some theories, rumors or opinions suggest that M1A1HA front turret KE protection is something around 800mm of RHAe, same for Leopard 2A4 of late production batches.

It continues specifying that the round had a guaranteed piercing performance, at a distance of 2000 m and 0/60 degrees, of 450/230 mm and an average piercing performance at a Distance of 2000 m always at 0 degrees of 500 mm

Hmmm, so I think it is also not capabale to perforate light M1A1 armor that's similiar to M1 armor, use a better materials and overall composition is different... but hey, thy need to promote some way their products and true knowledge of M1's protection is beyond their knowledge.

 

[Austin]

What constitute M1A1 armour , its composition etc can be debatable , wast it 300 mm composite side armour of M1A2 that was blown by a RPG-29 at 0 * ?

 

[Damian]

wast it 300 mm composite side armour of M1A2 that was blown by a RPG-29 at 0 * ?

380mm LOS thickness at 0 degrees from turret center axis, and no, not M1A2, M1A1 variant, most possibly, M1A1HA, M1A1HA+, M1A1HC or M1A1AIM v.1 (can't say for sure, from the outside it is just impossible to see the differences). And the damage itself done by RPG-29 was not big, unfortunetly loaders was directly on the pass way of shaped chare jet, he died, gunner and TC were only injured.

What constitute M1A1 armour , its composition etc can be debatable ,

Of course, however M1A1 front armor was allready thicker by 220-230mm than the basic M1, the composition was also different, in fact the only US tank that used British Burlington armor was the basic M1, M1IP and M1A1 allready used something better designed in US only, from what I know the composition and materials used were different and with better quality, but still to simplify, everybody use a Burlington codename for this armor, this is because Americans actually stoped to use any codenames (at least officialy) for their composite armors, and usually they reffer them as "Special Armor" or "Armor Package", so this is very confusing.

Russians are probably basing their estimations of foreing armor on their own research and on unclassified Burlington files + also from freign users of western armor, but as we all are aware, these are downgraded export variants. So there is a huge margin of error in their estimations, as well as in estimations made by westerners, there is a huge margin of error. This is why so important is to get Your hands on real or potential enemy weapons and test them... currently however it is much easier to do this with Russian and Ukrainian tanks than with western ones.

Good example is Pakistan, their T-80UD sub variant, designated Object 487BE use actually the same turret as T-84 series with probably the same composite armor, I'am sure that several years ago Pakistanis were much more keen to share with this technology with Americans... of course different thing is newest T-84M Oplot-M (Object 487DU10).

 

[Damian]

Armor Basics

I think that everyone should read this, it a s bit old document, and AFAIK the new one is not for public use (mr Paul Lakowski wanted to use it as a base for his book) so some informations here can be a bit outdated or wrong.

For example messure of M1 Abrams armor thickness are taken from Hunnicutt book, but there weld lines are in wrong positions, thus making armor thinner than in reality it is (wonder if Hunnicutt made this intentionally due to his connections with US Military ).

 

[Damian]

BTW, probably not many people know, that actually the first country to use composite armor was... US, however Silacious Core Armor had some drawbacks and was not adopted.

Worth to read this.

US Silaceous Cored Armor Protection/Performance - Tanknet

 

[Austin]

380mm LOS thickness at 0 degrees from turret center axis, and no, not M1A2, M1A1 variant, most possibly, M1A1HA, M1A1HA+, M1A1HC or M1A1AIM v.1 (can't say for sure, from the outside it is just impossible to see the differences). And the damage itself done by RPG-29 was not big, unfortunetly loaders was directly on the pass way of shaped chare jet, he died, gunner and TC were only injured.

The point that i was trying to make is its not the issue of their RHA figures versus our RHA figures , these are notional figures that tell you approximately how thick the armour is generally speaking.

The real competition is between your Armour Composition versus my ability to defeat it via Tandem Heat (CE ) or KE (APFSDS ) , all things being equal that is where the real deal it , it does not mean things like thickness of armour , angle of the armour , speed of the KE projectile or composition of APFSDS does not matter , that too matters but in the end its about the ability to defeat your armour composition with my warhead composition or my apfsds composition and other details.

Russians are probably basing their estimations of foreing armor on their own research and on unclassified Burlington files + also from freign users of western armor, but as we all are aware, these are downgraded export variants. So there is a huge margin of error in their estimations, as well as in estimations made by westerners, there is a huge margin of error. This is why so important is to get Your hands on real or potential enemy weapons and test them... currently however it is much easier to do this with Russian and Ukrainian tanks than with western ones.

So when was Russian T-90 with composite armour and K-5 ERA was every tested with US APFSDS rounds or CE ?

On the contrary all recent war have really tested Russian ATGM/RPG in export composition against US M1 Abrams , Merkava and Chally and the results are not so disappointing for any one to see.

It was not a planned thing but it just happened.

If fact i am really not aware if Russian Mango APFSDS was ever tested against wester armour.

All weapons designer would do their estimates based on open knowledge , classified information and their own R&D work on the subject , the only time you would be proven write or wrong will be in actual combat and the way it went was US and Israel was more involved in actual combat last decade hence they had more opportunity to test Russian CE weapons against latest Western armour then vice verse.

 

[Damian]

The point that i was trying to make is its not the issue of their RHA figures versus our RHA figures , these are notional figures that tell you approximately how thick the armour is generally speaking.

The real competition is between your Armour Composition versus my ability to defeat it via Tandem Heat (CE ) or KE (APFSDS ) , all things being equal that is where the real deal it , it does not mean things like thickness of armour , angle of the armour , speed of the KE projectile or composition of APFSDS does not matter , that too matters but in the end its about the ability to defeat your armour composition with my warhead composition or my apfsds composition and other details.

True but actually due to real experiences on the battlefield, US, Israel and UK had not even opportunity but a real and important need to increse R&D on armor protection. and we don't know what improvements they did, but we can be sure, they did these improvements.

So when was Russian T-90 with composite armour and K-5 ERA was every tested with US APFSDS rounds or CE ?

Never, but T-90 base armor should be similiar to T-72B. T-90A is a completely different thing... on the other hand India have a rather close and friendly reliationship with US?

On the contrary all recent war have really tested Russian ATGM/RPG in export composition against US M1 Abrams , Merkava and Chally and the results are not so disappointing for any one to see.

True, but on the other hand these ATGM's and RPG's failed to perforate thickest composite armor arrays on these tanks, when ebing succesfull to perforate weaker composite and non composite armor protected areast.

So it is success for both sides, west proved that their frontal composite armors are offering high protection, while improvement is needed for side protection or front areas without thick composite armor, while Russian ATGM's and RPG's are effective in these weaker protected areas.

If fact i am really not aware if Russian Mango APFSDS was ever tested against wester armour.

If it was tested, then only against some downgraded export packages for middle east countries.

All weapons designer would do their estimates based on open knowledge , classified information and their own R&D work on the subject , the only time you would be proven write or wrong will be in actual combat and the way it went was US and Israel was more involved in actual combat last decade hence they had more opportunity to test Russian CE weapons against latest Western armour then vice verse.

Exactly, this is why I think that Russians and Ukrainians have tendency to underestimate protection of western vehicles, and there are many reasons of such actions, lack of precise knowldege, basing only on own research that not nececary is on the same level (due to many factors, West invested incredible amount of money and time to develop effective composite armors, Russians and Ukrainians take more emphazise on lighter, simpler composites with integral or modular ERA and heavy ERA) or they are victims of desinformation.

However one important hint, it may be desinformation but, IRCC main designers of T-90MS said that with armor improvements it reached level of comparable western MBT's? It may be desinformation or indeed it was just accident that he said that forgeting about OPSEC? Many different possible explanations, the question is, what explanation is the close to reality?

 

[Austin]

True but actually due to real experiences on the battlefield, US, Israel and UK had not even opportunity but a real and important need to increse R&D on armor protection. and we don't know what improvements they did, but we can be sure, they did these improvements.

True but it also gives the Russian a good idea on where they stand as far as ATGM and RPG goes and you can safely bet they would not be disappointed.

I am sure the Israel and US would work towards upgrading in protection level and the Russian too would be doing the same.

Never, but T-90 base armor should be similiar to T-72B. T-90A is a completely different thing... on the other hand India have a rather close and friendly reliationship with US?

Never assume as there is a proverb for it and you expect India to gave aways its own secret to US , so that they can share with dear friend Pakistan

Any ways such fears are also rational and its not that some one would give it away there are Military Intelligence service scouting for such kind of information , exactly the reason why countries exporting such stuff provide a export quality stuff to their customer

True, but on the other hand these ATGM's and RPG's failed to perforate thickest composite armor arrays on these tanks, when ebing succesfull to perforate weaker composite and non composite armor protected areast.

Its a lesson for both sides to learns , I am sure both the Russians and US and Israel and UK would take some things home from their experience of how their weapons system performed and improved upon it.

So it is success for both sides, west proved that their frontal composite armors are offering high protection, while improvement is needed for side protection or front areas without thick composite armor, while Russian ATGM's and RPG's are effective in these weaker protected areas.

Point taken as far as RPG goes.

BTW i have yet to hear about how Kornet-E performed against frontal armour , considering I believe they knocked down 2 Merkava 4.

If it was tested, then only against some downgraded export packages for middle east countries.

Most likely that is the case.

