Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

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

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Rudra » 29 Jun 2002 00:09

sawhney is barking up the wrong tree if he thinks
PRC and its pak-puppy are anywhere near a RMA.

but Pak-puppy "wins" just by maintaining a near
parity on defensive using high amts of manpower,
prepared lines and spending the bank on armour.

tanks, mortars, WLRs, arty these are used on a
daily basis on equal terms in the border.

our superiority in af and navy cannot be brought
to bear without a open war.

So they hold their ground and snarl at us,
encouraging the little fierce jihadi piglets
sheltering under their rump.

Nandai
BRFite
Posts: 175
Joined: 14 Jul 2000 11:31
Location: Sweden

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Nandai » 29 Jun 2002 00:18

Originally posted by kamdev:
Also the FCS was swedish, and was more than 15 years old if I remember.
Source please.

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

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby kamdev » 29 Jun 2002 00:31

Source please.

NANDAI;

Refer gole interveiw about 10 posts away.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54275
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby ramana » 29 Jun 2002 00:46

kamdev I note a lackadaiscal outlook on your part while participating in the Forum . You generally throw some facts and scoot or reply with what appears to be a superior attitude. I am putting it down to newness with the forum and mistaking it for soc.culture.indian free for all.

In future if you cite a source you should post a link or ref that can be tacked down. My posting the info about the article being from the Week shouldnt stop you from locating the source and posting it. A little bit of diligence is not too much when you are bringing in cotroversial opinions. Thanks for your co-operation, ramana

saint
BRFite
Posts: 109
Joined: 19 Jun 2002 11:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby saint » 29 Jun 2002 01:07

http://alfa.nic.in/CommitteeR/PAC/5th.htm#contents

.. According to the Ministry,the building of balance MK-II proto-types had to be abandoned both due to incomplete development of indigenous air cooled engine and for the reasons of Users preference for water cooled1400HP power pack.
..

Joint Action Plan for Production of MBT :...These were illustrated through the ten imperatives laid down by COAS to be met for productionisation vis-à-vis the present status. Eight out of ten imperatives are stated to have been met so far.Out of the remaining two imperatives, `Accuracy at battle ranges’has been substantially achieved and is stated to be acceptable to User.As regards ` All electric Power Traverse’, it is stated to be a new requirement and not linked with immediate production.This has to be pursued as a separate Project.

..26.On being-enquired further as to when a fully integrated PPS-15 was evaluated by Army, the Ministry stated that PPS-15 with all additional features was evaluated by the Army during 1997 and the same has now become the reference tank for manufacture. ..

.. The DRDO agreed to incorporate the User’s observations and suggestions as per the time bound Joint Action Plan.According to the Ministry, the PPS-15had been cleared by the users as the reference tank through the process of implementing Joint Action Plan points..

..The Cabinet Committee on security (CCS) has accorded sanction on 16 February 1999 for the production of two regiments of MBT Arjun over the next 5 to 6 years.

...
Secretary DRDO explained:

“ When youdesign and develop any tank, it is a continuous process…… Now15 tanks of Mark-I had gone through nearly a fewyearsof User trial.We believe and the people involved in production believe that once you start production, you have jig fixtures and also all the quality control system.Quality assurance will be progressive. So, what we are saying is that some of the improvements that we could not meet in prototype would be met when we start the production.That is what we have agreed .Naturally, any tank that is developed does not just like that go to the Army.The first production version goes to trial.So, it is the process.Through out the world, nobody makes the tank meeting all the specifications as per the requirements.I would like to tell you that. Nobody makes it.”

...

