Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

niran
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5426
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 16:01

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby niran » 05 Feb 2010 10:34

AFAIR Arjun first prototype was in 1984 and production was ordered in 96
T90 first prototype was in January 1988 with trials ending around 1991.
EDIT.
Last edited by Rahul M on 05 Feb 2010 14:11, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: what kind of comments are these ? not acceptable at all.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17050
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 05 Feb 2010 11:51

berwal sahab, as I said earlier, while the initial 310 order can be understood, the arjun was already up and running when the additional 1300 order was given ? it was well understood even at that point that
> it had no major design flaws (unlike the T-90)
> it was a much superior system to the T-90
> it was very close to ironing out its teething problems

it does look like that IA was in an unseemly hurry to push through the bloated T-90 deal before the arjun completed its trials, when another 6months to a year would have made it too difficult for anyone to push for the T-90 ?

Rajput wrote:I'm still not understanding your point. If SR approved of the T-90s, then why is he supporting the Arjun now?

assuming he approved the acquisition for 310 T-90 (I don't know. berwal sahab should know better) it was meant to be a stop-gap acquisition till the arjun was acquired. the T-90 was (rightly) considered just an upgraded version of the T-72 and this deal was effectively little more than getting a souped-up T-72. the name change from T-72 to T-90 was done to get rid of the bad press surrounding the notorious record of 'death-trap' T-72 in GW1.

the T-90 is nothing more than an early 70's T-72 with a few modern gizmos slapped here and there as an afterthought. the basic design of the T-72/T-90 itself is unsound, no amount of stuffing costly electronics (as IA seems to be doing) is going to change that.
even russia understands that. acquisition in russian armed forces is nothing but 'making the best of a bad situation' since they don't have any better design (now or in the near future) and they can hardly ask the americans to sell a few hundred abrams. :wink:
they are in a bind, so they inducted the T-90 as a stop-gap measure till their next gen tank comes into service at the end of this decade. we had a better system, yet we spurned it in favour of a costlier inferior system. :roll:
if it was restricted to the 310 number it would have been ok, but to choose the T-90 as our current gen MBT as the expense of the arjun is one of the most ill-thought out decisions ever taken by the army.
may be that explains the reluctance on the army top brass' part to execute 'cold start' as well. the T-90 clearly does not offer any advantage over the pakistani armoured forces. and if MANPATGMs are involved the picture will only get uglier.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 05 Feb 2010 13:01

The average time for development of any equipment is taken to be 10 years.

Before that there has to be the perception of the geopolitical environment and the threat scenario at least 20 years beyond since after development, counting the production time for the requisite number and life of the equipment, it has to remain operationally viable and capable of being valid for the changed operational scenario.

Expensive equipment cannot be discarded at the end of its operational life and instead are upgraded and refurbished with the latest material available and technology so that such equipment remain valid as far as the operation scenario of that time. Hence, one sees T 72 and MiG 21 on the inventory, though upgraded to meet the operational requirement. Even the US and Russia cannot shed equipment and instead goes in for upgrades even if they change the nomenclature for the models upgraded. I mentioned earlier of the same with some quotes from the magazine Purple Beret.

There is no denying that there is a continuous upgrading of the threat perception every year for the next 20 years and new equipment visualised, but more or less without exorbitant costs. Even the US had to abandon “ROADBLOCK” PROGRAMS such as the Joint Strike Fighter, CVX aircraft carrier, and Crusader howitzer to fit its national perceptions vs budget constraints and national aim.

Brig Richard E Simpkins, a leading mechanised warfare exponent, in his book Race to the Swift has mentioned '' Time and time again, radical change in equipment, doctrine or force structure is concerned, one finds a gestation period of between 30 to 50 years....".

In India, apart from Army short-sightedness, it would be prudent to add that the bureaucratic delays and political interference, apart from DRDO overestimating themselves (Ramarao Report) are also responsible.

Therefore, to believe that everything is scam ridden or serving self interest by Generals would be misplaced.

I have no better suggestions.

Any better suggestions?

MiG21 is said to be a flying coffin! Yet, there is bumbling over the choice of replacement. How many squadrons? What is the costs? How much does it bite into the Defence Budget and how does it affect the 'modernisation' we are so keen on and commenting? How much does it affect the aam admi budget? What are the political consequences on the aam admi?

I am sure the Armed Forces, bureaucrats and politicians are not that crass to be bereft of the ideas we all express here. One must see all the angles. Some are not quite straight as one want them to be, but not all!

We still continue. Therefore, should we not take it that there are honest people too?

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17050
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 05 Feb 2010 13:05

Marten wrote:Gurulog, one noob question. If the Leo2 and Arjun share a similar powerplant and if the Arjun carries more fuel and weighs less as well, why does Wiki show the range as much less?

IIRC the MTU powerpack gives optimum performance in european conditions. it suffers significant lowering of efficiency in ours.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 05 Feb 2010 13:16

Rahul M wrote:
Marten wrote:Gurulog, one noob question. If the Leo2 and Arjun share a similar powerplant and if the Arjun carries more fuel and weighs less as well, why does Wiki show the range as much less?

