Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7711
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 25 Mar 2010 03:28

------Self Deleted--------
Last edited by rohitvats on 25 Mar 2010 10:29, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby putnanja » 25 Mar 2010 03:34

From Shiv Aroor's blog:

"Arjun In Present Form Can Never Be Our MBT, 2 More Regiments Possible"

...
And while the trial team's report will only be submitted in the first week of next month, I had a candid chat with an Army officer who was part of one of the trial teams, and I have to admit he's the first Army tankman I've spoken to so far who's admitted that the Army is as much to blame for the Arjun's "situation" (his word) as DRDO. I can't go into everything he said, because he's requested me not to get into the details until the trial report is in, but here's a gist of what he thinks. Remember, these's aren't facts, but a considered assessment of an officer who was part of the latest trial exercise.
...
..
Here's a list of some of the things he shared with me:

*
"The Arjun performed all its objectives to the full satisfaction of the trial team. I should point out that there was little doubt in our minds at this stage that any major issues would crop up in the platform. The Arjun has reached a level of maturity after several trial rounds, so we were quite confident that we would not encounter any developmental or serious technological issues."
*
"In its current form and configuration, I think the Army has already made it very clear that the Arjun cannot be the mainstay of the armoured corps. There are several reasons for this, including some intangibles which everyone is aware of, but to be fair to the Army, there is logic to the argument that the Arjun belongs to a certain design and configuration philosophy that the Army does not want in its future tank. These trials have given deep perspective into where the Arjun fits in our battle order."
*
"Although it is not definite at this stage, and may change in the course of the days ahead, several key decision-makers in the Army have in-principle agreed to the suggestion that the Arjun in its present form can occupy four tank regiments. But there is resistance to this idea from the field. The just concluded trials could support the possibility of a total of four Arjun regiments focused on desert operations."
*
"The Army should share the blame also for not expediting its requirements for a future main battle tank (FMBT). There have been internal studies for years, but to this day, there is no definite picture of what our FMBT should have, look like or be capable of. So when the people at DRDO blame us for indecision and mid-stream QR changes, they do seem to have a case. As they did with Arjun."
*
"The Army is quite clear. We need to close one chapter and begin another. Call it Mark-2, call it something else. But things need to move forward. It is unhealthy how things have progressed, though I can say in the last three years there appears to be a much greater empathy between the Army and DRDO about how to take things forward. Let's hope it continues."
*
"Admittedly, the trials may not go a long way in resurrecting Arjun as some quarters have been led to believe, but it has been a healthy exercise and the Army is in a strong position now to use the Arjun to the best of its abilities. The tank has been given its due." :?:
...
...
Last edited by putnanja on 25 Mar 2010 03:43, edited 1 time in total.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7711
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 25 Mar 2010 03:40

putnanja wrote: In its current form and configuration, I think the Army has already made it very clear that the Arjun cannot be the mainstay of the armoured corps. There are several reasons for this, including some intangibles which everyone is aware of, but to be fair to the Army, there is logic to the argument that the Arjun belongs to a certain design and configuration philosophy that the Army does not want in its future tank.[/b] These trials have given deep perspective into where the Arjun fits in our battle order.................


I'd love to hear from the officer what expectation of a future tank are met by T-90......and as for the last part of the statement..well, :roll:

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 25 Mar 2010 03:43

From aroor

"The Army should share the blame also for not expediting its requirements for a future main battle tank (FMBT). There have been internal studies for years, but to this day, there is no definite picture of what our FMBT should have, look like or be capable of. So when the people at DRDO blame us for indecision and mid-stream QR changes, they do seem to have a case. As they did with Arjun."



:(


Seriously short of egos whats left??

Even at this point with all the excuses thrown in I cannot see why more tanks cannot be ordered.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby putnanja » 25 Mar 2010 03:47

Surya wrote: :(


Seriously short of egos whats left??

Even at this point with all the excuses thrown in I cannot see why more tanks cannot be ordered.


Looks like at best 124 more tanks ( 2 more regiments) will be ordered, and that is pretty much about it, while they will end up with close to 2000 T-90s, with almost 1000 more on order!

If they can live with T-90 for the next 10-15 years, why can't they live with Arjun too? Split the orders between Arjun and T-90. replace T-72/T-55 with arjun while buying T-90 for additional regiments, like rohitvats suggested.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby D Roy » 25 Mar 2010 03:49

I think the government should intervene in the interests of indigenisation.

376 more tanks are required to make the investment in the development of the tank viable.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7711
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 25 Mar 2010 03:52

Surya wrote: :(


Seriously short of egos whats left??

Even at this point with all the excuses thrown in I cannot see why more tanks cannot be ordered.


Don't you know, DGMF knows best.... :evil:

astal
BRFite
Posts: 162
Joined: 07 Jul 2005 03:06
Location: virtual back bench

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby astal » 25 Mar 2010 03:52

Though the instinctive desire for jubilation is difficult to suppress, lets not make this an Army vs DRDO issue.
First of all we need to wait until the official report is filed, as is mentioned in Ajai Shukla's article.

Like the article states, some of the army brass were pleasantly surprised by the Arjuns performance. It re-enforces our belief, that regardless of past mistakes on the part of the Arjun development team and the Army, the generals have their hearts in the right place.

At this juncture, regardless of the performance, it is up to the Army to order more Arjuns. From now on, I hope it will be an Army product as well as a DRDO product. Though I am certainly wishing for another 500 (with 376 at a minimum) , I would be grateful even if they order another 124. Meanwhile they can iron out logistics issues and concertize requirements for the next generation MBT.

astal
BRFite
Posts: 162
Joined: 07 Jul 2005 03:06
Location: virtual back bench

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby astal » 25 Mar 2010 04:49

Regarding the Arjun saga and the DRDO versus army debate, I want to ask the forum stalwarts that would support a decision not to induct more Arjuns the following question.

To what extent is the Army responsible for improvement of Indian technology and manufacturing capabilities?

The government suffers from always having an eye on elections with all the temptations of corruption and short term foreign policy objectives. The bureaucracy is hardly an expert in the subject matter and secretaries are shuffled regularly. Bureaucrats can be pressured by the government and are more susceptible than Army officers. The DRDO can develop a product but they cannot force the army to place orders. The Army has a track record in defending India's borders and being less corrupt. It has the institutional capabilities and technical expertise.

Perhaps the Arjun, for logistical or tactical reasons is not suitable for induction in large numbers. Even if this is the case, if only to retain Indian tank building capabilities, more orders need to be placed. Suppose the Arjun turns out to be a white elephant (doubtful if the results of the trials are to be believed), the expenses towards this white elephant support the livelihood of people working in India.

The Army and DRDO together, despite the lack of government understanding, need to breed it into a gray and useful elephant.

It may not be the best solution for a war fought today or tomorrow. In the long term, though, a commitment to indigenous production is to the Army's advantage and is part of the Army's responsibility. Only local production and technology development can ensure that we are able to defend our borders and protect our economic interests while simultaneously providing livelihood for our own people.

In this case I hope that the army will explicitly take charge of project management of any future MBT program and work with DRDO as a partner not a customer. The Arjun mark II and any eventual FMBT need to be an Army partnership.

(disclaimer: I do not have a PhD in technology strategy so I do not have an upper hand.)

James B
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2249
Joined: 08 Nov 2008 21:23
Location: Samjhautha Express with an IED

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby James B » 25 Mar 2010 05:10

putnanja wrote:


:twisted:

Where is the lungi dance icon??


Gentlemen, here is an amateurish lungi dance :twisted: emoticon I made. Enjaaay.

Lungi dance for Arjun's success over tincan :twisted: .

Image

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Viv S » 25 Mar 2010 05:50

To forum gurus,

Q1. How long do you reckon it would take the DRDO to come up with the Arjun MkII? Is 2015 too optimistic a figure? The Arjun's production line could run for two and half years with a second 124 tank order. All subsequent deliveries being the MkII.

Q2. What would the MkII comprise? Obviously you'd have a newer 1500hp engine, perhaps an improved armour composition... would adding wedge-shaped add-on armor à la Leopard 2A5 be feasible?

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8279
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby anupmisra » 25 Mar 2010 06:41

putnanja wrote:Where is the lungi dance icon??


No icon but will this do? Lungi Dance

nishu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 62
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 19:49

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby nishu » 25 Mar 2010 06:52

today is independence day... yapi

Bhaskar
BRFite
Posts: 202
Joined: 31 Dec 2008 23:46

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Bhaskar » 25 Mar 2010 07:06

We always seem to be very critical of DRDO.
But, for the first time, I am proud of them. Of what they made. And I am proud that we have made Arjun.
Sorry for the immature post but i have to say this.
To T90's and its' supporters : PWNED!

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2171
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Vivek K » 25 Mar 2010 07:48

Second Bhaskar's post!!

sunilUpa
BRFite
Posts: 1795
Joined: 25 Sep 2006 04:16

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby sunilUpa » 25 Mar 2010 07:52

Bismillah! I am going to get drunk tonight..

munna
BRFite
Posts: 1392
Joined: 18 Nov 2007 05:03
Location: Pee Arr Eff's resident Constitution Compliance Strategist (Phd, with upper hand)

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby munna » 25 Mar 2010 08:27

Marten wrote:If the MoD and RM cannot step up now, nothing will change. If we do not hear of a 300+ order within 3-6 months, assume the IA will treat MK II with the same disdain as MK 1. One sincerely hopes to see some impetus to what is now the finest tank in Asia. If not just the IA, but also all of us in India learn that interim failure is acceptable as long as we learn quick and react quicker because that is the only path to success. Cheers to all the tipplers enjoying the success of the Arjun!


Making our own weapons is the first step towards breaking a lot of loops that India as been gamed to be stuck in. Now, Pakis cannot buy Arjuns from anywhere else where will they do equal equal from? Hic, balle Arjun di!!

Misraji
BRFite
Posts: 401
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 11:53
Location: USA

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Misraji » 25 Mar 2010 08:28

Come on guys.
Let alone the DRDO- Army spat, this is gonna raise tempers here too.

As much pleased as I am, this article seems to have its lineage in long list of psyops
played by both sides ....So lets wait for more orders before saying "I told you so" .....

Regards,
Ashish.

PS: Of course I am getting drunk tonight .... :mrgreen:

vishal
BRFite
Posts: 331
Joined: 27 Feb 2002 12:31
Location: BOM/SIN

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby vishal » 25 Mar 2010 08:33

If the initial reports are that the Arjun did well we can pretty much expect that the T-90 and it's supporters got the rudest shock of their life (forum decorum prohibits more colourful, but apt, language). Within the IA, the T-90 lobby will only dig in it's heels to stop questions being raised on why they resisted a superior piece of kit. If anything, within the IA, the going for the Arjun just got a lot tougher. The only way out of this is a political decision and when that happens watch out for murmurs of 1962. Quite frankly, I don't see how the DRDO/Arjun wins this particular war even after winning the scrap in the desert.

Fond hopes aside, it looks like it is time for the DRDO to lump this one and move on to the next tank.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby chackojoseph » 25 Mar 2010 08:34

Attention the Holier than though Army Ayatollahs! :twisted:

Here is something I have been writing for past 3 years. It all stands semi-verified. Inshallah!

Live Fist

You can see the Army man admission that Army was equally responsible. But, attitude has to change, Army must take most of the blame.
Last edited by Rahul M on 25 Mar 2010 08:44, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: fontsize edit.

UPrabhu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 99
Joined: 21 Sep 2004 11:51

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby UPrabhu » 25 Mar 2010 08:34

EDIT.
Last edited by Rahul M on 25 Mar 2010 08:43, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: can we PLEASE cut out this kind of flamebaits ?

UPrabhu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 99
Joined: 21 Sep 2004 11:51

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby UPrabhu » 25 Mar 2010 08:37

vishal wrote:If the initial reports are that the Arjun did well we can pretty much expect that the T-90 and it's supporters got the rudest shock of their life (forum decorum prohibits more colourful, but apt, language). Within the IA, the T-90 lobby will only dig in it's heels to stop questions being raised on why they resisted a superior piece of kit. If anything, within the IA, the going for the Arjun just got a lot tougher. The only way out of this is a political decision and when that happens watch out for murmurs of 1962. Quite frankly, I don't see how the DRDO/Arjun wins this particular war even after winning the scrap in the desert.

Fond hopes aside, it looks like it is time for the DRDO to lump this one and move on to the next tank.



What we need is some inquiry on DGMFs EDIT.
Last edited by Rahul M on 25 Mar 2010 08:41, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: mind the language.

Boudhayan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 37
Joined: 10 Feb 2010 10:16

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Boudhayan » 25 Mar 2010 08:44

To all the Gurus....

when they refer to logistical problem with Arjuns due to which they are not being inducted in the strike corps, do they refer to only the bridges not being able to carry the 60ton tank or are there other issues as well ? To my novice mind, the armored bridges are made with the help of DRDO and hence making them capable of carrying more load should not be much of a problem (rather to convert the bridges should not be much of a problem for DRDO). DRDO can also give an offer something like "Buy 100 Arjuns and get 2 bridges converted for free" or something like that. I believe there must be other so called "logistical" issues as well which I might have missed since I remember the Indian railways open wagons (do not know the exact technical name of those open wagons used to carry tanks and other armored vehicles) also being converted to carry the larger Arjuns.

Gurus please enlighten us regarding this....

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 25 Mar 2010 08:50

^^ Well Done , More Arjun's are on the way !! :twisted:

UPrabhu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 99
Joined: 21 Sep 2004 11:51

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby UPrabhu » 25 Mar 2010 08:56

putnanja wrote:
Surya wrote: :(


Seriously short of egos whats left??

Even at this point with all the excuses thrown in I cannot see why more tanks cannot be ordered.


Looks like at best 124 more tanks ( 2 more regiments) will be ordered, and that is pretty much about it, while they will end up with close to 2000 T-90s, with almost 1000 more on order!

If they can live with T-90 for the next 10-15 years, why can't they live with Arjun too? Split the orders between Arjun and T-90. replace T-72/T-55 with arjun while buying T-90 for additional regiments, like rohitvats suggested.


That's because once you accept Arjun, there isn't really any need for 1000 T-90s, I dont think so, but ppl who are for T-90 looks like really unsecure.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby chackojoseph » 25 Mar 2010 08:59

Boudhayan wrote:To all the Gurus....

when they refer to logistical problem with Arjuns due to which they are not being inducted in the strike corps, do they refer to only the bridges not being able to carry the 60ton tank or are there other issues as well ? To my novice mind, the armored bridges are made with the help of DRDO and hence making them capable of carrying more load should not be much of a problem (rather to convert the bridges should not be much of a problem for DRDO). DRDO can also give an offer something like "Buy 100 Arjuns and get 2 bridges converted for free" or something like that. I believe there must be other so called "logistical" issues as well which I might have missed since I remember the Indian railways open wagons (do not know the exact technical name of those open wagons used to carry tanks and other armored vehicles) also being converted to carry the larger Arjuns.

Gurus please enlighten us regarding this....


There is hardly any issue with logistics. Here is food for thought.

1) Arjun Combat support will be lower because of its modularity.
2) Army has to buy new equipment any way while induction, Arjun support equipments can fit other tanks like T-90 etc. it cannot be vice versa.
3) Arjun has a better shelf life.
4) Systems for Arjun tanks have been already developed.
5) bridges anyway remain to be a sore point. One day even T-90 will not pass over it as they are aging.

