Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Raj Malhotra » 27 Jun 2002 21:56

The first indigenous tank was off course Vijyanta – a license built British Vickers tank. The army was dissatisfied with this tank and launched a new programme code named as “Arjun” for an indigenous tank called “ Chetak” in 1973 for a princely sum of around US$ 10 million.

I suppose it was initially supposed to be an upgraded Vijyanta. A tank with 120mm rifled cannon and upgraded indigenous engine of 1000hp, something like Vijyanta-2 weighing like 40 tons.

The programme was supposed to have indigenous FCS, power pack and armour etc by upgrading the components of Vijyanta.

Around 1975 India started importing T-72 tanks. At this time the Soviet Union tanks were considered revolutionary. They had concentrated on reducing the tank volume. For this they adopted an auto loader, (which gave the tank a low profile & smaller hull) and also cramped crew compartment. As the volume fell the weight also fell. This allowed them to use a lower powered engine, which further reduced the size by being V shaped. The net effect was that they were able to have a well-armored tank of 40 tons with a powerful 125mm cannon.

This was revolutionary at that stage, as USA tanks like M 60 were tottering at 60 tons with 750 hp engine.

India started putting up a production line for T-72 tanks in eighties while continuing to develop the indigenous MBT. I feel that there was no point in trying to ride in two boats but it may have been essential in those political times to have two sources for defence equipment.

Be as it may, by eighties the western countries had overhauled the Soviet Union lead in the tank tech. They developed sophisticated FCS, GCS and powerful engines. The Chetak also (I guess) got an overhaul at this stage. It started being known as Arjun.

Indians studied the western tanks and incorporated the mix of their best and handed over the specifications to DRDO (the only specification not required was it should also fly)

The programme also changed from an indigenous tank to “system integration”. Meaning thereby that all most all the components will be imported and integrated in India and it will be called an Arjun. Though one would like to blame the DRDO for it but with measly funding (which grew slowly to around US$ 100 million which included costs for around 40 tanks, land & building etc for labs) there was no way it could have been an indigenous tank. In fact Arjun is more foreign than Vijyanta.

Let us look at some of the systems: -

FCS- fire control system- It was supposed to be improved system used in Vijyanta but then it was decided that it will be imported. Initially from Delft of Holland which was primarily USA technology and later due to US trouble making France –Saegem stepped in. (I believe there is some sort of indigenous effort at work also presently, though it is not clear whether it only for FCS computer or for all the components)

Thermal sights – imported French-Saegem. The whole FCS suite is imported. This includes the sights, lasers, sensors, computers etc. It is also the heart of modern tank. (Inspite of the importance of thermal and infra red technologies in modern warfare there does not seem to be any integrated approach towards developing the necessary technologies for the same. We are importing thermal sights and sensors from Israel, France and Russian. Also from different companies of the same nation like T-CSF and Saegem of France)

For IT night sights, BEL was making second generation tubes with the help of Delft but for new technology it will again import.

GCS- gun control system, which enables the tank to fire on the move – license, manufactured Rexworth system. The difficulty with the term license manufacture is one does not know whether it is screwdriver assembly or more. Normally with minimal technology absorption of BEL it is possible that it is only screw driver tech. Though there is supposed to be an indigenous GCS also in development.

Power pack – meaning engine and gearbox – was supposed to be indigenous like Vijyanta but then German mtu-838 1400hp was decided upon.

This is one of the worst parts of Arjun story. We are importing 1960s tech MTU-838 engine.

GoI controlled companies have an extremely poor record on indigenous engines like

BMEL plant for 10hp-1000hp engine is non-functional and best it was able to achieve was around 5% indigenisation. Buys engines from private sector.

OFB- vehicle factory was not able to update 1960s jeep & truck engines and has to buy from private sector.

Locomotive factory – inspite of the world’s biggest manufacturer of engines imports technology.

HAL - has been license-producing engines for Helos, props and jets since sixties but we all know about the lone indigenous effort of Kaveri

BHEL imports turbine tech from Siemens and GE.

With such stellar qualifications it is not difficult to see why there was no serious interest or effort in developing indigenous engine. We could not make a machine with four-decade-old technology in three decades.

The most galling fact is why no private company was involved. India has vibrant private sector in this field which could have developed an indigenous engine if required.

Kanchan- armour is indigenous but as seem above most of the other important components are imported and as per reply of DRDO to Parliamentary committee the imports will remain around 50% even with manufacture order of around 500 tanks.

It may be noted that Leclerc –French tank has around 100% indigenous components with an order of around 400 tanks for their nation and later on they got some orders from UAE. Pz-2000 an SPG is also completely German with an order of 185. Denel has sold around ~150 guns of 155mm/52 caliber but we have not been able to make an indigenous gun with full Bofors drawings in our possession and 10 times larger requirement.

Tracks – Diehl imported (as of now)

Etc etc

Be as it may the first prototypes were ready in late 1980s (~1988-1990) but then the army started dragging its feet.

They started fixing or interpreting GSQRs that were ridiculous. Like full maneuverability in June heat of Rajasthan. The point is no tank in the world can do it. The Pakistanis tank cannot do it. The Indian tanks cannot do it but the army wanted it pronto. In fact there were reports even T-90s have problems.

This was the opportunity missed. I feel the production should have started in 1990. By this time we would have had around 200-500 tanks and the problems would have worked out.

This tank was supposed to be better than Vijyanta not the best in the world. If nothing else T-55 and Vijyanta would have got an early retirement.

In the meanwhile the T-72 production line also had problems. OFB had full support of Soviet Union but it took decades to put up the production and it only stabilized in mid nineties (instead of eighties).

By this time (mid nineties) the forces had lost interest in T-72 (produced in India) and were hankering for imports. Indigenous T-72s production line never got good orders and was hardly used.

In the meanwhile Arjun continued to be tweaked here and there. And series of clearances for production were given since 1996 to 2002. To my knowledge no new tanks were made since 1994 and we have had a decade of procrastination and obdurate behaviour from the forces.

How I wish DRDO appoints a Nandaesque as its project director to obtain the necessary approvals.

I would have assumed that production line of T-72 and technology of Arjun would have given adequate confidence for some intermediate projects but no. Let me give some examples: -

ARVs- it is a T-72 hull with cranes. We make the hull and no. of private sector units make cranes. All ARVs are imported while indigenous line lacks orders. (Around 200?)

T-72 upgrade-India is the second biggest user of T-72 in the world and fourth biggest economy. But when it has to upgrade the T-72 it runs to Poland for the tech (of FCS). (Around 200?)

T-90 – T-90 is just an upgraded T-72 (around 320)

Vijyanta upgrade – using T-72 engine and Kanchan armour was rejected by army (as it was indigenous?)

T-55 upgrade – using indigenous technologies is practically dead.

So we have arrived in 2002 and almost exactly where we stood in 1989 with regard to Arjun.

One of the favorite arguments taken is that other “developed” nations have also taken similar time. Firstly no nation has taken 30 years (1973-2003) to develop a new tank (to my knowledge). Secondly for tank making nations indigenous tank means “indigenous components”. Arjun is not anymore an indigenous tank; it is only a “system integration effort” with foreign components that has taken 30 years.

Arjun is supposed to go into LRIP production in 2003 with 15 tanks, I frankly donot think it will. The reason is that it is supposed to have a German engine MTU-838. Germans were missing in Def Expo 2002 in Delhi and Wartsila is supposedly pushing its own engine.

In this gloom (to me) an interesting news is about Tank Ex or Tank Experimental or Karan as is named by DRDO. A stepbrother to Arjun! Well if nothing else, the naming by DRDO is good.

BR has an excellent page on it written by Nitin and is worth reading.

As the army was crying about the weight of Arjun, the DRDO to my mind went in for a masterstroke. They mated the turret of Arjun with hull of T-72.

Let us see what we have got.

The turret has all the performance of fire power of Arjun like 120mm rifled gun, ammo, FCS, GCS, suspension, APU, armour, thermal and night sights, laser sights, 7.62 &12.7 machine guns and four men crew.

In addition it used Kanchan armour on turret and hull. The weight of Tank-ex is around 47 tons compared to Arjun 58 tons, T-90s (46?) 50 tons and T-72 is around 42 tons.

The hull, engine, gearbox, armour ( I think) is all indigenous based on T-72 and as already said we have a production line for the same.

This I think has been made possible by DRDO by being able to uprate the engine of T-72 from 780 hp to 1000hp and reducing the ammo carriage. This allowed the chassis of T-72 to carry the heavier turret of Arjun.

Poland is also experimenting with something similar and I suppose some experiences can be pooled.

(Though I suppose Nitin can confirm whether it has air conditioning and also with weight penalty of only 5 tons, how it can have Kanchan armour in turret front & sides as also hull glacis and sides?)

Somehow the army still does not seem enthusiastic about it. They are again talking about dreaded trials. (Arjun circa 1988-2002). The wasted decade and half.