FE:
...
As per the estimatesmade in early 1987, the import content of MBT Arjun was 27 per cent and the expenditure in FE was 45per cent...
..“The MBT Arjun was to be a product by indigenous design.This objectivehas been fully achieved in that it is entirely system configured by Indian Engineers and Scientists.It is pertinent to state here that in a product of MBT Arjun’s complexity even when the different sub-systems are configured/designed in India, they will have to necessarily feature some imported components.The percentage of imported components are dictated by absence of manufacturing infrastructure and the scales of economy.In our experience, typically in a mechanical system, the import content will be of the order of min. 20% and in hydraulic electronic and Opto-electronic systems the import content will be of order of minimum 40%.This is due to infrastructure constraints in the country.The percentage of import content is therefore bound to be around 60% overall for the prototypes and for small volume production.” ..
The Ministry have assured that the pace of indigenisation will however be dictated by production volumes. The Ministry reportedly hope to reduce import content from little under 60% in prototype phase to under 45%with the manufacture of first 300 Tanks and under 30% with the manufacture of about 500 Tanks.

Need:
..The representative of the Ministry added that Vijayanta tanks are in the process of being phased out and a couple of years were needed before MBT Arjun could be made available..

Obsrvn:
..The Committee have been informed that building of MK-II prototypes had to be abandoned both due to incomplete development of indigenous engine and for the reasons of User’s preference for water cooled 1400 HP power pack.
..

..Evidently, delay and shortfall in production of prototypes and PPS tanks was indicative of inadequacies in the Project planning right from the initial stage of the execution of the Project.
..

..The Ministry contended that in a product of MBT Arjun’s complexity, despite best efforts for a good design in each of the sub-system, field tests brought out the need for improvement in certain areas, while validating the general design feature.However,the inability to configure the tank as per the satisfaction of the User despite dilution in the Original GSQR has a definite bearing on our indigenous research capability which, needless to reiterate, deserves to be given further fillip and stimulus. ..

..`Accuracy at battle ranges’ has been substantially achieved and is stated to be acceptable to User.As regards the imperative relating to “All electric Power Traverse”, the Ministry stated it to be a new requirement and was not linked with immediate production. According to them, this was to be pursued as a separate Project. Since Army kept on insisting that the tank fielded for them should not have any of the reservations expressed in the JAP, the Committee would like MoD to ensure that all such reservations of the Army are resolved.

..The Committee would like the Government to provide all essential wherewithal and stimulus to the concerned establishments and also to conduct constant and effective monitoring of production schedule so that adequate number of the state-of-the art modern MBTs, comparable to leading tanks of the World, become available to the country

The Committee would therefore like to be reassured that the tank finally fielded for Army, incorporates latest FCS.

As far as indigenisation of power pack is concerned, the Committee were given to understand that our ordnance factories are, equipped with, and, capable of manufacturing power pack and if volumes justify, license manufacture of power pack can be undertaken.

The Committee need hardly emphasise that the efficiency of any developmental Project can be judged only in terms of real and concrete achievement, which still remains to be fulfilled in the present case.It would not be without basis therefore to conclude that the delay in development and productionisation of MBT-Arjun was attributable, to a considerable extent, to deficient Project management and monitoring. Underlining the need to review the existing institutional mechanism for management and monitoring of the Project, the Committee recommend appointment of a high level Committee with the following objectives:
</font></li>[*]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> To closely review and supervise the progress made towards bulk production of MBT-Arjun.
</font></li>[*]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> To ensure that MBT-Arjun being productionised would be the most modern in the world as per the promise made by Government from time to time.

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

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby JCage » 29 Jun 2002 01:32

120 Millimetre MBT Arjun Armament System

http://www.drdo.com/pub/techfocus/feb02/arjun.htm

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 01:44

A little bit of diligence is not too much when you are bringing in cotroversial opinions.

It was a interveiw that got published, and it was not my personal opinion(the idea for posting it was to have teeth n tail of this subject)
BTW in my computer storage, there are many articles(of my interest)stored(sometimes without date and source for my refferal), so It becomes difficult to come up with everything to BR's satisfaction.

Also I am simultaneously posting on 3 different forums, so I am not all that concentrated alone here.

Hope you understand.

PS: next time should you find anything controversial, pls delete it or ask me to do it.

This way i wont feel that i am being harrased for nothing.

Muns
BRFite
Posts: 294
Joined: 02 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Muns » 29 Jun 2002 02:04

Some great info by all, but i have a few questions to nitpick.
As pointed out by Nitin the FCS is not swedish but dutch.
Was this six years ago?
As per BR webpages the FCS is the Bharat Electronics AL-4421 Mk.1B Digital FCS.

Is this the FCS with the excellent results that satisfied the army in 2002 and is it the same in the tank ex?

From the BR Monitor, Tank-ex retains the same quote : third generation director type integrated FCS.
What is the order for the 200 polish FCS for? The rhino upgrade? And cannot the bharat FCS be installed?

Again from BR webpages : Production variants will reportedly be fitted with a locally-designed engine developing 1500 hp.
Any news on the production of this?
Would anyone think that the wait for the wartisila is worth the wait for a 100hp?
How much Hp would a reported A/c take up and would not a slight deficiency in speed compensate for increased crew comfort especially in what could be extended time periods?

Now with the success of the Mk2 it would be advisable to have the 140 arjuns slated to begin construction next year, to be diverted to making Bhim as some reports have indicated and go in for production of the Mk2.
ok maybe more than a few questions, but i think it might clear up some info about whats goin on from the BR webpage.

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

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby JCage » 29 Jun 2002 02:14

Kamdev,

Let me attempt to clarify.Apologies for minor thread diversion but i feel this is necessary to avoid more misunderstandings or the like.

See you posted stuff like:

Raj Malhotra,unless you have seen this interveiw, you are groping in the dark.
HERE IS MORE MENTHOL:)
The first indicates a "put down"-esque kinda attitude whereas the latter is silly and one may infer that you're kinda happy/pleased at developmental problems etc..

On top of it,you dont mention the date/source.Which led to one member's confusion that these may have been the latest-circa 2002 trials.

We all dig up facts but it takes effort to mention the source.Avoids confusion and lends credibility.

Ramana just referred to the above.No harassing there.

Your opinions are indeed valuable and we appreciate your effort to share them with us.But just tone down the way you point them out as they appear provocative and appear to sidetrack the issue.I'll edit/delete my post pls do likewise and the thread can continue.Thanks for your cooperation.

Nitin

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54275
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby ramana » 29 Jun 2002 02:16

Originally posted by kamdev:

Also I am simultaneously posting on 3 different forums, so I am not all that concentrated alone here.

Hope you understand.

PS: next time should you find anything controversial, pls delete it or ask me to do it.

This way i wont feel that i am being harrased for nothing.[/QB]
I understand you are over extended and thank you for your participation.
As to the PS if I find anything controversial I will recommend you being banned. Hope you dont feel I am harassing you. Its just that there is some forum etiquette and we do want you to follow that. We dont want anything controversial period. ramana

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

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby JCage » 29 Jun 2002 02:24

Hi,

The BR page needs to be updated.Rakesh has informed the same.Will send him some revised stuff soon.

Anyway,

As per BR webpages the FCS is the Bharat Electronics AL-4421 Mk.1B Digital FCS.

Thats on the Vij's.Was probably intended for the Chetak too but then the Army GSQR's specified full fire on the move capability.Ie when both tanks -shooter and target-are moving.The BEL one mentioned above can do only moving targets from stationary tank.

Is this the FCS with the excellent results that satisfied the army in 2002 and is it the same in the tank ex?
No.

What is the order for the 200 polish FCS for? The rhino upgrade? And cannot the bharat FCS be installed?
Yes.The T72 upgrade.They plan "indigenous" FCS for ARjun in the future dependoing on economy of scale,volume etc.Lets see.Again,present one works well perhaps lic manufacture.

Again from BR webpages : Production variants will reportedly be fitted with a locally-designed engine developing 1500 hp.
Any news on the production of this?
That thing is ..a will o' the wisp.Yet to see any colloborators for a 1500 hp powerplant with India.

Regards,
nitin

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

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Rudra » 29 Jun 2002 02:32

the BR page about indian 1500hp engine sounds
inaccurate. that effort was abandoned long ago.

MTU (german govt really) has refused to supply
any defence arms - HDW subs, next gen engines.
the EPk1500 is 3 feet shorter and might have
enabled us to shorten one road wheel. I wonder if
they will honour the existing engine contract?

But not to fret, the wartsila looks like useful
tool to have for 1200-1600hp range. we must
establish contacts and start testing on a
prototype.

the picture ahead is cloudy. no country seems
to have clear plan on what comes next after this
generation? usa has given up its heavy low-profile
140mm armed tank. for sure they wont need all
the tanks they have now. might open a door for
us to grab a few 100 m1a2sep's down the line.

saint
BRFite
Posts: 109
Joined: 19 Jun 2002 11:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby saint » 29 Jun 2002 03:10

Rudra, are you saying we go for M1A1/2? or get just its Honeywell AGT gas turbine engine for arjun-m2.

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

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby kamdev » 29 Jun 2002 03:28

The first indicates a "put down"-esque kinda attitude whereas the latter is silly and one may infer that you're kinda happy/pleased at developmental problems etc..

I dont put down anyone.

It was just freindly gesture towards him, and i did not post happy face beside it.

If he or anyone thinks I did that purposefully, than i appologise to gentleman of the game, For i know, citizens of the BR come first, without whose active participation, BR could not have reached the glory, so I would not redicule anyone as such.

More menthol:) remark was cigarrete, hardly anything wrong, just a happy mood, because my stock went up.

> On top of it,you dont mention the date/source.Which led to one member's confusion that these may have been the latest-circa 2002 trials.

I said it was 5 years old, and since the other participant had confirmed the source, so i became lazy on this matter.

> Ramana just referred to the above.No harassing there.

this is not the first time he did it to me.

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

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby JCage » 29 Jun 2002 03:43

Fine.Thanks for the clarification.Pls Delete and edit your posts wrt this issue,i'll do likewise and we can continue with the Arjun and keep this thread focused.

Regards,
Nitin

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8008
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Gerard » 29 Jun 2002 04:02

Originally posted by Sai_NT:
Rudra, are you saying we go for M1A1/2? or get just its Honeywell AGT gas turbine engine for arjun-m2.
If gas turbines are to be used, hopefully the folk working on the Kaveri engine can provide an indigenous alternative.

saint
BRFite
Posts: 109
Joined: 19 Jun 2002 11:31

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby saint » 29 Jun 2002 04:52

QUOTE]If gas turbines are to be used, hopefully the folk working on the Kaveri engine can provide an indigenous alternative.[/QB][/QUOTE]

Why not buy a few of them, tech transfer and/or strip and learn how it is. That creates more job + western expertise. In addition, we involve kaveri folks to enhance on the knowledge gained.
I don't know if the capability issue or knowledge issue, so I leave it there.

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

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Rudra » 29 Jun 2002 05:21

if america is willing to sell ge404 and ge414
engines then there shouldnt be a political problem getting whatever engine the M1 uses.

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

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Raj Malhotra » 29 Jun 2002 12:25

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.)

[ I have added part 3 to my first post also]

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3421
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Aditya G » 29 Jun 2002 12:59

This is not specific to Arjun, but IMHO the whole Armed Forces and DRDO combine:

<B>(1) The Doctrine</B>

To most westerners all russian armaments seem shitty, but they look at it from their POV. It all depends on the doctrine. Look at all usual russian designs - they <u>ALL</u> have the common features highlighted below.

. designed to be deployed in large numbers
. simple in design and easy/cheap to maintain on the short run
. they are designed with the assumption that they will be replaced quickly
. reliable, atleast mechanically

eg: MiG-21, Ak-47, T-72, MiG-29 etc etc

Regards to tanks, they went in for a philosophy of getting large numbers of cheap tanks with lesser crew.

I think the reason why the Army is at odds with the Arjun is that they want T-72 like qualities from a NATO type tank - that is not going to happen - not because the Arjun is a poor design but because it is designed for some other purpose. It is like comparing Apples and oranges.

Arjun in my view is not a replacement for the T-72, the T-90 is for that. Arjun represents a new way of thinking and the Army must get to the grips with it. If it cannot or if they think that it is not good for it should explicitly decide for once and for all.

<B>(2) Top-Down Vs Bottoms-Up</B>

Just take a look at the list of weapons etc that we are developing/concepualized:

LCA & Kaveri
MCA
nag
arjun
akash
trishul
agni-1
agni-2
agni-3
GSLV
ALH
prithvi
insas
AVATAR
Kali

Except for the Prithvi and perhaps the INSAS - all designs (atleast on paper) incorporate technology that is advanced in any sense of the term. We always start off with great sounding designs but are simply unable to carry them thru because we simply do not have the experience.

The USA did not make the F-22 overnight, it benefitted from decades of established infrastructure, and most importantly established procedures that no one in the world can get by increasing budgets.

<u>Some great examples of the Bottom-Up approach:</u>

* ALH - we did no go for the engine ourselves right from the start, but now that the Dhruv has been inducted, one looks at it and I seriously feel proud. Now HAl is co-operating with france to make a new engine, and later plans to produce the LOH itself which has a very advanced tail.

* HJT-16 and now the HJT-36 - The new IJT has'nt happened yet, but somehow I feel it is much more achievable than the LCA. To bad we started it too late, otherwise the AJT issue would be non-existant.

* HT-2, HPT-32 and the Hansa

* uh, Truck to Tata Sierra to Safari to Indica to Midica, Miniva, Aria and what not

* Willys to Mahindra Commander to Armada to Bolero to Scorpio

....i hope you get the Idea

<u>Some not-so-great examples of the Top-Down approach: </u>

* Nag - Just take a look at the darn specs of the Nag and compare it with Chinese/Puki Bakhtar Shikan...both are ATGMs, Nag is amazing tech but it is the Pukes who got deploy it.

* Akash, Trishul - compare it with Chinese Anza and the same story is seen

* Arjun Vs Al-Khalid...

<U>Some examples of bottom-up approach outside</u>

* China - produces thousands of Russian copies and also exports them all over the world. Nothing to be really proud of, but <u>whatever be the colour of the cat it catches the mouse</u>

* Isreal - we are full of Russian arms and we have to go to these guys to upgrade them - why did'nt anybody think of doing it ourselves? Our approach is to test our first HUD on our first modern jet fighter....*sigh*

<B>(3) Commercial Vs State</B>

Look at USA, capitalism works like nothing else. USSR worked because of the stick - here nobody is accountable, pension is guaranteed, nobody gets fired and are paid measly sums even for good work. Not only DRDO/ADA - saala system hi kharaab hai.

Instead of creating ADA, we could have pumped money into HAL and asked them to develop the LCA......

Just take a look at the condition of the Ordanance factories, the Army buys 10000 jeeps or 100 jeeps, the same number of workers get the same amount of money. Where is the Infosys-style distribution of wealth???

Eg: HAL, tata, Mahindra etc..

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

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Raj Malhotra » 29 Jun 2002 15:06

Originally posted by ramana:
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.
Are you planning to eventually make this into an article?
Ramana thanx but basically I am summarizing info from BR itself.

Lot of criticism of DRDO projects may actually be procured with political blessing.

You are correct by USA, and that is why they are The superpower. Bush never wrote to Vajpayee to request him to ask Osama bin Laden to end terrorism.

As regards an article, let us see where this thread goes.

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

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Raj Malhotra » 29 Jun 2002 15:07

Originally posted by advitya:
Raj
Good summary. However, your talk of a vibrant private sector is fallacy, given the times that the projects were concieved. The process of involving the private sector has been incremental in line with its own capabilities.
Advitya thanx

The process of involving the private sector has been incremental in line with its own capabilities.

Incidentally Even in nations like USA, the military R&D is financed by the government in the private sector. Nobody is going to set up tank manufacturing progamme.

Private sector will only develop when GoI gives them funds. Also as regards engines Kirloskars, tatas and Leyland has been around since 1960s atleast.

The most important part of private sector that like import lobby they will be equally capable of bribing and feeding media. (I am not joking)

Also I am not saying actually that give projects to present companies, if the GoI wants they can privatize OFBs itself and hand over mangement to professionals.

Even today small bits and pieces are being given to private sector. One should divest the whole projects themselves.

But this discussion requires a whole new thread.

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

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Raj Malhotra » 29 Jun 2002 15:09

Originally posted by nitin:
Hi Raj,

More on Chetak to Arjun transition later.
Hi Nitin

I stand corrected on Gearbox. I though transmission and gearbox would include the everything between the engine to the wheels/tracks.

As regards German assurances I remember them but I am not so sure presently (guess work only)

I think you must give us more info on AC and armour of Karan over a period of time :D

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.


very interesting. Did not know about these.

Ramana has raised interesting points about the culpability of stupidity by some army gents and I think if more info about DRDO is in public then media will able to take these gents to task. DRDO fails miserably in media management even though they highlight what ever little info DRDO gives.

Lastly Arjun has to transition to new chassis. Whether it does immediately, after 50-60 tanks or 124 we donot know but I still feel that Karan is more contemporaneous.

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

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Raj Malhotra » 29 Jun 2002 15:12

Originally posted by Vick:

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.

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.

Vick
It is immaterial whether any ideas were borrowed from somewhere else. The basic thing is Arjun and Karan are good efforts and we should go with them.

Also the whole thing about a discussion is to learn more. and even ill informed comments are sometimes good as they provide an opportunity to correct misperceptions. but the thing is to have an open mind.

BRF i suppose is a step in the said direction

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

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Raj Malhotra » 29 Jun 2002 15:15

Originally posted by Saurabh Lele:
Hi Raj,

Like every true Indian I also understand your feelings.

Regards
Saurabh Lele
Saurabh let us see. I hope for the best and expect the worst.

Interesting & sad thing is that red tape eats more time than the weapon development itself.

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

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Raj Malhotra » 29 Jun 2002 15:16

Originally posted by Ashutosh S. Rajekar:
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.

Rajekar

That's why I cry for a tank with very powerful engines, and a powerful 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.

that is exactly what Arjun and Karan are all about, import lobby not withstanding.

Though I do have some reservations on the capacity of T-80 to do the needful

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

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Raj Malhotra » 29 Jun 2002 15:18

Originally posted by Rudra Singha:

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
Rudra

More than anything and even compared to Arjun the difficulty of GoI to finalise the 155mm cannons is more galling especially with cross border duels everyday.

I wonder why we cannot reverse engineer Bofors with all the drawing and all.

(though I have certain reservations about the capabilities of Pakistan T-80 but in absence of any hard info will desist from speculating atleast in this instance)

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

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Raj Malhotra » 29 Jun 2002 15:20

Originally posted by davidn:
Q for nitin
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
[/URL]
DavidN

Leo-2A6 added on slopes and top protection with additional armour and it would not be difficult to do on Arjun and Karan if army wants.

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

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Raj Malhotra » 29 Jun 2002 15:24

Originally posted by nitin:
However Pakistan evaluated the M1A1 Abrams in desert conditions a few years thence.This apparently set AHQ thinking.
Nitin
No dispute with your facts. I have dealt with the issue of Abrams, though by 1989 Abrams were not an immediate possibility and T-90 was not made. The difficulty was in this era (early 1980s) the GSQRs were revised to an extent that Arjun instead of complementing T-72 was intended to defeat Abrams which was ridiculous. One can develop this sort of capacity in time not by elevating the GSQRs on piece of paper. (I still do not think Arjun can take on new M1s with their DU armour, DU sabots and 70 tons weight.)

That is why I still feel that in absense of cogent military doctrine the GSQRs are ridiculus

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

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Raj Malhotra » 29 Jun 2002 15:27

Originally posted by VinayJ:
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.
Vinay thanx and also

Tere moihn mein ghee shakkar. In any case economy of scale cannot be developed without ordering a couple of thousand indigenous tanks. We have around 4000 tanks and must replace all of them only with indigenous efforts.

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

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Raj Malhotra » 29 Jun 2002 15:31

Kamdev
I am aware of both Gole and CAG reports and they have been discussed in detail on BRF. Though Nitin will do well to make a standard format for his replies on Arjun so that he does not have to retype them everytime :D :D

Also you must note that there were slew of reports criticisng Arjun when there was a feeling that some imports may be scrapped. Now with the defence budget going up and all imports like T-90, upgrade of T-72 and ARV going ahead, import lobby is complacent.

When the issue of next batch of T-90 arise after 320 tanks then expect another firing range exercise on Arjun and Karan.

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

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Raj Malhotra » 29 Jun 2002 15:33

Sai

PAC reports is corollary to two cag reports of 1989 and 1998. The art is to read the facts on this report while ignoring the opinions. Remember you know more due to your interest about defence issues compared to accountants.

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

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Raj Malhotra » 29 Jun 2002 15:34

Originally posted by nitin:
[b]120 Millimetre MBT Arjun Armament System

http://www.drdo.com/pub/techfocus/feb02/arjun.htm

Regards,
Nitin[/b]
Nitin
Did paul-andrew-dan and gang update their analysis of Arjun with these figures?

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

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Raj Malhotra » 29 Jun 2002 15:36

Originally posted by Praneet_N:
Some great info by all, but i have a few questions to nitpick.
Praneet
BR pages are slightly outdated. Though there is plan afoot to ban Nitin till he helps in updating them.

Read cag 1998 and PAC reports for specific info. Though they are out by 5 years and much water has flown under the bridge since.

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

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Raj Malhotra » 29 Jun 2002 15:38

Originally posted by Gerard:
[If gas turbines are to be used, hopefully the folk working on the Kaveri engine can provide an indigenous alternative.
Rudra-Sai-Gerad

Gas turbine is not considered good for tank engines as their fuel consumption can be very high (almost 2-3 times). MTU-883 is practically the only practical engine from western stables but is very costly and may be unavailable.

Wartsila is combine of turbine and usual engines and is yet a unknown quantity to the extent whether Indians are interested in it or not.

Though I believe with karna we will get out us out of the requirement of import of western engines.

Nandai
BRFite
Posts: 175
Joined: 14 Jul 2000 11:31
Location: Sweden

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Nandai » 29 Jun 2002 21:54

One thing talking against the Hyperbar engine is that the so far only export order for the LeClerc, the UAE, choose to fit their LeClerc with the German "Europack" engine, instead of the french Hyperbar.

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 » 29 Jun 2002 22:21

Heck, I wish the defence planners would read BRF :D Maybe BR should start petitioning the PMO/MOD for ideas members think are woth India's while :D

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

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby kamdev » 29 Jun 2002 23:02

When the issue of next batch of T-90 arise after 320 tanks then expect another firing range exercise on Arjun and Karan.

My take is that, after T-90's advent, our armed forces would be happy with bhim avatar, and produce T-90 locally.

Raj malhotra, there was not a iota of substance in what is highlited to be a derogatory remarks on you, from me.

However if you failed to transform the contents in to a jestfull remarks in a implied sense, then sir ji *apka juta mera sar*

I could not humiliate myself more than this.

I beleive in a cordial atmosphere.

thankx for understanding.

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

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby JCage » 29 Jun 2002 23:26

Kamdev,
Cool down bhai.Raj's just pointing obliquely to import lobby,not you.

Raj;I am aware of both Gole and CAG reports and they have been discussed in detail on BRF. Though Nitin will do well to make a standard format for his replies on Arjun so that he does not have to retype them everytime
:rotfl: ,we gotta realise that there were some in the IA and the MoD with the patience and foresight to continue with the program.This despite the tortuous technical problems that have plagued the Arjun and were resolved.The army being the enduser has to have its way.They take it into battle after all.But they cant cancel the project and quit...the easy way out.Thats the restraining influence of the r and d establishment,swadeshi lobby etc.So the system works.Problem is that all this convolution contributed to delaying the project ad infinitum.

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

Regards,
Nitin

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

Re: Arjun – To be or not to be (?)

Postby Raj Malhotra » 30 Jun 2002 00:19

Re kamdev

As Nitin pointed out that the reference was not to you but to pimps for import lobby with south Delhi mansions.

i could not reply earlier as their is 5 hours power cut in delhi.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests