Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

[Karan M]

Going with ATGM is fine for standoff attacks, however the flexibility and cost factor provided by the gun can never be matched by a ATGM.

We see this on the warship. Despite having all sorts of missiles, the main gun is yet to go. Zumwalt infact has got two!

The velocity provided by a gun round is it's USP. ATGM will be stopped by APS. A gun round is not easy to stop and will always be cheaper than an ATGM.

Completely true. Someone post Rohitvats thread on twitter - it has a series of missile attacks from the who's who of Russkie tanks in the recent tank-athon. Almost all miss. The lack of training or round issues - pick one, SACLOS ATGMs are not always as easy to use as the brochure suggests.

In contrast flat trajectory FSAPDS rounds are next to impossible to intercept, move so fast that the target barely has time to react.

[Yagnasri]

Can we conduct a sustained armoured operations without losing tempo with what we have? What are the support systems for fuel, repairs, resupplies? Arty support? APCs and trucks etc? we have all? ? As far as my mango man information goes we can not. So what is the offensive use of having 1000s of tanks when we can not do that?

[Karan M]

We have a ton of support mechanisms behind the scenes for our T-series tanks. All those trucks carry everything from ammo to spares to even repair equipment.

[ks_sachin]

We are assuming that the Army thinks along with line of incremental upgrades.
I am not sure as three are numerous examples of this approach to capability uplift not being followed.

Sachin, in the tank context, the counterexample to your claim is IA's preference for T-55 -> T-72 -> T-90.

Anoop these were not capability upgrades but buying the next best thing off the shelf.

I should have perhaps made it clear that I meant nuturing domstic products.

[ks_sachin]

@sachin, even in its current state, the Arjun handily beats the T-90 on almost every.single.metric. So this idea of obsolescence is completely off-base.

Moreover, I think your suggestion that the Mk2 should've been a deeper redesign is actually something we should look to move away from... this deep redesign business is dangerous. The deeper the redesign, the longer the development time, and the more chance that the users will change the requirements mid-stream in light of either changing fads or brochuritis. And then, before you know it, its an entirely new program, but users and DDM will still harp on "Its taken X number of years to get the Arjun Mk2", ignoring the fact that its really two very different programs.

Rather, what needs to be pushed is to have closer ties between user and designers, but holding both their feet to the fire on deliverables - the user had better have clear and fairly unchanging requirements, and the developer should have a clear timetable. Then, once the initial Mk1 comes out, work iteratively to get it to maturity based on initial low-rate deployment. Meanwhile, by the Mk3 stage, the user will hopefully have a better sense of the next generation needs, and can start framing GSQRs or MSQRs for the follow-up program, which DRDO then starts exploratory research on, with the aim to begin program development 5 years down the line.

This iterative approach is followed by most successful programs - the Merkava being one example (it took till Mk3 for them to really get a mature system).

I did not say it was obsolete.

When I say deeper redesign I am not advocating a 60 plus tank being made to become a 45 ton tank.

However these are moot discussions. Since we are not in a position to demostrate your paragraph 3 which I alluded to in my post. Hence we will continue to have Arjuns and Insas type experiences repeated..

[Anoop]

Anoop these were not capability upgrades but buying the next best thing off the shelf.

I should have perhaps made it clear that I meant nurturing domestic products.

I understand. I am referring to the IA's organizational preference for sticking to arms and doctrines that it is familiar with and have served it well in the past. In some respects this is not surprising as large scale changes are hard to implement in a force that does not really see much peace-time to experiment with doctrines and whose retraining and support element requirements for such a large armored force are substantial. In that respect, the whole scale adoption of INSAS is an outlier as far as the IA's preferred mode of modernization is concerned.

On a related note, I happened to notice on Twitter that the British Army is considering mothballing its entire tank fleet! Makes ParGha's point about tanks being a nice-to-have for an island nation, stand out in stark relief!

[ks_sachin]

Anoop these were not capability upgrades but buying the next best thing off the shelf.

I should have perhaps made it clear that I meant nurturing domestic products.

I understand. I am referring to the IA's organizational preference for sticking to arms and doctrines that it is familiar with and have served it well in the past. In some respects this is not surprising as large scale changes are hard to implement in a force that does not really see much peace-time to experiment with doctrines and whose retraining and support element requirements for such a large armored force are substantial. In that respect, the whole scale adoption of INSAS is an outlier as far as the IA's preferred mode of modernization is concerned.

On a related note, I happened to notice on Twitter that the British Army is considering mothballing its entire tank fleet! Makes ParGha's point about tanks being a nice-to-have for an island nation, stand out in stark relief!

Anoop I suppose and from things that I have heard the 5.56 move was a reaction to what happened with the IPKF. Plus the fact that the SLR performed well and so there was decent QC for that product from the OFB meant that the IA was prepared to go wholesale with the change. What transpired afterwards does not leave anyone smelling of roses and I am sure tarred many other DRDO projects.

On the next point about the BRitish Army there is definitely scope for us to revisit our Armd Corps. Do we need so many tanks? Again I am not being original in my question by these are discussions I have had with senior army officers - retired now offcourse. You know the fact that a decision was taken for support arms and non-infantry offensive arms like Arty / Arms to be part of the RRs was very cheering for the Infantry guys.

This is so depressing....

[nam]

In my armchair opinion, our armor forces have totally dropped the ball, when it comes to being a modern force. None of the armor tech is beyond our local industries, however there has absolutely no initiative from the armor corps to experiment and provide continuous improvement across batches of tanks/IFV being inducted.

The Chinese have seen no war for the past 40 years. Yet they are rolling out updated versions regularly. Better and heavier tanks, higher power engine, better guns and rounds, APS, soft kill system. You name it.

All we have doing is inducting the same version of T90 for the past 20 years! There was nothing stopping IA from asking DRDO to create soft kill system or improve on T90's drawbacks. All the tech is available in the country.

Now we are facing the situation where T90 rounds are obsolete. Soon T90's current tech level will soon become obsolete! And we have 1400 of them and counting!

We are now in an unenviable position of requiring to upgrade/replace T72 AND upgrade T90! Meanwhile the wait for pie in the sky FICV & FRCV continues..

[pushkar.bhat]

I think we need to acknowledge that Armour is costly. Our top priority fix after we somehow got the procurement sorted was Arty. That is now coming along and fructify in the next few years. That plus the SIG-716+ AK-203 indeginsation will take care of the biggest issues. I guess armour will come next but will have to wait a bit.

The Arjun is a Heavy MBT and not a Medium MBT like the T-72's or T-90's. Assuming it has a similar turret volume as a Challenger its a big tank and big tanks are not light. It will also be a delight to the crew since it allows them movement space unlike the T-90's. Imagine putting a 6'2" Boy in a t-90, the Kid will cry. However, there is a massive potential to mate the best characteristic of the Arjun with the T-90 and create a product that leap frogs. This requires time but can be achieved if we are able to nail our GSQR's to achievable requirements.

Very often the armed forces have asked for near perfect products. There are and there never will be perfect products. There are only good compromises. Remember weapon systems are like spouses you adjust to them and they adjust to you. Just remember that if its is a keeper, go for it. The systems and tactics will evolve over a period of time.

[ks_sachin]

I think we need to acknowledge that Armour is costly. Our top priority fix after we somehow got the procurement sorted was Arty. That is now coming along and fructify in the next few years. That plus the SIG-716+ AK-203 indeginsation will take care of the biggest issues. I guess armour will come next but will have to wait a bit.

The Arjun is a Heavy MBT and not a Medium MBT like the T-72's or T-90's. Assuming it has a similar turret volume as a Challenger its a big tank and big tanks are not light. It will also be a delight to the crew since it allows them movement space unlike the T-90's. Imagine putting a 6'2" Boy in a t-90, the Kid will cry. However, there is a massive potential to mate the best characteristic of the Arjun with the T-90 and create a product that leap frogs. This requires time but can be achieved if we are able to nail our GSQR's to achievable requirements.

Very often the armed forces have asked for near perfect products. There are and there never will be perfect products. There are only good compromises. Remember weapon systems are like spouses you adjust to them and they adjust to you. Just remember that if its is a keeper, go for it. The systems and tactics will evolve over a period of time.

Rifle is one component of the Infantrymans life. We have helmet issues. BPJ issues, shoes, cloting, comms. So there is a lot to do.

Systems and tactics evolve from a operationl doctrine. Doctrine drives tactics and equipment and organisation.

See what happened with the RR....a CI doctrine shaped the structure of the RR forces organisation and tactics which in turn shaped the TOE as well as organisation of the RR bns.

Just for arguments sake lets take this issue of mating the best of ARjun with the best of the t-90..I say that is impossible to do without major tradeoffs - which brings us back to what your war fighting doctrine is - which in our case is not geared to the Arjun.

[pushkar.bhat]

Well Doctrine definitely is at the apex of the systems you adopt. And doctrine is shaped by the enemy you may have to fight and the place where you will fight. There will be a lot of other factors but lets keep these two as they key.

When I meant mate the characteristics I did not mean we need to take the T-90 autoloader and put it into a Arjun.

Assuming we have a doctrine for deploying armour what characteristics are we looking for and how best can they be achieved. Will it be a incremental development on existing platforms or a clean sheet development which leapfrogs but carries associated risks. Even after defining these characteristics we need to be clear on what we can deliver practically and what will have to wait.Reality is that we don't have all technologies and all the funding to make the most perfect system.

[Cyrano]

Imagine IA currently has 600 Arjun Mk2, with required ammo, trained crew, support personnel and logistics in place.

What can NOT be done with this capability that can only be done with 600 (+/- a few) T-90s, similarly crewed and supported, in the theaters we face ?

Conversely:
What can be done only with this capability that can NOT be done with 600 (+/- a few) T-90s, similarly crewed and supported, in the theaters we face ?

Despite following Arjun saga for decades on BRF and elsewhere, and endless "mine is bigger/better than your's" feature comparisons, I could never really understand this difference.

If this kind of question was answered before on this forum, Kindly just point me to it. Thank you.

[nachiket]

Anoop these were not capability upgrades but buying the next best thing off the shelf.

I should have perhaps made it clear that I meant nuturing domstic products.

Sachin saar, if we wish to nurture domestic products, we have to buy domestic products. Everything else is lip service. Buying more T-90's instead of the Arjun is an egregious example of buying a foreign product when an equivalent or better domestic product was available. There is no parallel to it anywhere with any other piece of equipment that we have procured. You cannot nurture anything if you treat your own products like this. And I'm talking of the Mk1 here. The Mk2 was the result of the IA sending the DRDO on a wild goose chase to improve the Arjun knowing fully well they had no intention of ordering it. As a result the Mk2 is always one step away from being satisfactory....until it has been so long that the IA has ordered enough T-90's in the meantime and now it is time to look at a futuristic design. The whole thing is a farce. The earlier the Arjun program is shut down the sooner we stop wasting time and money on a product which will never see widespread service. The DRDO has better things to do.

[ks_sachin]

Anoop these were not capability upgrades but buying the next best thing off the shelf.

I should have perhaps made it clear that I meant nuturing domstic products.

Sachin saar, if we wish to nurture domestic products, we have to buy domestic products. Everything else is lip service. Buying more T-90's instead of the Arjun is an egregious example of buying a foreign product when an equivalent or better domestic product was available. There is no parallel to it anywhere with any other piece of equipment that we have procured. You cannot nurture anything if you treat your own products like this. And I'm talking of the Mk1 here. The Mk2 was the result of the IA sending the DRDO on a wild goose chase to improve the Arjun knowing fully well they had no intention of ordering it. As a result the Mk2 is always one step away from being satisfactory....until it has been so long that the IA has ordered enough T-90's in the meantime and now it is time to look at a futuristic design. The whole thing is a farce. The earlier the Arjun program is shut down the sooner we stop wasting time and money on a product which will never see widespread service. The DRDO has better things to do.

Saar for me nuture means from the womb which means also the act of buying and even before that.

But I agree the Arjun program should be killed asap with the IP developed put towards the next MBT after t-90.

Arjun I am afraid is dead and in effect currently 2 armd regt and their officers and men are wondering where they fit into IA's armr doctrine.

But what is futuristic in tank design I ask?

[k prasad]

Sachin saar, the problem is that your logic is valid only if arjun has some major design deficiencies that makes it an unviable combat system. Over multiple trials, that has been proven to be utterly wrong. The problem isn't that the system is bad. It's that the army refuses to support it, even when dragged kicking and screaming.

Your suggestion will just repeat the same nonsense over again... DRDO will develop a new system, DGMF will come back with changing requirements, and then go in for latest Natasha maal. Until the DGMF comes up with a coherent mechanized warfare strategy, there won't be any clear requirements.

The T-72 and T-90 were built precisely for the european (cold) theater for large scale armour waves, where the Russians expected to lose tanks to better Western European hardware, but sought to prevail through numbers. Is that how we expect to fight in the Thar desert with 50 degree heat in an uncooled tank?

[ks_sachin]

Sachin saar, the problem is that your logic is valid only if arjun has some major design deficiencies that makes it an unviable combat system. Over multiple trials, that has been proven to be utterly wrong. The problem isn't that the system is bad. It's that the army refuses to support it, even when dragged kicking and screaming.

----I did not say the system is bad and it may be better than the t90. The point is it was designed to meet a perceived threat but that no longer exists for us. Like it or not there is no place for Arjun in the Army today. And again before you say anything I am not defending the Army.

Your suggestion will just repeat the same nonsense over again... DRDO will develop a new system, DGMF will come back with changing requirements, and then go in for latest Natasha maal. Until the DGMF comes up with a coherent mechanized warfare strategy, there won't be any clear requirements.

---And going down this path we will keep wringing our hands as to why the Army will not purchase more Arjuns. SOmething has to give and someone has to bell the cat but every DGMF will kick the can down the road as this is a hot potato. Either purchase more or kill the damn thing. Two or three armd regts make it a liability in a fleet of 4000 tanks is a liability

The T-72 and T-90 were built precisely for the european (cold) theater for large scale armour waves, where the Russians expected to lose tanks to better Western European hardware, but sought to prevail through numbers. Is that how we expect to fight in the Thar desert with 50 degree heat in an uncooled tank?

---The Army is ok with it. They are prepared for whatever tradeoff they have made and have been doing it since the t72 was inducted. I am not saying they are right or wrong....

[Karan M]

What can be done only with this capability that can NOT be done with 600 (+/- a few) T-90s, similarly crewed and supported, in the theaters we face ?

1. Survive. The T-90/T-72 are intrinsically flawed designs in that they sacrifice internal volume to pack armor onto a small profile. As a result they compromise on safe ammunition stowage and the crew literally sits on tubs of ammo, and additional rounds are stowed all across from the drivers compartment to the main crew cabin and elsewhere. As a result, if a round penetrates, its game over for the crew.
In the Arjun, ammunition is distributed in the lower hull, and upper turret rear, both behind heavy armor (frontal arc) and also in Mk1A, the turret ammo is behind blast off doors so it can vent safely if hit. In Mk1, its in heavy steel canisters each with an individual shutter.

2. Operate for long periods buttoned down. The T-series tanks are such cramped beasts, that in a NBC environment its going to be tough for them to operate with all hatches closed, without the crew either declining in capability or the equipment packing up, as the tank was originally designed for Russian climes not Indian heat.

[Karan M]

---The Army is ok with it. They know better. They are prepared for whatever tradeoff they have made.

This is sadly not always the case. In many cases they do. In some they don't and the procurement is messed up. The T-90 tanks are a perfect example of that. There is a substantial need for a long term IA procurement and program management office with both R&D and civilian representation.

[ks_sachin]

---The Army is ok with it. They know better. They are prepared for whatever tradeoff they have made.

This is sadly not always the case. In many cases they do. In some they don't and the procurement is messed up. The T-90 tanks are a perfect example of that. There is a substantial need for a long term IA procurement and program management office with both R&D and civilian representation.

You commented on something I redacted in my original post. However you are right but what you say applies to pretty much any Armed FOrces procurement. However can you please elaborate....?

[Anoop]

Reading Karan's post on the survivability of the crew in T-72s/T-90s, it occurs to me that the IA has not had to deal with the consequences of this first hand, except perhaps in the IPKF deployment and that too was not against FSAPDS rounds and certainly not in large scale engagement. In fact, the Centurions in 1965 benefited a great deal with rounds ricocheting off their armor whereas the Pattons didn't. I presume that the they are depending on ERAs and/or APS to offer protection in real battle, because I can't believe that they will be ok with taking large scale casualties to the point of combat ineffectiveness. Whether that hope will be belied or not remains to be seen.

But the larger issue is that as it stands, the IA doesn't believe it has the logistical capability to make the Arjun the mainstay of its armored force - so it's a chicken and egg situation. This is despite the demonstration of Arjun based AERV as well as Sarvatra bridges of 70T class (which are in service with the IA). However, the list of 108 items that the DRDO recently published for private partnership has a few interesting items:

https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage ... ID=1648234

5. Multispan Bridge.
14. Special Purpose Transporters up to 80T payload (don't know if this is for tanks or road based missiles?)
17. Heavy Recovery Vehicles.
19. Tank Transporter.
-----------
Among the features of the Arjun that would be useful to incorporate into a lighter tank would be (excluding the weight penalty that comes with the kanchan armor)

1. Hydro-pneumatic suspension
2. Stabilized gun and FCS
3. Bustle storage of rounds
4. ??

[srin]

^^^ hydro-pneumatic suspension itself adds to the weight. I'd posted a video sometime ago, will dig it up and re-post it again.

[Manish_P]

Tsarkar sir, and others

What are your thoughts on something like a upgunned (with ATGMs) Rheinmetall Mission Master - w.r.t light tanks, in the heights.

Would be quite portable, with around 800 kg weight and ability to carry around 600 kg. A tracked variant might be more useful (though with slightly heavier weight penalty)

[Kakarat]

[vivek_ahuja]

The T-72 and T-90 were built precisely for the european (cold) theater for large scale armour waves, where the Russians expected to lose tanks to better Western European hardware, but sought to prevail through numbers. Is that how we expect to fight in the Thar desert with 50 degree heat in an uncooled tank?

---The Army is ok with it. They are prepared for whatever tradeoff they have made and have been doing it since the t72 was inducted. I am not saying they are right or wrong....

That's an extraordinarily fatal (fanatical) statement right there! And if it is true and the IA upper-management has truly made this assumption for their tank crews...damn.

[vivek_ahuja]

Isn't there also a cost difference involved, i.e. cost of acquiring one Arjun for one T-90?

If the IA cannot find money to buy a half-squadron of Apaches for the whole army, I think it is safe to say that they are cash strapped. And if the are cash strapped, replacing lots of logistical equipment to support heavier (and safer) Arjuns may not be possible. So even if Arjun is cheaper than T-90, the latter wins when factored with the rest of the army TO&E.

It really is a horrible situation.

[mody]

If IA does indeed order the Arjun MK1A and that too in higher numbers, say 8 regiments worth or 472 nos, than the total Arjun's in IA inventory would be 10 regiments.
Apart from ordering the same, if IA and the Indian media go to town as how this is the best tank in Asia and one of the best in the world and can slice through a T-55 or T-72 very easily from 4-5 Kms away, that too while on the move, what would be Pakistan's counter?
10 regiments would mean that mostly they would be deployed mainly in South Punjab or Rajasthan.
We would need to invest in additional infrastructure and other related items like extra wagons etc., but all of this would be indigenous.

For Pakistan if they hope to counter the Arjun, they would be forced to look for new tanks. The Al-Zarar and Al-Khalid or the T80UD, will simply not cut it and they know as much. The only options for them would be the Turkish Altay or the Chinese Type 99. Both the tanks are expensive. Turkish economy is is a bad shape and they would not be offering anything for free. The Chinese have already extracted their piece of the pound and much more. There is not much left that the pakis can offer them. Besides the Type 99 is their top of the line tank, its expensive to build and the Chinese themselves also have only a limited number.

If the pakis try to match the Arjun with their own purchase of either of the above two tanks, they too would have to create adequate infrastructure along with the whole new ecosystem for the new tanks. Would seem like a near impossible task for the pigs, as the things stand today.
Arjun might end up doing more damage to the pakis, without firing a single round in anger.

[pushkar.bhat]

At the cost of sounding boisterous I will say that the Arjun has served its purpose and we have learnt the crucial lessons we wanted to learn from the development project. Its time to go back to the drawing board for the Futuristic Main Battle Tank and apply those learnings to the project. We just don't have the money to buy 8 regiments of Arjun beyond the Arjun Mark 1a or Mark 2 (as it is being called now) as well as the Future MBT. It will have to be one of them.

If FMBT fails we have a fall back in the form of Arjun but else it will have to be the new FMBT.

[k prasad]

And that will take another what... 30 years? Think what happened with the Marut being scrapped with no immediate replacement program. We lost all that expertise. Also, mature militaries take a system and iterate the heck out of it while using the knowledge in parallel long-dev programs. This spend tons of money and cancel business is something only Unkil can afford. Not us.

Arjun is an excellent platform. Better than the T-90. Order more, use them on the western frontier. It'll free up t-90 numbers for the China border.

[Philip]

Arjun is not cheaper than a T-90,I've many a time given costs,around $5M for an Arjun and $3M for a T-90. These costs are in the public domain,as we bought T-90s in 3 tranches,with a last order fairly recently for built in Russia tanks due to a backlog at Avadi. This to me is the critical reason why the T-series is preferred. It also has one crew member less reducing manpower costs by 25%! Moreover,even the cost of support eqpt. like bridges,etc.will be cheaper for a smaller,lighter tank.
As for nos., around 2000 T-72s were acquired,almost all being upgraded to approx. T-90 std.,plus around at least 1500 T-90s . I think around 4000 MBTs are the fig. req. by the IA earlier,before the latest Indo-Chin crisis. Yes,more Arjuns would do well in certain terrain,but does the IA have the moolah fof it?

In the last Security Scan,the topic was the need for a light tank in the Tibetan plateau ,nothing after PT-76s were retd., with a former DG of mechanised forces giving his viewpoints. Sadly for over a decade the req. has languished,resulting in the knee-jerk action now.
Right now we have two options,acquire off the shelf Sprut light amphib tank with its 125mm gun from Russia, or wait for L&T to develop its light tank on a Vajra SP chassis. The latter option will take at least 3 to4 years at the earliest that doesn't help in the current scenario. One school of thought was to acquire sev.regiments of the Sprut after first testing it out in the mountains and indigenise it ( the 125mm gun for instance is already being made on the T-90,armour plating/ ERA indigenous ),until the L&T light tank is fully mature after testing. If you include amphib. ops in the requirement,we could require about 400 to 500 light tanks. The PRC is not going to back down against India.It is fundamentally against their nature to come off anywhere as second best. They will regroup,reinforce their forces and launch a massive attack against us in the future. It is inevitable.

Right now our T-90s with their better armour and a 125mm gun against the Chin light tank's 105mm gun ,should make
mincemeat out of it,but their may be some terrain better suited for a lighter tank. Our LT requirement presumably is to plug this gap. There was a thought on SS that we could reduce the no. of T-72s being upgraded if need be and swiftly acquire a firang LT like the Sprut, which would be a cost-effective solution.

[k prasad]

Philip saar, if we are really splitting hairs between 3 and 5 crores, I would rebut with the question, how much of the 3 crores on T-90 is spent in India, supporting indian MIC, vs how much of the 5 cr on Arjun? Also, how much of that 5 crore is actually dev cost absorption given low volume orders?

Secondly, how much more do we get out of it in terms of capability.

On the third point, if we buy 500 Arjun's rather than T-90s, the extra 1000 cr + say another 100 cr spent on the extra manpower for the loader is still less than the cost of 3 Tejas aircrafts (let alone Rafales), with the benefit of building up indigenous capacity. So yes, we have the moolah for it.

[Philip]

To my knowledge a 2018 report said that 50% of Arjun is imported,a 2020 Bus.Std. report said that the IA again rejected it,some reasons given incl. imported content. There has been some indigenisation of the T-series,will hunt for %, of content if poss. Exact costs/%,list of components,etc. will be classified .

I can only say that successive IA chiefs have repeatedly preferred more T-90s for reasons which are rather obvious. Cheaper,lighter,can operate in any terrain,has a better supply chain,maintainability thanks to large numbers and importantly has 25% less manpower.Manpower costs include that of the family too remember.Housing,education,health,pensions,etc.80% of the budget goes for pensions and staff. Bean counters in the MOD and MOF are ferocious beasts.

I too have advocated at least a few hundred more so that at least one sector can have a full complement of Arjuns with a good supply chain supporting it,accompanied by whatever T-series are also required,say the upgraded legacy T-72s. This experience would give good experience in developing the future MBT which the IA has given some reqs.,incl. that for a 3-man crew.
I have often wondered why the acceptable to the IA and smaller T-90 turret could not have been mated with ann Arjun chassis as an experimental option at least ? A better gun with missile firing capability,and the tank would be many tons lighter too,and cheaper.Still not too late. I think that the French have done something similar.

PS: There is a ScienceDirect.com study on experience of tank crews workload in the age of informatization,meaning IT era,where the focus is on reducing crews from even 3 to 2. Interesting study.Pl. read it. A National Inquirer 2020 article is v.negative,talks about the " developmental spiral" that required Arjun to be continuously upgraded during development with
lates t eqpt.,adding to weight,costs,etc. Read it and draw your own conclusions.

[sarabpal.s]

To my knowledge a 2018 report said that 50% of Arjun is imported,a 2020 Bus.Std. report said that the IA again rejected it,some reasons given incl. imported content. There has been some indigenisation of the T-series,will hunt for %, of content if poss. Exact costs/%,list of components,etc. will be classified .

I can only say that successive IA chiefs have repeatedly preferred more T-90s for reasons which are rather obvious. Cheaper,lighter,can operate in any terrain,has a better supply chain,maintainability thanks to large numbers and importantly has 25% less manpower.Manpower costs include that of the family too remember.Housing,education,health,pensions,etc.80% of the budget goes for pensions and staff. Bean counters in the MOD and MOF are ferocious beasts.

I too have advocated at least a few hundred more so that at least one sector can have a full complement of Arjuns with a good supply chain supporting it,accompanied by whatever T-series are also required,say the upgraded legacy T-72s. This experience would give good experience in developing the future MBT which the IA has given some reqs.,incl. that for a 3-man crew.
I have often wondered why the acceptable to the IA and smaller T-90 turret could not have been mated with ann Arjun chassis as an experimental option at least ? A better gun with missile firing capability,and the tank would be many tons lighter too,and cheaper.Still not too late. I think that the French have done something similar.

Ur now playing safe.

[k prasad]

To my knowledge a 2018 report said that 50% of Arjun is imported,a 2020 Bus.Std. report said that the IA again rejected it,some reasons given incl. imported content.

That reason would make no sense at all... reject the Arjun for being 50% imported and instead go for a Russian tank?

There has been some indigenisation of the T-series,will hunt for %, of content if poss. Exact costs/%,list of components,etc. will be classified .

Unlikely that it will ever be more indigenous than the Arjun. And if it actually appears to be more indigenous in % value than arjun, that would almost certainly be because the Arjun has more advanced sensors that cost more. I could also see the MTU Engine + Renk transmission being more expensive than the Russian sourced engine and transmission on the T-90, but sensors seem to eat up a fairly large % of cost, and with that, you get what you pay for.

I can only say that successive IA chiefs have repeatedly preferred more T-90s for reasons which are rather obvious.

I absolutely wish the reasons were obvious, Philip-saar, but there have been numerous situations where the DGMF and Army Chief's decisions in this regard have appeared quite suspect, and seemed to be either a personal vendetta against the Arjun, or a highly suspect. So no, very often they haven't been obvious. Especially when the Arjun has consistently out-performed the T-90 (even with relaxed restrictions for the T-90, if I remember correctly). Also, successive Army brasses have refused to allow a comparative evaluation of T-90 and Arjun. Why, I wonder? Again, the reasons are hard to fathom.

Cheaper,lighter,can operate in any terrain, has a better supply chain, maintainability thanks to large numbers and importantly has 25% less manpower.

On this, I agree with you completely. But notice that the T-90's supply chain and maintainability advantages occur precisely because it has been ordered in numbers. If the Arjun were ordered in even a third of the numbers as the T-90, I'm sure the relative advantage would vanish.

Yes, it is cheaper (but at the cost of performance), lighter (no disagreement there), can operate in any terrain (yes, but DRDO have been begging for a chance to compare Arjun Mk 2 against the T-90 to show its viability across terrains, so we cant know that the Arjun isnt better across desert, urban and semi-urban areas unless we test them, which the Brass inexplicably refuses).

Manpower costs include that of the family too remember.Housing,education,health,pensions,etc.80% of the budget goes for pensions and staff. Bean counters in the MOD and MOF are ferocious beasts.

Yes, but the resistance so far has been from the IA... we haven't even gotten to bean counter resistance level, which will come when the army actually decides to order more.

I have often wondered why the acceptable to the IA and smaller T-90 turret could not have been mated with ann Arjun chassis as an experimental option at least ? A better gun with missile firing capability,and the tank would be many tons lighter too,and cheaper.Still not too late. I think that the French have done something similar.

Given the Arjun's sensor suite, armor, and by many reports, gun are significantly better than the T-90's, why would we want to lose that? They tried the reverse of it with Tank-Ex, and that failed. I don't see how Arjun Chassis + T-90 turret would make things better. You'd lose a significant number of advantages that make the tank effective.

[pushkar.bhat]

And that will take another what... 30 years? Think what happened with the Marut being scrapped with no immediate replacement program. We lost all that expertise. Also, mature militaries take a system and iterate the heck out of it while using the knowledge in parallel long-dev programs. This spend tons of money and cancel business is something only Unkil can afford. Not us.

Arjun is an excellent platform. Better than the T-90. Order more, use them on the western frontier. It'll free up t-90 numbers for the China border.

Why will it take 30 years? And who is shutting down the tank development program the way we shut down fighter development and got comfortable with screwdriver giri after the Marut.

Unlike the point of time when we started Arjun's development most of the technology for the armour is in place. The 1500 BHP engine is coming along. We have mastered the art of gun development. Both torsion bar and hydropneumatic suspension technologies are known if not mastered. Fire control systems and the whole electro optical packages are also indeginised. So most of the time will be spent in system integration and testing and not in learning foundation technologies.

If DRDO working with L&T defence can create a prototype for a light tank in 18 months from the K9 Vajra chassis then a FMBT can be delivered in 8 years.

No one doubts that the arjun is a good tank but it's important to be dispassionate and ensure that one delivers as per the long term perspective plan.

[Manish_P]

...

Cheaper,lighter,can operate in any terrain, has a better supply chain, maintainability thanks to large numbers and importantly has 25% less manpower.

On this, I agree with you completely. But notice that the T-90's supply chain and maintainability advantages occur precisely because it has been ordered in numbers. If the Arjun were ordered in even a third of the numbers as the T-90, I'm sure the relative advantage would vanish.

2 pages before this page there is a post by Manish_Sharma wherein he has referred to a Cost-ROI analysis done by Shaunak Agarkhedkar

It is a very interesting analysis. Allowing for certain assumptions, the author's conclusion summary is:

[kvraghav]

I think the Arjun saga is very clear. Army drafted a knee jerk GSQR based on paki purchase and do not find need for it now that Pakis are not buying such a tank. I think high time army came out and accept the mistake of GSQR, apologies for the lost money, shut down the project and all move on.

[Manish_P]

Shut down the project, like the HF Marut?

Throw away all the knowledge gained, the painstaking experience of manufacture/assembly, building and nurturing a parts supplier ecosystem... only to be woken up after a few years, when one of the 4.5 or 5 or whatever father finds it in their interest to gift/loan the jihadis some heavy duty stuff to keep us tied down.

[chola]

...

On this, I agree with you completely. But notice that the T-90's supply chain and maintainability advantages occur precisely because it has been ordered in numbers. If the Arjun were ordered in even a third of the numbers as the T-90, I'm sure the relative advantage would vanish.

2 pages before this page there is a post by Manish_Sharma wherein he has referred to a Cost-ROI analysis done by Shaunak Agarkhedkar

It is a very interesting analysis. Allowing for certain assumptions, the author's conclusion summary is:

Great chart! We need more graphics like this detailing the benefits of an indigenous systems to the Indian economy with numbers that the layman can understand.

[k prasad]

Great chart, Manish.

I remember seeing a comparative table of Arjun vs T-90 performance in trials, but I can't find it now. I wish I had it.

Why will it take 30 years? And who is shutting down the tank development program the way we shut down fighter development and got comfortable with screwdriver giri after the Marut.

Unlike the point of time when we started Arjun's development most of the technology for the armour is in place. The 1500 BHP engine is coming along. We have mastered the art of gun development. Both torsion bar and hydropneumatic suspension technologies are known if not mastered. Fire control systems and the whole electro optical packages are also indeginised. So most of the time will be spent in system integration and testing and not in learning foundation technologies.

If DRDO working with L&T defence can create a prototype for a light tank in 18 months from the K9 Vajra chassis then a FMBT can be delivered in 8 years.

No one doubts that the arjun is a good tank but it's important to be dispassionate and ensure that one delivers as per the long term perspective plan.

I agree that the timeline will be shorter than 30 years for sure, Pushkar, but I think 8 years is optimistic if we go all new. Even with all the engine and other developments. The problem, the way I see it, is no longer with our ability to reach technological milestones per se (although I do think we might struggle with the 1500 HP engine in a sufficiently small size), but with the Army's uncertainty with its requirements for a tank. Without the army buying in completely and iterating through a design, they will never get to a stable enough set of GSQRs that will hold for 15 years. Look at the changes they sought for in the Mk2 arjun... Their requirements added 6 tons on what they were calling an already overweight tank (58 tons on mk 1 to 62 tons on mk1a to 68 tons on mk 2... It's madness)

[k prasad]

^^^ found the benchmark comparison on reddit. Notice the number of relaxations granted to the T-90.