I think we should go with something the following schedule: -

2002 Immediately hire a middleman, tout, pimp - what say you; for negotiating and pushing for the approval.

2002-3 Make 25 prototype and LRPs for evaluation by the army. Simultaneously adequately fund the system so that all imported components of turret are indigenised. Engine for around 1000hp can be used. If Indian machine is having problems then use the one of T-90.

2004-5 Make 100 tanks with around 50 per year with 1200 hp engine. The T-72 engine has the ability to grow to this level (atleast). This will allow addition of top attack protection and weight can grow to say 50-55 tons for the same. Poland has been able to upgrade the T-72 engine to 1200hp with French help and Russia has also claimed 1200hp engine based on same family (interchangeable). So if Indian engine has hiccups then import technology or something.

2006 onwards – mass production of completely indigenous tank say around 100-200 per year. As the technological level improves among other things engine technology will also improve which means more power and armour can be added to this tank.

Further I believe even the proposed SPG should also be based on T-72 chassis as with a more powerful engine the problem of mobility will be tackled.

India already has a production line of tanks and we should leverage the technology. It will also allow us to finish the disputes between T-72 and Arjun.

In long term, we may also be able to get a piece of T-72 upgradation programme of other nations.

There is some talk of sliming down the Arjun or going in for Le clerc type profile. Though it may simply may be rumour but I must say that Karan looks like a better bet. It will use proved technologies, established production line and will be able soon.

Off course I am assuming that Arjun is having problems. If it can go ahead then army should do some brain storming and commit to one project all the way.

Frankly I think what is going to happen is license production of T-90 (alias T-72 upgraded) with lot of puerile excuses as to why indigenous projects are dead.

Sometimes I wonder whether the continuous trials of Akash, Trishul and Nag is also something similar. (??)

PART II

The point I am trying to make is that Arjun should have been inducted and ordered for production in 1988-90 itself. As it is system integration effort, the difficulties could have been solved on the way. To my mind no major technical breakthrough has been made in any case since that time.

Some changes and developments are natural over a period of time and would have come in any case. If the production had been ordered then by this time Arjun would have been undergoing mid life refit-upgrade in which all the contemporary developments could have been incorporated.

The business of perfect tank went too far. Let me expand on the business of inability of Arjun to fact Rajasthan heat. Then simply place initial production in Punjab and lower J&K while later developments in Rajasthan.

Anybody with commonsense knows that there is never a perfect system and it has to be gradually refined over a period of time.

We all know the features of Arjun but it would be interesting to have a relook at them.

1. Concept

Arjun is based on western concept of disproportionate advantage where 1 tank as supposed to match 6 or more in defensive positions.

Arjun is supposed to have frontal armour that cannot be penetrated. If it goes into hull down position into Indian area or after going few km into Pakistan territory then there is no way to dislodge it. It can eat numerous shots on its turret front. Its cannon can fire twice as fast and twice as far taking down the opposition in numbers.

Initially it was perhaps supposed to tackle the possible acquisition of USA Abrahams or simply to provide quality, be as it may today it provides serious overmatch to Pakistan capacity.

Western tanks were normally supposed to fight in defensive positions in Europe therefore they were heavy but now Indian doctrine for cutting Pakistan into two also has to be changed to attrition policy. In such a situation Arjun is a good tank for facing Pakistan so called riposte’ doctrine or simply to cut a few km down into Pakistan and hunker down.

Personally I believe the GSQRs of Arjun was decided with brochure mentality without examining any doctrinal aspects but today of all times its does fit into attrition concept on Indian military doctrine vis-à-vis Pakistan.

Most of what I am saying does apply to Karan also. Now let us see some aspects of Arjun

2. Weight

It has been criticized for being heavy. The point is like criticizing a mango for tasting like a mango. It was designed as such and so it is. The western tanks also tip the scales at around 65-70 tons.

It is heavy because of two reasons. Higher all round armour protection and bigger volume.

The bigger volume is because of adopting four men crew concept compared to 3 men crew of Russian tanks with auto loader. Unlike commonly reported by DDM, this configuration can fire atleast “twice” as fast as tanks with autoloader.

Also it provides crew comfort with ample space. This is important in NBC environment when the crew may have to live in the tank for a week or so.

I believe it also has air conditioning but it seems Nitin is disagreeing. Also powerful engine of 1400hp of German make. The western engines normally occupy more space as they are more robustly built to reduce maintenance and to increase life.

Also Arjun has very heavy armour especially on its turret.

Arjun was not supposed to match T-90 only a contemporary T-72 but even if we consider T-90, then Arjun can fire twice as fast as T-90. The weight of T-90 has also grown to 50 (46?) tons.

Some of the shortcoming of weight of Arjun was that new logistics will have to be developed then it is true. If we want to avoid new logistics then we must stick to horses, they are more convenient.

Some of the components of new logistical chain like railway carriage, bridges have been built and will also come into useful for T-90.

Also tanks are inducted over a long period of time that gives decades to improve logistics. This argument of logistics was used against things like Mirage 2000 and Airbus-320 also.

It is supposed to wider by 6cm for railway carriage. Note import lobby to mislead routinely uses these types of arguments. It is wider by 6cm compared to “standard size”. So we donot need to lay new railway lines but “just do a survey to check for obstructions”.

Also when a tank is designed to be heavy and have lot of armour it will be heavy and have lot of armour period.

T-90 keeps its weight down by using ERA, DRDO has developed Indian ERA that can be used. But the best use of ERA is to supplement base armour not to use explosive armour that is technically patchy to replace it.

Arjun with additional ERA armour will have more protection including new requirement of protection against top attack missiles.

3. Gun

Arjun has 120mm rifled gun.

Now again comparing it with T-72/90. Rifled guns have a longer range and more accuracy over these ranges compared to smooth bore guns of T-xx.

Also due to bustle loader as pointed out by Nitin the ammo can have longer rounds that are considered more effective.

It can also fire HESH rounds upto 8km range which are considered more effective against bunkers and personal compared to HE rounds fired by smooth bored guns. It is like having a defacto 120mm line of sight SPG.

Also Arjun tank gun can elevate and depress more than T-xx gun that enable it to position itself in a manner that it can shoot at the enemy without the enemy being able to do so. And preventing vice versa situation.

Now let us take the famous missile firing capacity of T-90.

Firstly the combination of NAMICA and Arjun is better than T-90

Secondly the missile firing capacity of tank guns is nothing new and exists for 20+ years. It was meant to compensate for inaccurate short ranged Soviet Union tank guns. Western tanks have never required any need for them.

Thirdly missiles are very costly around 100 times a shell. If a shell can do it why bother about missiles.

Also as already HESH has a range of 8000m which is way more than the missile. Even if HESH round does not penetrate it can mission kill any T-xx tank.

Missiles have HEAT warheads that are not very effective against bunkers.

HEAT warheads of missiles donot form proper explosive jets 50% of the time that means that the missiles are waste.

Also unlike what we believe missiles are not pinpoint accurate. The laser on which the missile is riding also has a spread and can miss the target (the exact spread in normally classified)

Lasers are affected by fog, smog, battlefield smoke, tank smoke dischargers, obstructions and vegetation. The need for missiles arises after around 2-3km when the gun of T-xx tanks start giving accuracy difficulties. In battlefield it is very difficult to find unobstructed field of view that long.

One of the biggest difficulties of a tank fired missile is that at a range of say 5 km it will take around 14 seconds to reach in which time Arjun can fire three sabot rounds on the move and go behind an obstruction.

Also if the tank firing the missile is hit in these 12-15 seconds then the missile will be go awry.

Lasers of the missiles set of laser warning sensors giving away the tank firing the missile

The point I am trying to make is that for T-90 type of tanks it is needed to use costly missiles while Arjun can do the same job with its powerful cannon at a fraction of the cost.

4. other features

Arjun has western FCS and GCS which is undoubtedly more advanced then its Russian counterparts.

BARC is developing an NBC system for Arjun though I believe t-90 will also have something similar.

Engine of Arjun is my pet peeve. But let us face it MTU- is product of Daimler (Mercedes) Chrysler MTU- combine and not much would be able to match it.

5. Karan

The aforesaid applies to Karan also. Therefore I think we should try to come out of import mindset and

Part III

Now as Nitin has repeatedly pointed out that the alleged problems of Arjun have been solved and it is matter of putting the thing into production. The only inhibiting factor is off course the availability of the suitable engine and the weight that will require the logistics to be reworked.

In this situation, Karan is most ideal has it will use the fire power of Arjun on chassis which is available with us and engine of 1000hp which we can make.

Let me explain: -

1970s Arjun was sanctioned but whatever designing was done seems to have been redone later. Karan type tank was not possible as the T-72 chassis could at best fit in an engine of around 640hp that could not support the Arjun turret.

1980s Arjun design can be traced to this era. It has dimensions of contemporary western tanks like Leo-2 and Challenger-2 as it required an engine of 1500hp. Karan type tank was not possible as the T-72 chassis could at best fit in an engine of around 780hp that could not support the Arjun turret.

1990s By this time new designs had come into prominence especially Le clerc (French), which also used auto loader and low profile somewhat, like Russian tanks. This allowed Le clerc to have weight almost 5 tons less than its other European counterparts with the same protection, as the chassis was smaller. In this era if the Arjun was redone then probably the design features of Le clerc would have been copied. (If you put in modern engines like Wartsila or MTU-883 1500hp in Arjun it will leave a gap showing that chassis is bigger than necessary.) Karan type tank which used even smaller chassis was not possible as the T-72 chassis could at best fit in an engine of around 840hp which could not support the Arjun turret.

Present: Today engine of class 1000hp and 1200hp have become available that can be put in the small chassis of T-72. This means that we can put in turret of Arjun on a very small chassis creating a weight saving of almost 10 tons compared to Arjun and other western tanks like M1, Leo-2 or Chally-2 with similar firepower and mobility. The western engines of 1500hp are unnecessary.

That is to say that Karan is the most modern avtaar of Arjun.

It uses the gun, ammo, FCS, GCS, turret, armour, APU, and perhaps other systems like NBC, fire suppression system, batteries, etc of Arjun.

The chassis is also upgraded with the assistance of technologies developed for Arjun like suspension, and (?upgradation of T-72 engine to 1000hp etc.)

Later on more inputs of Arjun and other indigenous efforts can be used like gearbox, transmission, tracks, pads, batteries, ball bearings, wire harness and so on and so forth etc

I feel would Karan answers all the difficulties of Arjun:-

1. Weight is reduced by 10 tons to eliminate logistical issues. From 58 to around 47 tons.

2. Established production line can be used.

3. Engine import from western nations become unnecessary.

4. It will also decrease the cost of Arjun to say US$ 2 million (by around US$ one million) to make it affordable.

5. The smaller tank and engine will reduce the life cycle and fuel costs.

6. the indigenous content of tank will rise. In any case it is stupid to depend on Germany for important weapon system.

7. The issues raised by the (perhaps) motivated interview of Gole are also addressed.

8. Chassis is the least expensive part of a tank (perhaps with cost of less than 5% of the tank). But it is difficult to replace it as a whole production line and specifications are built around it. Karan allows us to use an established production line to update an indigenous tank like Arjun to contemporary standards. It is like discovering we can put the capacity of Su-30 MKI-30MKI on LCA.

Another difficulty with Indian defence programmes is they procure too many different type of equipment from lot of sources. This means that we are always caught in and wasting resources for stocking spares and reengineering them.

Karan allows us to get out of the rut and focus on single line of tanks like rest of the developed world.

I suggest all the rest of the programmes should be scrapped for pushing ahead Karan.

ARVs- It is a T-72 hull with cranes. So it can use Karan chassis with cranes bought from private sector. (Further imports after fulfillment of present orders by Poland and Slovakia should be terminated) (2002-3)

T-72 upgrade-after the upgradation of around 200 tanks with Poland help the programme should be terminated and we should use Arjun turret (& new engine) to update the T-72 (which in any case will make it like Karan) (2002-4)

T-90 – there should not be any license manufacture of T-90s after the present 320 and the production line can be used for Karan. If required the technologies of t-90s like Arena, Shotra, engine, transmission etc can be incorporated in Karan where necessary. (2002-5)

Vijyanta upgrade and T-55 upgrade – using indigenous technologies is practically dead in any case.

SPG- the self-propelled 155 cannon can also use the same chassis as Karan. This will allow us to use an established production line, reduce costs, eliminate logistical issues, have lighter SPG and have commonality with our MBT-Karan.

Arjun – I think Arjun is dead. I donot not know the present attitude of Germans. (Inspite of the info given by Nitin) Be as it may, Karan is modernized Arjun say Arjun-II. If the production has started it should end after first lot of 15. The rest of ~40 tanks already built should be brought up to contemporary standard by using any imports already contracted for. I know this is not a palatable course of action but then the most of the parts of Arjun which are different from Karan is imported like engine and transmission.

We must realize that the El dorado of any tank manufacturer is to reduce volume and use a small chassis. If we have been able to achieve this then we should grasp the opportunity with no further delay.

The aforesaid programmes (other than Karan) will in any case give us around ~700 tanks in next three years. With Karan & SPG it can be around 1000 tanks/AFVs to face 320 Pakistan T-80s. By 2005 we will be able to stabilize Karan production and work out any problems if required.

2002-3 Make 25 prototype and LRPs per year for evaluation by the army with 1000 hp engine. Simultaneously adequately fund the system so that all imported components of turret are indigenized and start development of 1200hp engine. (If Indian machine is having problems then use the engine of T-90.)

2004-7 Make 300 tanks with around 100 per year with 1200 hp engine. This will allow addition of top attack protection and weight can grow to say 50-55 tons for the same. Poland has been able to upgrade the T-72 engine to 1200hp with French help and Russia has also claimed 1200hp engine based on same family (interchangeable). So if Indian engine has hiccups then import technology or something. Simultaneously fund development of 1500 hp engine.

2008 onwards – mass production of completely indigenous tank say around 100-200 per year. This will allow addition of top attack protection & mine protection and weight can grow to say 55-60 tons for the same when the engine of 1500hp becoming available.

It must be noted that aforesaid time line is achievable as the techniques mentioned like 1500hp engine have already been realized and by 2005 onwards can be developed and put into production by India also.

It must be noted that sloped armour, top attack protection and mine protection has become essential. If we put these onto Arjun then its weight will grow to 70-75 tons. Which will be impossible to manage.

The only difficulty is that for Karan army will have to use its own commonsense and doctrine. It will not be available in any glossary western brochure. I wonder whether they will be able to manage.

As KS once remarked IA did not want to switchover to SLR from Bolt action as it did not look good on parades and this is about army that was facing AK-47s in 1955 in the hands of Naga terrorists. (We have still not developed an indigenous automatic INSAS carbine after only 50 years)

(I must say that I am just paraphrasing all the info that has been brought on BR & BRF by people like Nitin-SBM-Paul and webmasters.)

Part 5

Military equipment is based on the doctrine and technical abilities of the concerned nation. A lot of our projects suffer because of following reasons: -

1. There is no military doctrine, hence the GSQRs that are fixed have no rationale
2. The GSQRs donot have any connection with our technical capacity
3. The projects are under funded
4. There is no sense of urgency or fire in the belly to do it
5. There is absence of pride in the services for the indigenous efforts
6. There is no attempt to brief the media on indigenous attempts which ultimately prevents the media in making informed opinions about the indigenous attempts
7. The import lobby has lot of clout, capability to grease the files and political blessing. Most of the delay in indigenous projects takes place at file stage rather than anything else.
8. There is no co-ordination between the army and DRDO and they seem to have adversarial relation

Most of these facts are well known and need no elaboration. But it would be instructive to compare the military doctrine around which other western tanks were built.

Abrams-USA- it is today a heavy ~72 tons tank. The focus is on providing very heavy armour and powerful gun using DU penetrators. The disadvantage is that it uses gas turbine engine to propel the tank that is fuel guzzler. So the Americans accepted this disadvantage in order to take heavy armour because they wanted to have a fast tank that could fire on the move.

Challenger-2 UK-it is heavy ~60 (70?) tons tank with underpowered engine of 1000hp, heavy armour, accurate rifle gun and good ammo load. The disadvantage is that the tank moves very slowly and its two-piece ammo slows the firing rate. But it fits the doctrine wherein it was supposed to fight in Europe against the numbers of Red Army from prepared positions while slowly retreating to a new position as soon as it was likely to be overrun.

Leo-2 Germany-this tank had very heavy armour on its turret. It was supposed to go hull down and fight against the Red Army and try to prevent Germany being overrun. It had a powerful gun (which was also adopted by USA for Abrams) but also it was heavy and armour was biased towards the turret. As the engine capacity of MTU-series has improved the Germans have added more armour to top and glacis. Weights today 62 (65?) tons.

Le clerc France- this tank came after the other tanks so France had the benefit of learning from them. They decided to rely on sophisticated electronics and autoloader to make tank lighter and so its almost 5 tons lighter compared to its western counterparts. To make the engine size smaller they went in for SACM wartsila engine that is complicated, costly and fuel hungry.

Merkava – Israel- moved the tank engine to front to protect its soldiers. This tank has always been underpowered because they focused on the armour at the expense of increased weight as they realized that most of the areas around Israel are flat.

Russian tanks- have already been discussed above

T- (?) Japanese- small tank with small fuel tank intended to fight in hull down situation on their islands. Use costly ceramic armor with something like leo-2 layout.

(The aforesaid is off course simplification all the way)

The point I am trying to make is that all nations/tank designs have to accept some sort of give and take in order to build a tank. Now as regards Arjun I have never heard any rationale but only criticism and I think the reason is that Indian army requirements were ridiculous all the way.

Like it must have lots of armour but it should be light.
Like it must have a big and powerful engine but then it should not be wide.

These were all mutually contradictory requirements, which cannot be fulfilled by tank manufacturer in the world.

So one wonders what is the basis of GSQRs? Who makes them and how can the person be held accountable?

Some of the demands that were specified as minimum requirements were also excessive. Take for example the requirement for APU in 1994 that has still not been incorporated in the tanks of German army (whose leo-2 are considered the best tank in the world).

Army wanted to put in top attack protection and all electric GCS that was scotched by strong opposition from the DRDO. The whole thing smacks of trying to run the project aground.

When T-90 was tested in Rajasthan it supposedly had heat related engine breakdowns and there was reportedly disputes whether the engines were producing 840hp or 1000hp. Inspite of this the way was cleared for procurement.

On the contrary when Arjun was tested army added an additional weight of 4 tons of trawler on the tank and then tested it in full June heat in Rajasthan for full mobility. I wonder how T-90 would have fared on similar testing.

So who made the GSQRs that required such sort of testing? Why such testing is not comparative i.e. field both Arjun/Karan and T-90 side by side!

Army as we all know refused to order Arjun till it was perfect. But services have no difficulty in paying for untested products like Ka-31 helos, Su-30 MKI etc.

Arjun was not accepted due to alleged accuracy problems. Reportedly the missile of T-90 is giving problems and has still not been delivered. So why not impose the same requirement there?

Now the most important criticism of Arjun was it was heavy and big (Gole). This can be tackled with Karan. But there does not seem to be any enthusiasm for Karan by the army and after 6 months of testing they want more. How many months t-90 was tested for?

Probably it takes time for thinking up all the reasons to shoot down another indigenous project.

I think we should hand over Arjun/Karan project to private sector who will create a level playing field by playing the media and greasing the way.

Anybody who deals with GoI at any level in India knows that using excuses to kill unwanted projects and studied oversights to promote others is well known.

Now coming back to Karan/Arjun brotherhood, it is very obvious that Arjun chassis has to be changed. It can be done now, after 15 LRIP tanks, after first batch of 15+ 55 or after all 124 but it is now commonly felt that chassis is outdated. If the production line of Arjun was already set up we would have problems but now we can simply adopt the existing resources of T-72 chassis to make a very contemporary tank.

Chassis is the cheapest part of the tank but normally cannot be changed, as it requires redoing the whole production line. With Karan we get over this difficulty.

There is no point trying to develop a new tank chassis for Arjun and waste a decade more. What is to be appreciated is that we are not adopting an old chassis but are able to fit the firepower and protection of Arjun on a “smaller” frame which would not have been possible even couple of years back.

Also with new requirements/developments in missiles/tank guns, for protection tanks will be further required to have: -

Slopes on the turret
Top attack protection on roof
Mine protection on bottom

This will take the weight of Arjun up by to around 70 tanks. If we adopt Karan then even with additional protection the weight will be in the region of 55 tons. This will allow us to use the present logistical facilities developed for Arjun. If we stick with Arjun then a new round of criticism will start as to logistical chain (whatever little) developed will be rendered useless.

In military use, the power of Karan will allow us to effectively implement our “attrition policy”. With superior firepower and accuracy we will able to hit Pakistan tanks at a greater distance, with more accuracy and at a higher rate.

If we provide the Karan with top attack protection also then it can go in few km into Pakistan dig down (hull down) and Pakistan will not be able to take it out. Tanks will not be able to get near or penetrate the heavy armour of turret armour of Karan. Missiles/artillery will not be (as) effective due to top attack protection. (So many ARVs that have been imported may yet come in useful for digging down into Pakistan soil). The capture of limited territory will prevent the situation escalating to so called nuke scenario while also giving us adequate territory to use as bargaining chip and to prevent Pakistan claiming victory by default.

Additionally due to narrow frontage of some possible battlefields in lower J&K we would need disproportionately better tanks than Pakistan and not necessarily try to take them by numbers.

We can also indulge in brief incursions and teach a lesson attack.

While IAF has developed some sort of doctrine around its study of gulf war and PGMs, I suppose army should also do some thinking. While a wide sweep of USA in Kuwait/Iraq may not be possible but definitely we can try to emulate them by not loosing a single tank while decimating Pakistan.

Economically it is well recognized that domestic production is the only safe course in the war situations. Too much dependence on Russia is also not good. The sale of M-17 to Pakistan is a thin edge of the wedge. Also by funding Russian technology we are ultimately aiding China (and then Pakistan).

Also at the sake of repetition, putting Karan in production will allow us to prevent too many diverse lines of production and concentrate on one tank and build it in numbers.

Concluded

[ I have edited this post by adding part 2 after around 24 replies and part 3 after around 55 posts and psrt 4 after 80 posts]

Comments !!

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53978
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby ramana » 27 Jun 2002 22:35

Raj very good summary and conclusions. The key was the 1990s trials and foot dragging. Wonder if the Army types are held accountable for the blue sky requirements or they get prmoted and eventually retire with great honors?
In the US there is an Act of Congress which decress that all purchases for the forces have to be made locally. Any deviations need Congressional approval on case by case basis. They have periodical foreign weapons trials programs which are authorized by the Congress. In any case if the vendor gets selected he has to open a facility to fab the stuff.

In India the oppurtunity to import biases the decisions of the forces and more importantly the political masters.

Are you planning to eventually make this into an article?

advitya
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby advitya » 27 Jun 2002 22:58

Raj
Good summary. However, your talk of a vibrant private sector is fallacy, given the times that the projects were concieved. It wasn't until the late 1990s that the pvt sector had the expertise neccessary to deal with a lot of the technology associated with various defence programs. You have to understand that in the 1970s and 1980s no Indian compaines could take on the projects that you are talking about. Much of the private sector involvement that u see today is a consequance of a lateral movement of expertise of technology and manpower from DRDO institutions. Please don't mistake lack of capability with lack of willingness. The process of involving the private sector has been incremental in line with its own capabilities.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby JCage » 27 Jun 2002 23:03

Hi Raj,

More on Chetak to Arjun transition later.
Parts given in bold as this a long post.

Re FCS

FCS problems were in part as for a LONG time-many years -the OEM -original eqpt manufacturer couldnt provide service support coz of "political problems" and later US sanctions embargoed certain items(TI was US).So they couldnt provide tech fixes for their eqpt which were malfunctioning in the heat and had been rendered obsolete by advances in tech.If DRDO had bought a new one,then CAG would have been on their case(old contract wasted etc).Basically indian penny pinching at work.Anyway present FCS is state of art.

Note FCS problems were-heat related eqpt malfunctioning,dynamic target engagement(less than 80% ie 70%).In static shooting the Arjun was eventually shown to be excellent.

Gun control system-electrohydraulic-is german.Same as for the Leo 2 till A4.Works well.

Army now wants full electric traverse etc replacing the above to eliminate the chance of oil fires.And APU which no Leo 2 has.Not even A6.
(ref CAG,)

Engine/tranny are german-i have to check for the latter.Gearbox is indian.Same team which did the LCA one.There were reports that the tranny is indian but afaik that didnt work out and was rejected after trials.

Kanchan..we all know.

Re german sanctions.Till Mid 99 all orders were on.This after pokhran,so no problem per se.
Problem is that it 1400 MTU engine is simply not powerful enough.

No AirConditioner because of that.Degrades automotive performance.Thanks to Sanjay for confirming the above.

The Wartsila seems interesting as from the discussion on tanknet..we have lower weight and size than MTU 1500,full power of 1500 hp without derating,and besides which teh turbine part can act as an APU.Buy it,i say!With Transfer of tech if possible.

Hydropneumatic suspension is Indian.. CVRDE .Tho' the original one was american.

Re pvt sector...lots here and there...
They plan to subcontract more and more.
****The Arjun automotive system ahs been extensively tested by a bangalore based firm with state of the art facilities.
****A gunnery simulator is being built by an Indian firm with a proven track record.
****The rubber compounds for the road wheels were built in collab with IIT.
****Microprocessor and design( control) for MTU engine was done by another pvt firm.
Many more.

Finally,
Arjun has cleared all trials.
The main problem was FCS.I was told this in 1999 as the main reason.And that till it was fixed the Army wouldnt ever accept the ARjun.
Well it has.Latest on it ...
at Defexpo.

http://www.ndtv.com/morenews/showmorestory.asp?slug=Defence+Expo+showcases+ Indian+products&id=22229

Brigadier HM Singh, Defence Research and Development Organization, stated, "You would have heard mixed reports because we had teething troubles. But we've overcome those and we now feel confident about being able to compete with any tank in the world. In fact, we had even offered to take this tank for the Canadian army trophy but that was not accepted because they said that competition was only open for NATO countries."

Note that this is the first time an army appointed project head of ARjun is giving it a clean chit.Besides which CAT is a *gunnery* trophy.

There were other problems..basically all those detailed in the JAP,1996.

But all have been addressed in recent years.

In 2000,the armor trials were successful.
Later the FCS was validated.
The ergonomics problems were solved by changing ammo loadout etc as Sanjay said.All other problems were addressed in repeated Summer trials year after year since 1996.

********So its only been a year or so since the ARjun has finally been accepted and orders confirmed.Despite the indent earlier in 2000 *********

Only after the ARjun's problems were resolved did DRDO get Tank-x started.(Otherwise ARmy would have shot it down without even looking).

Basically,the killing factor against ARjun is cost.Its much cheaper than the (say) Leclerc or the M1A2..but more expensive than the T90 and the -ex.

Re :foreign.I'd say now the Arjun can truly be called a *different* tank rather than a Leo2 copy-evolution etc.Apart from the basic shape-every system,component or even their arrangement in the innards of the Arjun is changed substantially.
The years of xyz change have made it so.

Personally i think the Army better realise the value of the Arjun.It needs more armor if it wants to get into the M1A2-invulnerable to repeated shots-class.(unlike ALkhalid-one shot boom!)Besides which the T90 has that bloody carousel autoloader which
a)blows up
b)limits the APFSDS length.

At this rate we'll have to go the DU way for the T90 ammo to keep up.And be dependent on Mother russia for weirder and more expensive ,cumbersome ,slow guntube ATGM's.

Regards,
Nitin

Added:ramana's comments hit the dot.Both sides of the establishment-scientific and enduser are to blame for the delays.And of course the babucracy which mires any import in redtape and leaves it open to agents.

Col Anil Athale's comments are particularly indicative.Note he may be refferring to ARjun.

http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/may/30spec.htm
[quote]Culpability of the armed forces

member_3957
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 2
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 05:32

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby member_3957 » 27 Jun 2002 23:03

Hi Raj,

Like every true Indian I also understand your feelings.

But unfortunately the answer about MBT ARJUN is
"NOT TO BE" :(

Regards
Saurabh Lele

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby JCage » 27 Jun 2002 23:06

Originally posted by Saurabh Lele:
Hi Raj,

Like every true Indian I also understand your feelings.

But unfortunately the answer about MBT ARJUN is
"NOT TO BE" :(

Regards
Saurabh Lele
Dont give up hope yet.Its on.And Karan may pick up the slack if cost cutting stops the Arjun.

Advitya,
Agreed!We couldnt involve pvt sector at that time.No capabilities to begin with.
Which pvt sector org could afford to invest in a nd develop tech for a product..of which 5 pieces would be ordered?
Besides which this gets into Mod territory.They were firmly per GoI of that times.Socialism.PSU zindabad.Even if DRDO wanted(why not?work gets done they can rest easy ),red tape would kill any ideas.A hard path indeed.
Today its a different matter.And the more they're involved the better.

Regards,
Nitin

advitya
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby advitya » 27 Jun 2002 23:15

Originally posted by Saurabh Lele:
Hi Raj,

Like every true Indian I also understand your feelings.

But unfortunately the answer about MBT ARJUN is
"NOT TO BE" :(

Regards
Saurabh Lele
SAURABH from your other posts it seems like a blue day for you. But cheer up. Even if the ARJUN is not to be..its armour, TI, gun, FCS and even chassis is TO BE.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53978
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby ramana » 27 Jun 2002 23:25

The Arjun might yet see the day in its sibling Bhim. So if the 155mm self propelled arty program picks up parts of the Arjun could still be around.

member_3957
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 2
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 05:32

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby member_3957 » 27 Jun 2002 23:39

Origanally Posted by Advitya

SAURABH from your other posts it seems like a blue day for you. But cheer up. Even if the ARJUN is not to be..its armour, TI, gun, FCS and even chassis is TO BE.

Hi Friend,
I agree with you & I havent give up yet.
I am desparately waiting for 'KARNA' & 'BHIM'.
Like everybody I am also Proud of the Indian Army and organistations like DRDO & OFB.
So Lets cheer up and hope for the best results of the MBT 'KARNA' & 'Bhim'

Regards
Saurabh Lele

subhendu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 14
Joined: 31 Oct 1999 11:31
Location: World Travler

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby subhendu » 27 Jun 2002 23:53

Bottom line questions:

1) Has the Arjun been approved by the Army?
2) How many will be produced?
3) What is the timetable for induction?

Does anyone have pics of the inside of the Arjun?

Vick
BRFite
Posts: 753
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Vick » 27 Jun 2002 23:55

http://www.wendel.se/rswa/images/pvutr-121-1.jpg

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/Images/0040.jpg

Take a look at both the tanks in the pics. I remember there were/are people crying and wailing that the Arjun's non-sloped sides would make it vulnerable, the big optical fixture on the starboard side would make it vulnerable, the big block turret base would be awkward, etc, etc, etc...

But no one said things like those regarding the Leopard A42! If "Arjun" wasn't painted on, would most people be able to them apart? The tanks share comparable engines, comparable gun stabilizer, the same tracks, comparable FCS, comparable gun, etc yet people whine and complain about the Arjun but get down on their knees to worship anytime the name Leopard is mentioned.

I am not at all saying that Raj opened this thread to whine or anyone who is posting on this thread is whining because there are a lot good points made regarding the GSQRs, Army&DRDO dithering, etc.

[soapbox]
But what gets me is that people who know barely anything about the Arjun come and whine and nag because they heard or read something negative about it. I will use a broad stroke and paint a billion people: Indians love to believe everything negative about themselves but at the same time are worshipful of things phoren.

So, I would caution people who are not knowledgable about the Arjun to stay off the thread if they want to whine. First learn more about it and then if you have questions, post them.

[/soapbox]

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby JCage » 28 Jun 2002 00:13

Originally posted by subhendu:
Bottom line questions:

1) Has the Arjun been approved by the Army?
2) How many will be produced?
3) What is the timetable for induction?

Does anyone have pics of the inside of the Arjun?
1.Yes.But a wartsila engine may lead to a new gamut of trials.

2.124 is the Limited series production of MK1-as the Arjun variant -at present-is called.A MK2 variant with APU,ERA etc was wanted by the Army.This should then follow the 124 provided the army opens its purse.

3.Lets see.Considering that its passed tests recently..i'd say give a few years.

No pics available.Roomier than the T72 at any rate.

Regards,
Nitin

Vick
BRFite
Posts: 753
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Vick » 28 Jun 2002 00:20

Nitin, you said that the Arjun doesn't have an airconditioner because it would derate the engine. How many horses can an a/c unit pull from a 1400hp engine? 5hp at most? The IA felt that they couldn't spare less than half a percent of total hp for crew and equipment comfort?

Rudra
BRFite
Posts: 599
Joined: 28 May 2001 11:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Rudra » 28 Jun 2002 00:56

I dunno about the AC part, without AC no sustained
ops in desert thats for certain.

as one can see, Pak is diverting most of its
scarce resources to build up extensive tank and
missile forces. they have let PN and PAF rot coz
they figure no matter what the losses to PN and PAF , if they can hang on for 2 weeks and launch
a strong offensive or two, they could declare
victory against "much stronger" india and go home
happy.

if indeed we want to destroy the armour and valuable assets of ARC/ARS/ARN in just 2 weeks with no preparatory phase of 30-60 day air warfare, we need a heavy MBT , hundreds of them and swarms of MBRLs/heavy tubes to indulge in a bare knuckles brawl in the 2km distance and massacre them. With t-55,al-khalid,t-80U vs t-72,vijayanta,tank-ex,arjun,t-90...the exchange ratios wont be great. they will win some and lose some.

About 700 arjuns + 300 T-90s backed by about 150
Mi28Ns, 500 SP guns, 50 pinaka regiments should
give us a decisive edge, backed by 150 CAS a.c to
take down their logistics.

Quick solutions need overwhelming force.

kamdev
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 13
Joined: 06 Jun 2002 11:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby kamdev » 28 Jun 2002 02:03

Nitin, you said that the Arjun doesn't have an airconditioner because it would derate the engine. How many horses can an a/c unit pull from a 1400hp engine? 5hp at most?

MTU/germany has come up with 1500 HP engine already, so the robbing issue of few horsepowers for the comfort/AC of our crews should not be a issue here, If DRDO thinks it is reasonable.

NITIN: RAJ M:
Also the FCS was swedish, and was more than 15 years old if I remember.

vinod_raman
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 7
Joined: 02 Feb 2002 12:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby vinod_raman » 28 Jun 2002 02:31

if indeed we want to destroy the armour and valuable assets of ARC/ARS/ARN in just 2 weeks with no preparatory phase of 30-60 day air warfare, we need a heavy MBT , hundreds of them and swarms of MBRLs/heavy tubes to indulge in a bare knuckles brawl in the 2km distance and massacre them.
We have sufficient number of Mig 23's and with sufficient Armed helos, we could still wreck their armour from the air. 30-60 days preperation might guarantee this, but it is not necessary.

Besides after the gulf war and recent afghan conflict,I am sure a lot of war planning efforts would get spearheaded by IAF in future conflicts, including ways and means to wipe off their tanks.
Hence makes little sense in getting our boys into "bare knuckles brawl" in the desert.

Rudra
BRFite
Posts: 599
Joined: 28 May 2001 11:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Rudra » 28 Jun 2002 02:41

wht did the IA want ERA ? isnt composite armour
best against all types of projectiles as seen on
NATO tanks ? no NATO tank uses ERA.

Ashutosh
BRFite
Posts: 150
Joined: 04 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Ashutosh » 28 Jun 2002 03:42

Nice thread.

One part missed was the consultation with Krauss-Maffei Wegman.

Rudra, the issue about the Army wanting ERA was discussed in the "T-72s in Chechnya thread" ...

Rudra, at the same time you are right on target - TSP is arming it's Army to teeth while letting it's PAF/PN rot (let's say neglected). The game is simple: with the missile firing and allegedly faster, quicker, more protected T-80 should on paper make mince meat of Indian T-55s and Vijayantas.

That's why I cry for a tank with very powerful engines, and a powerfull gun that can out-range enemy defences. That would mean that for a cost of a few taxpayer rupees, we deny the entire TSP Army it's calculated offensive strength vis-a-vis armoured thrusts.

Note, TSP thinking is limited to grabbing land and sitting there ... what to do next os not even on the agenda ... Kargil comes to mind immediately.

Rudra
BRFite
Posts: 599
Joined: 28 May 2001 11:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Rudra » 28 Jun 2002 03:55

they dont yet have al-khalid's produced in
quantity, but 300 t80Us are certainly there and
maybe more shall be ordered. its concentrated in
the punjab-jammu belt wherein we seem to have
put the vijayanta's and T-55s. yahoo news photos
havent shown a single t-72 in that region.

its very well to say IAF can deal with them. but
IAF can deal with them only if given air superiorty and 30 days to hunt them down. in the
real world, bad weather, darkness, movement,
decoys, hiding, PAF interference, SAMs will all
pose problems. this isnt the flat iraqi desert
and we dont have a 500lb maverick to throw at
every single vehicle.

infantry or APCs with ATGMS are imo no match for
a concentrated tank advance, infantry can be quickly bypassed or neutralized with indirect fire
from their huge US supplied 155mm and 205mm SP guns and APCs will get slaughtered if they expose themselves too much.

Meantime, there is no status on whether the T72 upgrade is really happening or it has been cancelled to make way for production of T90. We just have ~80 T-90s at present. perhaps 80 more in a year. Avadi likely cannot produce a single one
until next year end...and can they produce Arjun
at same time ?

vijayanta, T-55 ->totally obsolete againt t80,al-khalid
t-72 - inferior to t-80. even after upgrades it will only regain some parity and Pak might use their DU ammo (PRC tech).
arjun - just 1 regiment of prototypes. no visibility on when we get quantity.

No public indications of working on DU/Tng 30:1 L:d apds-a must have.

the scene is quite dismal like in many other areas.

only a force with superior gun,ammo,mobility and support can deal with a massed tank offensive and that means other tanks need to join the fight.

overall the scene isnt too good either for IA:
-trishul being inducted in trickle
-SP guns need lot of money
-nobody puts numbers and cost on towed guns
-no talk of getting more fh77s
-no talk of new 105mm gun to replace old
-pinaka induction in trickle
-no public talk of extensive s-300 support
-no news of phalcon
-no data on whether t72 upgrade is on. whats the
yearly rate?
-no more helo-gunships looks like

advitya
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby advitya » 28 Jun 2002 04:19

Originally posted by Rudra Singha:
they dont yet have al-khalid's produced in
quantity, but 300 t80Us are certainly there and
maybe more shall be ordered. its concentrated in
the punjab-jammu belt wherein we seem to have
put the vijayanta's and T-55s. yahoo news photos
havent shown a single t-72 in that region.
You dont need the IAF to take them on in the region.

Ashutosh
BRFite
Posts: 150
Joined: 04 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Ashutosh » 28 Jun 2002 04:29

Originally posted by advitya:
You dont need the IAF to take them on in the region.
No, you have to think harder. TSP army is 0.65 million. Plus they have NLI, Mujahid battalions, which are basically army units with different payscales, etc., but equipment seems to be same (more inputs here please). Plus the huge manpower base in it's well trained jehadi workforce, which is alleged to be quite huge. So at any time, don't be surprised if you see a million one the other side of the fence.

IA is, according to latest reports, 1.3 million, but during Gen. B.C.Joshi's era, I had heard about downsizing to 0.85 million. Indian paramilitary units basically are nowhere close to the capability of the Army, with the sole exception of RR.

So we definitely need more teeth and support. IA/IN/IAF all should be strong enough to individually win their own battles. Once that is achieved, then think of what can be done when joint planning and operations are underway - you get it.

So that's where a potent tank force, and a very rapid moving armour thrust comprising of tanks, APCs, IFVs, etc come to mind.

TSPA is completely infatuated with just one idea: capture Indian territory. The want sand/mud/dust/muck/whatever you call it. They just want revenge for 1971.

Most of the gaming scenarios discussed here spoke about the fact that TSPA could make some territorial gains initially, and only later would IA, in conjunction with IAF manage to push back TSPA, and capture territory in return. That is not what I like.

Rudra
BRFite
Posts: 599
Joined: 28 May 2001 11:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Rudra » 28 Jun 2002 07:45

yes either create the diplomatic space to wage a longer 2 month war or find other ways.

republican guard in open desert took 30 days
day-night bombing and 3 days day-night fighting
to rout. M1s and Chal1's had to go in close and
fight toe-2-toe with most of them in order to
destroy maximum in minimum time. one gunner even
beat down two iraqi tanks, chased another one
behind a sand dune and shot that thru the sand
using his IR imager. :o

advitya
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby advitya » 28 Jun 2002 07:54

Originally posted by Rudra Singha:


and we dont have the answers right now. Since
1998 we have been outspending them by $10 billion
annually in defence. granted that we perhaps need
$4 billion for upkeep of extra manpower and china
front, but $6 billion/annum should begin to bite soon...unless used to fund certain South delhi mansions. :o
I dont think you realise what you are arguing given the earlier scenerio you have sktched. The Pakistani tanks cant move and shoot with divine power alone. Furthermore, there is only one place along the northern front where tanks can be deployed easily in the dry season..and even there the frontage is pretty narrow. Unlike 1965 and 1971, there are layers of prepared defences and the equivalent of a division's worth of T-72s deployed...forget abouty all the infantry div armed regiments armed with Vijayanta and T-55s. Furthermore, you grossly underestimate the potency and flexibilty of towed artillery and the decisive role it can play in destroying armour. To a M-46 or FH-55 shell a tank is just another target..even if it is a T-80UD with the latest in armour.

Rudra
BRFite
Posts: 599
Joined: 28 May 2001 11:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Rudra » 28 Jun 2002 07:58

Faith in the Lord and martial qualities will see
PA through! It will be the Defining moment of PA's existence, all that they trained and prayed for to have a good bite at the infidels.

they might even get to sack Amritsar if Lord favours.

davidn
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 82
Joined: 30 Jan 2001 12:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby davidn » 28 Jun 2002 14:18

Q for nitin
Nitin, ive been hearing snippets of info about the 1500hp Wartsila, but not really anything concrete.
When i search for Wartsila i get a load of different companies(what is a wartsila anyway?? :D ).
Could you perhaps explain who makes the wartsila, size, cost, power, etc. etc. or direct me to a website/thread that does? many thanks.

Rudra,
IA would have to go in for more than 700 tanks wouldnt they?? the t55s and vijayantas and older t72s all have to be replaced. Their eventual figure should be well over 1200+ i think

Vick,
the 2A4 was fielded in 1985!! It is not the best comparison material. To the best of my knowledge it has also never seen true armoured combat (plz tell me if im wrong). so it is natural to look at tanks like the M1 and Challenger 1, which both have sloped turrets and both proved pretty much invulnerable during the gulf war. The US and Brits must have done something right to achieve the results they did. Checkout newest form of the leopard, the 2A6, incorporates what looks like a rather low sillouette sloped turret also.
Im hoping that in later Arjun versions the DRDO also produces a sloped turret variant to increase the already excellent kanchan (so ive heard) protection
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/leo2.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/challenger1.htm

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/leopard/

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Raj Malhotra » 28 Jun 2002 15:10

PART II

The point I am trying to make is that Arjun should have been inducted and ordered for production in 1988-90 itself. As it is system integration effort, the difficulties could have been solved on the way. To my mind no major technical breakthrough has been made in any case since that time.

Some changes and developments are natural over a period of time and would have come in any case. If the production had been ordered then by this time Arjun would have been undergoing mid life refit-upgrade in which all the contemporary developments could have been incorporated.

The business of perfect tank went too far. Let me expand on the business of inability of Arjun to fact Rajasthan heat. Then simply place initial production in Punjab and lower J&K while later developments in Rajasthan.

Anybody with commonsense knows that there is never a perfect system and it has to be gradually refined over a period of time.

We all know the features of Arjun but it would be interesting to have a relook at them.

1. Concept

Arjun is based on western concept of disproportionate advantage where 1 tank as supposed to match 6 or more in defensive positions.

Arjun is supposed to have frontal armour that cannot be penetrated. If it goes into hull down position into Indian area or after going few km into Pakistan territory then there is no way to dislodge it. It can eat numerous shots on its turret front. Its cannon can fire twice as fast and twice as far taking down the opposition in numbers.

Initially it was perhaps supposed to tackle the possible acquisition of USA Abrahams or simply to provide quality, be as it may today it provides serious overmatch to Pakistan capacity.

Western tanks were normally supposed to fight in defensive positions in Europe therefore they were heavy but now Indian doctrine for cutting Pakistan into two also has to be changed to attrition policy. In such a situation Arjun is a good tank for facing Pakistan so called riposte’ doctrine or simply to cut a few km down into Pakistan and hunker down.

Personally I believe the GSQRs of Arjun was decided with brochure mentality without examining any doctrinal aspects but today of all times its does fit into attrition concept on Indian military doctrine vis-à-vis Pakistan.

Most of what I am saying does apply to Karan also. Now let us see some aspects of Arjun

2. Weight

It has been criticized for being heavy. The point is like criticizing a mango for tasting like a mango. It was designed as such and so it is. The western tanks also tip the scales at around 65-70 tons.

It is heavy because of two reasons. Higher all round armour protection and bigger volume.

The bigger volume is because of adopting four men crew concept compared to 3 men crew of Russian tanks with auto loader. Unlike commonly reported by DDM, this configuration can fire atleast “twice” as fast as tanks with autoloader.

Also it provides crew comfort with ample space. This is important in NBC environment when the crew may have to live in the tank for a week or so.

I believe it also has air conditioning but it seems Nitin is disagreeing. Also powerful engine of 1400hp of German make. The western engines normally occupy more space as they are more robustly built to reduce maintenance and to increase life.

Also Arjun has very heavy armour especially on its turret.

Arjun was not supposed to match T-90 only a contemporary T-72 but even if we consider T-90, then Arjun can fire twice as fast as T-90. The weight of T-90 has also grown to 50 (46?) tons.

Some of the shortcoming of weight of Arjun was that new logistics will have to be developed then it is true. If we want to avoid new logistics then we must stick to horses, they are more convenient.

Some of the components of new logistical chain like railway carriage, bridges have been built and will also come into useful for T-90.

Also tanks are inducted over a long period of time that gives decades to improve logistics. This argument of logistics was used against things like Mirage 2000 and Airbus-320 also.

It is supposed to wider by 6cm for railway carriage. Note import lobby to mislead routinely uses these types of arguments. It is wider by 6cm compared to “standard size”. So we donot need to lay new railway lines but “just do a survey to check for obstructions”.

Also when a tank is designed to be heavy and have lot of armour it will be heavy and have lot of armour period.

T-90 keeps its weight down by using ERA, DRDO has developed Indian ERA that can be used. But the best use of ERA is to supplement base armour not to use explosive armour that is technically patchy to replace it.

Arjun with additional ERA armour will have more protection including new requirement of protection against top attack missiles.

3. Rifle

Arjun has 120mm rifled gun.

Now again comparing it with T-72/90. Rifled guns have a longer range and more accuracy over these ranges compared to smooth bore guns of T-xx.

Also due to bustle loader as pointed out by Nitin the ammo can have longer rounds that are considered more effective.

It can also fire HESH rounds upto 8km range which are considered more effective against bunkers and personal compared to HE rounds fired by smooth bored guns. It is like having a defacto 120mm line of sight SPG.

Also Arjun tank gun can elevate and depress more than T-xx gun that enable it to position itself in a manner that it can shoot at the enemy without the enemy being able to do so. And preventing vice versa situation.

Now let us take the famous missile firing capacity of T-90.

Firstly the combination of NAMICA and Arjun is better than T-90

Secondly the missile firing capacity of tank guns is nothing new and exists for 20+ years. It was meant to compensate for inaccurate short ranged Soviet Union tank guns. Western tanks have never required any need for them.

Thirdly missiles are very costly around 100 times a shell. If a shell can do it why bother about missiles.

Also as already HESH has a range of 8000m which is way more than the missile. Even if HESH round does not penetrate it can mission kill any T-xx tank.

Missiles have HEAT warheads that are not very effective against bunkers.

HEAT warheads of missiles donot form proper explosive jets 50% of the time that means that the missiles are waste.

Also unlike what we believe missiles are not pinpoint accurate. The laser on which the missile is riding also has a spread and can miss the target (the exact spread in normally classified)

Lasers are affected by fog, smog, battlefield smoke, tank smoke dischargers, obstructions and vegetation. The need for missiles arises after around 2-3km when the gun of T-xx tanks start giving accuracy difficulties. In battlefield it is very difficult to find unobstructed field of view that long.

One of the biggest difficulties of a tank fired missile is that at a range of say 5 km it will take around 14 seconds to reach in which time Arjun can fire three sabot rounds on the move and go behind an obstruction.

Also if the tank firing the missile is hit in these 12-15 seconds then the missile will be go awry.

Lasers of the missiles set of laser warning sensors giving away the tank firing the missile

The point I am trying to make is that for T-90 type of tanks it is needed to use costly missiles while Arjun can do the same job with its powerful cannon at a fraction of the cost.

4. other features

Arjun has western FCS and GCS which is undoubtedly more advanced then its Russian counterparts.

BARC is developing an NBC system for Arjun though I believe t-90 will also have something similar.

Engine of Arjun is my pet peeve. But let us face it MTU- is product of Daimler (Mercedes) Chrysler MTU- combine and not much would be able to match it.

5. Karan

The aforesaid applies to Karan also. Therefore I think we should try to come out of import mindset and

[ I have added part 2 to my first post also]

Vinay J
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 10
Joined: 06 May 2002 11:31
Location: USA

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Vinay J » 28 Jun 2002 21:40

Great Post Raj! The powers that be are doing immense harm to the country (financially and defense wise) by not inducting a great Tank into the IA.

You are right, we still have this 'foreign is better' mindset.

We should immediately go in for 500 Arjuns and 500 Tank-EX (Karan). The Wartsila engine can be tried and put in later when it is proven.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby JCage » 28 Jun 2002 22:02

Raj has a way with words!Beautifully put.Archival please.This is FAQ addressal at its best.

Arjun was not supposed to match T-90 only a contemporary T-72 but even if we consider T-90, then Arjun can fire twice as fast as T-90. The weight of T-90 has also grown to 50 (46?) tons.
More info as an addition.The chetak of '84 had weight in the range of 45 tons.That too because it was supposed to deal with the 105mm Royal Ordnance L7 rifled guns being retrofitted-at that time-across the Paki tank fleet.(Same gun type as on our Vijayanta's and T55's).
However Pakistan evaluated the M1A1 Abrams in desert conditions a few years thence.This apparently set AHQ thinking.The "revised" GSQR's now required -----

1.Thermal night vision as compared to passive earlier.
2.Tank should be able to withstand smoothbore cannon's of the 120mm "western" type.As a result overall "all up" weight increased to 58.5 tons.
3.The armament had to be fully stabilised,allowing fire on the move and at greater ranges than previous.
4.High first hit probability.
5.Complete NBC protection.
6.Increased mobility requirements to 25 hp/ton from 20 hp/ton necessitating an import of the 1400 HP MTU diesel engine.(Giving a P/w ratio of 20 hp/ton right now).
7.Had to take on the M1A1 and survive,nay win.

Pt 7 is never officially acknowledged,but apparently was what led -in part- to pts 1 to 6 coming up fast.

Other than looks the Arjun of today is a far cry from the Chetak.I believe the Challenger-ironically-had a similar progresion in GSQR's and took a log time to fruition.As of todaythe Mk2 version is indeed one of the best in the world.

So yes,we should keep it at it.

-----------------

David,

Wartsila is a finnish company that took over a french company SACEM which designed the 1500 hp Hyperbar engine.So the Hyperbar engine is generically referred to as the Wartsila.

Go to www.army-technology.com and look under current projects and then leclerc.It will have report on the Hyperbar in use on the Leclerc.

A google with "1500 hp Hyperbar engine" or similar ones as the keywords might also throw up something. :)

Regards,
Nitin

Rudra
BRFite
Posts: 599
Joined: 28 May 2001 11:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Rudra » 28 Jun 2002 22:08

I imagine the cat would really have landed among
the pigeons had the afghan honeymoon lasted 10 yrs longer, ex-Sov hung in and around 150 more f16s
of later vintage and 200 M1A1s been delivered.

granted that 80s abrams had 105mm to start with
but by 1990 all had 120mm and DU shells. it was
equal or better than what arjun has been made
today.

did anyone say "dinner in delhi" ? :rotfl:

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4438
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby putnanja » 28 Jun 2002 22:40

Kamdev, From the interview, it appears to be atleast 3-4 years old. Is the previous general that he is mentioning Gen BC Joshi? Can you tell me when and where the interview was published?

Thanks

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53978
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby ramana » 28 Jun 2002 22:45

The Gole interview is from The week published three years ago.

Pennathur
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 53
Joined: 14 Aug 1999 11:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Pennathur » 28 Jun 2002 22:47

Most of the gaming scenarios discussed here spoke about the fact that TSPA could make some territorial gains initially, and only later would IA, in conjunction with IAF manage to push back TSPA, and capture territory in return. That is not what I like.

If the TSPA truly thinks so it has seriously miscalculated the demands invlolved. First to breach prepared static defences and second to envelope/bypass large formations and then third to hold and defend a large salient are extremely difficult in today's warfighting conditions. Better communications today imply that even the smallest movements can be anticipated and maneuvered out of place. Even the grab of a territory of 10 sq.km. is extremely tough given the firepower available with the IA backed by IAF. TSPAF, CAS will be carved up with little left ot save it - remember TSPAF can't do more than one thing at a time. And then to hold territory TSPA may actually play into Indian hands who might counter envelope a huge formation with even larger concentrations. IA is geared to attack as well as hold. TSPA will find it very difficult to do both.

kamdev
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 13
Joined: 06 Jun 2002 11:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby kamdev » 28 Jun 2002 22:52

The Gole interview is from The week published three years ago.

yes it is five years old.

But the project manager's input/sugestions CAN NOT BE SIDELINED

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53978
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby ramana » 28 Jun 2002 22:55

GD this is for you!!!
Pioneer has Prvin Sawheny : [url=http://www.dailypioneer.com/secon3.asp?cat=\opd3&d=OPED]Conventional parity with Pakistan[/url]

Will post the text in the other forum and can discuss there.

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Raj Malhotra » 28 Jun 2002 23:44

Originally posted by kamdev:
RAJ MALHOTRA:

unless you have seen this interveiw, you are groping in the dark.

I am not replying to any posts till I complete various parts of my post.

But i will make an exception to say this, "If you are aware of this infamous interview then you should also realise that both my posts deal with the issues raised by it and in some of the articles of Ashok Mehta and Rahul bedi."

i will deal with my speculation on the motives of this interview later, though a pointer would be the date of start of T-90 negotiations.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby JCage » 28 Jun 2002 23:53

Originally posted by kamdev:
[b]The Gole interview is from The week published three years ago.

yes it is five years old.

But the project manager's input/sugestions CAN NOT BE SIDELINED[/b]
One piece of advice.Never ever depend on a single source.That too dated.BTW,another thing.

Goles comments are thrown into the rubbish bin with the statements of the PRESENT Arjun project manager or leader or what have you.

Brigadier HM Singh in February 2002 who stated: "
You would have heard mixed reports because we had teething troubles. But we've overcome those and we now feel confident about being able to compete with any tank in the world".


What is the hit probability?

The gunnery parameters have been highly diluted and they do not meet our standards. If I tell you, even though you are a civilian, that here is a tank and your chance is 20 per cent, will you go to war in it? And you can't hide it from the user because he is doing the trials, firing the guns. From day one the firing performance has been consistently inconsistent.First we should have a complete review of the fire control system. It is a 20-year-old system. The company from which we got it has shut down its shop in Sweden and has gone to some other country. Why should you use a 20-year-old fire control system for a tank which is going to come after another 10 years. We are in a time warp.
This shows how poorly Gole knew his facts.Jesus.The FCS was DUTCH not swedish.
This guy was the Arjun project director?One respects his view but the least he could have done is to be accurate wrt certain facts.
And his comments are now rendered irrelevant.The FCS has been replaced.All analogue components have been replaced by digital ones.The ballistic comp is new.So is the thermal imager.
All defects rectified wrt heat intolerance.

If you'd looked through raj's and my posts,we clearly said that the FCS manufacturer DID Not aid intially in system integration because of "political pressures" which was further complicated when US sanctions forbade teh import of the thermal imager.All these have now been overcome.

It is alleged that the General Staff Quality Requirements have been diluted when the 10 imperatives were issued. Is it true?

These 10 imperatives were laid down by the previous chief, Gen. Joshi. He realised that we were not making much headway. So there was a climb down from the GSQR; he told DRDO that these imperatives had to be met, the armament was also mentioned. He also set some bottom line standards, so that there would be no further dilution. He said: 'You meet these imperatives and bottom line requirement and the tank will be accepted as long as the work for further improvement goes on." Basically these are all compromises. Yet, they were unable to follow these instructions. The present chief made some further changes on the list. But as the terms suggest, imperatives and bottom lines are non-negotiable.
The Joint Action Plan,1996 laid out certain parameters.All from memory :

1.Improval of accuracy at battle ranges.
2.Ditto under dynamic conditions
3.Ammunition to be tested.
4.Ergonomics to be improved
5.Armor to be tested.
6.Ammuntion to be stored in containerised cabin with blow out panels.Requirement added in 1994.

etc.

All these have been systematically addressed.

--->Eg..check reports at www.mod.nic.in
The Armor was tested at the testing range in Feb 2000 and found good enough.
George Fernandes corrobarates the above during AeroIndia in december of the previous year by stating that the Arjun would be inducted once the Army approved the armor trials.

---->Firepower trials validated the amunnition.An army appointee received the Agni award in 1999 for productionising the 120MM T1 APFSDS for the Arjun.

--->The Accuracy issues were resolved by FCS change.And OEM suport and DRDO efforts.Note AGni awards this year for FCS on Arjun especially wrt ballistic computers.Also Note Brig HM SInghs comments about Candian ARmy Trophy and the ffort to get ARjun into it.

--->Ergonomics by changing(reducing) the ammo loadout.Sanjay notes this after talking to an IA guy.

So you have to realise that Gole's comments are all overtaken by TODAY.Only good for a historical overview,nothing else nothing more.

Regards,
Nitin

P Chupunkar
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 30
Joined: 24 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby P Chupunkar » 28 Jun 2002 23:54

Originally posted by kamdev:
HERE IS MORE MENTHOL:)
> The DRDO was to hand over 15 fully integrated pre-production series tanks in June 1996. But the army got them only this April. The recent summer trials exposed many *****s in the DRDO armour.
Are you talking about the summer of 2002 or the summer of 1996 ?

**** ADDED LATER ****

Whats the deal with this FCS (Fire Control System). Seems to be a fairly middle-level tech compared the LCA software/tech. Is this an issue because of the sensors or because of the software/hardware itself ?

Rudra
BRFite
Posts: 599
Joined: 28 May 2001 11:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Rudra » 28 Jun 2002 23:59

kamdev, you should and MUST cite the source
and date if you are going to paste entire interviews here. if its 5 yrs old that was during the worst phase of the arjun pgm when everyone press, public,IA and defence agents were hostile
to it. the subsequent clearance of army parameters and order shows that someone at higher levels still stuck to the task and backed it to the finish.

As has been mentioned, DRDO would never DARE to
start do the Tank-EX and display it in public
unless they were very confident of Arjun's armour,
gun, ammo, FCS and electronics. the only thing
between Ex and Arjun is the engine, tracks and
transmission all of which are german and imported-their capability was not in question.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby JCage » 29 Jun 2002 00:06

> The DRDO conducted the first technical trials in 1988. Five years later six tanks, the first prototypes, were handed over to 43 Cavalry for troop trials at the Mahajan range in Rajasthan. It was reported that towards the end of 1991 the then army chief, General S.F. Rodrigues was concerned about Arjun's flaws and that he demanded scrapping of the project. But the project went on with each trial showing the tank in a poorer light.
The last sentence,as one of my Prof's used to say,is all balls.
The PAC report clearly mentions that there was an upward trend in the MTBF FROM EACH TRIAL.
MTBF=Mean time b/ failures.A chart showing the above is used to determine adherence to army standards of reliability.

If General S.F. Rodrigues as the sensationalist Week article claims recommended SCRAPPING the project.,Gen Shankar Roy Chowdhury SUPPORTED the project.
Big deal.

> Finally, finding that the project was too expensive to be scrapped, the army conducted summer trials in 1994. But the tank could not meet even the diluted specifications, as was seen at the 1995 trials. The next year's trial report was reportedly highly damaging. It is alleged that a corps commander called the tank a white elephant and that the director-general of mechanised forces endorsed the report
Irrelevant today.

> The additional crew and support vehicles needed for the tank must have made the users call it a white elephant. As the engine consumes more fuel, the retinue carrying fuel becomes a logistic burden. More problems arose as Arjun was declared an 'over-dimensional carriage,' protruding at least 6 cm beyond the permissible 3-cm limit on either side of transport wagons. This makes it difficult to transport the tank by rail. Army had to obtain special clearance from the railways for Arjun's transport.
Yawn.Double yawn.Triple Yawn.
The M1A1 when it came into service had the same problems.For the capabilities it offered,the US thought it wise to invest in the logistics.The benefits were pretty obvious in Op Desert Storm.

> The DRDO was to hand over 15 fully integrated pre-production series tanks in June 1996. But the army got them only this April. The recent summer trials exposed many *****s in the DRDO armour.
Its 2002 as we speak.
The Joint Action Plan was fromulated in 1996 following the ABOVE summer trials.Wherein DRDO and the ARmy sat down and came up with a list of parameters mentioned in my previous post.
The Army wouldnt accept the ARjun otherwise.
As Brig Singhs comments and other ones show,they were addressed.

Regards,
nitin

kamdev
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 13
Joined: 06 Jun 2002 11:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby kamdev » 29 Jun 2002 00:09

kamdev, you should and MUST cite the source

since ramana confirmed its *the week* article, i never bothered to come back on this, and i have already said its five year old as of the time n date.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests