Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

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 » 21 Mar 2010 18:49

somnath wrote:
Rahul M wrote:somnath ji, Avadi is producing arjuns at close to 50/year within a year of starting production. perhaps they can produce at a decent rate if there's a sympathetic bunch of people who know the design inside out (in this case from DRDO) helping them at it ?


Is it 50? Most reports seem to suggest 30..

please cite one out of those many reports.

btw, do you at all read the replies ? I posted this in reply to your post in the last page.
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2008/07/ ... arjun.html
Falsehood No. 1: “70 Arjuns have been rolled out in 8 years!”

Wrong. These 70 tanks have taken less than two years to manufacture. The Arjun’s series production didn’t start in 2000… it only began last year. And the Arjun production line is already very close to producing its installed capacity of 50 tanks a year.

Given that Avadi struggled to overhaul more than 50-60 T72s a year, dont know what sort of confidence intervals are required for (say) 100 Arjuns a year...

why depend upon half-baked analysis and extrapolation when the actual result is known ?

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 » 21 Mar 2010 18:57

Simply that under the threat scenarios assumed under Cold Start, we are not envisaging large scale armour battles over long periods..So an upgraded T72 (like T90) that can be quickly mobilised and inducted in large numbers quickly as well is probably good enough for now..

in what way ?

how does it matter if the armour battles are large scale or small scale or if it is over long periods or short ? it will face the same enemies with the same weaknesses.

whether the battle be long or short, large scale or small scale, it is one APFSDS round vs a tank or one MANPATGM vs a tank. that doesn't care whether it is 'cold start' or 'hammer and anvil'.

coming to logistics, in a short quick battle logistics will be a much smaller problem, so if it is cold start that is driving tank procurement then, the logistics demands of the tanks become a much lesser issue and the T-90 loses whatever small advantage it had over the arjun in that regard.

not to forget, the army has NOT mentioned logistics as the reason for making the T-90 it's premier tank, only some people who tried to justify the T-90 decision.

somnath
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3416
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: Singapore

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby somnath » 21 Mar 2010 19:03

Rahul M ji,

I have read Ajai Shukla's articles on the Arjun..Wiki mentions the production rate as 30 per year...Ditto with India Defence..Ajai's article (and this was in a reply in his blog, not in the BS article) is later in chronology than both the above, so he might be correct..

However , stabilisation of production run in an assembly line is a bit more complicated than churning out a number during one given time period..given Avadi's track record with something that it has vastly more expericen with and a job that is vastly less complicated, I would be sceptical on taking a reply (that too in semantics of "very close to being" etc) to a blog question as gospel...

somnath
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3416
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: Singapore

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby somnath » 21 Mar 2010 19:12

Rahul M wrote:in what way ?

how does it matter if the armour battles are large scale or small scale or if it is over long periods or short ? it will face the same enemies with the same weaknesses.

whether the battle be long or short, large scale or small scale, it is one APFSDS round vs a tank or one MANPATGM vs a tank. that doesn't care whether it is 'cold start' or 'hammer and anvil'.

coming to logistics, in a short quick battle logistics will be a much smaller problem, so if it is cold start that is driving tank procurement then, the logistics demands of the tanks become a much lesser issue and the T-90 loses whatever small advantage it had over the arjun in that regard.

not to forget, the army has NOT mentioned logistics as the reason for making the T-90 it's premier tank, only some people who tried to justify the T-90 decision.


In fact in a Cold start "assumptive scenario", logistics management is paramount..The objective is to mobilise a large volume of firepower quickly, much before the international community can intervene, and execute a short sharp operation..

I didnt say that the Arjun is "unsuitable" for a short exchange..and I didnt say that it is driving T90 procurement either..Just that an upgraded T72/T90 is good enough in these scenarios...In a short exchange, you are less concerned, as the party with far larger numbers and resources, with the extent of losses that you need to suffer...the key motive is to quickly and easily mobilise large volume of firepower, execute the immediate battle objectives before the conflict is inevitably stopped..Importantly that does not include capturing or holding real estate..therefore a tank that is easy on the current logistics, does not require extensive "redoctrining", can be inducted quickly in large quantities (without Avadi!) is good enough, even if the Arjun is "better" from a "feature to feature" perspective..

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 » 21 Mar 2010 20:01

since when is wiki a "source" ? :-? btw, I couldn't locate any 30/year comment in the wiki page. if you could post it for us it will be nice. I couldn't see a India-defence link in your reply as well ?

However , stabilisation of production run in an assembly line is a bit more complicated than churning out a number during one given time period..given Avadi's track record with something that it has vastly more expericen with and a job that is vastly less complicated, I would be sceptical on taking a reply (that too in semantics of "very close to being" etc) to a blog question as gospel...
again, all that analysis and extrapolation is not necessary.

it's an article by a reputed def journalist in his personal blog. that is now not acceptable but apparently wiki is. :lol:
what semantics is there ? again, the hint-hint-nudge-nudge is unnecessary. arjun production started sometime in 2007 after AUCRT, as mentioned by all and sundry. by the time he wrote that report(July 2008) 70 had been produced. that too has been confirmed by other reports at the time IIRC. even if we assume that production started from 1st Jan 2007 that makes it 44 tanks/year at a minimum.
________________________
The objective is to mobilise a large volume of firepower quickly, much before the international community can intervene, and execute a short sharp operation..

please, you are avoiding the questions, (much like the T-90 would in a real battle !) :lol:

what would this "short sharp operation" entail ? would it involve taking on real enemy tanks and infantry or is that too no longer a part of cold start ? your definition of cold start starts to sound like a board game to me.

I didnt say that the Arjun is "unsuitable" for a short exchange..and I didnt say that it is driving T90 procurement either..Just that an upgraded T72/T90 is good enough in these scenarios
err, good enough to do what exactly ? run to the pakistan border intact and come back ?
for it is not good enough to take on a combination of similar tanks + massive amounts of modern and legacy infantry held anti-tank weapons.
let's not forget that in a cold start, IA will be the attacking force and its armoured forces will be expected to smash PA's formations on the border. PA on the other hand will have all the advantages of a defending force. is the T-72/90 good enough to accomplish this role ? really ?
In a short exchange, you are less concerned, as the party with far larger numbers and resources, with the extent of losses that you need to suffer
actually in a short conflict the advantages of a numerical superiority will not be felt. it will take a longer conflict for India to fully use it's numerical depth to advantage.
the key motive is to quickly and easily mobilise large volume of firepower, execute the immediate battle objectives before the conflict is inevitably stopped
firepower in this case usually refers to arty, which is a different issue.
the problem with this premise is that it assumes that an inferior tank will be able to win battles against strong odds. what are the chances of that ? a large number of inferior systems might win a war, to win a battle is much more difficult.

Importantly that does not include capturing or holding real estate
but it does include destruction of enemy forces right ? and doing a good job of it ?
won't that be a coin toss with the T-90 ?

therefore a tank that is easy on the current logistics, {but not good enough on the battlefield} does not require extensive "redoctrining" {neither does the T-55 so why don't we continue with it ? it is cheaper as well. :mrgreen: }, can be inducted quickly in large quantities (without Avadi!){only in fantasy because the parliament will always run behind the army to make the things in-house} is good enough {for creating paper strength}, even if the Arjun is "better" from a "feature to feature" perspective {and as a overall fighting machine}..

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rajatmisra » 21 Mar 2010 21:04

If Arjun is indeed the better tank, and the hinderance is production rate at Avadi, then DPSUs and ohter PSUS / Pvt Sector could step in. Long back BHEL had a role to play in first few prototype, going by media reports. No reason that cons like BHEL, BEML, Tata Motors, Ashok Leyland etc cannot be tapped.

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 » 21 Mar 2010 21:11

that's a good point. both BHEL (and also BEML) had created arjun prototypes in the 90's. no reason why they can't be roped in again, provided of course, it is the production issue that is holding up the project. as of now, that doesn't seem to be the case.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby chackojoseph » 21 Mar 2010 21:53

Viv S wrote:For several pages now I've read about the T-90 vs Arjun argument which has me pretty puzzled. The army placed the T-90 orders before the the Arjun became a viable option. It was a judgement call and I don't think it requires that much debate.

Question is what now. Deliveries of the 124 ordered so far will be concluding shortly. The issues with the Arjun (correct me if I'm wrong) are three fold:

1. From a logistical perspective, the T-90 is a better option than the Arjun. No argument there. But, what about a decade in the future or further; does the Army want continue to import the Russian successor to the T-90? At some point it'll need to break from the T-xx, why not now?

2. 'The Army is now looking at the future. FMBT-2020'. :-o - This one completely went over me. The US Army's FMBT is still in the concept stage. The IA wants to start inducting in a decade? The IA's future fleet has to follow from the Arjun family. I sincerely hope the Army gets that.

3. The army doesn't need any further deliveries. - Which is brings me to my question for forum gurus...

What does the army's future armoured strength look like? I understand the IA still has 800 Vijayantas and 500+ T-55s in active service, not to mention almost 2000 T-72s. Accepting that the T-90 order is not reversible, isn't there still enough room for the Arjun to serve as well? There seem a lot of tanks well past obsolescence still in service, besides the T-72s which are... past their prime lets say.


1) Arjun Was an option back in 1996. (I think, I will have to copy and paste this every time from now onwards)

2) Logistical perspective: Arjun related BAFTA should be bought irrespective the tank. These can carry heavy or light tank. BAFTA has anyway to be bought. Spares will be bought irrespective its t-90 or arjun.

3) Army is struggling to form the FMBT specs. It is looking at it only on paper. DRDO is already working on FMBT concept.

4) See the Army is equiping its regiment in phased manner. Next round of equiping is due in few years (i cannot divulge it). If Arjun is accepted by army now, arjuns can fill in the next round of regiments and the regiments to come.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby chackojoseph » 21 Mar 2010 21:55

Rahul M wrote:that's a good point. both BHEL (and also BEML) had created arjun prototypes in the 90's. no reason why they can't be roped in again, provided of course, it is the production issue that is holding up the project. as of now, that doesn't seem to be the case.



It will not be required. There is sufficient time for fillers as the next round of equipping the regiments is dues in some time.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19840
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 21 Mar 2010 22:08

rohitvats wrote:.....
I was not aware of the cost cutting thing wrt tank holding per regiment. I guess, that is why the number of Arjun/Regiment is 62. @62 tanks per regiment, the number of MBT required will easily jump the 4,000 mark.


Hello Rohit, can you give a look at the questions I asked about the light tank.

Look forward to your insight, even if brief.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 21 Mar 2010 23:43

Rohitvats, you are misunderstanding me..I am not saying that Arjun is a "misfit" under the Cold Start doctrine...Simply that under the threat scenarios assumed under Cold Start, we are not envisaging large scale armour battles over long periods..So an upgraded T72 (like T90) that can be quickly mobilised and inducted in large numbers quickly as well is probably good enough for now..


somnath, I'm assuming that by above statement you mean that by having T-90 and T-72 and consequent commonality (67% IIRC), Indian Army will be able to implement the Cold Start doctrine related assets and formations quickly. Yes, I agree on that. But as far as armor battles and qaulity of armor is concerned, I beg to differ.

I don't know why people keep on making such sweeping statements that the nuclear umberella overhang will not allow for large scale tank battles. To start with, what is large scale tank battle? Even if Indian Army is to commit the 1st Armored Division (which it will), on any given axis only one of its Armored Brigades will most likely launch an assault. Here again, the Brigade may commit one of its Armored Regiment (may be with additional Sqn. from sister regiment) along with supporting Mechanized Infantry component and keep the 2nd one in reserve. Facing it will most likely be another PA Armored Regiment+Infantry. In this tank versus tank scenario, the quality of the tank will matter. And while today a bulk of PA may be equipped with T-85IIAP and T-69/Al-Zarrar and T-80UD (numbers capped), in due course of time, the bulk of their armor will be Al-Khalid Mk1 and Mk2. And mind you, Al-Khalid is no pushover.

about having multiple tank platforms, say having both Arjuns and T90s in large quantities - its a logistical nightmare...Two very different types of tanks, two different types of tank transporters, recovery vehicles, ammunition -the works...No country maintains two different fleets of disparate tanks..The problem would be compounded in case we have the T90, Arjun AND the FMBT all together...


This sir, is the crux of matter. Forget FMBT, having T-90 and Arjun in large number will be nightmare. IA knows this and instead of saying so in so many words, has been hell bent to discredit the Arjun and somehow stall the entry in large scale numbers. They will never admit to it.

Jagan
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3032
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Earth @ Google.com
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Jagan » 21 Mar 2010 23:51

rohitvats wrote:
RayC wrote:Last I remember is that an Armd Regt is of 45 tanks.


Correct Sir. The number 55 takes 45 Active+10 Reserve tanks per regiment. The reserve number goes up in case of units with older tanks like T-55 and Vijantas, purely due to the serviceability related issues. Also, it is interesting to see that the planned number of Arjun MBT (124) is to be with only two armored regiments - 43rd and 75th. Which means 17 reserve tanks per regiment.


rohit,

I agree with RayC - I have never heard about an Armoured Regiment having a 'reserve' of tanks - whether it is in a peacetime location or on the move. The strength of an Armoured Regt is always what is held on charge or (i.e it is responsible) for at any point of time and I believe it is 45. Do we have any Army references / sources that claim otherwise, that an armoured regiment consists of active and a reserve strength? I would be interested to check them out. (the first time I encountered this claim of a 'brick' system was by ravi rikhye in India Today some 20-30 years back. but never heard about anything after that.

Some 16 years ago, I spent time in the NCC with a T-72 Squadron. these guys taught us the in and out of regiments as well. and they didnt mention anything about 'reserves' being held with the regiment.

Ditto with all the historical litterature that have been written by Armoured Officers. None mentioned any held in reserve at the regimental level.

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 » 22 Mar 2010 00:04

jagan, I was going through a number of India-Today and frontline articles over the last few days (from 80's and 90's)and I got those figures from a combination of them. all different authors and none by ravi rikhye IIRC.
I'll get back with the references over the next few days.

there was a break-up between
regiment strength - 45 - maintained in working order but not hogged regularly
number - x (forgot, around ten) - for day to day honing of skills
number -y (again forgot) - held as war wastage reserve

45 + x + y = 55/62/72 depending on who you believe.

and do note that 124 arjuns have been ordered for equipping two regiments.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby negi » 22 Mar 2010 00:14

Logistics is another strawman , With T-72 one has to take off the whole turret to replace the engine which rules out any maintainance or engine replacement in battlefield , With T-90 turret need not be removed but the power-train and engine are not on one assembly hence it becomes complicated with Arjun the engine and power-train are integrated and can be replaced in 3 hours flat.

And wait a minute , commonality in terms of logistics/spares with a 4 decade old design ? And this for a order as large as 1300 tanks :eek: .
What happens to this logistics argument with FMBT when IA would have added another 1300 vintage designs to its inventory ?

And the argument that Arjun GSQR was in response to rumors around TSPA's interest in the M1 A Abrams and hence of no significance today as Bakis opted for T-80UD , is even more absurd for if it is indeed true then this reactive procurement process will not only incur huge costs to the exchequer in form of 11th hour panik deals but also lead to half baked products being pushed down IA's throat , 'T-90' is a perfect example of the above .Lastly for crying out loud while GOI and other services maintain that it is the PRC whose military might India should be concerned about I find it amusing to hear the argument that "T-90 is capable enough to take on TSP tanks" .

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 22 Mar 2010 00:17

Mrinal, please see my answers below:

Mrinal wrote:Rohitvats,

Interesting points raised by you in this thread. Would like to hear your insight on -

- Why the Indian Army is going for light tanks now?

-- I don't have definite answer for this. Most likely reason is that since IA thinks it has secured funds for MBT and BMP-II (the core assets) and some more, it can afford to spend on equippment like Light Tanks.

- What would they be used for and by whom?

-- While there is no official confirmation/literature on usage and deployment of Light Tanks, my guess is that they will be used with Recce Regiments/Squadrons. From what I understand about the Orbat(which not current, I must admit) of an Armored Division and Independent Armored Brigade, they are authorized a Reconnaissance Squadron to be equipped with AFV (18 tanks actually). Similarly, the Armored Brigades (of armored divisions) have a Recce Troop authorized. Armored Regiments themselves are authorized 10 Light Tanks for Recce Role.The job is currently done using 4*4 vehicles. These Reconnaissance formations may be ideal candidates for the light tanks.

I've also read some reports (on the net) that there was proposal for Armored Reconnassance Regiments. If the Recce Sqn. of Armored Divisions have morphed into Recce Regiments, more will be the requirement for such Light Tanks. Remember, speed and stealth are of essence in Recce functions.If you see foreign armies, each armored division has integral Recce assets equipped with light tanks. Case in point being the Formation Reconnaissance Regiments for British Army.

Another candidate can be the R&S Battalions(Recce and Support) of the Mechanized Infantry. These R&S Battalions are part of the RAPIDS and it has been recently announced that these will be equipped with Nag and NAMICA. The Light Tanks will be ideal candidates equip these and enhance their support roles.

A light tank can never be a substitute for a MBT. It can provide fire support to Mechanized Infantry and Recce platforms. A 105mm gun is that much better than 30mm gun on a BMP-II.


- Their likely area of operations

-- I think the above explanation answers this question. However, one additional area likely is the high altitude desert of Leh-Ladakh. Question is, how will the Light Tanks be fielded? Will the IA equip a dedicated Light Armored Regiment for this, or allot these to Mechanized Infantry Regiments as integral assets to give fire support.

- Any personal comments/insights that you may have vis a vis what they should or should not do.

-- Don't use them as substitute for a true blue MBT.


rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 22 Mar 2010 00:30

And wait a minute , commonality in terms of logistics/spares with a 4 decade old design ? And this for a order as large as 1300 tanks :eek: . What happens to this logistics argument with FMBT when IA would have added another 1300 vintage designs to its inventory ?


Completely missed this POV. Thanx. :oops:

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19840
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 22 Mar 2010 00:31

Many thanks Rohit.

Jagan
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3032
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Earth @ Google.com
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Jagan » 22 Mar 2010 00:37

Rahul M wrote:jagan, I was going through a number of India-Today and frontline articles over the last few days (from 80's and 90's)and I got those figures from a combination of them. all different authors and none by ravi rikhye IIRC.
I'll get back with the references over the next few days.

there was a break-up between
regiment strength - 45 - maintained in working order but not hogged regularly
number - x (forgot, around ten) - for day to day honing of skills
number -y (again forgot) - held as war wastage reserve

45 + x + y = 55/62/72 depending on who you believe.

and do note that 124 arjuns have been ordered for equipping two regiments.


Rahul, its not common for the magazines from the 80s and 90s to get them wrong. Infact My very first encounter with the brick theory was an India Today article - late 80s or early 90s. I thought that was by Ravi but I may be wrong.

There is no disputing that tanks are held in reserve for attrition replacement. but I am disputing that this is done at the regimental level, where the implication is that particular regiment 'owns' those tanks and other regiments cannot touch them without pushing lot of paper. That is certainly not how the IA operated in the 65 and 71 wars. The reserve tanks were held higher up - perhaps at the div or the corps level and regiments would be sent replacements by a higher authority.
and do note that 124 arjuns have been ordered for equipping two regiments.


Total Number of ordered items doesnt really imply that all of them go to the end units. (the same reasons we have 124 Bisons for 6 AF squadrons. and no squadron has more than 16 ac.)

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 » 22 Mar 2010 00:39

Total Number of ordered items doesnt really imply that all of them go to the end units.
oh ! not arguing that at all ! I was only pointing out the avg number/regt to get an idea of the total. you guys will know better about how they are held.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 22 Mar 2010 00:44

Jagan wrote:
rohit,

I agree with RayC - I have never heard about an Armoured Regiment having a 'reserve' of tanks - whether it is in a peacetime location or on the move. The strength of an Armoured Regt is always what is held on charge or (i.e it is responsible) for at any point of time and I believe it is 45. Do we have any Army references / sources that claim otherwise, that an armoured regiment consists of active and a reserve strength? I would be interested to check them out. (the first time I encountered this claim of a 'brick' system was by ravi rikhye in India Today some 20-30 years back. but never heard about anything after that.

Some 16 years ago, I spent time in the NCC with a T-72 Squadron. these guys taught us the in and out of regiments as well. and they didnt mention anything about 'reserves' being held with the regiment.

Ditto with all the historical litterature that have been written by Armoured Officers. None mentioned any held in reserve at the regimental level.


Jagan, I was also introduced to the "Brick System" in the writings by Ravi Rikhye and then some references here and there. I don't have any GOI/IA open source link for this. Will try and get an update on the situation.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby nachiket » 22 Mar 2010 02:15

somnath wrote:In fact in a Cold start "assumptive scenario", logistics management is paramount..The objective is to mobilise a large volume of firepower quickly, much before the international community can intervene, and execute a short sharp operation..

I didnt say that the Arjun is "unsuitable" for a short exchange..and I didnt say that it is driving T90 procurement either..Just that an upgraded T72/T90 is good enough in these scenarios...In a short exchange, you are less concerned, as the party with far larger numbers and resources, with the extent of losses that you need to suffer...the key motive is to quickly and easily mobilise large volume of firepower, execute the immediate battle objectives before the conflict is inevitably stopped..Importantly that does not include capturing or holding real estate..therefore a tank that is easy on the current logistics, does not require extensive "redoctrining", can be inducted quickly in large quantities (without Avadi!) is good enough, even if the Arjun is "better" from a "feature to feature" perspective..


You do realize that it is not just tanks that are going to be lost here right?. Especially considering the poor crew-protection levels of the T-XX series.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 22 Mar 2010 03:49

I truly fail to understand this; on what basis can it be claimed that Arjun was "ready" any time before 2007, before the feedbacks from the AUCRT were incorporated?

Ready how? There are reams of data on basic issues with Arjun as close as 2000 -- and please gentlemen do not say others also have issues -- of course others have issues too, everything has issues, the question is the scale of the issues.

In spite of that, a 124 tank order was given in 2000; a very handsome order for a LSP one must say, to be delivered in 4-5 years. However owing to the Avadi and other robustness issues discovered as the LSP tanks joined IA, the delivery of a robust and reliable product meeting the specification laid out in 2000 could only be possible by 2010.

So just how exactly was Arjun ready?

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby srai » 22 Mar 2010 04:39

somnath wrote:...

Left to me, I would rather use the Arjun fleet (the 124 ordered) as a test bed for indigeneous tech...Things like the BMS, or new armour developments...So while we design the FMBT, some of the key accessories are tested out simultaeneously - hastens the development process..

...


Well ... part of the indigenization process is about going through iterative process that includes specifications, R&D, Testing, Production (using many small parts supplied by numerous vendors), support infrastructure development, product improvements, etc. At every stage improvements can be realized by a continuous iterative process. This is what's called a "complete" product lifecycle. Also, you have to consider the economics of scale issues.

You are asking for FMBT (another 10-15+ years of R&D and testing) but then you are not a proponent of developing the "complete" indigenous processes overlooking the entire product lifecycle with Arjun (Mk.1/2/3). So what will happen is when FMBT is ready, it too will face production/support issues (as you have pointed out with Arjun) because that portion of the product lifecycle will not have been allowed to be developed.

Then again, will the IA accept the DRDO FMBT 15 years down the road ... when the Russians may try to sell their T-100xx version??? What then for the indigenous efforts? Will you be saying at that time that India should be looking to develop FMBT-2xx?

The point being is that India needs to nurture its hard earned expertise over the last 30 years building the Arjun MBT. Otherwise a lot of that effort will be "wasted" IMO.

Virupaksha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 3110
Joined: 28 Jun 2007 06:36

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Virupaksha » 22 Mar 2010 04:44

first let the army develop the GSQR for FMBT or any "superman heman" tank they want. After that give it as an excuse. Till then all this FMBT hot air is simply a ruse and spin to throw the arjun-t90 talk off track.

Virupaksha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 3110
Joined: 28 Jun 2007 06:36

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Virupaksha » 22 Mar 2010 04:49

Sanku wrote:So just how exactly was Arjun ready?

Avadi is more ready to produce arjun in 2000 much more than t90 is today!!!

Avadi has already produced atleast 50-100 arjuns. We are still unable to produce them because russia is not providing tot. What do we do for this breach in contract? Punish the vendor, no sir, not the peace loving Indians. we reward them by giving them even more orders to build in russia itself.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 22 Mar 2010 04:59

ravi_ku wrote:
Sanku wrote:So just how exactly was Arjun ready?

Avadi is more ready to produce arjun in 2000 much more than t90 is today!!!


Please, I was looking for serious answers (which dont go against all available information, minor one of which being that the order of 124 tanks placed in 2000 were supposed to be delivered in 4-5 years)

Virupaksha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 3110
Joined: 28 Jun 2007 06:36

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Virupaksha » 22 Mar 2010 05:05

Sanku wrote:
ravi_ku wrote:Sanku wrote: So just how exactly was Arjun ready?
Avadi is more ready to produce arjun in 2000 much more than t90 is today!!!


Please, I was looking for serious answers (which dont go against all available information, minor one of which being that the order of 124 tanks placed in 2000 were supposed to be delivered in 4-5 years)

Sanku ji,

I am serious too.
Out of a order of around 1000 t-90s at avadi starting from 1999, how many did avadhi produce? - As of last year, AFAIK -0.
how many arjuns out of an order of 124 were produced - definitely more than 50.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 22 Mar 2010 05:13

ravi_ku wrote:
Sanku wrote:Sanku wrote: So just how exactly was Arjun ready?

Please, I was looking for serious answers (which dont go against all available information, minor one of which being that the order of 124 tanks placed in 2000 were supposed to be delivered in 4-5 years)

Sanku ji,

I am serious too.
Out of a order of around 1000 t-90s at avadi starting from 1999, how many did avadhi produce? - As of last year, AFAIK -0.
how many arjuns out of an order of 124 were produced - definitely more than 50.


Well you have certainly not been paying attention to some of the basic points in the thread I must say :P
T 90s were first inducted as fully built units from Russia and as knocked down kits
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-90

Also Indian T90s were only decided in 2006
A follow-on contract, worth $800 million, was signed on October 26, 2006, for another 330 T-90M MBTs that were to be built with locally-sourced raw materials.