Exactly, this is why I think that Russians and Ukrainians have tendency to underestimate protection of western vehicles, and there are many reasons of such actions, lack of precise knowldege, basing only on own research that not nececary is on the same level (due to many factors, West invested incredible amount of money and time to develop effective composite armors, Russians and Ukrainians take more emphazise on lighter, simpler composites with integral or modular ERA and heavy ERA) or they are victims of desinformation.

Grrrr understimate armour , when did Russian A quality stuff was ever tested against similar Western stuff ? What they tested via proxy was export quality stuff and if any one looks at the result of that duel they wont be dissapointed.

I mean imagine a cheap weapon like RPG-29 breaking through top quality Western and Israel stuff , its a very cheap way to take out multi million dollar tanks with thousand dollar weapon , the exachange ratio is so favourable for the people who use these.

Having said that its a lesson for both to learn and take home , till next time we see such system in action.

However one important hint, it may be desinformation but, IRCC main designers of T-90MS said that with armor improvements it reached level of comparable western MBT's? It may be desinformation or indeed it was just accident that he said that forgeting about OPSEC? Many different possible explanations, the question is, what explanation is the close to reality?

What he said was the protection available is good enough against what they ( West ) have and then he gave some protection level figures.

In the end the Western Weapons will have to deal with such composite/era armour to see how their respective KE/CE will perform against T-90MS , I am not sure we will see that soon.

 

[Damian]

So Austin we agree... at least more or less agree.

BTW i have yet to hear about how Kornet-E performed against frontal armour , considering I believe they knocked down 2 Merkava 4.

One was huge IED victim, second was hit in the hull rear, ammo cook-off and explosion, not much left from the hull.

One of the Object-187 prototypes, this one as we can see, use more western type hull design.

 

[p2prada]

In a previous post, you quoted an image of the ARDE MK1 and MK2 rounds and promptly told these Polish "experts" that they were IMI rounds. This is the so called depth of your knowledge.

You don't even have a clue of what is in service, what its being used for, the issues that exist, whats being developed in India, whats on offer and why. A kid who uses google but doesnt even understand what is what.

Silly boy, the rounds you mentioned were developed almost 3 years back & have been awaiting production orders after extensive trials, while IMI rounds of similar performance were imported as blanks (penetrators), machined at HAPP Trichy.

The rounds you are talking about are ARDE rounds which were licence manufactured from IMI's designs. Go check it out. It has the same chemical propellant and the same Romanian penetrators. They are Mk1 and Mk2 designs. The company has been blacklisted for corruption earlier and if you are already not aware the MoD is travelling to Russia to order new Russian rounds for T-72 and T-90.

So, who's what now?

These Polish gentlemen were meanwhile mentioning about how their German developed rounds were & how bad the Israeli were. Didn't even strike them apparently that India had the capability, financial and technical - to both acquire rounds completely separately while pursuing an entirely separate program on its own and bring it to production. And it can now do so again, for the next level as the WWs manufacturers are cueing up to cooperate. Whereas India already has the ability to make IMI level rounds developed independently at ARDE, and which it can now improve upon, as it will.

The indigenous production rounds are dead and were destroyed. India does not have the technical capability to manufacture a round that can be indigenized. Would agree with the financial part though. But it does not get you anywhere.

More hilarity of the highest order. Lets talk of a reinvention shall we - the lower tier Prithvi series which even so features accuracy of the order of a few meters thanks to an excellent INS, the precision of which puts even several imports to shame. A derivative ended up on the Brahmos.

The missile was robust enough to be used for both the PAD and derivatives. Reinventing the wheel, yes indeed - with Agnis that feature MARVs, with radars that use semidistributed AESA modules but are lightweight enough to be portable even to hlltops. You know nothing of Indian defence bar google. And even there, your lack of knowledge speaks for itself.

I have always said our missile program has been our most successful programs and perhaps our only successful ones. Some other which have the potential to be success are only prototypes or still in development like the Arihant and P-15. Are these your only examples?

By the way, the Prithvi derived PAD is being replaced by a supposedly new missile called PDV.

The rest, we are simply reinventing. There are numerous ways to go about a design. We may chose something that may be vastly different from a Russian or American solution but in the end it is being done simply to achieve a capability they already have.

Do you even understand the basic concept of COTS? The DRDO uses" circuit boards" - rather semiconductors of 150nm feature size and above for critical applications which it ruggedizes for critical applications. As long as they meet size, power and heat requirements, they are perfectly fine for the task. The US uses so many legacy electronics of much earlier vintage that it even has companies like JurASIC make them. If you didn't even get that name - I would'nt be surprised.

Yes and the American legacy systems are the equivalent of our best systems when it comes to electronics.

