Indian T-90S tanks develop technical snags

The Times of India ^ | July 272003 | RAJAT PANDIT

[knighthawk]

NEW DELHI: The Russian T-90S main-battle tanks, recently inducted into the Army to counter Pakistan's deployment of T-80UD tanks from Ukraine, have developed technical snags within a few months.

Some defence officials, however, claimed that the snags - which mainly relate to difficulty in acquisition of targets during exercises in the Rajasthan desert and lack of effective thermal and night-vision capabilities - were being studied and would soon be rectified.

Defence Minister George Fernandes, in fact, admitted in Parliament that the matter of technical snags had been taken up with Russian officials during Army chief General N C Vij's recent visit to Moscow.

"The Russian warranty team of experts is already in the country and is rectifying the technical snags," he added.

Armoured Corps officers maintained that the T-90S tanks in themselves, with both conventional armour-plating and explosive reactive armour as well as a wide array of missiles and laser-guided weapons, were better than the Pakistani T-80UD tanks.

But, they added, the absence of good night-vision capabilities was a serious shortcoming.

The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) had apparently suggested that night-vision and other related capabilities could be developed indigenously, in a cost-cutting move, when the T-90S deal was being negotiated with Russia.

But later, the defence ministry was forced to call for international tenders for these capabilities after the DRDO reportedly failed to deliver on its promises. The night-vision capabilities provided by a French company, however, are now facing compatibility problems with the Russian tanks.

The Army has already raised three T-90S armoured regiments, with around 40 tanks each. As per the 1999 contract, India received 120 T-90S tanks from Russia, the deliveries of which were speeded up during 'Operation Parakram' last year.

Another 190 of these tanks are being imported in completely-knocked down or semi-knocked down condition for indigenous Assembly at the Avadi Heavy Vehicle Factory. The first of these tanks is expected to roll out in the next three-four months.

By 2006-07, India hopes to commence indigenous production of the T-90S tanks under the contract which provides for transfer of technology.

Faced with delays in the indigenous Arjun MBT programme, India had gone in for the T-90S deal after Pakistan's acquisition of 320 frontline T-80UD tanks, their upgradation of the Chinese T-59 tanks and development of their MBT Al Khalid with help from China.

The Army's old warhorses, the Vijayanta tanks, will be completely phased out by the end of 2007. They are now gradually being replaced by the T-90S tanks and upgraded T-72 tanks.

[knighthawk]

Ping

[knighthawk]

Earlier on the FR:

Russia to rectify problems in Indian T-90 tanks

[facedown]

T-90S during demonstrations.

[templar]

How much value are tanks in modern warfare. It seems that they get destroyed almost immediately by airpower whenever we go up against them, does Pakistan lack sufficient airpower to counter Indian tanks (and India against the Paks))?

[verity]

The Russian T-90S main-battle tanks, recently inducted into the Army to counter Pakistan's deployment of T-80UD tanks from Ukraine, have developed technical snags within a few months.

The Pakistani tanks have an emblem of a cow on them which foils the T-90s target acquisition. ;<)

[Cobra64]

Yup. I'll take a Warthog any day over a tank.

[Cobra64]

Yup. I'll take a Warthog any day over a tank.

[knighthawk]

The Indian airforce is superior to that of Pakistan:

http://mylima.com/airforce/i.htm
http://mylima.com/airforce/op.htm

And in huge countries like this, tanks still play a big role. In a war, India will defeat the Pakistani airforce, but will suffer huge loses too.

[gore_sux]

Yes, but imagine yourself in Iraq during April, would you rather be on foot or in a tank?

Planes still can't take an inch of ground by themselves.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

T-90S, NATO codename WARHOGFODDER.

[ModelBreaker]

Yup. I'll take a Warthog any day over a tank.

The Warthogs are a great platform. If what you mean is that in a one-on-one battle, the Warthog will almost always destroy a tank, I agree with you.

But the world is full of cheap RPG's in the hands of lunatics. One of the lessons of Iraq (in my relatively uneducated opinion) is that we need ground armor to protect our men against RPG's.

Hummers wont do that. Strykkers won't do that (unless you put enough armor on them to call them a tank). OTOH, Tanks, Bradleys and M113's will.

It may be that a modern tank has more firepower than necessary. That is, the weaponry on the Bradleys appeared to be extremely effective, when combined with airpower. But it is not so clear that the modern tank has more armor than necessary.

[sheik yerbouty]

That high up in the air, it looks like a "Vindaloo" tank. Some fennel seed would smooth out those jolting backfires!

[Norse]

I have a great idea concerning military hardware and the U.S. exportation of tanks/planes/guns/etc.

You know how Intel develops the Celeron processor...a processor that is cheap and significantly less advanced than the Pentium chips? Well, defense contractors should do that! Build some good, sturdy tanks that still hold their own, but are useless against top American hardware. What a great idea!! Flood the world with these things...make them reliable...cheap...sort of like Japanese cars!

I should work for a defense contractor. Wow

[norton]

Big tanks are like big ships, they are necessary and they have greater presence alone than would several smaller ones. Like any other weapon they require defensive measures and adequate support...including air cover.

If our air power had flagged or been defended against with any level of authority, the republican guard might have fought back. If they'd fought back it would have been with tanks armed better than the Bradleys.

Putting M-1s into the field was not an option, it was a necessity. You have to plan for the possibility that air will be negated or countered to a degree that forces the guys on the ground to essentially go it alone.

If Pakistan and India went to war today there would be no massive air power, pretty good air power, but not the concentrated and massive force we put into a fairly small area of attack. They would probably duke it out conventionally, tanks against tanks, infantry up the middle:

Until one or the other went nuke.

[Bluntpoint]

General Apu Nahasapeemapetilon likes to make "squishees" out of his enemies.

[Sparta]

Is it me or do the Indians just not know how to maintain their Russian equipment?

[Tokhtamish]

They're called T-55's.

[The Pheonix]

World Bank Reports that the Indian Govt had neglected providing the basic amendities/facilities like clean potable water for the people, educational facilities,ie literacy rates=40%, medical facilities, sewage facilities, various infrastructures etc.

eg, more than 40% of children are suffering from mal-nutrition

The World Bank report conclude if this persists,that there will be an explosion sometime in the future

the people of India must decide and choose: "GUNS OR BUTTER?" Tanks or schools ? Aircraft-carriers or hospitals? etc etc

[Lessismore]

But the world is full of cheap RPG's in the hands of lunatics. One of the lessons of Iraq (in my relatively uneducated opinion) is that we need ground armor to protect our men against RPG's.

True, but RPGs are relatively old and obsolete weapons. If the Iraqi's had the Russian Kornet anti-tank missils that they were rumored to have, US armor would have had a much harder time.

http://www.shipunov.com/shipunov-e/atgw/atgw/kornet.htm