Bharat Rakshak

There is too much of ignorance about how things real world being passed off as a virtue in this thread.

Next person who makes a allegation -- back it up.

Saying TI consistently failed? What consistently -- is it failing today? What was the rate of failure? How many failed -- how long did it take to fix the problem. Provide all the details.

India, of course, is quite unhappy with Russia's failure to maintain delivery schedules of contracted weapon systems, provide uninterrupted supply of spares and its propensity to jack up costs mid-way through execution of agreements.

Even the T-90S tanks have attracted some criticism for being "too expensive", apart from having initial technical glitches with its missile and thermal imaging systems.

But army officers complained that the existing T-90S tanks faced 'recurring' technical problems which were adversely impinging on the force's operational preparedness.

Senior armoured corps officers said the Catherine thermal imaging (TI) camera supplied by Thales of France that is the 'heart' of the T-90S' fire control system (FCS) had 'repeatedly malfunctioned' in the excessive summer heat of the western Rajasthan desert where the MBTs frequently exercise and will eventually be deployed.

Officers operating the tanks said temperatures in excess of 60 degrees Celsius inside the tank had rendered between 80-90 FCS 'unserviceable' over the past four years. Attempts to rectify them had so far largely proven unsuccessful.

In one armoured regiment in Punjab, an alarming 30 of 40 tanks were 'off-road', lamented an officer, declining to be named.

In keeping with the army's qualitative staff requirement for the T-90S MBT that stipulated a 'longer range, shimmerless' sight, Peling of Belarus with its IG 46 sight entered into partnership with Thales to integrate its Catherine TI camera thereby giving the FCS a range of around three kilometres. The FCS components were 'mated' by the manufacturers at the T-90S Nizhny Tagil factory in the Urals in Russia.

When problems first began to emerge in 2003 with the TI camera - priced at around Rs.20 million ($444,444) per unit, a fifth of each tanks cost of Rs.117.5 million - they were replaced as the T-90S were under warranty till March 2004.

Thereafter, with the warranty having ended, the army has grudgingly conceded that it is looking to 'rectify' the FCS problem, but has not yet come up with a viable solution.

The T-90S licensed production that was to commence at HVF in 2006 has also been 'considerably' deferred, armament industry officials said.

This was due partly to engineering problems encountered in locally assembling the MBTs, but principally because of integrating the Catherine TI camera with the 1G 46 sight.

The first locally assembled T-90S tanks began rolling out of the HVF in January 2004, but within a short period they too faced FCS problems in hot temperatures.

Ammunition for the T-90S is also posing a major problem.

Initially, the T-90S fired Russian-made AMK-338 and AMK-339 rounds, but these were soon exhausted in training and presently the tanks are without any ammunition as their 125 mm smoothbore guns have not yet been configured to fire the locally manufactured AMK-340 rounds.

Production of the MBT's 9M119 Refleks (NATO designation AT-11 Sniper) missiles by the state-owned Bharat Dynamics at Hyderabad in southern India that was scheduled to begin earlier this year is also behind schedule as several test firings have been unsuccessful. Russian technicians have been called in to assist.

Alongside, armoured corps officers said the T-90S had been 'overexposed' in exercises 'to suit the individual whims of senior commanders' anxious to show off the new tank and were already in need of major overhauls.

Each tank has a maximum life of 650 cycles on the onboard rev-counter with static running equalling one rev per hour while travelling 17.5 km equalled one rev. But, in less than four years, most of the T-90S tanks had completed 600 revs.

Army officers also bemoaned the shortage of T 90 simulators of which there were only five at present, in order to extend the MBT's operational longevity.

The move to assemble 330 more T-90 tank kits from Russia is even more remarkable given the in-service difficulties noted by MosNews’ report. These include repeated heat-related malfunctions of the fire-control system’s key Thales Catherine thermal imaging (TI) camera, lack of cooling systems leading to uninhabitable temperatures over 60C degrees (over 140F) inside the tank, and reports that at least one armored regiment had an in-service rate of just 25% for its T-90s.

During repeated manoeuvres in the Thar Desert, where the T-90s will ultimately be deployed in the event of an outbreak in hostilities, prolonged use under high temperatures had already "knocked out" between 80 and 90 of the Catherine TI cameras, rendering the FCS "unserviceable." The officers said that repeated efforts to correct the problem had been without success.

The TI cameras are the crucial "eyes" of the tank’s systems. At Rs 2 crores each, the Catherine TI system comprises almost one-sixth of each T-90’s total cost of Rs 11.75 crores.

The T-90s are also facing a host of other problems, including a nearly exhausted inventory of ammunition. The tank’s 125 mm smooth-bore gun is electronically configured to fire imported Russian AMK-338 and AMK-339 shells, the supply of which has run out after innumerable exercises.

Surprisingly, the T-90’s gun has not been configured to fire the Indian-made AMK-340 shells. These shells have turned out rather dubious in quality, with over 150,000 rounds having to be destroyed, leading to the loss of over Rs 700 crores. Some AMK-340 shells have even burst inside the tanks, killing crew members, in at least one instance at Babina. Armoured Corps officers said many tank crews, who feared the shells would explode inside the barrel, had refused to use the faulty ammunition, and when forced to do so went to elaborate lengths, enabling them to fire from outside the tank.

It was the T-90’s missile-firing capability that had initially clinched the Army’s decision in its favour way back in 2001. But with BDL unable to supply the missiles and the endless problems with the fire control system, many officers are of the view that the tank appears little better than the already proven T-72, also currently in service with the Indian Army.

No value is maybe what you think but I think as I have already said it clearly indicates the biased position of the army.

The army gives a BS report to the parliamentary committee in such language to deliberately show the arjun in poor light and that doesn’t change anything on the ground??If a army trial report that could have effect on the products future isnt a part of the "ground" then I dont know what is.

Btw..first you said that the language was probably drafted by a babu and when pointed out that it was the army itself you shift to saying that the language on an official report doesn’t matter?Shifting goalposts?

Yes today, that quote was made on Nov 2007.There is nothing as complicated in that quote as wishlist or such stuff as you want to prove.He was talking just and only just about the Arjun plain and simple.Yes I agree the chief cannot be a fanboy,but then again if the quote be put to scrutiny the chief would have a hard time substantiating it.

It may have been corrected now but the simple point was that there were very serious problems with the T-90 and the army was more than enthused to bring it upto the mark which is not the case with arjun considering the arjun has more significance and importance to India.

Not hardly.An import is fine but a faulty import?

And whatever the credentials of the makers be it is the finished product that matters.I can give many examples where an established maker turned up with a lemon and a inexperienced maker turned up with a world class product.

Whether they are being used successfully is neither for you or me to judge.

We have just seen it being used.In anycase even if they didn’t have problems they clearly did when they were trialed in the desert some years back.And THAT is the point I am talking about.That problems existed but due to hand holding by the army it was possible to correct them to a large degree.

Point in favour of IA needing to support indigenization.

The last report was during ex ashwamedha ,last year.And lets not forget the chief now wants to put a cooling unit in the T-90.How is that even going to fit on the can?

Yes but still a miscalculation by the army for which now they are having to pay.

No I am comparing the tank which was deployed despite having problems and another one which wasn’t.

Don’t mix it up.the shell problem was an issue

and the army having to buy more 347 tanks due to delayed tech transfer another.

Who knows whether the TI performed according to specs?Who knows how much fuel the T-90s used up?who knows what the temperature was inside the tank?Who knows whether the tank crews suffered from any medical problems because of the heat?who knows whether the munition the T-90 fired would go through any modern ceramic armour?

defend them.

Wake me up when Avadi actually makes enough tanks which can be used

Nayak you have not posted anything worthwhile than dredging up really OLD links which have been discussed to death already.

Wake me up when Avadi actually makes enough tanks which can be used.

ohh and untill now i thought avaidi made the t-72 and will be making t-90 in india.

Oh jeez, sounds like I am posting on PeeDeeEff or on the deaf and dumb fora on how the T-90 is the greatest thing after sliced bread.
.

Wake me up when Avadi actually makes enough tanks which can be used.

Arjun needs to clear reliability tests -- which once is done by DRDO with Renk or whatever the tank will be accepted. If DRDO cant -- Arjun wont make it.

Ah.. But they can't make any unless they get orders, can they. A chicken and egg story, no ?

Funny , how the T-90 never had to clear any reliability tests!

Also, when the torsion bar suspension broke in the T-90, why did the Army paint it as an "Arjun" failure via DDM ?

In any case if you missed this so far T 90 was inducted before Arjun was ready -- As Shivji tried hard to point out over the noise -- EVEN IF ARMY GIVES ARJUN A 1000 tank order today -- they are not coming before 2020 in anycase; so we need both.

And those who dont grok it -- WORKING WITH DRDO means construtive feedback too.

BUt of course since none of the arm chair generals have a stake in dying at the battle front they can advocate that IA accepts tanks just because they come from DRDO and says "Made in India"

oh the echeendee.

As I said; please show where the T 90 and Arjun have different tests?

Selective application of logic and reasoning onlee.

Avadi + T-90s = winner

Avadi + Arjun = heh, let them learn to how to handle HSU.

I told ya, this is turning out like the deaf and dumb fora thread.

His arguments are similar to a agent whose pockets have been lined by russkies.

Ah the debate which is a shouting match rather than a listening, understanding, and knowledgeably debating.

I am told the debates within DRDO and User meetings are similar. No wonder!

IMHO - Arjun is a classic case of inadequate project scoping and management. Much like the monster ERP projects in corporate sector that have "failed". The definition of failure is a little too stringent and not universally agreed on. You do not meet any of the following 100% then it is considered failure: 1) user requirements, 2) time schedule, 3) cost schedule.

The anti-Arjun folks always point to failure on all three fronts. Technically speaking they are right. Strictly speaking it did not meet any of the three when it was first rolled out. Now - it has only not met the second two conditions.

Much like the corporate folks who blame the consultants for "failure" of their multi-million dollar ERP systems, the anti-Arjun folks forget that the single root cause for problems pertaining to Arjun is poor specification of user requirements and their constantly changing nature. The consultants - DRDO in this case - in their eagerness to get the project and their overconfidence in technical abilities - came up short in their responsibility to educate the customer (Army) about true consequences and all challenges in meeting these requirements.

At the end of it all - the project has indeed come to fruition. It meets the all of the current user requirements, albeit over schedule and cost. Beyond this point it is more the issue of management. There's enough sour feelings on both sides (DRDO and Army) and these are justifiable from their own points of view. Folks should find opportunities to talk to these folks in depth rather than armchair opinionate on BR.

Coming to the issue of T-90, here's my understanding from what little I do know. Continuing with the earlier analogy of the IT projects and infrastructure -- the T-90 is much like new modern mainframes - they are new, modern, extremely capable, able to handle newer technology, but at the end of the day they are legacy systems. Arjun on the other hand is the modern new system which has nothing legacy about it. Components from it may be used to augment the legacy systems during transition. Comparing the two is like debating who is stronger the Tiger or the Cheetah - just because both are "Cats" are they comparable?

From my discussions with friends in IA the reasoning for purchasing T-90s is as follows:
1. They are part of the migration path from legacy systems to "new" system. They upgrade the legacy system while new system is rolled out in phases and other kinks (logistic, training, etc. etc.) are encountered and managed. Note that these kinks are not necessarily product related but process related.

2. Given the large number of T-72s in IA armor, consider the time requirement for retraining existing crews to man Arjun. The officer training for developing new strategies which leverage the capabilities of Arjun, and in some case unique abilities. All of this would take a lot more time, and in the mean time there was urgent need to field muscle. T-90 being closer cousin of T-72 (Bengal Tiger to Sumatran Tiger) it was easier to add this muscle. For those debating whether we should have upgraded the T-72 or bought the T-90, this debate is not new for any system displaying similar characteristics - i.e. upgrade or buy newer a bit more powerful system. Question is whether T-72 could truly be upgraded to T-90 level. Sticking a new processor into an old motherboard just because you can does not necessarily get you the same capability or performance.

3. Ramping production of Arjun to supply at the rate needed would also take time. Considering #1 and #2 above, it is a smarter strategy to phase in "new" system.


Well that is my 2c. Somehow I am sure we will be back to this point in the circle in oh let's say 3-6 months because someone will refuse to accept the complexity of the system and jump the gun again. Rolling Eyes

Do you know that Arjun is a mangnitude more complicated design? Or is assembing a Mig 21 and manufacturing a F 22 the same to you?

Does this mean t-90 is mig-21 and Arjun is f-22??

Does this mean t-90 is mig-21 and Arjun is f-22??

Armoured Corps officers said many tank crews, who feared the shells would explode inside the barrel, had refused to use the faulty ammunition, and when forced to do so went to elaborate lengths, enabling them to fire from outside the tank.

and could you please show me where the T 90 and Arjun had SAME tests?
sorry if the links for these tests also has already been posted

With T-90s, our brave jawans have to fire from outside the tank. With Arjun, they are constrained to fire from within the tank.

With T-90s, our brave jawans have to fire from outside the tank. With Arjun, they are constrained to fire from within the tank.

Nayak if you could actually read -- you would be able to know that the issue is the shell with T 72.

Trust the fan boys to be low on comprehension

I aint no fanboy, but when I see BS I call it out. Right now my BS meter is flashing bright red.

Ah.. But they can't make any unless they get orders, can they. A chicken and egg story, no ?

Funny , how the T-90 never had to clear any reliability tests! So the Belarus guys go to the French to get a TI, integrate it and sell it to the Indians via the Russians .. and that SOB fails in hot weather , making the thing entirely useless.

When you could do the same thing with the Arjun FCS (the older version) , which failed in hot weather tests and damned the Tank, why coudln't you do that with the T-90 ?..

Also, when the torsion bar suspension broke in the T-90, why did the Army paint it as an "Arjun" failure via DDM ?

Funny , how the T-90 never had to clear any reliability tests!

So the Belarus guys go to the French to get a TI, integrate it and sell it to the Indians via the Russians .. and that SOB fails in hot weather , making the thing entirely useless.

Also, when the torsion bar suspension broke in the T-90, why did the Army paint it as an "Arjun" failure via DDM ?

If T-90 TI's were unoperational how come they have been taking part in every exersise from their induction

Now wait a second!Your thinking that there is nothing to the language is okay but me thinking there is a problem with the language is a bias?

What one army officer?The language in the report!This report was prepared by the army and dictated by a senior in the army.The parliamentary scribes have nothing to do with it.

Oh please …how about 3 HSUs failed after their prescribed service life was over and still shown to be a problem?And no, it matters even if it’s a single problem.Because you just cannot give false testimony be it single or a dozen.

I am not just talking about the quote.I am also talking about the language in the report.

Now that’s a twist.For your eyes again:
What we have today is a mid-level technology. What we need is a tank of international quality,' Kapoor said last November.

There is no relation to manufacturing in the quote at all!BTW is the T-90 manufactured using higher technology by the same Avadi??

And equipping itself with an obsolete tank is the best way to protect the borders!

And they are clearly not doing their best.

Please..I have began to take whatever the army say with a sack of salt nowadays.Ofcourse its not the same.Its better.

TI camera still is a problem.torsion bar still is.And when it was imported it had a host of other problems.Still it was taken.

Whos taking their word?On the other hand you were advocating that we take Russians word since they are established manufacturers.

Well I am being lenient with the army even if they imported a lemon, saying okay fine they are working things out with that or atleast trying to!

>fasifying testimony and report to the parliament

>trying to show the arjun in poorlight even if it means the army chief making controversial and unsubstantiable statements to the media

>refusal to carry out comparative trials

>refusal to order more than the initial 124 units
etc.

I thought there was difference betwen unoperational and having problems.The drive systems of Arjun are also not unoperational but are said to have failed after certain distance

In this case it was probably much before the design

Design of the tank or design of the TI?

All i can say after this is if merkava-1 was given to IA instead of IDF there wouldnt have been a merkava-4.We will have to start somewhere.if we can expect 50% offsets from foreign vendors,why cant we have 20% indian equipment.

ok but why dosent agni or prithvi not have any reliability issues.To the best of my knowledge they were also made by DRDO.and are you saying merkava-1 didnt have any reliability issues????

Agni and prithvi are not comprable to tanks. The missiles are fired once

Did Merk 1 have reliablity less than what IDF wanted or less than best in class? I dont think so