Bharat Rakshak

You are still not getting the point that I was making, so let me rephrase it. This is not sloped armour. These are sloped "shells" which contain the actual armour- look at them as the containers in a manner of speaking. The actual internal armour arrays are what matter and in that the Arjun armour has been proven in live fire trials so there is no cause for worry!

Second: All the current tanks which use the "sloped armour" do it for different reasons.

1. The Abrams has that shape to maximize volume for when its armour array was developed (today they wouldnt need that amount of volume) and because richocheting was a component of anti-FSAPDS design. Both dont hold for us- the Arjun shape is sufficient and more for its Kanchan array (remember we have a decade of trials to prove it and the armour has been upgraded recently) and second, modern FSAPDS rounds have a flat trajectory (so they wont ricochet away on striking a sloped surface).

2. The Leo shape is on account of a new semi hollow wedge added to boost up the basic Leo2A4 protection with a quick array with layers of steel/alloy to degrade FSAPDS. Again, doesnt apply to us since we upgraded the basic Kanchan within the tank itself and dont need a quick fix upgrade!

3. Newer Chinese tanks with "wedge shapes" actually have those ERA bricks- again not applicable to Arjun because the Arjuns armour is passive not active and hence the blocks dont need to be angled to face the likely threat and react as such.

All in all, you are looking at the exterior shape- which is not the point. What counts: The internal armour array, ie the Kanchan which has been repeatedly upgraded to keep pace with metallurgy and machining advances in India.




Your information is mistaken in this case- the Leclerc and Japanese Type-90 both have hydrogas suspension. For that matter, if we see pics, so do the Korean K series MBTs.

Now to the second point, you are also comparing apples to oranges, the MBT-70 was a program, as the name suggests- from the 70's and manufacturing technology was a challenge then. For that matter it has taken us two decades to master this suspension as well, with Kirloskars now manufacturing it. Our initial units were actually imported from the US and they promptly flunked in the trials, with leakages. Also, IIRC what sunk the MBT-70 was its usage of concepts such as a forward facing gunner with a rotating turret and similar denovo ideas which all combined, made the tank unworkable.

Also, the M1 was designed in the 70's- always note that every designer has to mix new tech with conservative tech. If the US were to design a tank today, would they use torsion bars? I think not, they would pick the best available tech to proceed with.

So the US adopted what they were most familiar with and which was "idiot proof" - at the time, but it doesnt mean that it was automatically the best tech.

For example, in terms of technology, the Merkava Mk4 has several elements which are beyond the Abrams even- as its learning FCS and top attack armor! But on the other hand, the US has continually upgraded what it considers to be of key importance, ie the ammunition! So a tank developed later can have advantages over an earlier gen tank. OTOH, upgrades can reduce some of these advantages. Now for the US ammo is key, armour every decade or so or when they need to, and Battle management systems plus newer sensors, ie FLIR. But the rest works, so why mess with it!

So why did we adopt hydropneumatic suspension- well, for one it was definitely the technology of the future which modern designers were moving towards, and second, it had key advantages in terms of fire on the move ability plus allowing for greater depression for the gun from prepared positions (the tank can kneel on the ground) and crew comfort. The flip side is that its more expensive, much harder to design, develop and manufacture and finally would require new logistics.

Well JC does have some valid reason in supporting DRDO but also does get blind sighted when it comes to issues concerning criticism of any type regarding DRDO, its nothing new. Reminds of the self propelled wheel chair and few other issues.

Actually I take umbrage to claims made without adequate research like those you made the previous time. Your behaviour at the time was also sickening, so much so that it heralded new lows even by what this forum has seen at times, even so I made the attempt to answer your queries this time since you didnt act in such an unbecoming manner this time and your questions were honest and valid.

I wouldnt have to "defend" DRDO or the IAF or the IA or any other org if there werent so many self professed experts who didnt have the decency to research before criticizing- this holds true for a substantial number of statements I have replied to on this forum. I firmly believe that every person who has the time to post on the forum can also endeavour to research their statements and make a honest effort to be accurate viz their comments, rather than engage in polemic.

Even so, I endeavour to be as polite as humanly possible whilst replying unless the other person resorts to churlish abuse or snide comments like the one you made above.

Every person has a threshold of tolerance- so do I. Speaking of which:



I note you added this snide remark later. Goes to show that despite you not doing the basic research available in the archives, and despite the replies, one has to suffer patronizing statements on the lines above. Just goes to show that one has to use ones judgment in deciding whom to spend time on & I wont make the same mistake again.

Very interesting points and thanks for throwing some light on these questions.

The Kanchan armor has proved in field trials, so there is nothing much to argue about this, takeing a direct hit at point blank range is indeed an accomplishment that speaks for itself. The Suspensions looked good too, i saw the News report and the high speed cross country trails, i was surprised by how little the turret moved and the smoothness of the ride, i doubt even a Lexus SUV would take such bad terrain so dam easily, not many tanks in the world could do that this well and no doubt it improves the fire control system. Dare i say it but i am really happy with the final product, it looks every bit a good MBT and if all the technicals specification's are true a very capable one at that. For all the years it made us wait its has made good.

Now i understand some at the Army top brass resist the Arjun merely because of the cut backs they get from their Russian suppliers or may be their past experience with the slow progress of Arjun, that they still remain skeptical to its success. But do you think this is capable of being the Main stay of our Tank regiments? It certainly beats the T-90 in every aspect, so i feel it should be given a decent share in our tank arsenal. Or would that be a bad choice?

JC who is patronizing you? Is telling my opinion too patronizing? After the last discussion i was left with a bad taste about DRDO and BR too, I really didnt like that moving plastic chair and still dont. I know its not funny for you, i dont know what sense of humor you like but i sure did not intend to patronize you. Although it does sound like that now, i didn't think it over so sensitively before posting, guess i was concerned with my own pride. Sorry!!!


P.S. I guess thats as much a man can lend his hand out for friendship without loosing his honour. Its only decent to reciprocate or if thats again patronizing , then I dont care.

[quote]The oft-used Army adages ‘unity is strength’ and ‘united we stand, divided we fall’ has literally come true for a group of small entrepreneurs in Pune. Members of the DEMA Manufacturers’ Association, which began first as an association of small electronics manufacturing units catering to the defence electronics sector, decided to form a consortium to take on orders from the defence sector.

And they did the unimaginable. As a 50-member consortium, instead of small isolated units, they built an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) called Vihang Netra for the Armed Forces. They pooled their resources in domains, going all the way from aerospace, avionics, navigation, sensors, radars, fuses, smart weapons, radio networks, thermal imaging, image processing, safety equipment, ground support equipment for missiles and quality assurance equipment.

“[b]The UAV has been accepted by the Indian Army since units have flown at an altitude of 1,000 feet above mean sea level (MSL), requiring smaller crew and ground support operations against imported variety. So, to explore the potential of this indigenous development, DEMA has formed a strategic partnership through an MoU with Larsen & Toubro. Under the MoU, Larsen & Toubro and DEMA members will work together to upgrade and supply the UAVs to end-users,â€

I am sorry but last time around irrespective of whether you liked that moving plastic chair or not, I pointed out the serious issues behind it- namely it was meant for a serious purpose, ie making the mechanics of such a device. You responded with abuse. I look forward to discussing things with you, but not to abuse. I hope you understand. Anyways, its old hat.




Thats fine. All the previous stuff is water under the bridge, and I look forward to future discussions.

[quote="sunilUpa"][quote]The oft-used Army adages ‘unity is strength’ and ‘united we stand, divided we fall’ has literally come true for a group of small entrepreneurs in Pune. Members of the DEMA Manufacturers’ Association, which began first as an association of small electronics manufacturing units catering to the defence electronics sector, decided to form a consortium to take on orders from the defence sector.

And they did the unimaginable. As a 50-member consortium, instead of small isolated units, they built an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) called Vihang Netra for the Armed Forces. They pooled their resources in domains, going all the way from aerospace, avionics, navigation, sensors, radars, fuses, smart weapons, radio networks, thermal imaging, image processing, safety equipment, ground support equipment for missiles and quality assurance equipment.

“[b]The UAV has been accepted by the Indian Army since units have flown at an altitude of 1,000 feet above mean sea level (MSL), requiring smaller crew and ground support operations against imported variety. So, to explore the potential of this indigenous development, DEMA has formed a strategic partnership through an MoU with Larsen & Toubro. Under the MoU, Larsen & Toubro and DEMA members will work together to upgrade and supply the UAVs to end-users,â€

The DEMA member mentioned previously works in signal processing, a niche area in India.

This project definitely got help from ADE in terms of control algos and stuff- if it enters service- great stuff!!

The two engines mentioned are the VRDE ones- Techfocus has a writeup on them. There is a third Wankel engine (if memory serves me correct) being developed by NAL.

Engines for UAV.

http://www.drdo.org/pub/techfocus/aug03/techaug2003.pdf

Is that Vihang Netra UAV related to this one that was displayed at AI05?

In a manner of speaking, yes. The UAV above is the testbed for those engines I linked to in the previous post, one of which is apparently being used for the V-longname UAV.

I remember i was very critical of the chair and DRDO but i didn't start of insulting you, the insult started of mutually.

Anyways, glad we got over it and hope too have some valuable discussion with you in the future. I liked your POV they where very helpful in clearing my doubts. Thanks.

With regard to the problems MBT arjun faced during the summer trials, isnt it strange that CVRDE does not have a test range or workshop in rajasthan? It would indeed serve the purpose of testing the combat vehicle well. Such a center will help is testing of not just tanks but also APCs and other vehicles. I think CVRDE scientists should push for establishing such test range under their aegis so as to avoid fiascos like the LRF one.

On a happier note while searching for the commissioning of the BEML rail coach factory news I found an old news piece stating that all 178 BFAT wagons for the arjuns have been manufactured.

< excuse me for making a sarcastic reply >

Desert trials no? Oh but we find that tests in Siberia are good enough - why duplicate one in Rajasthan? We are poor country onlee. Starvation etc.

< /sarcasm >

shiv saar
pardon me but either i havent understood your sarcasm or is it guns v/s butter argument?
Sarcasm aside sir, isnt it necessary for the cvrde to have a desert testing range where they can make minor modifications while testing in desert conditions without things being out in media or done while three star generals are watching, where even the smallest of mistake gets magnified?

K Mehta,

T-72 and T-90 were tested in desert when they were in R& D and production?

The Arjun's have traversed 100,000 + kms in testing and a major of the time in desert.

If you have to create desert conditions in Tamil Nadu, locals will not like it. If you have to take Tank to desert for testing, its already happening.

CVRDE uses the army's facilities, including workshops and support infrastructure. Tests are conducted under the aegis of some regular IA unit which provides both personnel and other support. E.g. the firing trials are conducted by IA gunners seconded from an armoured unit.

Also, note that the peak desert heat happens only in a few months over the summer, which may not justify having a separate, permanent establishment... doubt if the CAG would agree to that



Nice... thanks for posting this

gopal
the T-series also faced problems in the desert heat didnt they?

even if the peak heat happens only for a few months, its not just desert heat you want to check, even sand storms and cold desert nights as well as other conditions would also needed to be checked.

I agree that CVRDE uses army facilities, but is it in their hands when they use them?

And they should not make these tests a media occasion atleast, at best have a workshop where if you need to make some changes you can make them without getting into news headlines till they are quite confident about their product.

how much royalty or money for product developed does DRDO get?
Specifically how much % profit is awarded to DRDO by say BEL or L&T?

I think the answer is no but would like to have a confirmation. Isnt it time that DRDO should get some share of the profit the DPSUs make? This way it would reward projects that are successful and let DRDO have some financial fruits of its successes.

This what Shiv was trying to tell when he was in sarcastic mode. No matter where DRDO will test Arjuns, Army will take only T-series.

The whole issue is not about Arjun testing or DRDO, its army's attitude.
If you would have said that Army's attitude testing should be done under test conditions and we need to make the infrastructure for that, i would have agreed whole heartedly.

Arjuns need not be tested, its time to test the Army's attitude.

link

Sigh getting more and more into bear embrace..there goes all 'Indigenous development'

DRDO creates Directorate for image projection

I won

all the unpaid 'PR peons' of DRDO can now retire in peace.

I dont know how good his DIP (DRDO) is. Will wait and watch rather than comment with prejudice.

By the way for those who are interested
The techfocus this month has some 3D CAM image right on the cover (which I think) causes acrobat to crash if you try to view inside firefox or IE on my SDRE computer. only way to view is to save on computer then open it in acrobat. That too the page layout has been messed up some how. The whole document is seen in two page layout. maybe its just my computer. I am writing this here to ask if others are facing the same problem. Then maybe this can be sent for feedback.

gopal suri,
I agree with you that regarding the arjun issue the problem is now with the Indian army's attitude towards it, but for future's sake is it not better to have a workshop/test range in desert area independent of the army.

Look out DRDO and all , here comes BAE

I do not dispute.

I am told that Arjun Testing in desert has developed a lot of realistic parameters for the Arjun. But in actual conditions the results are different. Say an engine can withstand x temperature in lab conditions, but, in actual conditions it develops problems. DRDO is a "lab." Another reason is CVRDE has very few projects. Unlike missiles, the volume dosen't justify a DRDO unit in desert, else they may shift entire lab to Rajasthan.

I will tell you 2 anecdotes which were told to me. Before that read here

Army does not has parameters developed to test Arjun. Take for the case of engine, an Arjun Tank is replaceable immediately where as a T-90 tank is grounded.

The first anecdote is, in 2002, the army team reported that Arjun upkeep is costly. Naturally a inquiry was launched and ofcourse the ministry wanted upkeep cost for T-90. Army stopped cribbing on Arjun cost.

The second is ALH. In 2005 Aero India, Chacko Joseph of Frontier India was with the Army aviation guys. An Army Captain cribbed that ALH maintenances were high. So, Chacko took him over to the HAL pavilion. He asked the same question to HAL. HAL explained that Chetak/Cheetah need upkeep every x number of hours. Where as ALH does not need upkeep at those intervals. But Army puts it in upkeep at chetah/chetak hours. The average cost of upkeep if worked out properly. To add salt to the wound, HAL guy said that this has been told to Army a number of times.

I suppose you realise where the fault lies.

You should understand the word trials is same as exams. Preliminary, final exams etc. If you fail, you appear again (time bound again). But if you are given wrong questions or the examiner doe not know how to evaluate, is it your mistake?

These are the reasons, I am trying to explain why simulating actual conditions in Chennai wont help.
Amma also does not want desert and saline water together (joke alert)

PS..

Not that there are no reverse anecdotes on DRDO. But this fit the situation.

Three IIT researchers bag French aeronautics awards

--Edited---

Thanks rgsrini

Avid,
Did you bother to click on the link and read it. You wouldn't have made your post then. It is the DDM which is calling it as "Image Projection". DRDO is calling it as DPI "Directorate of Public Interface".

Yes, I suppose you are right. DRDO calls it "Image Building"

Link

gopal,
I am not sure if you had a chance to read Avid's post before it got deleted. He misunderstood that DRDO was calling it "Directorate of Image Projection" or something similar based on the title. Of course I understand that a PR office/DPI's responsibility included image building.

rgsrini,

I understand. It was word DDM "for the source" you used that was the trigger.

what is scrum?

EHOG(*)? scrum


(*) Ever Heard Of Google?

he he.. very funny.. seriously, that was an answer and not a question. good to know people are reading posts here.

SaiK, and good to know that your posts in the military issues forum, remain as mystical as they always were !

Frontline Indian combat jets will evolve by 2060: IAF chief

If the IAF's induction plans are crafted up to 2020 with the medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) and the fifth generation fighter aircraft (FGFA) that have a 40-year life cycle, "we are looking at 2060 for D&D (design and development) objectives," IAF chief Air Chief Marshal Fali Homi Major said.

Major was delivering the inaugural address at the 2nd International Conference on 'Energising Indian Aerospace Industry: New Partnerships, New Opportunities', organised by the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII).

Pointing to the "technology gap" in India's aircraft-manufacturing capabilities, the air chief said: "We have to move forward. The government can help with a technology roadmap linked to a national security policy."

Expanding on the "technology gap", he said there were associated issues of availability and costs, "enhanced by long gestation and rapid obsolescence".

"Clearly, we cannot simply follow footsteps in our quest for indigenous technology. We must identify core technologies with the maximum potential to indigenise and those we must pursue vigorously," Major maintained.

"We must also develop core-competencies in metallurgy, avionics, and simulation," he said, adding: "It is also imperative to identify emerging technologies and develop them to secure a lead in that niche area."

"Presently, our D&D is relatively limited, which is ok for licensed-manufacture, but not beyond. We must involve the private sector in D&D too, not merely in production," the air chief added.

Expanding on the production aspects, Major said: "In supplying to the arsenals, timelines & ORs (operational requirements) must be adhered to.

"There is also need for greater quality consciousness. Maybe, we should create pure R&D organisations; or fund existing ones, such as IITs (Indian Institutes of Technology), and take off from there."

"We do have a large brain-bank. A lot is already being done and our R&D infrastructure is growing steadily. But more growth, some reorientation and reorganisation are necessary," the air chief maintained.

In this context, he said the offsets policy on defence purchases, "combined with the anticipated growth in Indian aerospace power, make us a very valuable customer."

"We must extract the many dividends and obtain the necessary technology. We must also be ready to receive and assimilate it; with areas of infusion identified, business plans worked out, local partners identified."

"Or else the offsets may get frittered away," Major noted.

According to the air chief, D&D, production agencies and private players "are all interdependent" and there is "definitely a need" for greater governmental and user support".

"We do not as yet have industrial players with deep enough pockets, infrastructure, or clout to swim the oceans of aerospace R&D and manufacture on their own.

"We must evolve our own model and it will have to be a combination type - a collaborative and participative one," Major maintained.

At the same time state-owned defence manufacturing units "in turn, must groom the smaller private players," the air chief said, urging a study of global business models - government-controlled ones, private contractor driven ones and combinations of the two - to ensure greater public-private partnerships.

LTTE air base attack costs 15 million dollars




Lanka needs 4 months to replace lost planes

2060? That's really,really far in a galaxy long away.But the IAF chief is being very frank about the problems and challenges faced by our DR&D apparatus today.

IMHO,the defence apparatus is ill-equipped to meet single-handedly the needs and requirements of the Indian Armed Forces.This is not to undermine the miraculous efforts of our DRDO scientists who have given excellent solutions considering the peanut sized research budget.
DRDO must adopt as its motto these two maxims given by India's missile-man President,Dr Kalam,"Low aim is a crime" and "Strength respects Strength".




DRDO must divide its research and development responsibilities separately into first,advanced research and second, tactical research respectively.This can be done by spinning off its advanced research responsibilities into new entity.

1]Tactical R&D Command
Motto:"Strength respects Strength"

The Tactical R&D command; would involve co-development, offsets-utilization, system integration,defence production,management of public-private partnerships/RURs,certification of equipment etc. basically meeting the current requirements of the Armed Forces by producing ordnance and materiel in real time.


2] Advanced Research Bureau
Motto: "Low aim is a crime"

The Advanced Research Bureau of the DRDO would charged with providing technological options to the Armed Forces and not necessarily design products.The Bureau would act as haven for all sorts of ideas and would make products till the testing stage...products rejected would be recast into UnManned Systems.





The Indian defence establishment would continue to be criticized and derided as it doesn't go beyond GSQRs and RfPs.
Not being challenged intellectually is a bigger reason than money for scientists to leave ISRO/DRDO.

They must realize that they're benefiting from being late and not otherwise...they have the opportunity to leap over past mistakes in DR&D and enter new unknown territories.

I don't quite get it when we sign a deal to get an MTA[Il-214] operationally in 2015 which is using technology from 1985.

A done deal would be that we re-build the fastest propeller-driven aircraft,the Tu-95 Bear into a tiltwing V/STOL aircraft and reducing its engine noise to a Rolls-Royce level.
That's something which if done well would make Americans jealous...and trust me, Indo-Russian brain power can do it better.

Or better stiil when the MMRCA competition is there,why not organize an MTA competition [at least for civil aviation] immediately?Embraer,BAe Avro and Bombardier are dying for such a deal without any political strings.

Again,I don't see reason why we're not building nuclear-powered Shivaliks if the ATV is stuck.If nuclear power isn't available,chuck it.Go for something never done before by anyone...why not make an Ocean Thermal Exhange powered submarine/surface craft or tribrid it including a hydrogen fuel cell with conventional diesel-electric??
Or use wind power as an additional source for surface fleet?

If funding is a problem,with due permission allow ToT agreement
with Indian private parties in exchange of finances.

Arjun is a great weapons platform and so is LCA.The criticism is that they use tech 20 years....let that be their strength.

Transform the bullets if you can't change the gun.

Make an autoloader that can fire both missiles and shells with equal ease.Then,make missiles that have no parallel in history.
The Arjun could tube-fire anti-aircraft hypersonic missiles and Dominator-like UAVs from a 50-km plus distance.

Similarily,the LCA is a damn good fighter as transonic fighters are an optimal mix for dogfighting and missile based attack.

Make it the best so that it can down the AWACS aircraft and its entire F-35 squadron in a Red Flag exercise.

How?Make the most powerful vaccuum tube jammer,equip it with an air-based anti-missile/SAM system, make it capable to land over water and act as a jetfoil boat,powered auxiliary.

DRDO must aim the highest.The Armed Forces have only Pakistan and China as enemies to outdo,
while DRDO has outdo everyone especially USA,EU and Russia technologically in a limited budget by betting either on emerging yet reliable technology[Small private firms in US/India] or obsolete/abandoned technology and customizing it to the Indian context[mostly european/canadian].

To aim low is a crime.To aim lower than your brain's potential is a death sentence.

To Sum,Budget and time constraints can be creatively resolved by adopting under-development technologies straightaway[like we did in telecom-CDMA/GSM] and aiming to be the best in the world; while still remaining affordable.This is India's USP of jugaard tekno-la-jee.
Soviet Union achieved military parity at a fraction of the US's GDP,per capita income and budget.

Now it's our turn.We must ignite minds and give dreams wings of fire.

Chak De India!

http://www.infochangeindia.org/bookandreportsst106.jsp

Search for defence technologies
Tuesday October 23 2007

K G Narayanan

Excerpts:

"SELF-RELIANCE in defence technologies is a mantra invoked at regular intervals — when embargos were imposed by Western countries in the 1960s, during the US “tiltâ€