IIRC the MTU powerpack gives optimum performance in european conditions. it suffers significant lowering of efficiency in ours.


Wonder how we accepted it .

And the sharp BRF watchers are not livid over it as they are of every other thing!

merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby merlin » 05 Feb 2010 14:00

ajay pratap wrote:AFAIR Arjun first prototype was in 1984 and production was ordered in 96
T90 first prototype was in January 1988 with trials ending around 1991.
please do the maths yourself, lest your brain atrophyies with neglect.


When your arguments don't have a leg to stand upon, gratuitous insults are thrown in :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

T90 was first ordered in 2001. At that time Arjun was definitely not vapourware, EDIT.

The next batch of T90 was ordered in 2006. Perhaps the Arjun was vapourware at that time as well?
Last edited by Rahul M on 05 Feb 2010 14:22, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: no friendly fire please.

aditp
BRFite
Posts: 447
Joined: 15 Jul 2008 07:25
Location: Autoland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby aditp » 05 Feb 2010 14:05

Rahul M wrote:
Marten wrote:Gurulog, one noob question. If the Leo2 and Arjun share a similar powerplant and if the Arjun carries more fuel and weighs less as well, why does Wiki show the range as much less?

IIRC the MTU powerpack gives optimum performance in european conditions. it suffers significant lowering of efficiency in ours.
RayC wrote:Wonder how we accepted it .

And the sharp BRF watchers are not livid over it as they are of every other thing!
Marten wrote:Gurulog, one noob question. If the Leo2 and Arjun share a similar powerplant and if the Arjun carries more fuel and weighs less as well, why does Wiki show the range as much less?


The Arjun Tank possibly shares the same / similar chassis architecture as the Leo 2 since Krauss Maffei & Wegman - contractors for Leo 2 provided design consultancy for the Arjun. Hence its close resemblance to the Leo 2 initial versions.

However, when it comes to the engine, the Arjun has to make do with the MTU838Ka501 engine @ 1400bhp, while the Leo 2 uses the MTU883 unit, the 883 being 2 decades more modern than the 838Ka-501 technology. In the days of the cold war, 883 and its more recent predecessors were off bounds for non NATO countries. Hence we had to settle for the Leo 1 engine - the MTU838Ka501. Old tech = more fuel consumption.

All engines suffer from power variations depending upon ambient pressure and temperature. There is nothing much that can be done about it. All engines are designed to limit this loss / gain to +/- 10% at the extremities. While the Arjun's power loss is well publicised, it is a given that the Tin series would also suffer from similar losses, although this is never advertised. Russia has always won its wars in winters. Its weapons are designed to operate in the extremes of Russian winter. There is no evidence to support that the Russians actually modified their tank engines for the 60 degree Thar heat, beyond some minor fuel pump / injector calibration to account for poorer quality of Indian diesel.

In any case, DRDO is working on an indigenous engine. Last heard it had achieved 1000bhp sustained output, with 500 more to go on the test bench. Lets see what comes of it.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17050
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 05 Feb 2010 14:10

RayC wrote:
Rahul M wrote:IIRC the MTU powerpack gives optimum performance in european conditions. it suffers significant lowering of efficiency in ours.


Wonder how we accepted it .

And the sharp BRF watchers are not livid over it as they are of every other thing!

because that doesn't affect the overall performance of the tank ?

this article should be enlightening. http://www.ipcs.org/pdf_file/issue/1796 ... ort-23.pdf esp, page 2. the derated powerpack doesn't prevent the arjun from having a higher top-speed than the army's 'chosen' T-90. neither does the 'heavyweight' prevent it from having a lower ground pressure.
even the T-90's overall range will come down significantly from its brochure figure when deployed in similar conditions to the arjun.

Thank you Rahul. So this should be perfectly fine since any equivalent enemy units would also face similar degradation.

precisely. including the T-90, which is made for near-artic conditions. a point the T-90 brigade studiously ignores in all discussions. :wink:
PS: Could this be the reason T99KM will purportedly carry a 2100hp powerplant?
I'm not sure if it is meant to be an actual deployable weapon project or not but it's quoted weight of 75 t makes a higher power engine necessary. most of china enjoys a cooler climate than ours where weather related degradation will not be an issue. but reserve power will be required for any tank to operate with necessary mobility in a high altitude area, like the tibetan plateau.
a better metric to judge mobility is the hp/tonne figure which is 24 hp/tonne and 21.5hp/tonne for the arjun and T-90 respectively.
--------------

a bit of clarification on the powerpack issue. when the arjun was trialled in thar, it was found that at full power, the MTU powerpack overheats. the MTU engineers had created a product that was fine for their climate, where the heat was easily dissipated by cooler air but it was a problem in the deserts of India where overheating started to affect the other instruments of the tank. the solution was to deliberately derate the engine so that it produced less heat (and also less power). these problems won't be there if the arjun is deployed in cooler climes.
another thing we need to remember is that the figures for arjun are from its performances in the thar summer with the soft sand and all, which itself is a mobility killer, IOW one of the harshest conditions known for a MBT , while those for T-90 and other european tanks are from the temperate climes on the european planes, much more suitable environment for tanks to operate in.
as as aside, the british challenger tanks faced similar problems when deployed in an exercise in the ME and we all know how the T-90 fared in rajasthan ! :wink:

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17050
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 05 Feb 2010 14:13

adit, you are correct. both those reasons are factors.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 05 Feb 2010 14:21

Rahul M, et al; GoI has time and again mentioned that they would "like" a tank fleet of 50:50 between T 90 and Arjun if possible.