* the wagons are called BAFTA

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby putnanja » 25 Mar 2010 08:59

There is enough requirement for both T-90 and Arjun.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16859
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 25 Mar 2010 09:02

people, generalised speculation about corruption etc will NOT be tolerated, neither will be crass personal attacks. there will be NO gentle reminders from next time.
Rahul


______________________
Boudhayan, an armoured force is sustained by an entire panoply of support elements, including but not limited to bridge-layer tanks, training infra, other support vehicles etc.

secondly, DRDO is not a production organisation, it is a purely R&D organisation with no profit motive, hence it can't give any such offers. it's all GOI's IOW taxpayer's money at the end of the day.

regarding the validity of this logistics argument, it's a silly excuse at best, you create your logistics set-up to suit your main weapons, you don't decide on your main weapons depending on your logistics set-up. logistics becomes a consideration ONLY when you are comparing similar weapon systems, not between two which are generations apart.
by that logic, we shouldn't have bought the T-72 in the first place and continued with the vijayanta till the end of days. :wink: after all we had all the infrastructure for that tank !

_________________

on a side note : from ajai shukla's blog
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_zUe7sq7m3h0/S ... 200036.JPG
Right: A comparative chart, snapped by me at the CVRDE, Chennai, comparing the performance of the Arjun with the world's major Main Battle Tanks (MBTs)

the caption says, "MBT Arjun, Comparison with world class tanks" guess which tannk is conspicuous by absence in that list ! :rotfl: :rotfl:

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2171
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Vivek K » 25 Mar 2010 09:04

Friends, please applaud the loyalty of patriots like RayC, d_berwal and (even) Sanku to the Indian Army. I cannot fault them for that. However, our gripe is against the procurement mafia which brought about this inglorious episode in our nation's and the Indian Army's history.
Last edited by Vivek K on 25 Mar 2010 09:06, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby chackojoseph » 25 Mar 2010 09:04

UPrabhu wrote:That's because once you accept Arjun, there isn't really any need for 1000 T-90s, I dont think so, but ppl who are for T-90 looks like really unsecure.


As I said before in this thread. Some really competent Politicians are looking into the matter. The parliamentary defence committee is also hell bent on finding out the facts. I told you good news will come in. Now just wait for the Not just Intra Army -Babu - DRDO tussle.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16859
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 25 Mar 2010 09:05

putnanja wrote:There is enough requirement for both T-90 and Arjun.

there is enough requirements for tanks, I'm not sure the T-90 fulfills that requirement. we can argue that we have already inducted it, very well but please cap it at those numbers and don't proliferate the firetrap among our armoured forces.

sathyaC
BRFite
Posts: 124
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 19:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby sathyaC » 25 Mar 2010 09:08

edit.
Last edited by Rahul M on 25 Mar 2010 09:24, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: duplicate post deleted.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby putnanja » 25 Mar 2010 09:10

Rahul M wrote:
putnanja wrote:There is enough requirement for both T-90 and Arjun.

there is enough requirements for tanks, I'm not sure the T-90 fulfills that requirement. we can argue that we have already inducted it, very well but please cap it at those numbers and don't proliferate the firetrap among our armoured forces.


Given that we do have a big order of T-90s, and logistics, spares etc built up around the T-72/90 family, we can live with it. Given that army has a requirement of around 4000 tanks, and we have around 1650 T-90s ordered, and the rest being T-72s, we can phase out T-72s and progressively replace the older ones with Arjun.

Most of the strategy etc has been developed around the T72 family. And even if Avadi's capacity is doubled, it will still produce around 100 Arjuns per year and will take around 10 years to reach 1000. So we can live with both T-90 and Arjun
Last edited by putnanja on 25 Mar 2010 09:12, edited 1 time in total.

niran
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5404
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 16:01

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby niran » 25 Mar 2010 09:11

sigh! a rumurisque post on a Blog and BRF members performing Lungi dance. :roll:
Gentlemen, it is still unofficial, and this is still on "Live Arjun's Torsion Bar broke Fist"
please wait for the official report/announcement, with various coincidental( :?: ) happenstance for Arjun to go against the norm, anything can happen, from
-Data on report is ulta-pulta(coincidental onlee)
-File gone missing and to get it new tests ordered by huge coincident
T90 is superior.
-onlee 124 tanks needed, since IA will use it in Thar Desert onlee.

see, hold yer dances period.

IMVVHO replace T72s with Arjun's,

sathyaC
BRFite
Posts: 124
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 19:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby sathyaC » 25 Mar 2010 09:11


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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby somnath » 25 Mar 2010 09:14

^^^ From Shiv Aroor's report, the key take-aways for me are the following:

1. The Arjun performed all its objectives to the full satisfaction of the trial team

2. In its current form and configuration, I think the Army has already made it very clear that the Arjun cannot be the mainstay of the armoured corps. There are several reasons for this, including some intangibles which everyone is aware of, but to be fair to the Army, there is logic to the argument that the Arjun belongs to a certain design and configuration philosophy that the Army does not want in its future tank.

3. The Army is quite clear. We need to close one chapter and begin another. Call it Mark-2, call it something else. But things need to move forward. It is unhealthy how things have progressed, though I can say in the last three years there appears to be a much greater empathy between the Army and DRDO about how to take things forward.


My reading is that the Army simply does not think that a large sized heavy tank fits into its existing warfighting doctrines..So while the Arjun is a great tank on a stand-alone basis, it does not fit into IA's "system"..(Which would also translate into the fact that none of the Western tanks - M1 included, would)..

However, it is more open than ever before to an indigeneous effort, and therefore the capabilities of the Arjun can be utilised for the next project...I had posted some time back that India's FMBT can well be a "light" tank of 50 ton dimensions..

We can feel depressed that the Army thinks this way, and curse its flipping on its own GSQRs, but thats the way it is...Its unfortunate, but the only way forward is to start work pronto on the FMBT..And yes, get Avadi out of the equation..

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2991
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Kanson » 25 Mar 2010 09:16

Whether driving cross-country over rugged sand-dunes; detecting, observing and quickly engaging targets; or accurately hitting targets, both stationery and moving, with pinpoint gunnery; the Arjun demonstrated a clear superiority over the vaunted T-90.


That should be the hall mark of the MBT and that should be the criteria for the selection and not the ones like hiding behind the sand dunes and running for its life, which are the hall marks of Tin series.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2991
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Kanson » 25 Mar 2010 09:20

Given that we do have a big order of T-90s, and logistics, spares etc built up around the T-72/90 family.


I dont see such logistics issues were raised, when T-72 was first inducted. Anway, these T series are to be retired one day. Unless there is a plan of allegiance to stick with T series and Russian tanks, i dont find that argument compulsive.

SGupta
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 38
Joined: 26 Feb 2007 16:46

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby SGupta » 25 Mar 2010 09:22

India needs an indigenous tan, something that can evolve into an Arjun Mk II, III etc.. The Director Generals opposition doesn't make sense. Frankly somebody who doesn't have the foresight to let India develop a armored force which can evolve to meet all of its needs internally needs to be reassigned to a job that requires less of a strategic outlook.

Regards,
Sanjay

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2171
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Vivek K » 25 Mar 2010 09:23

somnath wrote:My reading is that the Army simply does not think that a large sized heavy tank fits into its existing warfighting doctrines.......

Errr....! The Army wrote the GSQR for this "large sized heavy tank". So you may want to rethink what your takeaways are. The IA procurement system would rather do away with armour than buy the Arjun. Why will they accept the FMBT which will have the genetic prints of the Arjun - like you said a "large sized heavy tank".


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests