Army may scrap FMBT and focus on Arjun

[DivineHeretic]

Both are not super weapons, Georgian air forces also didn't had anyvsignificant successes.



No, AH-64's that India buys are new AH-64E Guardian Apache, which have some nice features. The problem is that use them as a anti tank platforms only is wasting their potential. It is better to use AH-64E's with Mi-24's to attack infrastructure like command centers, communications centers, radar stations, eventually use them in COIN operations.

But using attack helicopters in a conventional warfare to attack armoured formations, might end with loosing this expensive machines due to AAA assets of the enemy. Attack helicopters survivability was a point of a lot of discussion in NATO, and both training and real warfare operations proove these concerns.

I can give you example from Poland when during training session with Americans, our obsolete air defences made effective ambush on AH-64's, we had allmost non casualties, and Americans lost all helicopters.

You are in a way contrdicting yourself. First you say that it is not worth using the Apache for anti tank role (which btw it wa built for) because they could be brought down by AA fire. Then you say that they are better off attacking command structures/comms centres/radar centres when the fact on the ground is that these important positions/structures are more likely to be defended by AA systems than a random tank on the battle field or do you believe that a attack heli is more likely to run into AA while flying over the battlefield than when flying towards a critical asset.

But ya, I do agree that survivality of a heli is suspect in a SAM saturated environment where one opponent does not hve enough air superiority for SEAD execution.

 

[Damian]

You are in a way contrdicting yourself. First you say that it is not worth using the Apache for anti tank role (which btw it wa built for) because they could be brought down by AA fire. Then you say that they are better off attacking command structures/comms centres/radar centres when the fact on the ground is that these important positions/structures are more likely to be defended by AA systems than a random tank on the battle field or do you believe that a attack heli is more likely to run into AA while flying over the battlefield than when flying towards a critical asset.

I am not contradicting. Command, communication centers does not have AAA in their direct vicinity. AAA emplacements are in some distance around such targets. In 1991 during ODS, attack helicopters were used by flying low in a corridors between AAA emplacements, this was weakness used by high command of the coalition. However armored formations can have very effective AAA systems deployed as their organic support, seriously I would not want to be attack heli pilot, when there is Tunguzka or Pantsir near.

 

[DivineHeretic]

I am not contradicting. Command, communication centers does not have AAA in their direct vicinity. AAA emplacements are in some distance around such targets. In 1991 during ODS, attack helicopters were used by flying low in a corridors between AAA emplacements, this was weakness used by high command of the coalition. However armored formations can have very effective AAA systems deployed as their organic support, seriously I would not want to be attack heli pilot, when there is Tunguzka or Pantsir near.

You and I are clearly thinking of seperate and widely different theatres. If you were to look at Ind/Pak, you'd find SAM/AA slap bang in the midst of the command structure or any other critical structure. Now India does have mobile AA defence systems (Tsunga) supporting and moving with the strike formation, and now Akash battery but Pak is reliant on Manpads for covering their army formations. This gives the IA aviation corps the chance to launch raids on pak formations as there is relatively less cover.

 

[Damian]

You and I are clearly thinking of seperate and widely different theatres. If you were to look at Ind/Pak, you'd find SAM/AA slap bang in the midst of the command structure or any other critical structure. Now India does have mobile AA defence systems (Tsunga) supporting and moving with the strike formation, and now Akash battery but Pak is reliant on Manpads for covering their army formations. This gives the IA aviation corps the chance to launch raids on pak formations as there is relatively less cover.

I would be carefull, as it was said earlier, even MANPADS can be dangerous, see Georgians and their use of Polish made "Grom" missiles.

Also, in near future it will be more and more difficult for airforces to spot targets.

For example multispectral IR camouflage paints, like these made by Intermat company... these paints make vehicle allmost invisible in thermal sights.

These are M1 Abrams MBT's coated with standard CARC (1) paint and Intermat multispectral camouflage (2) paint.

Other solutions (that can be used with intermat paints) are multispectral camouflage covers and nets. There is several of such camouflage nets like the most famous Swedish Saab Barracuda MCS, or less known like Russian Nagidka, Ukrainian Kontrast or Polish Berberys.

M1A1 and Leopard 2S/Strv122 with Saab Barracuda MCS.

And this is how vehicle look in therma sight with and without barracuda.

Combine both of these methods, and you have cheap, simple and reliable solution.

And now imagine that not only tanks would be camouflaged that way, but also anti air systems like Tunguzka or Pantsir, with their radars turn off and working only by using passive electrooptical systems, such ambush would be devastating, even old Shilka used that way could be very, very effective.

A small example.

This is a Polish modernization of ZSU-23-4 designated ZSU-23-4MP "Biała" (White), radar had been replaced with electrooptics sensors, and 4 "Grom" missiles were added. Such system is difficult to detect because it is completely passive, and camouflaged with the above solutions, can be very dangerous threat to attack helicopters and CAS.

AFAIK India is using ZSU-23-4, this might be a good example how to modernize them and still have a usefull AA system.

But back to topic. As we can see, in future, air assets will not have absolute dominance, and in future, AFV's can have several advantages on their side to efficently fullfill their tasks.

It is very dangerous to believe in arrogant claims of the pro air forces lobby, and can bring every armed force to a very serious problems. Look at the Israeli - Arab wars when Israeli Air Forces needed Armor Corps to destroy Egyptian air defences so they could again safely operate in the AO.

 

[Shirman]

Guys @ Damian Sir and @ Divine Heretic lets stick to the main topic of

"FMBT to focus on weight reduction of battle tanks, says DRDO chief"

All the Surface to air integrated battle / war scenarios can be discussed in another section..

BTW @ Damian Sir u really presented a hell of a night mare scenario for an invading army in the recent posts:scared: thanks for those post....

 

[SPIEZ]

Why are all tanks thread turning into Polish advertisement threads?

 

[Damian]

Why are all tanks thread turning into Polish advertisement threads?

What do you mean? It was only example, there is plenty of better systems. But as adviced, let's stick to the topic.

 

[DivineHeretic]

Okay back onto topic.

One important Qestion to ask would be why the IA wants the tank in the 50ton category? Is it to ease and allow deployability to the theatre? Or is it to improve mobility in the battle theatre? Or is there a third reason?

In case of the first reason, I would argue making a tank as a internal core under 40 tons without armor to which the armor modules can be added as depended by mission requirements. The armor modules can be removed during transport allowing them to be air deployed to theatre. Once on the theatre, the armor modules can be attached.

In cae of reason 2, it would be worth pointing out that the M1s have better mobility than the T72s despite being 20-25 tons heavier. The ground pressure is a much better indicator of mobility of a tank rather than weight. But yes if in the plains of punjab, a very heavy tank could pose problems in manueverability, in this case it would need to be necessarily lighter, demanding enormous challenge in developing new composite with improved protection whilst having lower density.

In case of reason 3, somebody please tell me the reason.

 

[Damian]

Lighter weight is allways usefull.

Let's say you have a tank weighting 50 tons but having protection similiar to a 60 tons tank.

Ok and let's say you need to add protection, in case of 50 tons tank you will increase weight only by 5 or 10 tons, so you will have a 60 tons vehicle, which is still reasonable weight, but a 60 tons vehicle up armored by 5 or 10 tons will have unacceptable weight increase.

Look at Challenger 2, in standard configuration it weights 62,5 tons, but with the latest TES(H) up armor kit, it's weight increases to ridicoulus 74 tons!

Not to mention that it is easier to transport a 50 tons vehicle instead of 60+ tons vehicle.

Besides this, you can allways have a 50 tons heavy vehicle with similiar engine power (although engine itself might be more compact) and similiar ground pressure. It is just a question of design solutions.

Also, look at US Army's ECP-1 modernization program for the M1 series, because M1 have nearly expired SWaP-C limit, due to all improvements added by all these years, ECP-1 will focus on improving protection and in the same time redesigning or designing a new all internal components for the smaller, lighter, in short more compact form, to reduce weight.

Weight reduction does not mean worse protection, worse mobility, worse firepower. It depends on many things, for example powerpack weight.

 

[arnabmit]

Can anyone tell me if this ever was a prospective design or just some fanboy art for FMBT?

The text claims some pretty impractical stuff...

 

[Damian]

This is one of the most ridiculous fanboy arts I ever seen! :shocked:

 

[arnabmit]

Thank god for that!

 

[ersakthivel]

See the main purpose of APACHE is to fly along the armored columns and fire accurate top attack anti tank missiles on targets identified by the units in the column.

The APACHE does not have to be in the line of sight to fire it's top attack ATGM missiles.

Saying that they don't fit the role is somewhat hard to believe,

 

[ersakthivel]

See the main purpose of APACHE is to fly along the armored columns and fire accurate top attack anti tank missiles on targets identified by the units in the column.

The APACHE does not have to be in the line of sight to fire it's top attack ATGM missiles.

Saying that they don't fit the role is somewhat hard to believe,

 

[ersakthivel]

Guys @ Damian Sir and @ Divine Heretic lets stick to the main topic of

"FMBT to focus on weight reduction of battle tanks, says DRDO chief"

All the Surface to air integrated battle / war scenarios can be discussed in another section..

BTW @ Damian Sir u really presented a hell of a night mare scenario for an invading army in the recent posts:scared: thanks for those post....

To discuss everything other than the FMBt has become the purpose of this thread.I don't know why people do it again and again. Same is the case in ARJUn vs T-90 thread ,now people are discussing T-72,T-99 in that thread completely OT.

 

[Shirman]

To discuss everything other than the FMBt has become the purpose of this thread.I don't know why people do it again and again. Same is the case in ARJUn vs T-90 thread ,now people are discussing T-72,T-99 in that thread completely OT.

Sir, and request to u to not to bring Apaches in future FMBT discussion.

Damian and Militarysta are only answering to the questions we present to them in this case it was Divineheretic who raised the question of how our FMBT fits in the war scenario picture with other integrated CAS n Attack heli scenario. It was again not his fault of asking it out of his curiosity which Damian replied superbly.

And to all Indian members including me @ersakthivel and @SPIEZ please be polite and show courtesy to our foreign guest members... @SPIEZ Damian has only shown some solutions which have taken place in his country.....Our defence establishment can be inspired or atleast take some cue,solutions, answers from them or even develop something like them......Nothing wrong in showing few examples in the scenarios...What matter the most is how the scenario is created and is seen from different views....and angles.....

 

[SPIEZ]

Sir, and request to u to not to bring Apaches in future FMBT discussion.

Damian and Militarysta are only answering to the questions we present to them in this case it was Divineheretic who raised the question of how our FMBT fits in the war scenario picture with other integrated CAS n Attack heli scenario. It was again not his fault of asking it out of his curiosity which Damian replied superbly.

And to all Indian members including me @ersakthivel and @SPIEZ please be polite and show courtesy to our foreign guest members... @SPIEZ Damian has only shown some solutions which have taken place in his country.....Our defence establishment can be inspired or atleast take some cue,solutions, answers from them or even develop something like them......Nothing wrong in showing few examples in the scenarios...What matter the most is how the scenario is created and is seen from different views....and angles.....

You are new here.

What do you know about our so called tank experts? Do you think most of them are in tank design? They r just like you and me sitting in front of consoles or reading books.

Check out previous threads. for that matter check out all tank threads.

Also there are people who have had real life experience.

My best answer, just read their comments.

 

[DivineHeretic]

You are new here.

What do you know about our so called tank experts? Do you think most of them are in tank design? They r just like you and me sitting in front of consoles or reading books.

Check out previous threads. for that matter check out all tank threads.

Also there are people who have had real life experience.

My best answer, just read their comments.

To add to that.
Curtsey and/or respect does not imply accepting and repeating every word said by the other, even if he/she happens to be a senior. This is a defence forum, not the military briefing room where hierarchy is sacrosanct.Sure there are certain inviolables like you cannot abuse the other because of difference in opinion.

And as far as going off topic is concerned, there are types of this. One is the troll type wherein one snatches the topic of discussion and drags in unrelated, useless objects. The other is one where the discussion diverts from its original scope to take into account related factors and objects which are interwined with the original object of discussion.

Now I'm doing the first type of going off topic. Gomenasai everyone.

 

[ersakthivel]

Sir, and request to u to not to bring Apaches in future FMBT discussion.

Damian and Militarysta are only answering to the questions we present to them in this case it was Divineheretic who raised the question of how our FMBT fits in the war scenario picture with other integrated CAS n Attack heli scenario. It was again not his fault of asking it out of his curiosity which Damian replied superbly.

And to all Indian members including me @ersakthivel and @SPIEZ please be polite and show courtesy to our foreign guest members... @SPIEZ Damian has only shown some solutions which have taken place in his country.....Our defence establishment can be inspired or atleast take some cue,solutions, answers from them or even develop something like them......Nothing wrong in showing few examples in the scenarios...What matter the most is how the scenario is created and is seen from different views....and angles.....

You are new here.After a while you will get very tired of this circus.Quoting everything from world war two books and saying attck helis are no good against tank means misinformation.World war two rocket attack on tanks by primitive guidance munitions from antique planes is so different from a RAFALE attack against a moving tank many kilometers away.

 

[militarysta]

You are new here.After a while you will get very tired of this circus.Quoting everything from world war two books and saying attck helis are no good against tank means misinformation.World war two rocket attack on tanks by primitive guidance munitions from antique planes is so different from a RAFALE attack against a moving tank many kilometers away.

Buahahahah how many AGM-114 hit targets (in %)during ODS in 1991. Answer thet one question.