So T 90 vs Arjun is entirely misplaced.

The thing to watch out for w.r.t. strange obsessions is if T 72s replacement does not happen with Arjun's/Mk II (prob) but with yet another tank.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17050
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 05 Feb 2010 14:33

sanku ji, a 70's era flawed design like T-90 has no place on the modern battlefield, unless you believe in stuff like sacrificing soldiers a la human waves.

secondly, IA seems to be in no mood to order even 500 arjuns, forget 50% which would be around 2000. they are buying 1600+ T-90 and upgrading 2000 odd T-72, where is the place for the arjun ?

So T 90 vs Arjun is entirely misplaced.
not at all. why should IA buy a tank that is

> inferior to arjun in offensive capability
> inferior to arjun in crew protection. it is little more than a death-trap now at the start of its service, heaven knows what it will become even ten years from now when more modern ATGMs will appear. death on wheels perhaps.
> and costs more than arjun.

what justification can be made for its induction ?

D Roy
BRFite
Posts: 1176
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 17:28

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby D Roy » 05 Feb 2010 14:36

It is well known that the Pakis are looking at asymmetric means to counter "cold Start".

They want to blunt the IBGs without committing ARN/ARS. They think that UAVs equipped with a range of lightweight missiles ( they may be looking at everything from the hellfire to the new LMM kind of missile) is ideal for such a purpose. they are also loading up on Cobra gunships as much as they can.

Now given that we want the IBGs to be an organic and seamless entity, it is best that they are armed with platforms that have BMS and network capability. it is also eminently desirable that these IBGs consist of organic armour that can withstand the irregular/regular ATGM and maybe IED threat. network centric enabled tanks will be able to co-ordinate with our own gunships and UAVs which can be used in an air to air role and for suppressing enemy infantry.


To my mind the Arjun Tank fits the bill perfectly. Not to mention that it is faster than the T-series, has power derating and has lower ground pressure.

it is also now armed with a good anti-tank/ anti low flying object missile. Its indigenously developed Kanchan armour has reportedly withstood T-72 rounds at point blank range. besides a special round that can take out low flying objects can also be developed.

Instead the IA has till now 'tanked' up on an evolutionary T-72 in the name of everything from strategic mobility to yada yada and is probably banking on BMPTs converted from T-72 hulls to suppress shoulder fired anti-tank threats.

Cold start will remain cold unless the IA wakes up and arms itself with the Arjun and the LCH not to mention more UAVs and dedicated satellites.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 05 Feb 2010 14:59

well not having a large no of modern IFV in Abhay mould stops cold start cold. imported maal like CV90 too expensive. only option was Abhay but IA wasnt even interested in looking...so it remained a TD.

D Roy
BRFite
Posts: 1176
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 17:28

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby D Roy » 05 Feb 2010 15:05

yep. the IBG should consist of an IFV that can atleast resist a 23 mm round and can keep up with the Arjun.

However for troop transport the IA may be looking at the Tarmour APC kind of setup. I think we will probably see a lot of these T-55 conversions.

krishnan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7342
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Location: 13° 04' N , 80° 17' E

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby krishnan » 05 Feb 2010 15:20

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2010/02/ ... ur-of.html

To bypass his opposition, the MoD and the army reached an understanding with Rosvoorouzhenie, Russia’s arms export agency. The T-90 would be priced only marginally higher than the T-72 by removing key T-90 systems; India would procure those through supplementary contracts after the T-90 entered service. Excluded from India’s T-90s was the Shtora active protection system, which protects the T-90 from incoming enemy missiles. This was done knowing well that Pakistan’s anti-tank defences are based heavily on missiles.

Other important systems were also pared. The MoD opted to buy reduced numbers of the INVAR missile, which the T-90 fires. Maintenance vehicles, which are vital to keep the T-90s running, were not included in the contract. All this allowed the government to declare before Parliament that the Russian T-90s cost just Rs 11 crore, while the assembled-in-India T-90s were Rs 12 crore apiece.

The MoD did not mention that these prices would rise when the supplementary contracts were negotiated. Nor did it reveal that India’s pared-down T-90s barely matched the performance of the Pakistan Army’s recently acquired T-80 UD tank, which India had cited as the threat that demanded the T-90.

rajatmisra
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 59
Joined: 05 Feb 2010 10:16

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rajatmisra » 05 Feb 2010 16:06

As a civilian postin for the first time, apologies if it sounds simplistic. There seem to be a whole lot of issues surrounding T90 Vs Arjun, and the Army has to not only be absolutely transparent and also be seen to be transaprent. Cilvilians really respect the institution of armed forces, and certainly the current debate has acuired quite a nasty turn. The "uninformed" persons like me will certainly forgive the IA if it chooses an indigenous tank, even if it is slightly inferior (though that may not be the case of Arjun), for obvious reasons.
To take a cue from the power sector, in view of increasing trends of imported chinese equipment, the government, the domestic lenders are all in favour of supporting domestic equipment manufacturers like BHEL, L&T, Thermax etc, even if their equipment are priced higher. Something like supercritical boilers is absolutely new to them, but we have full faith in our domestic firms to be able to address any shortcomings. Nobody can be expected to deliver a perfect equipment from the first delivery. That is how the power sector has evolved in India - with BHEL supplying world class equipment at cheapest prices over the years, through progressive indigenization and constant research and upgradataion.
The Generals should realise that the common man respects them far more than bureaucrats and politicians do. It is important for them to retain this trust.

d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby d_berwal » 05 Feb 2010 17:01

Rahul M wrote:berwal sahab, as I said earlier, while the initial 310 order can be understood, the arjun was already up and running when the additional 1300 order was given ? it was well understood even at that point that
> it had no major design flaws (unlike the T-90)
> it was a much superior system to the T-90
> it was very close to ironing out its teething problems

it does look like that IA was in an unseemly hurry to push through the bloated T-90 deal before the arjun completed its trials, when another 6months to a year would have made it too difficult for anyone to push for the T-90 ?

Rajput wrote:I'm still not understanding your point. If SR approved of the T-90s, then why is he supporting the Arjun now?


Rahul Sirrr,

Look @ objectively

10th plan = 97-02 (Requirement for New MBT)
Status of ARJUN @ 10th plan - PPS were no way near mark.... lots of problems

11th plan = 02 - 07(Requirement for 124 ARJUNS)
Status of ARJUN - Major problems resolved. new FCS, NEW TI, etc Only by the end of 11th Plan. Requirement not met.

12th Plan = 07-12(Requirement for 124 ARJUNS Carried forward production @ 20 -30 per year)
Status First 15 when handed over to 43rd AR, not accepted by the Collection party of 43rd AR as they did not meet the agreed QR.

Delay of 1 yr to meet the QR

43AR accept the ARJUN, Induction starts, AS of 5/02/2010 43AR equiped with ARJUN, 75AR will collect its first 15 tanks in comming 1-2 months, likely by 2011 jan/ feb all tanks handed over to 75AR.

13 Plan 2012-2017
- Requirements unknown

Only RM can push the cause of ARJUN by granting required funds.

From already allocated resourses @ 12th plan no one in IA can change the plan mid way. Only a politician can do it.


T-90 Story

10th Plan 97-02
Troop from 2 regts completed training in russia by 99, deal got delayed due to kargil, Actual induction starts in 2001-02

11th Plan 02-07
T-90 was purchased in FMS route in 11th plan 1000 T-90 Lic Production contract signed.
this 1000 i believe is broken down and AVDHI has imported SKD's etc from russia in 2 other seprate contracts. (Total 1310 T-90 planned)
T-90 was bough in large number because it demonstrated that it fits intop the role and meets the objective of Armoured Formations as per "CS" doctrine, the sebsequent exersises after op-prakram validated the results.

i believe the 13th plan will have more funds for ARJUN if ARJUN validated it role in the subsequent exersises that will take place in comming year and next year.

we all can have the conspiracy theories, based on our emotions.

Had DRDO/AVDHI delivered ARJUN 124 no in 11 Plan, we would have had more in 12th plan. But the missed the bus, so dont scapegoat IA for that.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby vina » 05 Feb 2010 17:04

RayC wrote:
Rahul M wrote: ... From Marten.. Gurulog, one noob question. If the Leo2 and Arjun share a similar powerplant and if the Arjun carries more fuel and weighs less as well, why does Wiki show the range as much less?
IIRC the MTU powerpack gives optimum performance in european conditions. it suffers significant lowering of efficiency in ours.


Wonder how we accepted it .

And the sharp BRF watchers are not livid over it as they are of every other thing!


Zimble onree.. The Leo-2 has the next gen engines after the ones the Arjun got . The newer /latest common rail based engines are much smaller than the older engines. The space "liberated" must have been used to increase the fuel tank size.

So more fuel + more efficient engine gives greater range?. Simple na ?.

But ahh.. RayC. Unfortunate law of thermodynamics only. Every thermal engine will derate as ambient temperature rises. Even the Tin Can -90s from the beloved Rodina , will see loss of power.

So what is important is the power reserve in the engines. Now lets see. TinCan90 has a 1000 hp engine, Arjun Dabba has 1400 hp. So if the engines derate, since the Arjun Dabba had more power to begin with, it can live with a loss of power (say 15%) far better than TinCan 90 which had much less power to begin with. A 15 to 20% derating of the TinCan 90's engine will bring it down smack bang back in to TinCan 72 (the original enchilada's terriotory). Simple na ?

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 05 Feb 2010 17:46

but to be fair the Arjun is heavier than T90 by around 6 tons.

it seems as in some rockets & missiles, the Ukraine inherited the better
diesel engine technology bureau than Russia-belarus. the T80U was also
ukraine produced and designed and meant to be the 'quality' tank as opposed
to the larger numbers of T72 in USSR inventory.

the PRC moved in quickly after the fall of USSR to get their hooks deeply
into the ukrainian armaments and scientific places.
Last edited by Singha on 05 Feb 2010 17:49, edited 1 time in total.

D Roy
BRFite
Posts: 1176
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 17:28

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby D Roy » 05 Feb 2010 17:48

worse, the burrito ( MTU) was up for grabs not so long ago.

but no hombre from India's yinudstrial stables stood up at the plate to devour a burrito that may have been offered at the price of a tortilla.

I thought making automotive history was fun. You just need to sauce it up.

let us say both lose 20 per cent of their power in the desert heat.

now let us say the weight of T-90 is x and therefore Arjun is x+6. their HP's are 1000 and 1400 respectively.

now for equality we must have

1120/ x+6 = 800/ x


which gives us x=15.

for all x greater than 15 as is the case. , the Arjun wins in the hp/tonne game.

and no matter how hard the T-series try not to be "heavy tanks",

they will never be sweet sixteen again.
Last edited by D Roy on 05 Feb 2010 18:07, edited 2 times in total.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17050
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 05 Feb 2010 18:03

Singha wrote:but to be fair the Arjun is heavier than T90 by around 6 tons.
........

arjun -- 24 hp/tonne
T-90 -- 21.5hp/tonne

end of discussion ! :wink:
---------------------------

berwal sahab, all that would have been understandable if IA bought something like leo or abrams or even chally-2, not obsolete junk like T-90.

secondly, at the pains of repeating myself, even if the initial 310 T-90 acquisition can be justified as upgradation of the T-72 fleet (which is the best the T-90 can hope to be) there is neither rhyme nor reason why it was bought as our future MBT.

it would make as much sense if the IAF decided to buy new built 2nd generation mig-21's with some bells and whistles (named mig-2001 say) as its future fighter and started buying it by the hundreds.

d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby d_berwal » 05 Feb 2010 18:19

Rahul M wrote:
Singha wrote:but to be fair the Arjun is heavier than T90 by around 6 tons.
........

arjun -- 24 hp/tonne
T-90 -- 21.5hp/tonne

end of discussion ! :wink:
---------------------------

berwal sahab, all that would have been understandable if IA bought something like leo or abrams or even chally-2, not obsolete junk like T-90.

secondly, at the pains of repeating myself, even if the initial 310 T-90 acquisition can be justified as upgradation of the T-72 fleet (which is the best the T-90 can hope to be) there is neither rhyme nor reason why it was bought as our future MBT.

it would make as much sense if the IAF decided to buy new built 2nd generation mig-21's with some bells and whistles (named mig-2001 say) as its future fighter and started buying it by the hundreds.



Sir,

your anology of Aircraft and MBT does not work here.

T-72 and T90 are two different MBT.

- Difference
-- New Turret Assembly
-- New Improved chasis
-- New GUN
-- New Engine

One can upgrade T-72 to T-90 kind of level.
-- T-90 Turret cannot be installed on T-72 (not dran and drop)
-- Chasis cannot be upgraded.

T-90 is a new tank.

Upgrading the T-72
-- One can install new engine
-- Can modiffy the turret and use K-5 layout and TI sight and Optronics (but not same as all welded turret and dimentions of T-90)
thats all :)

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 05 Feb 2010 19:04

the light and fast soviet style MBTs make sense when one has
- completely mech 'motor rifle divisions' to run with these hares
- a LOT of these t72ish tanks
- airborne brigades and divisions to leapfrog and attack enemy's rear
- a VAST holding of tube artillery and rockets to pummel the enemy to
create gaps
- a logistical train to keep resupplying successful penetrations out to 1000km
over 2 weeks.

we have never invested the MASSIVE amt of $$ needed to make this
soviet concept work and never will. the soviet tank divisions were generally
not to engage in stand up fights but rely on artillery and even tactical
nukes to smash concentrations of enemy tanks and keep moving.

we have the front end of the fork but not the back. when we were friendless and penniless it made sense to get T72 and pay in rupees,
tea, cotton and rice but not anymore.

with limited goals of territorial penetration neither we can move further
if we got the chance, nor we have much room to manouver and disappear
in the enemy's rear. the pakis have small zones to find out us hanging out.

in this scenario, a heavier and better protected tank (firepower + armour > mobility) in the model of a Chally2 or Merkava is probably most cost effective , able to advance to some extent and then hold off all comers
until the political objectives are attained and war is over.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9869
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Yagnasri » 05 Feb 2010 19:32

I think Sinhaji put forward best case here for a heavy MBT like Arjun. Further what is the deapth of Pak ??? One thrust of say 5okm should be a heavy invasion for them. We alway say that have a heavy defence advantage (just like us) with ditch and bund and canals in Punjab. Don't we need a Heavy MBT to take lot of punishment and yet survive and move forward ?

My thoughts Any other ideas by Guruji???

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 05 Feb 2010 19:40

the distance to indus from IB varies from around 150km in RYK-sukkur to maybe 250km in other parts. there are lots of DCB and deep canals to deter/slow down fwd and lateral movements.

cold start I believe aims for "shallow" occupations of around 70km depth only.

iirc in one desert exercise, a IA divisional task force covered 70km in 3 days.

so maybe 3-5 days of all out intensive offensive followed by political pressure is what we think of under this doctrine.

the pakis are not going to be sitting idle but launching thrusts of their
own and attempting to pincer/beat back any incursions we make. they are going to be throwing everything at the problem because after 1 week , sher khan and everyone else is going to be beating at our door demanding a ceasefire.

we do not have the tactical airpower and missile artillery to devaste the pakistani armour and economy in one weeks time while neutralizing the
TSPAF. sher khan is taking timely steps to see that this does not happen,
whether by supplying f-solah, jdams, hawkeyes or lockheed radars. a
position of overwhelming superiority for the IAF is the one thing that
will encourse Delhi to lash out and uncage the hounds after some atrocity.
as yet, sher khan's boneyard and subsidies is longer than our wallet....it will change in a decade or two.

so the IBGs tasked with CS will have to hunker down and face down around 1 weeks worth of paki attacks from any direction without the luxury of movement to minimize risk and keep enemy off balance. a deeper thrust for the indus will cross the nuclear redline if the pakis sense their juggler vein - the rail and road highways on both banks are under severe threat.

having gained territory quickly, neither can the IBGs turn 180' and march
back else there was no point in starting it and all bargaining chips to
apply political pressure would be lost. they have to stay within TSP until
a ceasefire is worked out.

in that scenario - would you prefer a merkava4 or t90?

remember that if we start fast the initial opposition would be infantry
and maybe a indep mech brigade or two which can be scythed through,
but once our positions are fixed the pakis might unleash heavy ARN / ARS
armoured forces on the IBGs.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 05 Feb 2010 19:52

Merkava 4 :mrgreen:

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 05 Feb 2010 19:54

hence imho we need some seriously heavier armour for the Pak front, while
the T90/T72upg types should be reorged into indep brigade task forces and
deployed heavily in ladakh and north sikkim for a breakout move into the
flat areas of the tibetan plateau. they have to be trained, stocked and resupplied on a basis for high altitude warfare the way IA infantry is done.
the mountain divisions have to gain the zoo of 4x4 SUVs and trucks needed
to keep up with the armour (huffy/tuffy/stallion/axe etc).

and we need some serious airmobile power - like a couple of airborne divisions with attendant heli and airlift assets to deliver decisive 'shock blows' in the rear - "vitebsk division" style :mrgreen: :twisted: not a mere irritating pinprick like market garden or what our para regiment can do but a large move able to change the course of a short war.

the soviet union had a astonishing 8 airborne divs and 15 airborne bdges
and still retains 4 per wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Airborne_Troops

I would make a strong bet the cost of the visible teeth arjun/t90/xyz is
barely 20% of the whole "system" needed to support the bi-front mission
objectives, mountain strike div logistics, helis/airlift, training etc etc.

raw power isnt cheap. those who arent willing to pay the price shouldnt complain.

the exposure to technology of indian soldiery coming into the force is
less than that of a sher khan or swedish recruit. we need to come up with
new UI Paradigms to bridge the gap and permit all to use bleeding edge
gear. this where the LOCAL STUFF outscores phoren stuff by a mile. its
far easier, cheaper (and nakhra proof) to get BEL or LRDE to design a new UI or simulator than thales or raytheon.

d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby d_berwal » 05 Feb 2010 20:08

Singha wrote:the distance to indus from IB varies from around 150km in RYK-sukkur to maybe 250km in other parts. there are lots of DCB and deep canals to deter/slow down fwd and lateral movements.

cold start I believe aims for "shallow" occupations of around 70km depth only.

iirc in one desert exercise, a IA divisional task force covered 70km in 3 days.

so maybe 3-5 days of all out intensive offensive followed by political pressure is what we think of under this doctrine.


In one of the exersises the task force did cover 100+ km in 2 days flat, the exersise ended almost 18hrs before the planned time.. as heard from chai wala... with simulated live firing (smokeee shells) covering simulated multiple BLT crossings... there were breakdown of equipment but much lesser that antisipated. The defending forces were one of the best T-72/ CIA forces. That was a big plus for T-90... that is where the confidence is comming...

On the lighter note the ..." the generail shaib watching the exersise from his udan-khotal was shell shocked to see Tin can 90 x racing all out in hatch down in mid afternoon towards the defensive formations and surprising everyone " In the true sprit of IA the generail shaib him self gave a case of finest scotch to the sq Cmdr of the Tin can 90x, which he saw from his "udan-khotala"... and met the crew personally :)


For all those doubting tin can 90x mizzile firing and gun cabability...
In another instance.... there is only one Armoured Regt from the new lot raised after independence... that have being giving the honour to be called the "Lancers"... officially sm yr bk there name was changed from Armoured Regt to Lancer for a splendid feet of achieving 100% hit on tgt with mizzile and maingun in front of all the possible guest list one can think of..... this was from both moving n static positions. (not on a give day, achieveing it on multiple days) as heard from chia wala

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 05 Feb 2010 20:14

man you sure have a lot of tea :mrgreen: with or without sugar sir?

d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby d_berwal » 05 Feb 2010 20:18

Singha wrote:man you sure have a lot of tea :mrgreen: with or without sugar sir?


with sugar sir :wink:

drawback of lots of sugar... acidity... with a few occational burrrppss :wink: :wink:

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 05 Feb 2010 20:40

I have heard similar stories for other chai walas :mrgreen: about T 90s mobility. so no disagreement with berwals chaiwallah

But an exercise is onlee an exercise since real shells won't be blowing up on your tank :mrgreen:

Samay
BRFite
Posts: 1143
Joined: 30 Mar 2009 02:35
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Samay » 05 Feb 2010 20:54

I'm interested to know what extra efforts( extra monetary,R&D plugins) have been made to make Arjun upto the mark where it could be accepted by the army? Although this could be partially answered by using current info on internet but what is really interesting is why drdo could not do it,,??.

If there were defects in t90 since inception ,and on the other hand if army was stalling arjun because it was not a perfect tank from heavens, then whether arjun wins or t90 wins in comparative trials, in a war like situation what is hidden will come in front, and the issue will turn out to be a 'tank-gate' for IA.

Few facts are well known:

1. Arjun tank is better than t72, which will be used as a reserve force in war.
2. better engine can solve the speed problem of arjun,.
3.In a war on western front tanks will never be transported through airlift , so lightweight or heavyweight ,doesn't matters so much on western front.(gurus, Im not sure abt arjun's maneuverability in the desert )
4. what a tank does,is what arjun does better than t72. so it must be built in 1500 + nos, even if it is better than t90 or not..

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2484
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Vivek K » 05 Feb 2010 21:31

Arjun will kick T-90 butt in the trials!! This is exactly what the Tank has been designed to do - take on and defeat the T-series!

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17050
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 05 Feb 2010 22:06

d_berwal wrote:Sir,
berwal sahab, the sir is unnecessary and better avoided. :)

your anology of Aircraft and MBT does not work here.
it does actually, the original mig-21FL can't be upgraded to mig-21bis or bison by addition of modern avionics/radar/engine, since the airframe has undergone many changes and so forth. that doesn't make the bis any less mig-21 than the FL, it remains a mig-21.

similarly
T-90 is a new tank.
is not true. it is a modified/modernised T-72, nothing more nothing less. and the problem with that remains protection.

that still makes it a half-baked design that retains the primary flaws of the T-72. it will be mincemeat in a situation involving decent ATGMs (so will be the TSPA tanks but that is hardly any consolation)

aditp
BRFite
Posts: 447
Joined: 15 Jul 2008 07:25
Location: Autoland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby aditp » 05 Feb 2010 22:09

d_berwal wrote:
Singha wrote:the distance to indus from IB varies from around 150km in RYK-sukkur to maybe 250km in other parts. there are lots of DCB and deep canals to deter/slow down fwd and lateral movements.

cold start I believe aims for "shallow" occupations of around 70km depth only.

iirc in one desert exercise, a IA divisional task force covered 70km in 3 days.

so maybe 3-5 days of all out intensive offensive followed by political pressure is what we think of under this doctrine.


In one of the exersises the task force did cover 100+ km in 2 days flat, the exersise ended almost 18hrs before the planned time.. as heard from chai wala... with simulated live firing (smokeee shells) covering simulated multiple BLT crossings... there were breakdown of equipment but much lesser that antisipated. The defending forces were one of the best T-72/ CIA forces. That was a big plus for T-90... that is where the confidence is comming...

On the lighter note the ..." the generail shaib watching the exersise from his udan-khotal was shell shocked to see Tin can 90 x racing all out in hatch down in mid afternoon towards the defensive formations and surprising everyone " In the true sprit of IA the generail shaib him self gave a case of finest scotch to the sq Cmdr of the Tin can 90x, which he saw from his "udan-khotala"... and met the crew personally :)


For all those doubting tin can 90x mizzile firing and gun cabability...
In another instance.... there is only one Armoured Regt from the new lot raised after independence... that have being giving the honour to be called the "Lancers"... officially sm yr bk there name was changed from Armoured Regt to Lancer for a splendid feet of achieving 100% hit on tgt with mizzile and maingun in front of all the possible guest list one can think of..... this was from both moving n static positions. (not on a give day, achieveing it on multiple days) as heard from chia wala



You said it! The defending forces were mere T-72s. Wonder what would have happened to the Tank commander racing all out in hatch down in mid afternoon towards the defensive formations, if the defenders had Arjuns instead. I guess the scotch ould have changed sides, and the jernail would have to shake one more hand.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17050
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 05 Feb 2010 22:28

as for the T-72, we should perhaps look to retain the CIA versions and even upgrade them further if needed. all the rest should be modified to tank support/heavy APC like the BTR-T/BMP-T. total T-90 numbers in IA can be capped at around 700-800 if we cancel the additional direct order placed from russia and cut-back the domestic production which has just started. the arjun should be ordered in numbers instead.

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

samay wrote:I'm interested to know what extra efforts( extra monetary,R&D plugins) have been made to make Arjun upto the mark where it could be accepted by the army? Although this could be partially answered by using current info on internet but what is really interesting is why drdo could not do it,,??.
could not do what ? arjun as of now is a FAR better tank than the T-90 itself.

If there were defects in t90 since inception ,and on the other hand if army was stalling arjun because it was not a perfect tank from heavens, {arjun induction was stalled based on a number of lame excuses given in media. till date there hasn't been ONE good reason from IA why the T-90 was selected in place of the arjun}then whether arjun wins or t90 wins in comparative trials, in a war like situation what is hidden will come in front, and the issue will turn out to be a 'tank-gate' for IA. {the issue has already turned into a tank-gate when personnel from the IA were accused of 'sabotaging' the arjun's gearbox during last year's trials by no less a person than the Min of state for Defence.}

Few facts are well known: {you will do well to be better informed}

1. Arjun tank is better than t72, which will be used as a reserve force in war.
{arjun is better than the T-90, let alone the T-72. T-72 will not be used as reserve force. it will serve in frontline units for another 10-15 years at least, given army's plans.}
2. better engine can solve the speed problem of arjun,.
{arjun has NO speed problem. please read up before making ill-informed comments}
3.In a war on western front tanks will never be transported through airlift , so lightweight or heavyweight ,doesn't matters so much on western front.(gurus, Im not sure abt arjun's maneuverability in the desert ) {better than T-90 and much better than T-72, since it has much lower ground pressure and much higher power/weight, both of which translate to better maneuverability}
4. what a tank does,is what arjun does better than t72. so it must be built in 1500 + nos, even if it is better than t90 or not. {far better than BOTH the tin-cans, thanks you.}


for a start, ***********READ THIS***********

turn to page 2 if you absolutely can't wait.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 05 Feb 2010 22:45

if anyone is seeing "generation kill" :mrgreen: , the usmc/army forces in iraq seemed to prefer fighting at night due to their advantages in thermals etc.

now couple of years back saw some defexpo boards explaining a proposed TI addition to the BMP2 apart from a few extra improvements.

guess that came to nothing if we are still saying 80% of tank force is night blind.

bradley even seems to have a commanders independent sights while its deleted in Arjun for cost reasons. this is one key area where arjun lags every western mbt - lack of independent thermal imager for commander. the unit cost of a additional sight is probably 50L-1cr if direct import.

we sure have a long way to go to make our units fully night combat capable.

here is what Tula bureau showed in defexpo 2004

http://www.acig.org/artman/uploads/bmp.jpg

KBP have developed a BMP-2 ICV modernization package which is now in the prototype phase. The upgrade replaces the main assemblies of the fire control system and adds the Kornet-E ATMS plus a 30 mm automatic grenade launcher with a range of 1700 m. The commander's BPK-2-42 standard sight has been replaced with a combined day/night sight. The 30 mm 2A42 automatic gun has been retained.

does anyone know if we went for this?

it appears we purchased 250 kornet-E missiles in 2008. since bmp2 is the
only platform for this heavy missile I assume some have been re-equipped
but not many.

Samay
BRFite
Posts: 1143
Joined: 30 Mar 2009 02:35
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Samay » 05 Feb 2010 23:29

arjun has NO speed problem. please read up before making ill-informed comments

Rahul sir you took me entirely wrong, I was suggesting that DRDO must take some final measures so that IA finally accepts arjun in large nos ,thats why I wanted to know what extra measure are taken for that.

--regards.

Shameek
BRFite
Posts: 828
Joined: 02 Jan 2009 20:44
Location: Ionosphere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Shameek » 05 Feb 2010 23:33

Rahul M wrote:as for the T-72, we should perhaps look to retain the CIA versions and even upgrade them further if needed. all the rest should be modified to tank support/heavy APC like the BTR-T/BMP-T. total T-90 numbers in IA can be capped at around 700-800 if we cancel the additional direct order placed from russia and cut-back the domestic production which has just started. the arjun should be ordered in numbers instead.


Valid point. But we at BR have been discussing this for a while now. So what really confuses me is in the face of this knowledge, why would the army choose the inferior product? Is is just fascination with the T-90? Or familiarity with the T series? Or distrust in DRDO? Or just a clash of egos?
Many questions I know, but finally its their lives at stake on the battlefield.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8100
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby nachiket » 05 Feb 2010 23:38

Rahul M wrote:as for the T-72, we should perhaps look to retain the CIA versions and even upgrade them further if needed. all the rest should be modified to tank support/heavy APC like the BTR-T/BMP-T. total T-90 numbers in IA can be capped at around 700-800 if we cancel the additional direct order placed from russia and cut-back the domestic production which has just started. the arjun should be ordered in numbers instead.


Not necessary. Even if we procure all T-90s currently ordered that is still less than half of the total IA tank force.
It is much more important to replace the T-72s that still make up the majority. They can be replaced with the Arjun.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests