Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

vic · Post by **vic** » 12 Mar 2014 07:47

I think one should use a bit of common sense before saying there are constraints of intellectual property design. IPR patent only has life of 14 years and basic design is now only 60 years old. No IPR constraints apply. The fact is that we never reverse engineer as it is more lucrative to keep importing and getting cuts. Take Milan Missles, even after 20 years 60% components imported but it is glibly claimed that it is 80% indigenous.

member_28454 · Post by **member_28454** » 12 Mar 2014 09:59

IPR patent only has life of 14 years

True from a legal point of view. But remember the outcry by Mikhail Kalashnikov about the OFB weapon that resembled the AK.
That gun was something that was really needed by our Paramilitary and Army. It had some basic design differences from the AK and the AK was a old design, itself "inspired" by a German gun, to which no IPR laws applied. But they were asked to stop production to please him.
The reality is we bend over backwards to please the Russians even when not needed. The Chinese would have reverse engineered even if there were IPR issues.
Besides, of course, importing is financially lucrative to a lot of people and a product with a foreign vendor base takes more effort to indigenize as vendors are typically developed with product design.

ArmenT · Post by **ArmenT** » 12 Mar 2014 13:13

Reverse-engineering isn't as easy as it sounds, especially for relatively modern products (e.g. tanks, airplanes etc.) Otherwise, the Bakis would have happily manufactured F-16 parts by themselves already. One cannot simply grab some measuring tape and measure out the dimensions and clone a tank just like that. It requires some key developments in metallurgy, material sciences, jigs and fixtures, tolerances, heat treatments applied, sequence of assembly, maintenance instructions etc. Without access to the original blueprints/design data, reverse engineering becomes several orders of magnitude harder (or alternatively, you will likely get a much crappier product than the original).

srutayus wrote:True from a legal point of view. But remember the outcry by Mikhail Kalashnikov about the OFB weapon that resembled the AK.
That gun was something that was really needed by our Paramilitary and Army. It had some basic design differences from the AK and the AK was a old design, itself "inspired" by a German gun, to which no IPR laws applied. But they were asked to stop production to please him.
The reality is we bend over backwards to please the Russians even when not needed. The Chinese would have reverse engineered even if there were IPR issues.

First, the OFB version (the A7) was rejected by the Indian Army well before Mikhail Kalashnikov raised any objections. It had quality issues (see reverse engineering problems in previous paragraph). Also, it was an AK clone and the OFB even marketed it as such. Any basic differences were relatively minor.

While it is true that the AK does resemble the German StG-44 externally, there are some differences. It might be worth to note that Hugo Schmeisser had significant input in both designs, so that might explain some similarities. However, there are also some pretty major differences. For one, the AK's gas system is more of a copy of the M1 garand. The fire control mechanism is very different and the locking systems are different designs as well. Mikhail Kalashnikov also copied quite a few features from the Bulkin rifle (which was his competitor for the Russian rifle design contest). The Russians did gain mastery of stamping technology for mass production from the captured german engineers (which went into the AKM design, not the AK-47).

As for Chinese reverse-engineering stuff, the truth is that the majority of the clones they make is because the original manufacturers have handed them the tooling and the know-how needed to make the stuff in the first place. For instance, US manufacturers were shipping their entire factories to China and training their locals, all in an effort to save a few dollars more in paying worker salaries. So, now they have the issue where the chinese manufacturers can simply run extra shifts and make unauthorized clones, which they sell under their own brand names.

vina · Post by **vina** » 12 Mar 2014 13:59

the tin can minus these features has little over a original T-72...and we are replacing these features!

In Inglees, the Indian Army paid a couple of thousand crores and wasted close to a decade and a half to get an uprated engine on the T-72 ! I wonder , why they dont just accept the Karna , the Arjun Turrented T-72/90 and go whole hog . Anyways, the barrel for the T-90 is indigenous I think thanks to the Russians not transferring the manufacturing details, we had to do Rhona & Dhona and come up with our own barrel ?

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 12 Mar 2014 14:17

What an irony! After all the fiasco with ruskies on tech transfer (read both, denial and failure), stuff from Arjun is being applied on the tin can and Arjun is still being restricted to the low numbers

Speaks volumes about the power of import lobby.

Yogi_G · Post by **Yogi_G** » 12 Mar 2014 14:17

ArmenT wrote:As for Chinese reverse-engineering stuff, the truth is that the majority of the clones they make is because the original manufacturers have handed them the tooling and the know-how needed to make the stuff in the first place. For instance, US manufacturers were shipping their entire factories to China and training their locals, all in an effort to save a few dollars more in paying worker salaries. So, now they have the issue where the chinese manufacturers can simply run extra shifts and make unauthorized clones, which they sell under their own brand names.

+1
A real battle will separate the Chinese boys from the Russian men in terms of the reverse engineered Russian systems like the S-300, Su-33, F-7 etc etc. China simply does not have the metallurgy prowess of Ruskies to be able to reverse engineer systems piecemeal.

mody · Post by **mody** » 12 Mar 2014 15:23

Seems like Tank-Ex is the only solution that can work with IA.
As a start DRDO should develop a Tank-Ex using the T-90 chassis itself.
Develop an air conditioned T-90 based Tank-Ex with the Arjun Turret. Try to incorporate the commanders independent sight and some of the other improvements from the Arjun MK-II effort. If IA is happy and willing to go along, then DRDO can ask the private industry to come up with a 1,200 H.P. indigenous engine and try to work on a new auto-loader system, to replace the Russian carousal auto-loader.

Looks like the only way Arjun or atleast its core essence can get into the Army in numbers.

vic · Post by **vic** » 12 Mar 2014 16:33

All this IPR stuff is hyped by Import lobby pimps to justify imports, there is never any such real pressure especially after Patent expiry.

Misraji · Post by **Misraji** » 12 Mar 2014 16:43

chackojoseph wrote:Well, with all this changes, We are looking at Tank-Ex (almost). I think, DRDO should have built the production model prototypes and let the Defence Ministry take a call.

CJ,
Have you heard any reasons why Tank-Ex was rejected?
It seemed like a good idea.

--Ashish.

mody · Post by **mody** » 12 Mar 2014 18:16

The simple answer from the Army was, we didn't ask for it, so why offer it!!

Obviously at the time the army was in the honeymoon phase with the new tin can toy T-90.
Now perhaps the users on the ground know what the reality is and hence army is asking DRDO to come with solutions for T-90s problems.

Hence the suggestion, that perhaps the Tank-Ex idea should be revisited and if the army gets interested in it, then take it forward.

vic · Post by **vic** » 12 Mar 2014 22:02

So Russians get the money for T-90s and DRDO gets to solve the problems. Fair division of labour, says me.

John · Post by **John** » 13 Mar 2014 04:00

Considering how badly delayed Arjun can you blame IA for not wanting throw $$ into yet another tank project before Arjun was inducted. Not to mention we don't know if MoD which is hellbent on playing by the rules and not offending any vendor/nation would have even allowed IA to purchase Tank Ex which would definetly raised Russian objections'.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 Mar 2014 04:39

John,

IMHO, the IA is to blame and the Russians.

But, a question for you. Even if the Arjun were to be "ready" are you saying that they would *not* have asked for these upgrades for the T-90 AND ordered 2000 Arjuns?

Outside of the engine what the IA wants is pretty close to a new T-90. One that, it seems, that the Russians, for whatever reason,are unwilling to supply - assuming they can supply such a one.

This request by the IA is proof that the T-90 IS a tin can. And, that the Russians provided it.

What to say about MoD/Saint/MMS/etc?

srai · Post by **srai** » 13 Mar 2014 05:31

A Sharma wrote:In two years, we have a field gun ready; it costs $2 million’

There is a feeling within our system that defence equipment can’t be made here and should be imported. I wanted to break this myth, so we spent our money and made a product to prove we have capability in this country, so don’t just brush us aside.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 13 Mar 2014 09:42

Misraji wrote:
chackojoseph wrote:Well, with all this changes, We are looking at Tank-Ex (almost). I think, DRDO should have built the production model prototypes and let the Defence Ministry take a call.
CJ,
Have you heard any reasons why Tank-Ex was rejected?
It seemed like a good idea.

--Ashish.

Basic Reason: Tank Ex, ideal T-72 upgrades

But to be fair, 2 such tanks were under evaluation by the army. No results have come out of it.

Arjun Chasis with T-90 indianised turret and T-90 level of protection is also good option. (T-90 vs Arjun protection levels are open for debate).

Misraji · Post by **Misraji** » 13 Mar 2014 13:52

chackojoseph wrote: Basic Reason: Tank Ex, ideal T-72 upgrades
But to be fair, 2 such tanks were under evaluation by the army. No results have come out of it.
Arjun Chasis with T-90 indianised turret and T-90 level of protection is also good option. (T-90 vs Arjun protection levels are open for debate).

I see. So it was the case that there was no requirement for it.
Forces do ditch equipment to protect their favorite toy.
F-16 for the longest time did not have BVR weapons and F-16XL was rejected because USAF wanted to protect F-15 and F-15E programs respectively.
Tank-Ex was a good attempt by DRDO though. Smart product if it worked correctly.

Thanks, CJ.

--Ashish

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 15 Mar 2014 10:48

Misraji wrote:
chackojoseph wrote:Well, with all this changes, We are looking at Tank-Ex (almost). I think, DRDO should have built the production model prototypes and let the Defence Ministry take a call.
CJ,
Have you heard any reasons why Tank-Ex was rejected?
It seemed like a good idea.

--Ashish.

It is not a foren product

K

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 16 Mar 2014 07:33

In this case, it wasn't because it was a foren product. It was because the chassis of t-72 could not withstand the stress of the arjun turret firing. There is a reason why there is a requirement for heavier tanks due to the required increase of firepower and weight to absorb the stresses. No matter how you slice it, you cannot ignore or break the laws of physics.

vic · Post by **vic** » 16 Mar 2014 07:54

Army is supposedly desperate for howitzers, what is stopping them from at least testing Kalyani Products? It seems as usual single vendor orders are reserved only for Goras.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 16 Mar 2014 10:19

T-72 has 125mm and Arjun has 120 mm gun. Or you mean a rifled gun has more recoil than a smoothbore?

Misraji · Post by **Misraji** » 16 Mar 2014 20:41

Hitesh wrote:In this case, it wasn't because it was a foren product. It was because the chassis of t-72 could not withstand the stress of the arjun turret firing. There is a reason why there is a requirement for heavier tanks due to the required increase of firepower and weight to absorb the stresses. No matter how you slice it, you cannot ignore or break the laws of physics.

Interesting info, Hitesh. Thanks.
Is this info openly-available?
Given that Tank-ex's turret weighs less than Arjun's I would not have expected that.

--Ashish

vic · Post by **vic** » 16 Mar 2014 21:46

chackojoseph wrote:T-72 has 125mm and Arjun has 120 mm gun. Or you mean a rifled gun has more recoil than a smoothbore?

Arjun has more powerful gun. It is like 5.56mm x 45 is more powerful than 9mm x 19 caliber

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 17 Mar 2014 09:43

I had read somewhere (don't remember where) that the current Arjun rounds (sabot) has lesser penetration than the imported Russian 125 mm rounds. Is there any truth to this? If this was covered somewhere before, please point me to it.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 17 Mar 2014 09:51

Vic, Thanks. But there is no talk about T-72 chasis being unable to handle Arjun Gun.

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 18 Mar 2014 04:21

I attended a party thrown by my father's regiment and I met several people there and one of them was an experienced tank gunner who operated Arjuns and T-72s and also evaluated the Tank-Ex platform. He said the idea was novel on paper but didn't work out in real life on a practical sense. He specifically stated that the T-72 chassis could not withstand the Arjun turret firing stresses after a certain number of firing and that it would require shorter overhauls periods thus not making it practical in the long run.

The Arjun gun is indeed more powerful than the T-72 gun and has far more penetration power than the T-72 gun which means more explosive forces that the chassis has to deal with. The tank gunner loves the Arjun tank and wants more of these tanks but MoD defense spending constraints compels the Army to choose over T-90s due to the existing infrastructure and no need to overhaul the supporting infrastructure and the ease of training and inducting a tank variant that could be utilized within the current existing system. He said that if T-90s required an overhaul of the supporting infrastructure, the Army would have dropped the T-90 in a heartbeat and go with the Arjun tank in a heart beat. Right now, T-90s enjoy a 60+% commonality with T-72s.

He says that the majority of IA wants more Arjun tanks but MoD have to come up with more funds to create the supporting infrastructure and support elements necessary to make the Arjun the mainstay MBT of IA. MBTs do not work in a vacuum. There must be a supporting infrastructure otherwise the MBT can quickly turn into a static pillbox in short order. The IA does not want a tank that can easily turn into a static pillbox. With the given budget and its constraints, the IA is lukewarm to the idea of Arjun being inducted in large numbers. Right now they only have enough budget to support a number of 400-500 without them turning into static pillbox in short order

He says it is not enough to just simply buy the Arjuns and its ammo and whatnot. You have to buy the logistic chain that comes with it which can include overhauls of depots necessary to service and maintain these tanks, training of mechanics, requisition and storing of stocks and parts to replace the obsolete stocks and parts that cannot be used on Arjun tanks and must be phased out, additional fuel since Arjun tanks consume more fuel than T-90s due to their greater weight, training, acquisitions of training fields, bridges necessary to support Arjun tanks, recovery vehicles, and the list goes on.

He says that if the MoD is willing to spend and Finance Ministry is willing to give $15-20 billion just to overhaul the logistic chain and upgrade it to support the new Arjun tanks and spend at least $3 billion a year supporting those facilities and infrastructure, IA is willing to spend to purchase several thousand Arjun tanks. He says that during the Cold War, the Soviet Union subsidized the built up of the infrastructure for the T-72s since SU already had existing infrastructure and had build such systems for other countries, the cost of setting up the T-72 infrastructure was cheap. But no other country supports Arjun tanks except India and India has to develop the infrastructure to support the Arjun tanks, the price tag was steeper than most people realize.

He says when US army transitioned from the M-60 Pattons to M1 tanks, they literally spent tens of billions of dollars overhauling their supporting infrastructure and logistic chain to support their new M1 tanks.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 18 Mar 2014 04:40

* First of all, thanks for that post

* Are those figures of (US) $15-20 and $3 billion right? It is US Dollars and billions?
* Then what are we comparing this to? How much does the T-90 cost per year in US Dollars? And what did they cost to transition to them. I guess with 60% commonality with the T-72 the cost was not as much
* However, is are there any ROI numbers around? There has got to be some $/punch type of calculations. And finally,
* What about benefits of an Indian built tank and its impact on local economy?

* Heck prefab the bridges. What is the big deal there I wonder
* On list-goes-on, looks like it means that they are fixated on the T-90 then, even at the cost of rebuilding them in India

aditp · Post by **aditp** » 18 Mar 2014 05:07

Really? Would a tank gunner be conversant with Bn $ figures?

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 18 Mar 2014 05:20

aditp,

Theorize all you want, but the tank gunner was extremely knowledgeable about the inner workings of the 3 tanks in question and I saw no reason to dispute his account. Moreover, his account was corroborated by several officers in attendance, one of them a lieutenant colonel. They didn't dispute his account.

So take it as you will from my first hand account.

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 18 Mar 2014 05:24

NRao wrote:* First of all, thanks for that post

* Are those figures of (US) $15-20 and $3 billion right? It is US Dollars and billions?
* Then what are we comparing this to? How much does the T-90 cost per year in US Dollars? And what did they cost to transition to them. I guess with 60% commonality with the T-72 the cost was not as much
* However, is are there any ROI numbers around? There has got to be some $/punch type of calculations. And finally,
* What about benefits of an Indian built tank and its impact on local economy?

* Heck prefab the bridges. What is the big deal there I wonder
* On list-goes-on, looks like it means that they are fixated on the T-90 then, even at the cost of rebuilding them in India

the bridges do not number in hundreds but thousands.

Arjun costs $5+ million apiece. It does not include life cycle costs or supporting infrastructure costs.

If the MoD and Finance ministry was willing to finance the purchase of several thousand tanks, the impact on local economy would be substantial, IMHO but it would have meant diverting funds from other kinds of programs and that would have created a turf war akin to Pentagon wars or the intra-fighting between certain elements/branches of the US Army such as between the infantry and armor branches or the airborne branch.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 18 Mar 2014 07:03

Thank you Hitesh.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 18 Mar 2014 07:17

the bridges do not number in hundreds but thousands

All the more reason to go via pre-fabs.

However, point taken. Perhaps need to conduct a proper survey for ourselves. Info should be there, perhaps not all on the net.

On turf wars, understandable. When the economy was doing great they should have planned all these things out and executed. The economist goofed it. At times I wonder if the LSE asks for their degrees back.

But, all around, good info.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 18 Mar 2014 12:14

Thanks Hitesh for that insightful post.

rkhanna · Post by **rkhanna** » 18 Mar 2014 16:15

@Hitesh since you actually know Tankers in the IA i have a quick question for you.

Do you have any idea what the avg training stats for a single Tank Crew in India would be?
i.e How many Rounds a year? do they have a split (Day/night)

I remember reading somewhere that the US Army / NATO Tank crews fire an avg of 160 rounds a year Visavis ~30-40 For Russian - i have absolutely no idea to the validity of this information but just got me curious regarding the IA.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 18 Mar 2014 17:02

^^^that is one information no one will share on a public forum.

vaibhav.n · Post by **vaibhav.n** » 18 Mar 2014 17:34

The IA has inducted of MILES equipment in substantial quantities and a proposed SIMFIRE procurement. I don't think they actually need to fire those many rounds to maintain proficiency.The 160 round is a figure i have come across for NATO armies but them actually firing those many rounds could still be suspect. One Indian Firm manufactures a complete gamut of Gunnery Simulators exclusively for IA.

Link: http://www.zentechnologies.com/defence-simulators.php

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 Mar 2014 10:08

This Discovery Channel vid was posted earlier, but removed from youtube:

vic · Post by **vic** » 19 Mar 2014 10:11

My guess would be 10-20 or so rounds a year, looking at production and procurement levels.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 Mar 2014 10:21

On number of rounds, check out 12:55 in the above vid.

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 19 Mar 2014 10:27

If you see the video, you can see the underbelly of the Arjun turret and see how it mates to the chassis. If you look deep enough, you will understand why the T-72 chassis would not be a good fit because in order to withstand the recoil of the Arjun gun firing, you need to make sure that the underbelly does not shear off or warp and that the chassis would not warp either.

Since the T-72 chassis was not designed concurrently with the Arjun gun but at a different earlier time, the placement and fittings of the turret would have to be specific otherwise, the firing would create a lot of warp and shear in the underbelly and that is not a good thing.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 19 Mar 2014 10:35

Hitesh, when was your conversation, recent or several years back?