With 10 already delivered so far
The first batch of 10 license built T-90 Bhishma was inducted into the Indian army on 24 August 2009. These vehicles were built at the Heavy Vehicles Factory at Avadi, Tamil Nadu.


So in any case you may say Avadi can not make Tanks from scratch (does a sorry job), Ok I agree, still that has nothing to do with my original point.

When was Arjun ready (before 2008-2009 time frame -- and that too perhaps at the moment)

Virupaksha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 3110
Joined: 28 Jun 2007 06:36

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Virupaksha » 22 Mar 2010 05:17

Nope,

I took all the notice. :wink:


It is you who didnt take notice as to when I changed your question. :P

Virupaksha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 3110
Joined: 28 Jun 2007 06:36

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Virupaksha » 22 Mar 2010 05:22

Sanku wrote:The first batch of 10 license built T-90 Bhishma was inducted into the Indian army on 24 August 2009. These vehicles were built at the Heavy Vehicles Factory at Avadi, Tamil Nadu.

Were these 10 products of the first kit from SKDs or are they from raw materials?

My guess is these are the first SKDs.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 22 Mar 2010 05:29

ravi_ku wrote:
Sanku wrote:The first batch of 10 license built T-90 Bhishma was inducted into the Indian army on 24 August 2009. These vehicles were built at the Heavy Vehicles Factory at Avadi, Tamil Nadu.

Were these 10 products of the first kit from SKDs or are they from raw materials?

My guess is these are the first SKDs.


You dont have to guess, the info is there in the links and google.
:P

Its the first one from raw materials, started after the ToT issues were fixed in 2008. So essentially Avadi has made 10 T 90s in 2009, its first year of manufacture.

Virupaksha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 3110
Joined: 28 Jun 2007 06:36

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Virupaksha » 22 Mar 2010 05:38

Sanku

All I get from various links is they are license manufactured, i.e. my interpretation is from SKD. If these are the first tanks to roll out from avadi, these are definitely SKDs and part of the first contract signed in 99-2000.

The contract according to wiki says.

India bought 310 T-90S tanks from Russia, of which 120 were delivered complete, 90 in semi-knocked down kits, and 100 in completely-knocked down kits.


So when did avadi produce these 120 SKDs, 100 CKDs?? If you have these links, can you please provide them.


My read of the situation is we have just starting producing from SKDs forget the CKDs, 10 years after the contract was signed. Avadi could have just tightened the screws on the wheels and claimed them as "license built", "indigenously built" for all we know :evil:

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby chackojoseph » 22 Mar 2010 07:27

For those who are arguing why Pakistan has not gone for Abrams:

1) Suppose it does now from heavier tanks from China, will Army flip and ask for heavier tanks? Army seems reactionary and non forward looking.
2) Why did Army mention explicitly that they wanted western equivalent tank?

somnath
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3416
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: Singapore

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby somnath » 22 Mar 2010 07:42

rohitvats wrote:
I don't know why people keep on making such sweeping statements that the nuclear umberella overhang will not allow for large scale tank battles. To start with, what is large scale tank battle? Even if Indian Army is to commit the 1st Armored Division (which it will), on any given axis only one of its Armored Brigades will most likely launch an assault. Here again, the Brigade may commit one of its Armored Regiment (may be with additional Sqn. from sister regiment) along with supporting Mechanized Infantry component and keep the 2nd one in reserve. Facing it will most likely be another PA Armored Regiment+Infantry. In this tank versus tank scenario, the quality of the tank will matter. And while today a bulk of PA may be equipped with T-85IIAP and T-69/Al-Zarrar and T-80UD (numbers capped), in due course of time, the bulk of their armor will be Al-Khalid Mk1 and Mk2. And mind you, Al-Khalid is no pushover.



That sir, is where I differ the most, and hence am less concerned than a lot of others on the T90-v/s-Arjun debate..In a Cold Start scenario, we will not face off 1st Armoured Div against the Paki 1st Armoured...We would attempt to have 3 tank regiments mobilised to strike for every regiment that the Pakis would be able to bring to bear in the given timeframe...And backed by equally dissimilar arty firepower...As also arguably better and more numerous C3I resources...And vastly dissimilar air support...Hence it will almost never be a tank regiment v/s tank regiment affair...In a localised, short operation, it will be mobilisation of vastly superior numbers (and comparatively superior quality in some respects) very quickly - that will be key..And the Army is not confident that the Arjun can either be inducted fast enough, or its infrastructure set up quickly enough for them to have confidence for an Arjun only solution..

And as you agree on, having (say) 1500 tanks of both types is a logistical nightmare..

negi wrote:Logistics is another strawman , With T-72 one has to take off the whole turret to replace the engine which rules out any maintainance or engine replacement in battlefield , With T-90 turret need not be removed but the power-train and engine are not on one assembly hence it becomes complicated with Arjun the engine and power-train are integrated and can be replaced in 3 hours flat.

And wait a minute , commonality in terms of logistics/spares with a 4 decade old design ? And this for a order as large as 1300 tanks :eek: .
What happens to this logistics argument with FMBT when IA would have added another 1300 vintage designs to its inventory ?
....

Lastly for crying out loud while GOI and other services maintain that it is the PRC whose military might India should be concerned about I find it amusing to hear the argument that "T-90 is capable enough to take on TSP tanks" .


Negi ji, replacing LRUs on the field is only one part of logistics..Even I (an amateur enthusiast) can think of many more, arguably more important ones - tank transport infra, recovery vehicles, road and rail infrastructure, the works..

Induction of FMBT is a very different idea to inducting two platforms parallely...The FMBT will be inducted with a view to finally within a timeframe replace all legacy units with the FMBT..Inducting the Arjun AND T90 now in (say) equal numbers is a different ball game - you just need to duplicate the entire logistics train and infratsurtcure..

LAstly, we are not about to face off PRC tanks anywhere anytime soon, so the China card does not work..

Rahul M, here's the India Defence link..

http://www.india-defence.com/reports/3098
(this is an old(er) report, hence I would give more credence to Ajai Shukla's statement..

Here is Ajai's follow-up article

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2010/02/ ... arjun.html

Quoting:
(a) Increase Arjun tank production on an expanded assembly line, at the rate of 30, 40, and then 50 tanks per year in 2011, 2012 and 2013 respectively


As you see, here he is talking about increasing the production to 50 by 2013! And this article was published in BS, while his assertion of production having met the 50 number is simply an answer to a blog question...There is no "wink wink" here...For all we know, Avadi might have produced 50 tanks in 2009..That doesnt make it the standard production run capacity of Avadi necessarily..And given its past track record, I would be circumspect, very very sceptical in fact...
Last edited by somnath on 22 Mar 2010 08:36, edited 1 time 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 » 22 Mar 2010 08:09

he is talking of another assembly line, over and above the current one.

somnath
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3416
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: Singapore

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby somnath » 22 Mar 2010 08:28

Rahul M wrote:he is talking of another assembly line, over and above the current one.


Another assembly line?!! His words are "expanded" assembly line...Why would any manufacturing outfit set up a second assembly line when the first one churns out no more than 30-50 (depending on what you believe)!? Further, Ajai is talking about producing 62 units at the peak production rate - even that would mean 20-25 years before we can have 1500 Arjuns in the inventory..Much better to start work on an FMBT project (and not prejudge it as "Western" or "Russian") and start getting THAT to replace T90s/T72s completely in the same timeframe...

chackojoseph wrote:For those who are arguing why Pakistan has not gone for Abrams:

1) Suppose it does now from heavier tanks from China, will Army flip and ask for heavier tanks? Army seems reactionary and non forward looking.
2) Why did Army mention explicitly that they wanted western equivalent tank?


Valid point sir, but as I said before it doesnt get anyone too far besides gaining brownie points...Yes, IA goofed up in the GSQR making process..the place to rectify it is not Arjun (given that they have now finalised on the T90, hopefully after giving it considerable thought) anymore, but in the FMBT...

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby chackojoseph » 22 Mar 2010 08:30

^^^ That might be a brownie on internet, but had to be said. CAG is looking why Arjun was not inducted since the first prototype in 1980's.

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 » 22 Mar 2010 08:43

62 units at the peak production rate
of the Mk2, which is a different model.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 22 Mar 2010 08:52

Much better to start work on an FMBT project (and not prejudge it as "Western" or "Russian") and start getting THAT to replace T90s/T72s completely in the same timeframe...


For the nth time it does not work like it. srai has explained it. Shukla has mentioned - the Israelis are saying it.

You are not going to produce 50 or 100 shut down production and voila years from now come up with a FMBT of your own???

Thats the biggest wet dream.

sugriva
BRFite
Posts: 318
Joined: 15 Jun 2005 20:16
Location: Exposing the uber communist luddites masquerading as capitalists

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby sugriva » 22 Mar 2010 09:06

Why is the Indian army so against the induction of Arjun tanks? Is it because it is afraid that once it inducts Arjun tanks Pakistan will be given US M1A2 tanks?


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests