India's Armor Gets a Boost: A Closer Look at the T-72 and T-90 Upgrades

India is taking significant strides in modernizing its armored forces, and at the center of this effort is a substantial upgrade program for its mainstay battle tanks – the T-72 and T-90.

The Indian Army is not simply looking to buy more powerful machines; it's investing in transforming its existing assets into more capable platforms, demonstrating a strategic focus on self-reliance and indigenous technological development.

The T-72: A Workhorse Transformed​

The backbone of India's tank fleet, the T-72, is set to receive a heart transplant. A ₹2300 crore project will see nearly 1000 of these tanks fitted with new, indigenously developed 1000-hp engines.

This represents a significant power increase over the current 780-hp models, giving the T-72s enhanced battlefield mobility and agility.

Importantly, the upgrade approach prioritizes cost-effectiveness and leverages existing knowledge. Engineers have redesigned peripheral systems like cooling and intake while retaining core engine components.

This ensures a reliable upgrade path with reduced development time. Rigorous testing guarantees the engines' combat readiness.

'Make in India' in Action​

The T-72 upgrade program embodies India's "Make in India" initiative. Approximately 800 of the new engines will be manufactured domestically.

This is not just about upgrading tanks; it's fueling India's defence industry, creating jobs, and reducing reliance on foreign suppliers.

The upgrades extend beyond just horsepower. The T-72s will receive crucial enhancements like:

• Thermal sights: Providing superior night-fighting capabilities.
• Fire detection and suppression systems: Boosting battlefield survivability.
• Other targeted improvements: Potentially including communication and battlefield management systems upgrades

The T-90S: Sharpening the Edge​

India's more advanced T-90S main battle tanks are also receiving a technological boost. This includes:

• Automatic target trackers: Enhancing target acquisition and engagement.
• Digital ballistic computers: Improving firing accuracy.
• Commander thermal imagers: Providing enhanced situational awareness.

Beyond the Hardware: India's Strategic Vision​

The T-72 and T-90 modernization programs signal India's commitment to maintaining a technologically superior armored force capable of facing contemporary threats.

The combination of indigenous development and carefully selected imports demonstrates a savvy approach to defence procurement, maximizing combat potential while building a self-sufficient defence industry.

This move underscores India's growing ambition as a regional power and its determination to independently safeguard its security interests.

The upgraded T-72s and T-90s will form a formidable armored fist, ready to deter aggression and ensure India's continued rise as a self-reliant military power.

 

[Tanishq Bafila]

For a new tank, 2.77 million USD would be a good deal. For a tank as obsolete as the T-72, it's a damned rip-off. The T-72 has shown itself to be utterly incapable of standing a decent chance in modern combat. Russia has lost atleast 1,372 T-72s (49.15% of their overall tank losses), while Ukraine has lost atleast 219 T-72s (29.04% of their overall losses).

2.5 million for upgrading a tank as old as T-72 is a good deal , A brand new tank cost 8-12 million...

Regarding your numbers for the destruction of tanks in the battle field all are exaggerated numbers from the West & Russia...

Yes , T-72 isn't one of the best platform and upgrading these 1000+ tanks is the most sensible and cost-effective measure as the next tank project is at least 10 years from induction ( FMBT ) , without these upgrades to the T-72 it is a sitting fuck if a war breaks out even today.

And where the Ukraine terrain is mostly plain , India has 3 different types of terrain .

 

[Sandeep]

Currently most of the T72 were already upgraded with a new indigenous 1000hp engine, APU, automatic tracking, thermal imagery, fire detection and suppression etc so this upgrade isn't exactly new. They might of decided to upgrade more of these tanks than they originally planned to but there's no new technology that's going to be installed but they should consider it. They could buy and operate a few surveillance and kamikaze drones and it doesn't need to be installed on every tank but a few in a squadron would suffice. The T72 tanks are ideal to be used on the LAC because of its lighter weight and our T90 or Arjun tanks are too heavy and they don't even have a 1500+hp engine so far. The heavier tanks are ideal for a flat terrain or used for defending key bases. What we need to do with all tanks is to install slat/cage armour on the top and sides so we can protect our manhole from any drone dropping any bombs, grenades or a kamikaze drone attack. Also the T90 tanks have been upgraded a long time ago with indigenously designed and developed technology.

 

[RG]

For 2300 crore, it would be good deal, the $ figure is wrong, that much money should go to new tanks

 

[RG]

Local engine use is great news. worth the effort just for this.

 

[Anant]

For a new tank, 2.77 million USD would be a good deal. For a tank as obsolete as the T-72, it's a damned rip-off. The T-72 has shown itself to be utterly incapable of standing a decent chance in modern combat. Russia has lost atleast 1,372 T-72s (49.15% of their overall tank losses), while Ukraine has lost atleast 219 T-72s (29.04% of their overall losses).

1. The T-72 was built to be cheap. Back in 2012, Ethiopia purchased 200 T-72s from Ukraine. These tanks were of the T-72UA1 standard, which included basic upgrades to sighting equipment, and most importantly, a 1050 ho engine. You know how much Ethiopia paid for these tanks? About 5,50,000 USD per tank. Y
Not 2.7 million. They paid about 20% of that. Still feel 2.7 million USD per tank for a new engine is reasonable?

2. The numbers I used are effective tank losses (Destroyed + Damaged + Captured + Abandoned) where photographic evidence is available, using Oryx as a source. The true number for both sides is almost certainly higher. Of those, the only tanks that cam ostensibly be brought back into service are the ones damaged and the ones captured from your enemy (albeit not all of those). Regardless, there can be absolutely no denying that thanks to a combination of bad field command, improper doctrine, and the T-72's design flaws, the tank has suffered very badly in Ukraine.

3. You feel the Gulf War numbers are inflated? Okay, let's just assume the Coalition suffered 3 times as many defeats and Iraq suffered one-fifth of those losses. The numbers mentioned were mostly backed by photographs, but anyways. Even with that assumption, Coalition losses come to 33-36 armoured vehicles lost and 9 damaged to Iraq's loss of 396 vehicles lost or captured and the Coalition seeing 171 men killed and 468 wounded to Iraq losing 120-200 men killed and some 2,300 men captured. That is still very much in the Coalition's favour, and I have already taken an exceptional case for moderating losses here (a factor of 3 and 5 for the Coalition and Iraq respectively, so even these numbers are 15 times skewed than the actuals).

3. See, if the engine upgrade (and this is more of an engine rebuild anyways) is costing us even 4,00,000 USD per tank, we can take it as a stop-gap. However, 2.7 million USD per tank is a very large amount, and for the work being proposed, is unreasonably high.

 

[Anant]

that was long time ago, try buying it for that price now.

Ethiopia purchased 200 semi-modernised T-72UA1s from Ukraine in 2012-13 for around 5,50,000 USD each. These tanks included a 1,050 hp engine and upgraded sights as well as basic ERA, and had seen little use. A decade has passed, so let's double that price for today. 11,00,000 USD is still less than 40% of the reasonable figure you are claiming.

 

[Anant]

the reason why tanks did poorly in Ukraine is because of flawed tactics. If you look at modern tanks supplied to ukraine by the west, they are getting destroyed at pretty much the same rate as soviet tanks.

1. Yes, a lot of Russian losses can be attributed to doctrine. However, saying that almost all tanks Russia lost is due to doctrine is also a flawed assessment. Tanks like the T-72 and the Vijananta (since you mentioned it elsewhere) were not designed to guard against top-attacking ATGMs, since top-attacking ATGMs wasn't exactly a thing at the time. Moreover, the T-72's ring of ammunition in the turret has been seen to be a point of weakness time and again.

2. Now, sure, you could theoretically put up enough support vehicles and other systems close to a T-72 column that no one can attack the T-72. However, that also makes your entire column very packed and sitting in one large formation. You'd just need a few long range missiles to inflict heavy losses. Space stuff out, and you can't handle cheap ATGMs taking out your tanks.

3. Ukraine has shown that advancing tanks, unless supported by significant forces, are particularly vulnerable to air and ATGM strikes. Even if we assume you can stop any drones or loitering munitions, handling all ATGMs will still be a threat, and outside of EW jamming, good luck.

4. Your point about airframes is right. However, there is such a thing as obsolescence as well. The MiG-21 is old, but the reason we don't build new ones to replace older airframes today is because it is obsolete. As WCdr. Abhinandan showed, a MiG-21 in capable hands today can still deal with a F-16, but does mean we should always count on it, or should be instead have a more modern aircraft like the Tejas or the Rafale or the Su-30MKI?

5. Now, sure, you can upgrade a T-72 enough to make it perfectly relevant for modern combat. However, that simply won't be worth the effort or the cost. Just like the MiG-21 or Germany's Tiger I tank, the T-72 is a weapon of the past. Sure, with the right upgrades, in teh right conditions, against the right opponent, and in the right hands, it is a formidable machine even today, but you can't count on all that for combat. As exceptional as the T-72 may have been, the time is coming for it to retire.

 

[Anant]

Bla, bla, bla, utter nonsense. Terrains are completely different. Comparing apples with oranges.

You can call it utter nonsense and claim the loss disparities were solely due to terrain, buy as you can see in my response to Mr. Bafila, even if I moderate the Gulf War losses by a factor of 15, the Iraqis still come out worse, and the losses in Ukraine are the ones based on photographic evidence (hence, the actual numbers are higher).

As for terrain, sure. The T-72 can engage reasonably well in hot climates and the desert, but the desert also gives you relatively little protection against static lines wielding ATGMs.

 

[Anant]

Stop your useless, nonsense comments

Do you actually have a sensible counter? If not, then go do something else.

 

[Anant]

comparing ww1 tanks to modern tanks is a joke. Totally different design.
WW2 era tanks closer to modern tanks in terms of design, but still outdated. 70s and 80s tanks have weaker armor, engine, but have smilar firepower to modern tanks. If you put better armor, engine, ammunition on these tanks with better optics, targeting, and a trained crew, they can fight any modern tank. modern tanks will have advantage in terms of mobility (engine, suspension, transmission), armor and crew survivability. But it is still vulnerable. Just look at how many leopards ukraine has lost since last year.

The Vijayanta is essentially a Vickers Mk. 1, which was a combination of parts from the Centurion and the Chieftain tanks, both of which were developed based on learnings and observations from WW2.

Tanks from the 1970s and the 1980s have similar firepower as modern tanks, sure. However, as you yourself pointed, they have weaker armour. They also have weaker protection. A comparable gun is not going to help you if you can't actually damage the other side, or can get destroyed before you bring your gun to bear.

That said, it is of course possible to upgrade a T-72 with modern armour, modern sights, modern EW systems, modern engines, modern ammunition, modern ammunition loading systems, etc. to a point where this tank can be a formidable competitor to a more modern rank. However, at that point, you have thrown in enough time, effort, and resources into this thing that you have a final product that either still has some weaknesses from the original design (or compromises on performance), since a conversion job is rarely as efficienct as a thing purpose-built for something), or you have, in essence, a new tank that bears little resemblance to the old one (which still retains some of the original flaws). If the latter is what you end up with, you may as well go for a new design. Essentially, this latter tank becomes a Ship of Theseus.

As for how many Leopards Ukraine has lost, photographic evidence puts them at 13 Leopard 2s lost, 1 Leopard 1 and 9 Leopard 2s damaged and recovered for repairs, and 8 Leopard 2s damaged and abandoned (with Ukraine claiming 3 of the latter 8 were also recovered for repairs later on). How many T-72s gave both sides lost in the same period in the same region? The number is significantly higher.

 

[Amit Ray]

Do you actually have a sensible counter? If not, then go do something else.

What do you mean by nuclear bombs with boulders, nuclear bombs rain boulders???

 

[Akshat]

that was long time ago, try buying it for that price now.

That is the price we are paying for the batch being inducted currently.

 

[Anant]

What do you mean by nuclear bombs with boulders, nuclear bombs rain boulders???

Sarcasm, my good man, sarcasm.

 

[Apocalypse gupta]

That is the price we are paying for the batch being inducted currently.

Deal was signed long time ago. These defence deals are signed keeping in mind very long time frame of delivery. That is why they seem inflated at the time. If you were to sign a deal today, it would be much more expensive.

 

[Apocalypse gupta]

As for how many Leopards Ukraine has lost, photographic evidence puts them at 13 Leopard 2s lost, 1 Leopard 1 and 9 Leopard 2s damaged and recovered for repairs, and 8 Leopard 2s damaged and abandoned (with Ukraine claiming 3 of the latter 8 were also recovered for repairs later on). How many T-72s gave both sides lost in the same period in the same region? The number is significantly higher.

Ukraine has used used leopards in much fewer numbers and much different tactics than they used the t72s. Still they ended up losimg so many (you should also count the swedish/finnish donated tanks since they are also locally produced leopards.)

Point is that an older tank that has been modernised, can take out new tank. You can take advantage of terrain, camouflage, training to get the first shot. But same logic does not apply to fighters. There is no camoflage in the sky. Radars are too good. Stealth depends largely on design, so you can t upgrade it. Airframe gets degraded much more and much faster than tank body.

Globally it is the norm to keep old tanks and upgrade them instead of scrapping them, unless they are super old.

 

[Rajesh]

Which engine is this and who are producing them?
Hardly any details on the engine manufacturer and whether the engine will be rebranded/renamed.

It is Indian engines. Back during nirmala as dm the dpsu has indigenised the 750hp(t72) and 1000 hp(t90) engines. It is not a new design but completely indigenised . The 1000 hp engine is also in the negative list .

 

[Akshat]

Deal was signed long time ago. These defence deals are signed keeping in mind very long time frame of delivery. That is why they seem inflated at the time. If you were to sign a deal today, it would be much more expensive.

It was signed in 2020. Not too long ago, when considering the time frame. So even today you can get it for 4 million usd or thereabouts.

 

[Anant]

Ukraine has used used leopards in much fewer numbers and much different tactics than they used the t72s. Still they ended up losimg so many (you should also count the swedish/finnish donated tanks since they are also locally produced leopards.)

Point is that an older tank that has been modernised, can take out new tank. You can take advantage of terrain, camouflage, training to get the first shot. But same logic does not apply to fighters. There is no camoflage in the sky. Radars are too good. Stealth depends largely on design, so you can t upgrade it. Airframe gets degraded much more and much faster than tank body.

Globally it is the norm to keep old tanks and upgrade them instead of scrapping them, unless they are super old.

Very well. One can add the one Swedish-built Leopard 2 derivative lost, another one damaged, and 4 damaged and abandoned (of which 3 seem to have been recovered as per Ukraine).

Yes, the Ukrainians have also used relatively few Western tanks. However, these Western tanks are far less susceptible to ATGMs, are better armoured, etc. Most of those losses have been to suicide drones, which carry far more payload than an ATGM does.

See, no one is claiming that the Leopard 2 or Challenger 2 or Abrams is indestructible. That would be blatantly false. However, they are far better suited to face off modern threats than a modernised T-72 is. Then again, you can modernise the T-72 to a ridiculous degree to make it extremely relevant for modern warfare, but it stops being a T-72 at that point and becomes something else entirely.

I am also not advocating scrapping the T-72s. Not at all. What I am saying, however, is that we would be better placed with an austere modernisation for the T-72s which can keep them relevant for another decade, and then shift them off into storage, with these being replaced by a newer tank design that is better suited for today's warfare. We have a lot of unmodernised T-55s in storage, and the T-72s could replace those in storage (maybe even retain some T-55s if deemed viable).

Let's not stay in a scenario where your frontline tank has so many vulnerabilities. Let them be in storage, and we'll pull them out if absolutely necessary.

 

[Ranjeet Singh]

Upgrade newer T-72s but with anti UCAV device/Jammers and remaining T-72 chases should be fitted with 300 mm 300 km range MBRL launchers !

 

[Apocalypse gupta]

Let's not stay in a scenario where your frontline tank has so many vulnerabilities. Let them be in storage, and we'll pull them out if absolutely necessary.

That is exactly the thought of the army. Right now t90 tanks form our frontline. These t72 will remain in storage. But they will be modernised that when they are pulled out of storage, we dont have to modernise them then, as the russians are doing. It would be more expensive then, waste of precious time and resources during wartime.

 

[Apocalypse gupta]

It was signed in 2020. Not too long ago, when considering the time frame. So even today you can get it for 4 million usd or thereabouts.

India has been buying t90 tanks for decades now.

 

[Amit Ray]

Sarcasm, my good man, sarcasm.

Metaphors, Pun, Sarcasm everything is okay, but don't take refuge to those after being caught talking prolix.

 

[Anant]

Metaphors, Pun, Sarcasm everything is okay, but don't take refuge to those after being caught talking prolix.

Not my fault if you cannot identify or understand sarcasm when you read it, and even more so when the final sarcastic taunt is being built up to.

Say what you will, and believe what you will. I do not care either way, unless you have a sensible point to make. Above all, however, do have a good day.

 

[Anant]

That is exactly the thought of the army. Right now t90 tanks form our frontline. These t72 will remain in storage. But they will be modernised that when they are pulled out of storage, we dont have to modernise them then, as the russians are doing. It would be more expensive then, waste of precious time and resources during wartime.

True, but there is no point going for a very comprehensive modernisation costing pretty much as the tank did in the first place. We should have plans such as this, but they should be done only if need be.

If the Army is looking to spend something like 23,000 crores on a modernisation today, it would be a better idea to spend a fraction of that for an austere rework and spend the rest of the money where it actually makes sense, such as the FMBT, where the Army wants a tank that is essentially a South Korean K2 Black Panther (with a cost price of over 8 million dollars) for less than 4 million USD apiece.

 

[Apocalypse gupta]

If the Army is looking to spend something like 23,000 crores on a modernisation today, it would be a better idea to spend a fraction of that for an austere rework and spend the rest of the money where it actually makes sense, such as the FMBT, where the Army wants a tank that is essentially a South Korean K2 Black Panther (with a cost price of over 8 million dollars) for less than 4 million USD apiece.

Army is spending as much on upgrade as it needs to. If it spends less then these tanks would just be very exzpensive targets.

Engines are also very old, that is why they getting brand new upgrades engines.

 

[Akshat]

India has been buying t90 tanks for decades now.

I specifically stated that the price I am quoting is for the latest deal which was signed in 2020 only.

 

[Apocalypse gupta]

I specifically stated that the price I am quoting is for the latest deal which was signed in 2020 only.

I found that a deal was done in 2019 for 464 t90 tanks and it was for around 3 billion which comes to more than 6 million each. Also India hd to pay a ridiculous amount of money as license fees (over 1 billion).