Otherwise, it, like the rest of the world, uses COTS & has its designs produced in state of the art facilities. Most of the world's best designers do likewise. It also has verification processes to ensure the qualities of what it gets. Furthermore, both ISRO and DRDO are investing in their facilities to upgrade their more. If you had any idea of actual processors - beyond something so silly as "circuit boards" - you would know that the ww military semiconductor market - of which the US is the largest consumer - is approximately in the low single digits of the overall market, and prefers to concentrate on only specific products such as MMICS for high end RF applications! For the rest, every manufacture prefers to source memory, microprocessors for commercial suppliers bar critical RF hardened applications which we design inhouse and can live with the marginal issue of larger feature size! Basically, you have no idea of the topic again!

Does it matter how big the semiconductor industry is when we are talking about technology that DRDO is still using. Heck, my laptop is more powerful than the mission computers on Su-30MKI. Yes, even this does not matter. The current systems are enough for what we have and what we are going to use. But this is definitely not enough when we are buying weapons and comparing it to better systems that exist around the world.

You talk of 32nm and 16nm circuit boards - do you even understand the topic? Kid, right now only a handful of foundries and IDMs (look up what that term means, cause clearly you have no idea) are investing in 22nm and beyond, because its already realized that the constant investment in lowering track widths & increasing wafer sizes is leading to huge capex expenditure. As matter of fact, the WW electronics industry is finally looking at ROI - the FPD industry is yet to break even!
Without even understanding the basics of any topic, you talk rubbish.

Well, the Americans are doing it. They are moving to faster and more advanced semiconductors. Just an example, when we say 150nm diode we are simply saying the distance between source and drain on the pmos diode is 150nm. That's about it. The difference between a 150nm and a 16nm is so massive that you cannot even imagine the speed and the capability of the diode. Now you obviously do not understand the simple fact that the Americans can do more on a circuit board than what DRDO can. The 16nm requires lesser cooling and the board is lighter which reduces weight. Now do you want me to explain how weight reduction plays in an aircraft? Heck the LCA MK1 can see big changes in weight and avionics volume by simply moving to 16nm boards instead of the current 150nm boards. You have a better RoI with products that can be sent to the production lines rather than the museum.

The Android phones coming out now use 32nm wafers for processors which allows you to hold the phone easily. Had they used 150nm wafers, the same phone would be impossible to handle or would be too slow. Now if they move to a 10nm, then you could only imagine that capability.

Engineering is all about using a combination of OTS expertise and relying on specific own tech for the rest. India is one of the handful of countries which is pioneering avionics packages using SoC apart from the WW OEMs in Israel France & the US. We have MEMS sensor packages that match everything available from import & DRDO is investing in new foundries to expand its MEMS footprint to even nanosensors for NBC. The scale of work happening in India, beginning with a semiconductor manufacturing base that was deliberately throttled due to sanctions, is substantial. There is no dearth of capability, and progress has been made even in the most critical mixed signal designs.

It is happening, it has not happened, yet. This is the difference. We are yet to reach this capability.

Quite frankly, you know nothing of any Indian program r what is being done or is being aimed for. Its exactly as ace said - the difference between him & you, is that he may not know something, but he asks, with humility. You pretend to posture as an expert, and keep making mistake after mistake.....

I never said even once that I am an expert. You are the one who did. And that still does not explain why we have to go running to Russia for making shells when we have equivalent(actually "better" in your words) made by ARDE which are supposedly ready for production.

And if you actually lived life, as versus talked big - you'd realize some of the most inventive people in the world - including some of those whom I have met, lack formal education & fancy degrees but come up with amazing work. Fundamentally then - thats the thing. I am old enough not to be impressed by paper - not my own or those of others. You are a child, you'll learn.

True to an extent. But all the Nobel Prize winners I see today have pretty fancy degrees. You have completely bypassed a discussion on military technology to economics.

"India will not use those smaller wafers because it is expensive. India will not do this because we have access to off the shelf tech." All these are economics. Come back with technological reason. For eg: Money is not the reason why we rely on COTS. It is lack of technical expertise in making these at home. DRDO is only now planning to set up 40nm wafer factories and will be ready in 2 to 3 years. So, economics is not a reason when our budget is supposedly big.

I could reel off advances India has made in sensors, in radars, in signal processing, in missile control systems, in design features incorporated in some of ours systems that were and are way ahead of their time - but here's the problem.

See, you blame me for ignorance but what I can say is this statement amounts to arrogance. You could reel off advances India has made in what? See that's the problem. We rely on COTS technology and still make stuff ahead of time. How does that work? It is very, very painfully obvious the European and American technology is ahead of COTS technology. Something to note: The Tomahawk is a 6.2m long missile with a 0.5m diameter. It is really funny that a missile of this size is capable of travelling 2500Km and kill it's enemy with a 450Kg payload while another missile we are developing and is of a similar size is capable of doing what the Tomahawk does at only 1000Km. Do you know why there is such a difference? Very simple, electronics. All the extra space the Americans have due to more advanced avionics carries the extra fuel to move that far. Other than that they don't have any special place for extra fuel that the Nirbhay cannot carry.

You basically lack the humility to learn.

You have made far too many mistakes yourself. You still believe Arjun haven't had any engine failures while the Army and Parliament apparently believe otherwise.

I have been present at professional events where peers of Indian developers have walked over, introduced themselves and been surprised by some of the things India has done in terms of its current systems, taken notes & gone ahead with implementing similar design advantages.

You are the one who don't understand. We are in India. People talk big. Considering you are so old, I thought you would know. Even little things are exaggerated. They think Saras is a big achievement and worthy of calling ourselves a great aerospace industry. Do you understand now? We are a country of hero worshipers. It's incredible you missed that. The very fact when you said we used COTS to make things that are ahead of time by itself is hilarious.

When you speak to professionals you have to place yourself in their shoes and understand what they are saying. The only professionals who are exposed in India are sport persons. If they exaggerate they will be exposed, but it is not so in the defence industry. If these professionals say what they did is amazing then why don't we see that in actual life. Arjun was made but T-90 was inducted. LCA was made, but not inducted. Heck even IOC and FOC have been delayed by a year not. Final IOC is coming next year and not this year and this will obviously push FOC by another year. Most other products are either in development or in prototype form.

Which is why I laugh at your statements, and those of your "teachers" talking smack about India, China vis a vis other nations - because you have never travelled, its the frog in the well mentality. What India and China are doing today, are things all these "Experts" would be shocked by. Money talks.

Money talks indeed. But there is a limit to how well technology can be assimilated using that money. Our space and missile programs are successful only because we worked on them for 40 years with foreign assistance(namely Russia), at least initially. Our nuclear inductry is robust because of British and Canadian assistance and even that took 30 to 40 years to achieve. But LCA and Arjun are comparatively very new projects and we have had very little outside help except for COTS technology access. Thus they are in the limbo, nothing is certain unless it happens. But we can take missile technology for granted because of our vast experience. AESA, radars, and all these smaller products can be done faster with foreign help because of the smaller gestation period and our JVs with more advanced industries in Israel and Russia.

All our newest toys that we like to talk about are JVs. So, there are a lot of our own inputs along with foreign. But there is no doubt that without foreign assistance we cannot develop these things on our own. You say we developed our own propulsion for Trishul and that is the basis for a new LRSAM. But let's not forget that we need assistance in technologies that we have not been able to realize with out own efforts no matter how much money has been poured. Similarly, we have the AESA radar for an AEW&C, but we need an aircraft from a more advanced partner in order to realize this as well. Even Astra uses the MICA's seeker, until we are able to indigenize the technology. So, we still have a long way to go in order to realize these things that you so proudly speak of.

Small things....like a lightweight 3D radar made with AESA modules used in a semidistributed fashion, and then with a central reciever....something that didn't strike even the Israelis, who have come out with something similar later..

A central receiver will decrease the MTBF of the receiver. Nevertheless, this is just a cheap way to save up on the costs required for the the demodulating circuit because this circuit is more expensive and complex than the transmitting circuit even after distribution. A semidistributed array would mean it is even cheaper. This isn't something ingenious as you are trying to potray. It is just being frugal in designing a radar which may face small arms fire in a battlefield. It's nothing great but you can say it is nearly as good as the amount of frugality used by TATA in designing Nano.

You may speak to scientists but its clear are yet to even understand what they face & what they have done. And nor do you have the ability, which is clear, to ask the questions that matter. Even if you did, the manner in which you posture would make anyone walk off.

You are passing judgement on a guy you have no idea about. Suffice to say you don't know a thing about me and everything you have already tried to extrapolate is wrong. For some reason, they like talking to me about it. It's your arrogance that's creating a problem. I am rude to you simply because you were rude to me first.

My statement does not indicate any doubt whatsoever, kid.. It indicates a long history of watching how Indian industry has been developing, the problems it has faced and overcome, and where it is heading. For even a cynic like I, I am surprised.

Everything is surprising for a cynic. I don't doubt you are very old. But you are looking at things and assuming them to be the greatest when even greater things exist outside your world.

Yes,its fortunate that your thinking is not even close to mine. If they were, I'd be surprised - both at you & the bunch of other jokers on the net who posture around handing each other titles like technocrats, think tankers etc.
Was seeing some Pak forum the other day, full of kids like you. Handing out each other tags like think tankers - LOL. Musharraf on Facebook level comedy.

I don't really know what you are talking about and don't really care either. I never asked for a technocrat status and neither do I bother about name and fame over the internet.

Ha, the good old friends in the defence industry BS trotted out. Try that on somebody else.

...says the guy who relies on the same people for information.

There is not a single guy out there I know of - and I work with people who make the likes of you shiver in their half pants - who is entirely satisfied with what they do, what their organizations do and how they do it. Life is all about doing what you can, with what you have.

But what we have is not as good as what we can get from others for the time being. That is the basis for my entire discussion.

As regards the Arjun & T-90, if I were a teenager like you, with a big mouth & no concerns whatsover, I'd relate some of the skullduggery that has gone on in the project. Better has little to do with it. Life is all about grays. The better equipment does not always win or succeed. Its all about institutional issues and who runs what program & what he or she decides. Whether it be India, US or Israel.

I wouldn't disagree. But the Arjun isn't ready yet. Read Parliament reports related to Arjun from 2004 you will get the idea. The LCA isn't ready either. Air Chief says the Final IOC will be delayed by another year and once ready it will be inferior to the upgraded Mirage-2000.

Goodness - the amount of humor that you come up with is mind boggling. There is enough kit in our arsenal which is entirely local & it beats foreign peers, especially in electronics and sensors.

Small parts are not enough to prove the entire system. It is our entire system which is facing problems. Just because some parts are better does not make the other parts better as well. Integration is an important issue as well and so is software. Nothing is perfect.

Every other week I am surprised by the number of programs launched, underway & in advanced stages of development for the armed forces.

Routine among all defence industries. Is India something so special that we gawk at everything people do?

Problem is you and the rest of the foreign arse kissers wouldn't know anything about it. You haven't travelled, worked, or done anything meaningful to see the reality as it is. What you do though is live on the net, create some stupid corner where you feel you actually know something & then brag.

Then tell me why the T-90 was inducted and LCA delayed? Aren't we supposed to be great and all? Nothing what you say can be related to real life. Don't come up with the Generals are foreign arse kisser rhetoric as well.

Even when I was in my 20's I realized the line between my ego & desire to feed my curiousity as versus information which there is no need to have or disseminate. Grow up. Thats all I can say.

In your 20s you probably did not even have a computer let alone the internet. There are many forums where you see actual military personal talking actual stuff that happened in war. There is enough information on the net about that. Go speak to them instead of wasting your time on Pak forums. Why don't you ask your fav Vassily for information on the T-90 and how well it stacks up against the Leo A-4?

LOL - if anything that just shows how far you have to go in understanding the interplay between business and defence. India spends a miniscule portion of its current spend on its space program. If an Indian company saw the business in it, ISRO handheld it, and assured orders were available - the technology would be developed & made inhouse.

There is nothing to LOL about. Even the scientist I spoke to said the wires need to be moved to Indian companies. ISRO will actually gain more from it. Earlier ISRO was a civilian entity and was exempted from sanctions. Now it may not be the same as there is an open acknowledgement with relations with the military. What would happen if we are sanctioned and are unable to procure wiring? ISRO will have to delay projects in order to pass on technology and requirements to Indian companies and get the same kind of quality again.

In 1990, India dropped the idea of seekers on its missiles because it could not afford them. In 1995 a certain program was launched that has meant India makes seekers today, which are every bit the equivalent of their WW peers. That program was deemed important enough to be funded - others weren't.

See, the only aspects you are able to defend and provide examples are from either ISRO or DRDO's missile industry. These programs are successful and I have already explained the reason behind it. Nevertheless, the Brahmos and Astra seekers are foreign.

Open up a Litening pod sometime - it has Carl Zeiss optics.

Israeli, they don't need to do everything on their own.

Ask an IAF guy about the French radar they got. It has power transfer assemblies supplied by a company in Germany.

Another thing the French don't need to do on their own.

Israel started an inhouse capability to manufacture MMICS - one of the key companies associated with it is facing bankruptcy. For the Arrow future variants - they went to the US to source IIR seekers.

Same.

Basically - its all about money. If you had any understanding of industry dynamics, you would understand the basic point that margins increase up the value chain.

Give me an example of an American product with massive technological assistance from a foreign supplier in electronics. Something that is so crucial that the item can be sanctioned or denied and can lead to crippling the entire system. We don't compare to Israel or France, you said it yourself. We compare to Russia, America and China which like indigenous suppliers. The others don't care.

We do, for strategic autonomy. When you speak of some wires being imported for a satellite designed in India, integrated in India and actually tested in India - the highest end of the value chain, and don't even understand what counts for disappointment in the Directors eyes would not even be a concern for 90% of the world, who'd do anything to get the capability which they already have....it says it all.

You simply lack the understanding to talk of these topics.

I hardly believe you are a developer. More a journo. Do you even know the importance of wires and their uses? Like I said ISRO has open relations with the military now. Even ISRO can be sanctioned. We are lucky the current geo politics does not allow it. That is the very reason why you so proudly talk about LRSAM, MRSAM and AESA.

Yes, and who was that designer, and that one statement made you wet your underwear did it? Do you even understand the iterative process aircraft design is? Go look up the Sukhoi 27 and how it was developed. Whole design was thrown out at the last moment and had to be redeveloped.

Yes, the whole design was thrown out. The guy I am talking about was in the same situation. Someone else's design was thrown out and he was tasked with designing the same thing. And not just once, but three times, maybe four. He was so good NAL asked him to come work for them with completely flexible timings. Heck he pointed out too may things that he did not like. Even the comment on LCA was not his own, it was his company director. They were not entirely wrong either considering LCA Mk2 seems to have major modifications while Mk1 will be delayed again. I don't think I have any reason to make his name public. His work was even praised by German EADS scientists.

If you knew anything about the LCA, you'd know that the LCA MK1 series unit is already receiving iterative improvements to increase speed & accelerate at sea level. All it required were additional WT tests at a corner of the envelope and Indian designers had sufficient experience to implement solutions.

Albeit delayed.

Kid you can hope for anything, but heres the thing, I can lead a horse to water but can't make it drink it wont count for much. So far what I have seen, you are too stupid and arrogant to actually learn anything. You are spoonfed stuff which you misinterpret. Coupled to a severe inferiority complex about your country and people. Thats what leads you to put down your fellow forum participants as "patriots" and "jingos". Hilarious. Thats actually what made me realize how totally nuts you are.

Yes yes. Come back once we have the Arjun and LCA delivered and successfully proven. JVs don't count because what we cannot do the foreigners will make it happen. Whatever indigenous, is severely delayed, or at the least most of them are. Almost everything we indut is of foreign make and we don't need to be geniuses to figure that out.

 

[agentperry]

i came to this thread after long and amazed to see that it has moved on a long way since i last saw it. it now holds discussion of lca, Indian weapon prog, aesa, isro, prithvi bm and so on. why are we having dfi, just have this thread go on...

 

[Damian]

It seems that T-90MS turret design have a serious flaw!

andrei_bt - Танк Т-90С обзавелся «горбом»

It is a very serious problem, I saw photos of T-62's and T-72's with perforation hit's in to much less exposed turret roof than in T-90MS, wonder why they just made this that way, not enough space inside?

BTW, the drawing of weak zones made by UVZ is very funny, I think that they don't have any idea about placement and size of weak zones in M1A1/M1A2 and Leopard 2.

Maybe they should ask me for photos from factory in Lima Ohio of "naked" turrets and photos of Leopard 2.

 

[militarysta]

Quickly (Im busy now...) :

It is a very serious problem, I saw photos of T-62's and T-72's with perforation hit's in to much less exposed turret roof than in T-90MS,

Photos:

BTW, the drawing of weak zones made by UVZ is very funny, I think that they don't have any idea about placement and size of weak zones in M1A1/M1A2 and Leopard 2.

x2

To many vodka during making PR %-) This on M1A2 is...pitiful?






Oh, and erea behind EMES-15 in Leo2A1-A4 have 65-68cm LOS. It's more then LOS for T-72B, T-90A, T-80U for 30. degrees from the longitudinal axis of turret (60-68cm/ ~65cm, ~60cm(?)). So, in reality it's look like this:

[url=http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/5338/dziura3.jpg]Obrazek[/URL]
Obrazek
Obrazek
Obrazek
source - polish forum: Forum MILITIS - Zobacz Forum - Okres powojenny i czasy obecne

 

[Damian]

@ Militarysta, I think that they have a problem just with lack of sources. The problem with M1 series is such that the weld line over right side front turret armor cavity is not placed where the cavity ends but a bit forward to it so a roof in main sight area can have enough rigid. So armor actually ends very close to the main sight opening in the roof.





Here everyone can see where armor ends inside turret and how weld line on turret roof is placed, I think that this is the reason of misunderstood on Russians side. So actually armor in reality ends approx 150-200mm closer to main sight opening in roof, than weld line indicates.

Also glacis plate in M1 have much more different design that they think, weak zone is only over driver station, on both it's sidez there are fuel tanks acting as addon armor, also it seems that glacis plate over fuel tanks cavitys is thicker (~70-80mm) and over driver station it is ~50mm, glacis is angled at 80-82 degrees so it provides good protection from the pure front projection and is very weakly esposed.

 

[militarysta]

I think that they have a problem just with lack of sources.

I believe that people from design office UMZ know these area better than 98% of users of these tanks. Espionage has always been technological strengths in Russia.
The problem is rather in silly marketing. People from the PR did not have a clue about what they have done.Therefore, this pathetic board quickly disappeared.

 

[Damian]

Good point, true, not nececary engeeners and scientists are involved in such PR materials.

 

[militarysta]

SPIEZ

Coming back to the thread I would like to know, on what basis do you say these things are better. Thats what I really wanted to know (...)
I would like to know what makes this tank special ????
Can you elaborate please. (...)
Can you go on further about PT-91 Tanks.

Ok, two important things:
1) I'll compare tanks from the time the tender for Malaysia: PT-91MZ and T-90S.
2) This upper is very important becouse basick PT-91 is better then T-72B only in FCS. But PT-91MZ (or PT-91Ex) is better tank then T-90S with erly turret.
It is obvious that T-90A and AS is better tank (except the engine, transmission, and BMS) then PT-91MZ.

But, as I said - I will write about T-90S and PT-91MZ

Again: PT-91 and PT-91M is one version of the tank (1995-2000), PT-91MZ or PT-91Ex is another, deeply modernized version of the tank (2003 -).
The same: T-90S with erly turret (1992- ~2000), and T-90SA (~2000 - ) with welded turret. Similar in name but a completely different in capabilities the machines.


FCS:

In T-90S you have old 1A45T Irtysz, with not modern TO1-KO1 (TPN4-49 Buran-PA) or TO1-PO2T (with AGAWA) , PNK-4S. Night vision Buran-PA is ~1200 is in passive mode. AGAWA is much better - it can find a tank with a max. 2500 m, but the range of identification is much much lower.

In PT-91 you have SAVAN-15 Sagem with CITV (VIGY-15) (You haven't CITVit in T-90S...). It's fully computerized FCS.
About SAVAN-15: http://www.sagem-ds.com/IMG/pdf/D1385E_savan15.pdf Savan 15 FCS – The Drawa FCS is replaced by the French Savan 15 system, built by Sagem Defence Securite. The Savan 15 FCS is derived from a similar system used in the French Army's LeClerc MBT. The system features gun stabilization enabling the tank to fire on the move, increased first round hit probability and the ability to operate at night. The system consists of day/night gunner's sight, fire-control computer, gun stabilization sensors, lead-angle sensors and interface at the gunner's and commander's stations.
VIGY 15 optronics – also from Sagem, this is a gyro-stabilized panoramic sight for the tank commander. It has hunter-killer function – targets sighted by the TC are signalled to the gunner, or in emergencies, engaged by the TC himself.SIGMA 30 laser gyro – another Sagem product. The system is used for navigation and stabilization of the MBT. 2A46MS 125mm gun – a Slovak-designed weapon, it has a 23% increase in first hit probability as compared with the original Soviet 2A46. Ammunition includes APFSDS, HEAT and HE., and most important: full electrical stabilization EPS-91M fom Sagem
This all solutions is light-years distant from old Irtysz from T-90S with added AGAWA

Amunition.

Well. Basick HEAT and HE-FRAG are the same. But APFSDS - Russian offers what? Of course old BM-42 With PT-91M we offer definitely better IMI ammo (~460mm RHA for 2000m vs. 500-540mm RHA for 2000m).


Engine:

Simple. In T-90S you have old, ugly, fuel mass-eating W-84MS (840HP), or mod. W-92S2 (1000HP) But mechanical power transmission is the same like in T-72B. And it's suck. It's horrible -like in all T-72 clone...
In PT-92MZ we have S-1000R diesel engine – the original PT-91 are powered by S-12 engine of 850hp. The Malaysian PT-91M has the more powerful S-1000R, rated at 1,000hp. The engine is manufactured by PZL-Wola S.A. The most important is converter power transmission ESM-350-M form SESM Renk. This is a world class. Next: Mechanical Works Diehl tracks – the PT-91M replaces the all-steel tracks with Type 570P track from Diehl Remscheid GmbH which have long service life and low maintenance requirements. It is similar to the ones used in Leopard 2 MBT

Protection.

Basick amrour PT-91MZ is about 500mm RHA vs APFSDS. Propably in thickest turet part. So it's between late T-72M1 (1988) and T-72B. But: ERAWA-2 ERA tiles – dubbed dynamic armor, these explosive blocks are designed to improve protection from anti-tank projectiles / missiles especially HEAT rounds. Tests by the manufacturer have shown a 50-70% increase in protection against HEAT rounds and a 30-40% increase against AP rounds. The ERAWA system consists of 384 blocks (108 turret, 118 hull and 84 on each side of the anti-cumulative screen@side-skirt) Coverage is much tighter with ERAWA than with Kontact-5. With ERAWA virtually there is no gaps. Next is polish PCO SSP-1 Obra-3 laser warning system – it's simmilar to the Sthora-1 . It's placed on each quadrant of the MBT, the system gives warning that the tank is being 'painted' by laser – whether rangefinding or targeting. This allows the crew to find the direction of the laser emission and deal with it accordingly. + wageman granades.

then rest later - if I find time

 

[Austin]

It seems that T-90MS turret design have a serious flaw!

andrei_bt - Танк Т-90С обзавелся «горбом»

Serious , the comments in there are more serious


T-90MS Firepower

Gur Khan attacks!: Т-90МС «Ð¢Ð°Ð³Ð¸Ð»»: Огневая мощь