Indian Army (IA): Equipment and News

India has published a video of the BLT-72 bridgelayer based on the Soviet T-72 tank

Those stones sticking out of the road appear to be a very good way of stopping people cutting corners at an intersection....

Regarding the Leclerc... it looks like Micron is offering joint production with India for their new tank to replace the Leclerc.... so the deal would not be to replace the T-72s and T-90s with Leclercs... it would be with vapourware.

Now I can see why France would make this offer... no idea what state their next new tank programme is in and at the moment how many foreign partners are involved but going by history there will be disagreements and frustration and most countries will go it alone... so getting an order for almost 2K tanks would be a good idea for France because it would stop it from being too expensive for them to just buy for themselves.

For India I can see how they want to diversify their weapons purchases... and by 2030 they would have plenty of time to look at the T-14 and see what issues it may have by then... of course by then they might have the T-14M2, but it means they can sign up to a deal with France and just wait... just like the 5th gen fighter deal with Russia... if you don't like the way it is going or they want money for investing in the project then drop out and just buy off the shelf later on.

I am obviously biased of course, but with the Russians they can go for a combination of vehicles including tracked heavy and medium, as well as wheeled medium and wheeled light vehicles for a variety of environments and situations.... and they can use them as individual vehicles like tanks and BMPs, or they can adopt the whole family concept...

d_taddei2 wrote:
Last year India announced that it wants to replace 1770 T-72 tanks and that it wants to start replacement in 2030.

It's pretty clear that it's homegrown pile of crap Arjun is up to the job. And that project was a complete waste of time and money.

India operates mainly T-72 and T-90. To which production rights given, as well as Indian own upgrades. So why they would even consider buy the leclerc tank is just completely stupid, not only is tank not up to the current level of the T-90 India are using, it's a completely different calibre, and maintenance and parts are not in common with T-72 and T-90. It makes sense to keep, parts, maintenance, training and calibre similar/the same. Indian back in 2019 placed order for over 400+ T-90 so the T-90 isn't going anywhere. They would be better in either upgrading the T-72 or building more T-90. However if they do want to replace the 1770 T-72 with a new generation of tank then the only option on the market is Armata, and I am sure Russia would allow production rights if they were going to replace the whole 1770 with Armata. Let me hope India sees sense and goes for Armata. As come 2030 leclerc no Matter what upgrades u put on it will be not be a tank of the future.

https://www.firstpost.com/india/after-rafales-aukus-snubbed-france-likely-to-offer-its-leclerc-main-battle-tanks-to-india-10260481.html/amp

India's tank fleet is both qualitatively and quantitatively head and shoulders above Pakistan, the only land power that India would have to fight with tanks. The latter is armed mostly with modified T-55 variants - its no contest at all. Modernizing their tank force is not a priority compared to preparing the army for a showdown above the Himalayas. For that you would need mountain-capable vehicles, which quite unfortunately is not that popular of a design trait with the only purpose built vehicles mostly made in China - and I doubt India would be willing to buy Chinese anytime soon.

lyle6 wrote:Modernizing their tank force is not a priority compared to preparing the army for a showdown above the Himalayas. For that you would need mountain-capable vehicles, which quite unfortunately is not that popular of a design trait with the only purpose built vehicles mostly made in China

At those altitudes a war will have to be fought and won or lost by the Air Force. Army/Rocket artillery can only play a secondary role.

In 2050 this program will still exist.

They will ask for local production of Leclerc with ToT for Arjun 3 or 4, they will pay and get nothing so they will order 50 of them and beg russians for a real contract. But europeans will offer their new euro MBT so indians will start a new program and after getting nothing out of it they will beg russians again for the t-14.

Isos wrote:In 2050 this program will still exist.

They will ask for local production of Leclerc with ToT for Arjun 3 or 4, they will pay and get nothing so they will order 50 of them and beg russians for a real contract. But europeans will offer their new euro MBT so indians will start a new program and after getting nothing out of it they will beg russians again for the t-14.

Yeah, pretty much this.

Indians never learn from their mistakes.

d_taddei2 wrote:
Modernising tanks isn't priority for who? You? Maybe you forgot the part where Indian government wants to replace 1770 T-72 tanks. Their words not yours or mine.

When you talk of T-55 copies which I presume you mean the Al Zarrar tank which is a heavy upgrade to the current standard and carries 125mm which is a notable upgrade to the old type 59/T-55, and it also has much better armour, a tank I would say couldnt be ignored. Pakistan also upgraded it's Type -85 including replacing the gun to 125mm make up around half of the force if u take into consideration of ongoing replacement. They have over 400 Al-Khalids tanks which are based on the Chinese Type 90 series of tanks, and building 50+ tanks every year to replace older tanks, they also have a fairly decent amount of T-80 tanks, and Chinese VT-4, and replacement is on going.

I would say that India has clearly seen a need for replacement considering they have put their feelers out to various countries. I personally think either more T-90 to be produced with homegrown upgrades, or look for Armata production. I certainly wouldn't be looking at the leclerc.

If they are sensible it shouldn't be priority when there are lots of other things that are in much higher need of modernization and replacement - starting with their artillery park.

Pakistan can deploy at best what, 1000 tanks with 125 mm guns, most of which are T-55 derivatives that a T-72 armed with training rounds could destroy. If they really need to reinforce the gap they could always just follow the T-72B3 route, save billions on taxpayer dollars for other purposes. Not even Pakistan's latest armor are competitive with the T-72B3.

And India is always on the lookout for deals. Doesn't really mean anything when they are just window shopping.

India’s state-owned Armoured Vehicles Nigam Ltd’s (AVANI) Avadi-based Heavy Vehicles Factory (HVF) will from next year begin undertaking deep upgrades of the Indian Army’s (IA) Russia-supplied T-90S MBTs.

To date, 640 units have been procured from Russia (both as off-the-shelf units and those in semi-knocked-down condition, while another 600 have been built under licence, with the final tranche of 417 now being built (for equipping 10 Armoured Regiments).

The uprated powerpack for the T-90S will be the A85-3AX-diesel engine capable of producing up to 1,500hp (although it is presently dowrated at 1,350hp) that will be ordered off-the-shelf from Russia’s Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant.

Surprisingly, the Indian Army has not selected any APS, maybe because there is no place for APS-specific vectronics inside either the T-90S or T-72U. However, as a compensator, four optronic sensors or see-through-armour will be installed on the turrets of the T-90S & T-72U for enhancing all-round hemispheric situational awareness.

Sujoy wrote:

The uprated powerpack for the T-90S will be the A85-3AX-diesel engine capable of producing up to 1,500hp (although it is presently dowrated at 1,350hp) that will be ordered off-the-shelf from Russia’s Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant.

That's the Armata powerpack. I'm not exactly sure if it could be made to fit within the classic T-90 hull so we might be looking at a lengthened hull akin to China's Type-99 MBT. A bit pricy either way.

lyle6 wrote:That's the Armata powerpack. I'm not exactly sure if it could be made to fit within the classic T-90 hull so we might be looking at a lengthened hull akin to China's Type-99 MBT. A bit pricy either way.

Me neither. But that's what the local media is suggesting.

India's homegrown long range LACM powered by an indigenous engine has failed.

Happens when you stop copying Russian and Western products. Even Iran and North Korea have better long range cruise missiles than India.

https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/odisha/2022/oct/29/homegrown-cruise-missile-system-hit-by-technical-snag-2512880.html

The title of the link you posted says it hit a snag...

Hitting a snag in development does not equal failure.

Have never heard of anything that was perfect with the first prototype that went straight into production and served for years without any changes at all.

Tolstoy wrote:
Happens when you stop copying Russian and Western products. Even Iran and North Korea have better long range cruise missiles than India.

They didn't get there on their own either. Ukraine shipped intact missiles with technical documentation and nuclear warheads to Iran and North Korea.

GarryB wrote: Have never heard of anything that was perfect with the first prototype that went straight into production and served for years without any changes at all.

Er...prototype? This techology is more than 50 years old. S.S.R developed it in the 60s.

Indians are doing what they do best - ripping off Russian tech. Such copyrigt violation costs billions to the Russian taxpayers.

Countries like India and other such failed third world states are bigger enemies of Russia than the west.

Indians are doing what they do best - ripping off Russian tech. Such copyrigt violation costs billions to the Russian taxpayers.

Russia does not own the copyright licence to all land attack cruise missile designs... that is absurd.

Countries like India and other such failed third world states are bigger enemies of Russia than the west.

Even if you assume they are stealing the designs of the land attack cruise missiles and therefore screwing them out of a few million dollars perhaps... how exactly does that compare with the west openly actively assisting Kiev to murder Russian civilians and soldiers in the Ukraine and surrounds, with intel and planning support as well as billions of dollars in financial support, and weapons and ammunitions, to to mention sanctions that are costing Russia billions in potential trade.

The west are scum, and India and Pakistan and Iran and China and Brazil and South Africa and even Saudi Arabia are head and shoulders much "better" for Russia to trade and deal with than the west has EVER been.

They dial down the anti Russian bullshit when they are being useful but eventually they go back to playing the same old games with the same old anti Russia shit.

Ironically there is more money and quality trade for Russia to make working with third world countries helping them build up their economies and infrastructure and culture, than trying to please the west so it might throw a few crumbs their way if they are good.

For over half a century the Soviets and the Russians provided Europe with cheap energy and they threw it in their faces the first chance they got... **** them.

I laughed out loud looking at the RT feed last night... it seems ships delivering LNG to Europe are sitting off the coast waiting for the price of LNG to go up to make a bigger profit... with friends like that... hilarious... but then if you sell freedom gas cheaply it loses its magic..

GarryB wrote: The west are scum, and India and Pakistan and Iran and China and Brazil and South Africa and even Saudi Arabia are head and shoulders much "better" for Russia to trade and deal with than the west has EVER been.

They dial down the anti Russian bullshit when they are being useful but eventually they go back to playing the same old games with the same old anti Russia shit.

Some countries in the west like the US, UK are anti Russian, not all.

Russia has far more cultural similarities with west than it has with the third world countries you mentioned.

It is in Russia's interest to break Pakistan, India, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey into a number of smaller nations. These smaller countries will continuously be fighting against each other and so the US will not be able to use them against Russia.

Some countries in the west like the US, UK are anti Russian, not all.

They might say that in private or when doing deals for oil of gas with Russia but they didn't say no to sanctions... except Turkey, and they didn't speak out about all this anti Russia bullshit... not even to just have an anti war stance because even an anti war stance is not allowed in the west.

Russia has far more cultural similarities with west than it has with the third world countries you mentioned.

Russia will never be allowed to join the west and to trade with them they will demand Russia conforms to their ideology and culture.

Russia is better off without the west... the whole concept of BRICS is that countries don't tell other countries how to behave or what they can or cannot do.

China can remain communist if it wants, and should not be lectured for so called crimes that pale in comparison to what the lecturer has done in the past themselves.

It is in Russia's interest to break Pakistan, India, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey into a number of smaller nations.

It is the west that breaks other nations into pieces and resists their own countries collapsing into pieces because they know there is strength in numbers so they would love to see any other country fragment because it makes them weaker and easier to consume.

Ironic that the division in the US will eventually lead to a sort of civil war... because there is no moves to fix things and they are racing head long towards a bridge over a deep ravine and the bridge is gone.

Blame Russia and print more money.

Indian Army's T 72 with a mine trawl at 15,000ft in Ladakh

T-80 gas turbine engine would be the go to tank if any. When I travelled the Pamir highway, our diesel 4x4 struggled with the altitude/lack of air, and guy had a petrol 4x4 which was slightly better but still struggled, at one point we went off the main highway and went over a higher pass and you could have walked faster than the 4x4. At around 15,000-16,000ft. I read that an exercise China did was held at around 4,000m (13,000ft roughly). Your right most aircraft and artillery/rockets would be mostly used. Armour would most likely be used in defensive methods, protecting important passes, and overlooking choke points.

To be fair the reason they don't work well at altitude is because the air is different at those altitudes and those engines are designed to be operated at altitudes closer to sea level.

If you have vehicles that are intended to operate in such regions at such altitudes you should be able to modify them to run just fine.

More importantly it would give you a huge advantage to have armour in an environment where the enemy does not have armour.

This is a critical factor that many ignore when they look at light and amphibious or airborne vehicles... they have compromises in their design... normally massively reduced armour to reduce weight, but what they miss is that they bring massive fire power to places where the other side does not have it.

Personally I would think a nice light wheeled 120mm gun/mortar based vehicle would be rather interesting in the mountains... it sounds like the Russians are working on a new family of longer ranged artillery rounds for all of their calibres and a weapon that can fire shells and mortar bombs would be rather useful for direct fire as well as lobbing rounds over ridges into places out of direct line of sight... drones will be useful and of course a few suicide drones would be handy too but gun tube artillery is cheap and efficient.

Indian Army's T 72 with a mine trawl at 15,000ft in Ladakh

Looks like it is coping just fine with the altitude...

It is in Russia's interest to break Pakistan, India, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey into a number of smaller nations. These smaller countries will continuously be fighting against each other and so the US will not be able to use them against Russia.

Interesting that your view match those of America... break all other countries into tiny factions that fight all the time because that will keep them all weak and poor and therefore no threat to us so we can continue to get richer and dominate the entire world.

Creating hell on earth is no future for anyone... not even the US even if they don't understand right now.

Russia can create powerful allies and improve the lives of billions of people simply by working and trading normally with other countries. Not trying to rip them off or steal everything from them or create deals where Russia makes billions and the country Russia is trading with makes nothing.

That is the white colonial European way and it has kept the third world poor and weak which is exactly how they want it.

The whole idea of BRICS is to be human, to accept difference, and to pay a fair price and make a reasonable profit on transactions and deals so the other party makes a reasonable profit too. And I don't mean we are rich France and you are poor african country so we pay a euro for this and we can sell it at home for 10,000 Euros and live like kings... in your economy one Euro is good money.

The west is so evil even rich people decided western countries were screwing the third world too hard and demanded the option of ethical coffee to make them feel better about things.

BRICS is ethical everything, and not imposing western culture, religion, or ethics on other countries. That is why BRICS is going to have most countries wanting to join eventually because it is a free trade group that works by helping other countries and your own country to develop and get better and improve the lives of billions of people instead of the 10,000 odd super rich in the west get slightly richer.

Interesting. India had purchased T-80U from the USSR.

No, they didn't buy any... I seem to remember in the mid 1990s the Russians took some to India along with some T-90s so they could test them out in the desert.

Gas turbines suck a lot of air and so in a desert at high temperatures they have problems... especially if their sand filters don't work properly.

Long story short they picked the T-90s over the T-80s so they didn't buy any T-80s.

Which is not to say they couldn't have modified the design of the T-80s to operate better in a sandy environment if they wanted to.

GarryB wrote:Gas turbines suck a lot of air and so in a desert at high temperatures they have problems... especially if their sand filters don't work properly.

Long story short they picked the T-90s over the T-80s so they didn't buy any T-80s.

Which is not to say they couldn't have modified the design of the T-80s to operate better in a sandy environment if they wanted to.

Ok. However, T-72 and T-90 are used by the Indian Army in the high altitude areas bordering China as well. Not just in the hot, dry deserts of Western India.

Indian Army's SAMAR SAM system is basically a R-73E that has been converted into a SAM system. Interesting flight profile (in the video)