Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 17 Apr 2013 04:58

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2013/04/ ... ength.html

An aerospace honcho from Russia whom I asked why Indian defence production was doing so badly lobbed a question back at me. Why, he asked, was Russia such a successful builder of sophisticated fighters and helicopters when that country was still unable to build a passable passenger car? The answer, he said without waiting for a reply, was Moscow's strategic direction. Through famine, hardship and war, Russia's leadership systematically brought together the myriad elements of an aerospace industry: educational institutions that churned out aeronautical designers; design bureaus where legends such as Sukhoi, Mikoyan, Beriev, Ilyushin and Tupolev developed generations of aircraft; science laboratories that produced the special materials that go into aircraft and aero-engines; an industrial base that produced high-quality components like pipes, hoses, rivets, pumps and actuators; technological institutes that churned out trained and productive shop floor workers. With all this in place, Moscow decreed that the Russian military would use only Russian aircraft.  

Not one defence minister, or any national leader, has had the political courage to argue that Indian strategic interest demands that the military equips itself primarily with Indian weaponry, accepting short-term weakness to build long-term capability. The army and Indian Air Force (IAF) do not see that overseas procurement does not solve even the short-term problem, given how frequently it is disrupted by allegations of corruption.

The Indian Navy provides the army and the IAF with daily reminders of the benefits of indigenisation. With the same R&D base, the same feeble defence industry and the same defence ministry the navy has canalised its meagre allocation of 18 per cent of the defence budget into genuine indigenisation. Today, 43 warships are being built in Indian yards, with just two being built abroad. Initial warships were significantly below global standards. But the navy accepted those, building up industry and creating the capability to deliver warships that are currently up to regional, if not global, standards.

The army and the IAF have inexplicably rejected incremental improvement. The army continues to oppose the Arjun tank, apparently willing to countenance nothing less than a perfect fighting machine. Ironically, it is willing to use the outdated T-72, even though the Arjun has outperformed the more modern T-90 tank in comparative trials. Every major army employs "spiral development" of weaponry, accepting into operational service a "Mark I" product, using it and providing feedback that allows the scientists to develop it into a Mark II. The Israeli Merkava tank is currently being developed into a Mark IV.

In a similar quest for sublime perfection, the IAF resists the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft. The development of Mark II Arjuns and Tejas has been grudgingly conceded, but the process is being stifled. Such small numbers have been ordered that no industrial ecosystem will be galvanised.

Echoes my earlier post almost word for word. Read the entire article.

pentaiah · Post by **pentaiah** » 17 Apr 2013 05:34

I have been saying give 4 to 8 LCAs to IAF and play with it as trainer well less than its full envelope of capabilities, give feed back to improve it rather ask for picture perfect a/c after all safety wise it's better than MiG 21

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Apr 2013 05:56

There is corruption all over the place, all over the world. However, the problem - as I see it - in India is that the guys making the rules are themselves the major problems.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 17 Apr 2013 09:45

rohitvats wrote: Oh! please, not this nonsense again. Don't equate QC and AUCRT.

But that is what the reports themselves say.

Systems are meant to fail in AUCRT and except for the Renk gearbox issue (which itself is dubious) no one has ever pointed out to Arjun subs-systems not meeting laid down performance specs during AUCRT.

Systems are supposed to fail, but the question is when they fail. Yes people have pointed to Arjun's sub-system no meeting laid down performance specs.
http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=38445

Following defects have been noticed during the ongoing Accelerated User Cum Reliability Trials by Army:-

Failure of power packs

Low accuracy and consistency

Failure of Hydropneumatic Suspension Units

Shearing of Top Rollers

Chipping of Gun Barrels

The rectification of defects and performance of tanks are being closely monitored.

Some of these were directly traced to QC at Avadi. Sorry no link now, but had posted links before.

QC issues have not stopped IA from ordering more T-90 tanks. Inspite of the initial hiccups, 300 T-90 have rolled out of Avadi. And so will the balance T-90. IA cannot site QC issues and ask MOD to order T-90 tanks in CKD/SKD format from Russia. No one will accept such preposterous demands.

I am not saying QC issues would stop orders in any case. What they do however, is delay the process of deployment as the defective pieces go back for rectification.

On that note, IA has never officially given any reason or at any point of time said they will not order Arjun's for any reason, all they have said is that before they can order in larger numbers, agreed to specifications must be met, even that requirement they have diluted often.

A number of features in Mk II were supposed to be in Mk I itself as per plan.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 17 Apr 2013 10:54

Anujan wrote:http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2013/04/ ... ength.html

sounds more like Ajai Shukla rant with many loop holes in the article.

A simple example of capital Navy ship being built at our Naval Yards very true but most component on that ship is still Imported or Lic built by PSU , Cost of ship on board equipment like electronics , weapons , sensors and engine cost around more than 85 % of ship by value the rest is hull.

Indian navy just designs the ships and then integrates many systems from abroad and india which are lic built by PSU like LM2500 engine , And designing a ship is not the same as designing a Aircraft or Tank ......even there IN Design Bureau takes helps from foreign consultants like Italians for IAC and Russian for P-15 class.

Ajai just tries to twist argument in his favour by providing a little truth , a little half truth and a little lie

nelson · Post by **nelson** » 17 Apr 2013 11:12

Austin wrote:
Anujan wrote:http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2013/04/ ... ength.html
sounds more like Ajai Shukla rant with many loop holes in the article.

A simple example of capital Navy ship being built at our Naval Yards very true but most component on that ship is still Imported or Lic built by PSU , Cost of ship on board equipment like electronics , weapons , sensors and engine cost around more than 85 % of ship by value the rest is hull.

Indian navy just designs the ships and then integrates many systems from abroad and india which are lic built by PSU like LM2500 engine , And designing a ship is not the same as designing a Aircraft or Tank ......even there IN Design Bureau takes helps from foreign consultants like Italians for IAC and Russian for P-15 class.

Ajai just tries to twist argument in his favour by providing a little truth , a little half truth and a little lie

I second that, along with a notion that twisting is done with an agenda to achieve an ulterior motive.

nelson · Post by **nelson** » 17 Apr 2013 11:26

Arjun Mk2 's specifications was handed over to DRDO in mid 2007, when CVRDE started working on it. Many of the specification are incremental/add-on, in nature and spillovers from Mk1 design requirement. There is no major design change on Mk1. CVRDE should have foreseen those had they been doing real research. Instead CVRDE went for JV and consultancy on many of the specifications thereby increasing the import content, cost and most importantly the time taken to put up a Arjun Mk2 for trial. Had Mk2 been put up for trial in 2010(say), most probably, Arjun's production would have continued in HVF without the long gap that we see now?

For many, who think that Arjun's production line will remain idle, that is a question to ponder. IMO, blaming IA for the line remaining idle is false or facetious.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 17 Apr 2013 11:28

nelson wrote:Arjun Mk2 's specifications was handed over to DRDO in mid 2007, when CVRDE started working on it. <SNIP>

Care to provide a back-up for this? Thanks.

nelson · Post by **nelson** » 17 Apr 2013 11:32

http://sniperz11.blogspot.in/2007/11/ar ... roved.html

The original news article, quoted therein, with BR News id has been removed. Per that article, then COAS has announced in a seminar on AFV organised by CII that DRDO has been working on Arjun Mk2, already.

nelson · Post by **nelson** » 17 Apr 2013 11:43

Also, according to original time-plan 30 Arjun Mk2 should be rolling out of HVF in 2013-14. This in words of Dr Sivakumar, Director CVRDE.

The first prototype demonstration of Ajun Mark II will take place by June 2011. By 2013-14, the first batch of about 30 tanks will roll out of the HVF, said Sivakumar.

http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2805/st ... 510000.htm

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 17 Apr 2013 11:52

nelson, in the previous discussion, I had showed with links, as to how the Arjun line was supposed to be making Mk1 till 2012 (final delivery) and start on Mk2 by 2012-13.

Why is it IAs fault if CVRDE/AVADI yet again, are late?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 17 Apr 2013 11:57

nelson wrote:http://sniperz11.blogspot.in/2007/11/ar ... roved.html

The original news article, quoted therein, with BR News id has been removed. Per that article, then COAS has announced in a seminar on AFV organised by CII that DRDO has been working on Arjun Mk2, already.

Nelson, you can do better than this.

That report talks about DRDO working on an advance tank which was to form the blueprint of FMBT. But we know that FMBT is dead and some sanity seems to have prevailed in IA about not asking for unobtanium. As it is, IA had not even framed GSQR for a FMBT. For all practical purposes, FMBT will be iterative development of Arjun tank.

So, DRDO working on FMBT is not same as IA having handed over specs for Arjun Mk-2 to the IA. BTW, the increment is Mk to Mk1A and then Mk-2. And it is Mk1A which is going to have 93 incremental updates. And Arjun Mk-2 is a definite tank unlike FMBT.

IA was conducting AUCRT in 2007-2008 time frame in the winter-summer cycle. And first unit was stood up in mid-2009. So, how did the IA manage to provide IA with Mk-2 inputs when Mk-1 itself had not entered mass scale service before 2009?

For your information - IA placed orders for 124 Arjun Mk-1A (which I think are being reduced to 118) in 2010 and the tank underwent trials with modification asked for by the IA in 2011-2012 time frame. Arjun tanks start rolling out of Avadi after 24-36 months of production start. So, Arjun Mk-1A should start entering service by 2015.

Now, the question which needs to be asked is this - if Arjun has beaten T-90 in all trials fair and square, why was Arjun Mk-1 not ordered in quantity to start replacing the older T-72?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 17 Apr 2013 12:09

nelson wrote:Also, according to original time-plan 30 Arjun Mk2 should be rolling out of HVF in 2013-14. This in words of Dr Sivakumar, Director CVRDE.

The first prototype demonstration of Ajun Mark II will take place by June 2011. By 2013-14, the first batch of about 30 tanks will roll out of the HVF, said Sivakumar.
http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2805/st ... 510000.htm

Not so fast.

As I pointed out earlier, the development and user trials themselves finished in 2012. The production cannot start before IA says everything is OK with the tank and its meets the requirement set out by it for Mk-1A.

Hence, there is no production delay. Production is keeping pace with the development-trial-production start cycle.

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 17 Apr 2013 12:34

rohit

you are only wasting your time. your genuine and valid reasons (well articulated) are neither going to change the minds of the T supporters here nor is it going to change the IA's outlook wrt Arjun tank and its iterations. i gave you a link (june 2011 TOI) some posts back where the defence spokesman clearly states 'all T-55s will be replaced by T-90 while many T-72 regiments are already replaced by T-90'.

besides IA is on record as per shiv aroor -

"Army Does Not Want More Than 124 Arjun Tanks. It Is Official"

also off the record -

max 4 regiments

it is going to be a tragic end - unpalatable, untenable for many - to a 'successful' story ever tried in the country's MIC history.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 17 Apr 2013 13:16

pragnya wrote:rohit

you are only wasting your time. your genuine and valid reasons (well articulated) are neither going to change the minds of the T supporters here nor is it going to change the IA's outlook wrt Arjun tank and its iterations.

I can understand where you're coming from on this.

I know our debate on BRF is not going to change army's decision on the subject. But the reason I reply and post stuff is because I don't want a false narrative to entrench itself with respect to the Arjun story. This is important because if such a development is not countered, it becomes the bedrock for further false information and propaganda. Take for example this latest round of discussion on 'delay' in Arjun Mk-1A development and production. Already CVRDE and HVF are being blamed. If one does not counter such false allegation, then the argument sticks and becomes a future reference point to beat the Arjun program with.

Let make it clear that if I have to err in judgement on a topic, I will generally err in favor of Services. But that does not mean my eyes are closed and I've suspended by reasoning faculties.

i gave you a link (june 2011 TOI) some posts back where the defence spokesman clearly states 'all T-55s will be replaced by T-90 while many T-72 regiments are already replaced by T-90'.

Well, this depends on where those T-55 are. From what I know, these are primarily with Armored Regiments organic with Infantry Divisions. As for T-72 replaced with T-90 - well, bulk of regiments with armored divisions had T-72 so not much issue here. As an aside, 75 AR was initially equipped with T-55 before converting to Arjun.

it is going to be a tragic end - unpalatable, untenable for many - to a 'successful' story ever tried in the country's MIC history.

Not as the way I see it. While Arjun Mk-1/Mk-1A/Mk-2 may total around 500-800 tanks, Arjun Mk-X will evolve into FMBT which will eventually replace all tin cans in IA service. It has reached the technological and product maturity level from where there cannot be any roll back. After the thumping T-90 got in comparative trials, IA can no hide behind any issue here.

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 17 Apr 2013 16:49

rohit,

I can understand where you're coming from on this.

I know our debate on BRF is not going to change army's decision on the subject. But the reason I reply and post stuff is because I don't want a false narrative to entrench itself with respect to the Arjun story. This is important because if such a development is not countered, it becomes the bedrock for further false information and propaganda. Take for example this latest round of discussion on 'delay' in Arjun Mk-1A development and production. Already CVRDE and HVF are being blamed. If one does not counter such false allegation, then the argument sticks and becomes a future reference point to beat the Arjun program with.

Let make it clear that if I have to err in judgement on a topic, I will generally err in favor of Services. But that does not mean my eyes are closed and I've suspended by reasoning faculties.

i understand/agree with what you are saying. but it is so frustrating when the same strawmen (demolished by both you and others in the past) are repeated, and new ones added with no logic, reasoning, knowledge and facts to support. no amount of reasoning is going to stop that if history is any reference.

i think it is better if you can pen sort of a BR Monitor type article (which you can update with new strawmen brought) with all the points that have been debated and settled so far and which can be posted by anybody here - everytime this cycle repeats.

Well, this depends on where those T-55 are. From what I know, these are primarily with Armored Regiments organic with Infantry Divisions. As for T-72 replaced with T-90 - well, bulk of regiments with armored divisions had T-72 so not much issue here. As an aside, 75 AR was initially equipped with T-55 before converting to Arjun.

when i replied to you with that TOI link i also mentioned a footnote regards the orbat structure of which i have no clue and you are enriched with. obviously you can decipher that better but the article quoted the spokesman as saying "All T-55s will be replaced by T-90s". hope i am proven wrong.

sorry to say i have started beleiving shiv aroor articles (linked in my previous post) keeping in mind the saga of the Arjun and IA's intransigence in inducting them even when proven better in its Mk 1 config. IMO even the 4 regiments (2 done) are going to basically cover up for the T-90s which can't operate in deserts due to the thermals issue.

Not as the way I see it. While Arjun Mk-1/Mk-1A/Mk-2 may total around 500-800 tanks, Arjun Mk-X will evolve into FMBT which will eventually replace all tin cans in IA service. It has reached the technological and product maturity level from where there cannot be any roll back. After the thumping T-90 got in comparative trials, IA can no hide behind any issue here.

3 years back i was highly optimistic about IA turning around. now, i am not even half that.

but if your hope comes true (and i wish that happens), that would be the day i will rejoice.

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 17 Apr 2013 17:18

Austin wrote: sounds more like Ajai Shukla rant with many loop holes in the article.

A simple example of capital Navy ship being built at our Naval Yards very true but most component on that ship is still Imported or Lic built by PSU , Cost of ship on board equipment like electronics , weapons , sensors and engine cost around more than 85 % of ship by value the rest is hull.

Rant indeed

Are you suggesting that the Navy give up on these efforts and purchase foreign ships while chasing the chimera of a 100% indigenous ship?

They do what any other organisation in their place would have done. Design the system in India, source what components you can locally, and get the rest from abroad. At the same time, they support local technology development efforts wherever they can. See what they are doing with the KMGT, for example. Or their EW systems. Or sonars. They steady shift to homegrown solutions for these systems is not something you have missed, I hope.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Apr 2013 17:42

Austin wrote:
Anujan wrote:http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2013/04/ ... ength.html
sounds more like Ajai Shukla rant with many loop holes in the article.

A simple example of capital Navy ship being built at our Naval Yards very true but most component on that ship is still Imported or Lic built by PSU , Cost of ship on board equipment like electronics , weapons , sensors and engine cost around more than 85 % of ship by value the rest is hull.

Indian navy just designs the ships and then integrates many systems from abroad and india which are lic built by PSU like LM2500 engine , And designing a ship is not the same as designing a Aircraft or Tank ......even there IN Design Bureau takes helps from foreign consultants like Italians for IAC and Russian for P-15 class.

Ajai just tries to twist argument in his favour by providing a little truth , a little half truth and a little lie

What is the reason to import an entire tank in that case, when there is an alternative available?

At least in the case of a ship - as far as I know and correct me - there are no alternatives so far. Right?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Apr 2013 17:59

"indigenisation" - should not mean that everything is made in the country. Broadly speaking design of entire systems, as many components are practical/economical made in the country, integration of these components, maintenance and perhaps upgrades should be covered under "indigenisation".

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 17 Apr 2013 18:30

Mihir wrote:Are you suggesting that the Navy give up on these efforts and purchase foreign ships while chasing the chimera of a 100% indigenous ship?

What i am suggesting is Navy also depends on significant imports on their ships like any other service ,the notion being spread that IN is fully indiginous since their ships are being built at yards while others are import freaks is not true , IN ships have a very significant portion of import content although they have been replacing it with indiginous solution where ever possible since IN is so much smaller consuming about 13-15 % of defence budget it is much easier task for them compared to other service.

Ajai's article has an agenda there to paint the service in bad light by not providing the full truth he has done that quite a few times before.

k prasad · Post by **k prasad** » 17 Apr 2013 18:45

If we want to look at IN vs IA/IAF, one needs only to look at the difference between the IN's and the IAF's support of the Tejas program. Its not like the IN doesnt have other options for a carrier-borne aircraft. And the smaller procurement numbers would've been an additional put-off if ever need be. But none of that has in any way reduced their enthusiasm for the aircraft.

Yes, they might end up using a lot of imported equipment (rejecting the ALH-Navy and Trishul for eg). But they do support local stuff too. Ultimately, you might have the Navy choosing a foreign system if the local system doesn't work, but they do have a much better track record of working with the local designers and of giving desi systems a fair chance.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 17 Apr 2013 18:46

india-genization is the mantra, it can range from complete home-grown to part import.. but the mission here is to ensure, there is absolutely no hiccups in parts supply or assembly suffocation or external influence at the time of war... so that we have high threshold to choke point as the main strategy.

however, other definitions of indigenization is all scoped to what is required NOW, where are the road blocks, and what needs to be addressed for TODAY, and perhaps 2 years from now. Have a 2 year review, and keep upgrading plans. There is no limit to sky of indiginization.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 17 Apr 2013 18:50

k prasad wrote:If we want to look at IN vs IA/IAF, one needs only to look at the difference between the IN's and the IAF's support of the Tejas program.

Can you outline three four salient points please?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Apr 2013 20:29

k prasad wrote:If we want to look at IN vs IA/IAF, one needs only to look at the difference between the IN's and the IAF's support of the Tejas program. Its not like the IN doesnt have other options for a carrier-borne aircraft. And the smaller procurement numbers would've been an additional put-off if ever need be. But none of that has in any way reduced their enthusiasm for the aircraft.

Yes, they might end up using a lot of imported equipment (rejecting the ALH-Navy and Trishul for eg). But they do support local stuff too. Ultimately, you might have the Navy choosing a foreign system if the local system doesn't work, but they do have a much better track record of working with the local designers and of giving desi systems a fair chance.

How weakness buys strength

Wonder if the IN has a need for a good tank.

Mihir · Post by **Mihir** » 17 Apr 2013 21:09

Austin wrote:the notion being spread that IN is fully indiginous since their ships are being built at yards while others are import freaks is not true , IN ships have a very significant portion of import content.

Who is spreading the notion that the Navy is fully indigenous? The point being made is that the Navy has pursued indigenous options far more vigorously than have the Air Force and the Army, and that policy is paying off today.

There is a world of a difference between importing entire foreign platforms while the indigenous development of similar platforms languishes, and importing a few subsystems and components here and there. With the former, you get an Indian design that is better suited to our conditions rather than a foreign solution that has to be shoehorned into the existing doctrine. A larger proportion of the money being spent remains in India, where it can be invested in promoting local R&D, instead of indirectly funding foreign technology development. The technology and knowhow acquired over time can then be used to indigenise further.

The Navy is doing all of this. There's a reason why a significant proportion of it's EW/ESM systems are indigenously sourced today. There are ships in service that are powered by Kirloskar engines (yes yes, I know, they are licensed from Pielstick. No, it's not the same as just buying engines from abroad). The KMGT, or a variant, might power some other vessels in the future. You are essentially making the argument that all this is a pointless exercise, and that it holds no lessons for the Army and Air Force. It's just Ajai Shukla writing BS (pun very much intended) because his agenda is to paint the services in bad light.

Let me give you an analogy here. It is said that cooking your own food is much better than eating at a restaurant every day. It's both cheaper and healthier in the long run, and you can adjust your style to suit your palate. But then some genius comes up with a reasonable-sounding counter argument: The ingredients account for more than 85% of the cost of your "home-made" food. You just "design" the recipe (or maybe not even that; you just "purchase" someone else's design). The ingredients are "procured" from a store, just like those used by the restaurant are. You don't "manufacture" any vegetables or spices at home, and you probably won't ever develop the "technology" to do so yourself. So what is the difference between eating out and cooking at home? Those health nuts just have an insidious agenda - to portray those who eat butter chicken with garlic butter naan and triple schezwan rice at their favourite joint every day in a bad light.

Wouldn't you laugh at that argument?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 17 Apr 2013 22:15

The problem is 70-85 % content are key systems that Naval ships use , I dont know if are aware what it constitutes almost entire weapon system , radars , sensors ,propulsion I am not even counting stuff like choppers that these ships carry.

While the navy has done a commendable job in designing a ship , its key systems on Ships remains imported which makes it as vulnerable to any sanctions or denial of technology compared to Airforce or Army Equipment.

Lic production does not means that you make entire systems indian , it simply means you make some here and import others as part of lic deal and integrate it makes it cheaper.

Indian Navy is relatively small force so its comparatively easier for it to introduce indigenous system fleet wide , infact the complexity of system the IN ships have integrated on a single platform be it Indian , Dutch , Israel , Russian,French,Italian etc ....makes it even more dependent on many suppliers compared to says an Airforce fighter or Indian tank.

Ajai Shukla is simply using a flawed argument of comparing Indian built ships and then coming to conclusion that other services are not as active or import freaks .......He needs to read Arun Prakash write up in FORCE where he has dealt extensively on Indian Built ships at our yards and how these are very vulnerable to denial of technology and how much they cost as percentage of indiginous content which makes it no better then other service not withstanding indiginous systems in it.

He is wrong on many counts in that article but any one with little google can find out where he has gone wrong on many counts but I am not keen to purse it since any one who has followed Ajai Shukla knows what his intentions are. Never mind my last word on this.

Anshul · Post by **Anshul** » 17 Apr 2013 23:36

Why don't they try shifting CVRDE to Manesar/Noida ? Probably the change in climate will help.Also it will be nearer to Mahajan / Pokharan / Sena Bhawan etc.....anything that makes the Jarnails like it more than the T-90s blah blah.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 17 Apr 2013 23:54

Austin

you are picking the wrong emphasis from Shuklas article

the gist of it is that the navy started with Godavari etc - ships not exactly something to rave about but incrementally building our capability.

The Army by same token should have really had the arjun from 2006 and we should have been testing the Mk 3 version maybe by now.

The Indian Navy provides the army and the IAF with daily reminders of the benefits of indigenisation. With the same R&D base, the same feeble defence industry and the same defence ministry the navy has canalised its meagre allocation of 18 per cent of the defence budget into genuine indigenisation. Today, 43 warships are being built in Indian yards, with just two being built abroad. Initial warships were significantly below global standards. But the navy accepted those, building up industry and creating the capability to deliver warships that are currently up to regional, if not global, standards.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 18 Apr 2013 01:05

Surya

IA does not own the design bureau like IN does. Further it was done, because IN was being run on a shoe string budget, and they could not afford anything else and went for the lite inhouse model (not even extend to DRDO)

IN also practically sat out 47 and 62, IN was not really called on heavily in 65 either. Only in 71 did IN finally exert itself.

IA can not do what IN can for any number of reasons.

Not highlighting that point alone makes Shukla suspect.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 18 Apr 2013 06:18

IN was not born with a design bureau - they took a decision to be involved

IN shipbuilding really started in 70s so its previous situation is a non issue
IA and IAF should have realised even more how dependence on foreign weapons and spares hamstrung them

IA (at least the armor) pretended they had design skills but bullsh1tting about FMBT

because IN was being run on a shoe string budget

that indeed maybe the solution for the IA and IAF

amit · Post by **amit** » 18 Apr 2013 07:01

Regarding the Ajai Shukla article, I think we are focussing on the wrong issue when we are comparing the Navy vs Army or IAF. I think the most important takeaway from the article is this. (At least, one hopes, no one can accuse Shukla of spinning this point).:

Why, he asked, was Russia such a successful builder of sophisticated fighters and helicopters when that country was still unable to build a passable passenger car? The answer, he said without waiting for a reply, was Moscow's strategic direction. Through famine, hardship and war, Russia's leadership systematically brought together the myriad elements of an aerospace industry: educational institutions that churned out aeronautical designers; design bureaus where legends such as Sukhoi, Mikoyan, Beriev, Ilyushin and Tupolev developed generations of aircraft; science laboratories that produced the special materials that go into aircraft and aero-engines; an industrial base that produced high-quality components like pipes, hoses, rivets, pumps and actuators; technological institutes that churned out trained and productive shop floor workers. With all this in place, Moscow decreed that the Russian military would use only Russian aircraft.  

Indeed, how can a country which produces a junk called Lada also produce a beauty like the Su-30? Why is it that its MIC products are worldclass and yet they don't have the wherewithal to produce a half decent car?

The initial MiGs (from MiG1 in the 1940s onwards) were far inferior to the US analogues. But from MiG 21 onwards - that is after several iterations - they caught up with the US and many of the subsequent aircraft have been better than what the US, with its rich aerospace heritage, could make.

The bottomline is that in order to develop a world class MIC a country needs to go through the pain of using less than optimal products and supporting local industry. A point here is that it's just not the Armed Forces job, it has to include the GoI and all other organs of the state, there has to be a collective effort to develop the MIC.

However, the Armed Forces is also an important stake holder and it can't have bouts of brochuritist and go for the most TFTA stuff they can find. And why is it that they want a super duper perfect Arjun before inducting in large numbers to the Forces? Why can't they induct iterative development the way the Israleis did with the Merkeva? Why keep the Arjun line idle for a whole two years? Can't the Mk1 be retrofitted to the next iteration standard?

The Director of CVRDE Sivakumar has been quoted as saying this:

Sivakumar told FORCE that “Greater numbers are essential for reducing the price, establishing the process, good quality control mechanisms and continuous consistency in production”. This is also the reason he says that orders are a must. The Heavy Vehicles Factory (HVF) has not been producing Arjun MBT’s for two years and lot of the know-how is being lost.

How can one say that Army has no responsibility in this?

PS: One needs to keep in mind that over the past couple of decades China - our future biggest competitor - is going through the same painful process of developing their MIC like the Russians. In the 2030-40s when there will be a clash for markets and resources between India and China which country will have a more deeper and resourceful MIC?

I think folks here need to step back and think about this. The decisions we take today will impact our position in the 2030-40s

amit · Post by **amit** » 18 Apr 2013 07:10

rohitvats wrote:First - It is rohitvats.

Rohitvats, my apologies for mixing up on your name.

As to the rest of your post, I quite agree with your POV.

amit · Post by **amit** » 18 Apr 2013 07:11

***Deleted***

amit · Post by **amit** » 18 Apr 2013 07:23

I think its worth posting the interview with Sivakumar which is in this link posted by Nelson earlier:

INTERVIEW WITH Director, CVRDE, Dr Sivakumar
‘At Present, the Army has Decided to Induct 118 Arjun Mk-2 Tanks Instead of 124’

What is the status of the Arjun Mk-2 programme currently?

The Arjun Mk-1 with a total of 89 improvements decided upon with the Army, is called the Arjun Mk-2. These 89 improvements have been made not only keeping in mind the concerns and issues faced on the Arjun Mk-1 tank but also to cater for future requirements of the army. At present, the army has decided to induct 118 Arjun Mk-2 tanks instead of 124. This is the result of a policy decision that will see the war reserve for all armoured regiments in the future being reduced by three. And so, two regiments of Arjun Mk-2 will be short of six reserve tanks. The indent for 118 tanks is almost in the final stage. The army has said that it will decide if it is satisfied with the Arjun Mk-2, only after the trials (which began last month and are expected to go on for two to three months) are completed. The Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) will require 30 months (2.5 years) from the placement of the order, for the first batch of Arjun Mk-2 to be delivered to the army. The Mk-2 will incorporate all that we learnt while battling issues with the Arjun Mk-1, in terms of production, performance, quality etc. CVRDE is working to ensure that whatever problems were faced by the Mk-1 will not be repeated in the Mk-2. Based on the Mk-2 programme, we have formed a core committee called the Arjun Core Committee that will monitor the progress of the Arjun Mk-2 on a monthly basis. All the stakeholders starting from the DRDO, the Directorate General of Quality Assurance (DGQA), the Corps of Electronics & Mechanical Engineers (EME) and the users, are present on the committee and we have obtained excellent support from all the stakeholders.
What are the major changes in the Arjun Mk-2?
The Arjun Mk-2 will see the tank weight increase from 62 to 67 tonnes, as a result of specific requirements from the user — which include additions such as the track width, mine plough and Explosive Reactive Armour (ERA) on the glacis plate, as well as the front of the turret. These two requirements alone will add three tonnes to the weight of the Arjun Mk-1. Along with other additions, the Mk-2 is expected to top out at 67 tonnes. We decided after studying the power pack (MTU engine with RENK transmission), that it is excellently suited for Indian desert conditions. We have steadily made this engine and transmission more and more rugged over the last many years, besides improving things like the air filtration system and cooling system. Hence, we have convinced the user that the same power pack, with a new final drive using a higher reduction ratio, can be used for the Arjun Mk-2. This was proved to the Army last year, when we drove 1350 km with the power pack modified to this standard and simulated weights of up to 66 tonne. We converted production vehicle P-1 into Mk-2 with 53 improvements, to obtain feedback. This tank took part in an exercise last summer that lasted almost two weeks, with temperatures of 46 degrees. We have improved the suspension — to provide the same life to components despite the increase in weight. To cater for this new suspension, we have developed a new hull for the Arjun Mk-2.
The Mk-2 variant is now capable of firing missiles, which was not possible in the Mk-1. We had already proved the LAHAT missile as a standby. We are now integrating it on the Mk-2. Apart from that, the Mk-2 will feature a remote controlled weapon system atop the turret. In Mk-1, this required the loader to come out and fire the weapon. The Mk-2 will have an improved commander’s panoramic sight with night vision, hunter killer capability between the commander, gunner and loader. Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) which is not present in T series tank is present. It has been enhanced from 4.5 kW to in excess of 8 kW for the Mk-2. With regards to the Chassis Automotive System, we have digital communication systems, advanced navigation systems etc. We have increased the track width, to ensure that the ground pressure remains the same in spite of the increased weight.

What is the status of the Arjun Mk-1 at present?
The Arjun Mk-1 received orders for a total of 124 numbers. The two regiments equipped with 45 Arjun tanks each, are the 43rd armoured regiment and the 75th armoured regiment at Jaisalmer. The Arjun is fully operational with these two regiments now. The balance 34 tanks will be used to meet the Army’s BRIC requirements and these are spread across the Corps of Electronics & Mechanical Engineers (EME), war reserve, training establishments, DRDO/DGQA etc. Heavy Vehicles Factory (HVF) Avadi has dispatched 116 Arjun Mk-1 tanks. The remaining eight tanks will be delivered over the next five to six months. Most of the spares for the Arjun MBT were consumed during the various trials. We are now working to ensure availability of fresh spares. The other part is the Engineering Support Package (ESP) for the Arjun which includes spares, training and training aids. This is being done in parallel. As far the Arjun Mk-1 is concerned, about 90 percent of its tasks are complete.

What is the cost of the programme till date?
Each Arjun Mk-1 costs Rs 20 crore plus. Each Arjun Mk-2 with all improvements will cost approximately Rs 34 crore. The Arjun Mk-1 programme cost approximately Rs 360 crores. With that money, we made 11 prototypes and 15 pre-production series tanks and the required spares. This included the cost of creating the production line. We are looking at a number of variants based on the Arjun platform, such as Armoured Repair and Recovery Vehicle (ARRV) which is close to finalization. We are also looking to use the Arjun chassis to mount a Russian 130 mm Catapult gun, which was earlier mounted on the Vijayanta chassis. We will also be competing for the Indian Army requirement for a self propelled, tracked gun. We will offer a Slovakian 155 mm gun mounted on the Arjun along with Bharat Earth Movers Limited (BEML). We have also built the Arjun Bridge Laying Tank (BLT) but the Army says it may not be required. {The advantage of having a home built platform} The cost per tank will certainly go down if we get more orders. This will help reduce the import content as well. The Mk-1 has nearly 60 percent imported content and even though there is a lot of value addition being done, the import content will remain the same for the Mk-2. Since the size of the order is small, no foreign company is willing to offer Transfer of Technology (ToT). I feel that if the Mk-2 is ordered by four regiments, then the import content could go down to 43 per cent and further down to 25 per cent if orders are placed for a total of six regiments. The lifecycle costs of the Arjun will be much cheaper than other tanks. The programme has also been able to offer numerous improvements to a number of indigenous programmes and armoured vehicles in service with the army.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 18 Apr 2013 08:29

....."cheaper than other tanks",but which tanks? T-90s or western heavyweights? Nevertheless,if the Arjun Mk-2 arrives on time and is relevant in the desert sector,we should order it in decent numbers-at least 400+, so that the cost of the project can be felt worthwhile.In the meantime,together with the IA,plans should start for an FMBT that draws upon the experience of both the T-series and the Arjun so that by 2020-2025 results will bear fruit.These will be needed to replace the large numbers of T-72s and upgraded T-72s.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 18 Apr 2013 08:35

I feel that if the Mk-2 is ordered by four regiments, then the import content could go down to 43 per cent and further down to 25 per cent if orders are placed for a total of six regiments. The lifecycle costs of the Arjun will be much cheaper than other tanks.

or western heavyweights?

Why muddy the waters? Does the IA have any western heavyweights?

Did they take into account the experience with the T series when they designed the Arjun? Is there a need to take them into account? Just curious.

nelson · Post by **nelson** » 18 Apr 2013 09:28

rohitvats wrote:
nelson wrote:Also, according to original time-plan 30 Arjun Mk2 should be rolling out of HVF in 2013-14. This in words of Dr Sivakumar, Director CVRDE.

.........

http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2805/st ... 510000.htm
Not so fast.

As I pointed out earlier, the development and user trials themselves finished in 2012. The production cannot start before IA says everything is OK with the tank and its meets the requirement set out by it for Mk-1A.

Hence, there is no production delay. Production is keeping pace with the development-trial-production start cycle.

For sake of clarity we will identify Arjun Mk1A as Mk2 , defined by Director CVRDE.

http://scienceniranjan.blogspot.in/2012 ... ml?q=arjun

INTERVIEW WITH Director, CVRDE, Dr Sivakumar
‘At Present, the Army has Decided to Induct 118 Arjun Mk-2 Tanks Instead of 124’
What is the status of the Arjun Mk-2 programme currently?

The Arjun Mk-1 with a total of 89 improvements decided upon with the Army, is called the Arjun Mk-2. These 89 improvements have been made not only keeping in mind the concerns and issues faced on the Arjun Mk-1 tank but also to cater for future requirements of the army.

That an Arjun Mk-2 was on cards at least since 2007 can be ascertained from MoD's statement.

http://frontierindia.net/indian-mod-out ... z2QhaGUX3e

As per the 14th parliamentary report of 2006 – 2007, Arjun Tank Mark – II production will be taken up after the successful completion of the first order of 124 Arjun tanks order.

The ministry of defence informed the parliamentary committee that ” I want to tell you the roadmap of MBT Arjun as an hon/ Member had asked about this issue. I want to assure you that after these 15 tanks are tried by the Army, the DRDO will be involved only for 15 more tanks. As soon as the Ordnance Factory produces these 30 tanks, the DGQA will take over the responsibility for giving technical clearance – which DRDO is doing today – and the links will be broken. Thereafter, it will be entirely the Ordnance Factory production, and the DGQA will be responsible for its certification. Hopefully, this situation will remain till DRDO does some more research and makes a Mark II of Arjun Tank. If they decide to do that, then, again, the Government will start, but that will be only after producing 124 Tanks and not before that. We will produce 124 Tanks, as the Army has accepted and told us to produce these."

IA on its part agreed in principle to induct 124 Arjun Mk2. It moved case and took sanction for 124 Arjun Mk2 from Defence Acquisition Council in 2010. It is placing an indent, pending finalisation of the improvements that had been mutually agreed upon. There are no major replacements or design changes in Mk2 compared to Mk1. Majority of the 89 upgrades are in the form of add-ons or improvements. Some major improvements/additions are listed below.

1. Missile firing capability
2. Commander’s TI panoramic sight Mk II
3. Driver’s uncooled thermal imaging night sight
4. Additional ammunition (don’t ask… won’t tell!)
5. Enhanced ammunition penetrator
6. Effective alternative to muzzle reference sight (MRS)
7. Resin-based CCC
8. Ten-round containerised bin
9. Explosive reactive armour panels
10. Infra-red/Thermal imaging resistant paint
11. Air defence weapon remote firing
12. ALWCS (advanced laser warning and countermeasure system)
13. Roof mounted driver’s seat
14. ATT in GMS (gunner’s main sight)
15. Advanced land navigation system
16. New final drive with increased reduction ratio
17. Advanced running gear system
18. New track system
19. Mine plough

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2011/11/u ... rk-ii.html

It is not that each of these requirements dawned on the IA or DRDO after 2009. Many of them like ATT and panaromic TI sights were defacto standards in western MBTs that Arjun is compared to. The initial trials are being conducted with Russian ERA. New track system are as a result of persisting problems with unchaining of tracks that has been often reported in the past. Mine ploughs have been a must for operating MBT against the main adversaries. The increase in weight was a given, with ERA and mine plough at the least. A direct consequence of increase in weight is the requirement of changes in final drive, which should have been foreseen upfront, given the legacy limitations of Renk transmission.

It would suffice to say that DRDO was seized of these requirements for quite some time and as a result the initial trials could start in Jun 2011. After, nearly two years, the trials are still on. They are conducting the missile test, the capability of which was demonstrated in 2005?

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp ... 198842.ece

Since most of the issues have been long pending and known to the DRDO, the solutions offered should not have taken too much time to be put up for trials. Also, if things had been thought off well, it should not be taking so much time for successful trial.

nelson · Post by **nelson** » 18 Apr 2013 09:38

Now as far as the continuous production of Arjun Mk1, till such time Mk2 is finalised, I think IA made a well informed choice of waiting an additional year for Mk2, based on following rationale.

- 800 Arjuns(Mk1 and Mk2) are not in the scheme of things.
- All Mk1 will eventually be upgraded to Mk2 standards.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 18 Apr 2013 10:04

nelson wrote:- 800 Arjuns(Mk1 and Mk2) are not in the scheme of things.

This is the question isn't it? Why aren't they in the scheme of things? This is a circular argument, wher IA decides that they will not induct more than 240 odd Arjuns (infact they reduce the number of Arjuns than initially indented for) and then claim that they are 'supporting' indigenous MICs, but quality products are not being supplied.

One can understand if the IA were to say that they are universally reducing their armour holdings because of changed doctrines etc. - but on the other hand they are increasing T-90s (and upgrading T72s) which even the Mk-1s demolished in the comparison trials.

p.s I like the anodyne way T series supporters phrase uncomfortable issues: '800 arjuns are not in the scheme of things'; 'unlike IN, IA never really had a design bureau'. As if such decisions were the word of god and cannot be questioned

nelson · Post by **nelson** » 18 Apr 2013 10:11

I would request you to refer the post by @rohitvats where the '800' Arjuns are originally postulated . In general you can go through the discussion of past ten pages.