Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7737
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 02 Feb 2010 23:18

Philip wrote:.......<SNIP>.......As one army chief put it not too long ago,Arjun is "not a tank for the future which the IA needs".It has taken so long in development that it will lose its cutting tech edge in a faster period of time.......


And T-90 is the tank for the future :-? ....time to tell the Chief--Sir, please forget the future...induct the Arjun now.... :mrgreen:

Craig Alpert
BRFite
Posts: 1440
Joined: 09 Oct 2009 17:36
Location: Behind Enemy Lines

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Craig Alpert » 02 Feb 2010 23:42

rohitvats wrote:So, you haven't seen the interior of a tank and yet, the first one that you see, you call crappy?What were you expecting-leather upholstery and mirror shine finish with brasso? Did it occur to you that it is a MBT used in some of the most harsh conditions(43rd Armored Regiments in based close to Bikaner btw) and that the tank could be an old one and really put throught its paces all these years?

Not to brag, but leather upholstry is something that is not feasible when the interior of the tank reaches 100 degrees F. I think a cloth would more than suffice as its easier to clean/maintain. But and a HUGE one, I think that the consoles on the interior do seem outdated as oppose to the Abrams (too much analog stuff, the need to have a digitial Fire control system, and make use of LCD's to digitise as much as possible. Could save space and look decent maybe Mk2??) HOWEVER, being that this might still be the OLDER version, I don't think we outta jump the gun and let Arjun play it's part in the MAHA YUDH!!!

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby aditp » 03 Feb 2010 00:03


Bhushan
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 11
Joined: 20 Jan 2010 13:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Bhushan » 03 Feb 2010 00:06

http://chhindits.blogspot.com/2010/02/t-90-vs-mbt-arjun.html
T-90 vs MBT Arjun


1. Mobility Summer/winter. Summer/winter.
Fuel consumption varies Accused of being fuel
hungry.

2. Fuel Tank Capacity 1600 liters 1610 liters.


3. Protection System Kontakt-5 explosive reactive Kanchan armour made armour indigenously ny DRDO.

4. Automotive Can penetrate over 900 mm steel Hydro pneumatic suspension
Performance . Can engage low-flying suspension.
air targets and has torsion bar


5. Maximum Speed. 65 kmph on road and 35kmph 75 kmph and 45 kmph cross
cross country. country.

6. Ability to climb One meter high obstacles. One meter high obstacles.
slopes

7. Weight 46.5 tons. 60 tonnes.

8. Price Rs 14.5 crore per tank Rs 16 crore per tank.

9. Firing 125mm smooth bore 120mm rifle-main gun.

10. Crew Three Four.

11.Propulsion Liquid cooled V-84MS German MTU 838Ka-501
618KW 4 Stroke V-12 piston 1400 HP engine.
engine 1000 HP

The Indian Army will see its first ever comparative trials between its mainstay Russian T-90 tanks and the indigenous Main Battle Tank (MBT) Arjun in March this year in the deserts of Rajasthan for medium fording and firing of the weapon systems.

The MBT Arjun's main gun which is the 120mm rifle, 12.7mm NSVT and 7.62mm co-axial gun will be pitted against the T-90's 125mm smooth bore, 12.7mm NSVT and the 7.62mm PKT, besides both tanks undergoing medium fording.

One squadron each of the two tanks, 14 in one squadron, will participate in the trials. The Chennai-based combat vehicle research and development establishment (CVRDE), where the MBT-Arjun is manufactured, had handed over the full fleet of the indigenous tanks to the Indian Army's 43 armoured regiment last year, and currently the regiment has 62 tanks in its inventory, while the remaining 15 tanks are part of the Army's 75 armoured regiment, which is the next regiment to get converted from T-55 to the MBT Arjun , after 43 armoured.

The Bikaner-based 43 armoured regiment is fully geared up for the trials and is readying its 14 tanks for the same.DRDO, meanwhile, is sure of Arjun winning hands down and are positive about it.

People's Post was invited for a test-drive on the MBT Arjun, the tank which participated in this year's Republic Day Parade on January 26, on Rajpath. The smooth 20-minute drive validated the tanks successful auto-transmission system, which is missing in the T-90. The spacious Arjun runs well on auto-gear if the terrain is straight, while in deserts since the speed is less, it is mostly in the first two gears.The driver's cabin, in the front has periscopic prisms, much like the Commander's cabin. There are gears to rotate the turret in eventuality of a war, from inside, while firing.


Some comparison done by that lady Suman Sharma after enjoying a test drive of Arjun this time(wonder why they all give her free test rides?!) !!! Just see how that mohotarma has done the comparison. Cant even put it in proper tabular formats!!! Just see the last sentence "in eventuality of a war" I thought that Arjun was always designed to be used in war and wonder if the turrnet cant rotate if there is no war!! :evil:

Shameek
BRFite
Posts: 834
Joined: 02 Jan 2009 20:44
Location: Ionosphere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Shameek » 03 Feb 2010 00:33

Bhushan wrote:Some comparison done by that lady Suman Sharma after enjoying a test drive of Arjun this time(wonder why they all give her free test rides?!) !!! Just see how that mohotarma has done the comparison. Cant even put it in proper tabular formats!!! Just see the last sentence "in eventuality of a war" I thought that Arjun was always designed to be used in war and wonder if the turrnet cant rotate if there is no war!! :evil:


In such cases don't post the whole text. There is not much useful data there that is not available on BR or Wiki. I think we all realise the Arjun v/s T-90 debate is not just about comparing specs. There is a lot more to it starting from changing mindsets to politics.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7737
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 03 Feb 2010 01:27

Craig Alpert wrote:
rohitvats wrote:So, you haven't seen the interior of a tank and yet, the first one that you see, you call crappy?What were you expecting-leather upholstery and mirror shine finish with brasso? Did it occur to you that it is a MBT used in some of the most harsh conditions(43rd Armored Regiments in based close to Bikaner btw) and that the tank could be an old one and really put throught its paces all these years?

Not to brag, but leather upholstry is something that is not feasible when the interior of the tank reaches 100 degrees F. I think a cloth would more than suffice as its easier to clean/maintain. But and a HUGE one, I think that the consoles on the interior do seem outdated as oppose to the Abrams (too much analog stuff, the need to have a digitial Fire control system, and make use of LCD's to digitise as much as possible. Could save space and look decent maybe Mk2??) HOWEVER, being that this might still be the OLDER version, I don't think we outta jump the gun and let Arjun play it's part in the MAHA YUDH!!!


Abrams are in their evolved state...Arjun is yet to be "accepted" by the IA...once the IA accepts the tanks..sky is the limit....and yes..it might well be an older and not the latest inductions...I had the pleasure of riding and driving one in 1997..when the first lot came to 43rd Armored Regiment for trials.....and it is a big change to the T-XX series of tanks....

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 03 Feb 2010 01:50

Could we stop dissing Shukla??

He writes new and original stuff unlike others with their vain "exclusive" nonsense.Lets grow up from our old fight.

And it looks like the tide is turning against the "eastern " supporters looking by the support from ex Army folks.

Need to keep a sustained pressure on the Natasha group to keep them down and permanently out.

Craig Alpert
BRFite
Posts: 1440
Joined: 09 Oct 2009 17:36
Location: Behind Enemy Lines

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Craig Alpert » 03 Feb 2010 04:43

not exactly a "VEHICLE" per say, but heck this robot sure as hell can come in handy in NE/W India..
Image
DARPA Develops 4-Legged Robot to Haul Equipment Over Rugged Terrain
Looking like a robotic mule, the Legged Squad Support System (LS3) being developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency will carry 400 pounds of equipment for US soldiers and Marines over rugged terrain inaccessible by vehicle – terrain like the mountains of Afghanistan.

In Afghanistan, US soldiers and Marines can carry 50 pounds of equipment, and in some cases over 100 pounds, for long distances over difficult terrain. According to DARPA’s plan, the LS3 will be capable to carry 400 pounds of payload for 20 miles in 24 hours.

And the good news is that system can take care of itself. LS3 will be fully autonomous, able to perceive the terrain and adjust its movements accordingly. Fully loaded, the LS3 will weigh no more than 1,250 pounds.

To get the program off the ground, so to speak, DARPA recently awarded a $32 million, 30-month contract [pdf] to Boston Dynamics of Waltham, MA to develop LS3 prototypes…

Boston Dynamics’ partners on the LS3 program include Bell Helicopter, AAI Corp., Carnegie Mellon University, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and Woodward HRT.

Key characteristics of the LS3 program include:

* Quadruped platform development: a deployable walking platform with sufficient payload capacity, range, endurance, and low noise signature for dismounted squad support, while keeping weight and volume scaled to the squad level.

* Walking control: control techniques that allow walking, trotting, and running/ bounding and capabilities to jump obstacles, cross ditches, recover from disturbances, and other discrete mobility features.

* User interface (to include perception technologies): the ability for the robot to perceive and traverse its immediate terrain environment autonomously with simple methods of control.

Following the initial LS3 design and build phase, DARPA and the Marine Corps will review the results and determine future program phases that may lead to full LS3 integration and experimentation with operational platforms.

Hitesh
BRFite
Posts: 793
Joined: 04 Jul 1999 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Hitesh » 03 Feb 2010 05:00

Look,

the IA spent decades building up the logistics chain that was designed for the T-series tanks. They basically had to learn how to invent the wheel metaphorically speaking. The IA HAVE the know-how, and arguably the experience of mass-producing and fielding entire tank fleets, plus the ammo. One of the biggest complaints about the Arjun is that the project appears to sidestep and ignore the decades of effort by the state to develop their own M-I complex based on Russian gear and suddenly just jump into a tank using mostly imported components. The Arjun isn't being rejected because fielding it requires learning the ropes - that's been done ages ago - but because it requires learning the ropes AGAIN, which is effectively reinventing the wheel.

In contrast to the Arjun, the production line for the T-90s can simply be an conversion of existing T-72 production lines, which is why the timelines for the T-90 ToT look very tight. Given that India - unlike China - actually does have experience making and fielding T-72s, it would have made more sense for INDIA to have gone the Chinese route and make their own version of the T-tanks rather than doing the Great Leap Forward (irony of ironies) that the Arjun has turned out to be. Of course, as I said myself, India probably just can't afford replacing the models every three years (which the Chinese seem to be doing with some gusto),

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Bhaskar » 03 Feb 2010 05:02


Not an expert in this but don't understand to why doesn't the Indian Army induct Arjun heavily. We need to encourage indigenously built machines which are well made.

T-72 is 80% blind at night. I think that should be the decider that T-72 cannot be used during a war and is basically a coffin.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5375
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Kartik » 03 Feb 2010 05:55

Hitesh wrote:In contrast to the Arjun, the production line for the T-90s can simply be an conversion of existing T-72 production lines, which is why the timelines for the T-90 ToT look very tight. Given that India - unlike China - actually does have experience making and fielding T-72s, it would have made more sense for INDIA to have gone the Chinese route and make their own version of the T-tanks rather than doing the Great Leap Forward (irony of ironies) that the Arjun has turned out to be. Of course, as I said myself, India probably just can't afford replacing the models every three years (which the Chinese seem to be doing with some gusto)


Well it was an Indian Army GSQR that led to the Arjun design in the first place! I mean it wasn’t CVRDE that said ok lets go for a 58 ton tank with 1400 hp engine. The IA at that time was scared that PA would acquire the M-1 Abrams and that fear led them to change their original GSQR to the one that led to the configuration we see today. So if there was lack of vision, it wasn’t anyone but the IA’s fault and even then I feel that its more a case of changed threat perception that made the IA feel lukewarm about the Arjun. I can guarantee that if PA had M-1s, the IA would’ve happily taken the Arjun or begged the GoI to get them Leopard 1 or 2s from Germany. Then, the bigger size and higher weight would’ve been accommodated, infrastructure would’ve been set up and they’d have changed their training to suit the new tank.

A year ago when I spoke to a recently retired Brigadier of the IA, who was in charge of a T-72 regiment earlier, he said that there was no doubt in the IA that in a one-to-one fight the T-72 stood no chance against the Arjun. He also said that he knew that crew comfort, armour protection and accuracy wise, the Arjun was far superior to the T-72, but he said that the T-90 was a very good tank. When I asked which is better, he cryptically said both have their advantages.

But what he said is that the IA liked the T-90 because in many ways it didn’t need to change operational tactics for training tank crews. Its silhouette was nearly the same as the T-72, which meant that tactics applied for the T-72 could be used directly for the T-90. Such as, how much minimum distance would you need to maintain from an enemy tank when you hide behind a dune. The Arjun has a higher profile and consequently needs to be farther from an enemy tank in order to remain undetected. But with better thermal sights (80% of IA’s tanks don’t even have this) the Arjun has a natural advantage here in spotting an enemy first. Even if it’s detected and fired at, the Arjun’s Kanchan armour can take direct hits from T-72s and still fight. Can the T-72 or T-90 do that? And the Arjun’s FCS and gun will mean much higher probability of taking out an enemy tank, which in our enemy’s case is as lightly armoured as our T-72 and T-90s. And like any other major product, there will be some defects initially, but those can be taken care of and shouldn’t mean the end of the road unless the system performs abominably.

ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 961
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby ParGha » 03 Feb 2010 06:23

Craig,

1. Tanks are notoriously prone to fires - even the most reliable ones. Cloth is okay, but leather is better. Plastics and cheap metal (ex. zips on one's clothes) are the enemy.

2. Digital displays are overrated and often counter-productive when critical information must be digested in split-second's time. Just try this yourself while driving at high speeds - keep an analog dial watch and a digital display watch by your side; you will just need to glance at the analog dial to figure out the time, but you will have to actually read the digital display (and shift your eyes from long to short vision longer). That said, some maintenance information can probably be hidden off in one digital display.

Craig Alpert
BRFite
Posts: 1440
Joined: 09 Oct 2009 17:36
Location: Behind Enemy Lines

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Craig Alpert » 03 Feb 2010 06:43

ParGha wrote:Craig,

1. Tanks are notoriously prone to fires - even the most reliable ones. Cloth is okay, but leather is better. Plastics and cheap metal (ex. zips on one's clothes) are the enemy.

2. Digital displays are overrated and often counter-productive when critical information must be digested in split-second's time. Just try this yourself while driving at high speeds - keep an analog dial watch and a digital display watch by your side; you will just need to glance at the analog dial to figure out the time, but you will have to actually read the digital display (and shift your eyes from long to short vision longer). That said, some maintenance information can probably be hidden off in one digital display.

1. Agree. Leather has it's pro's and con's. I have a leather seats in my car, and boy let me tell you when hell freezes over here during the winter time, it's not a good feeling and when heaven's burn during the summer time it literally feels like my ass is on fire, but I would still prefer leather over cloth. (maybe avoiding black leather and using brown would be a better option..)
2. Debatable..While what you gave is a perfect example, imagine that but now with 20 different system displaying individual information. This is where Digitizing and LCD's come in effect, as all the information is consolidated and provided in an easy to read/maintain displays thereby freeing up additional (many a times valuable) time for the GI's/Jawan.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 03 Feb 2010 06:51

One of the biggest complaints about the Arjun is that the project appears to sidestep and ignore the decades of effort by the state to develop their own M-I complex based on Russian gear and suddenly just jump into a tank using mostly imported components.



What poppycock is this??

Who is the state here?? The ARMY?? It cannot make huffy and Tuffy for crying out loud. It could not upgrade tanks (BRD ) per Shukla.

And if DRDO etc are not part of the state then who the hell are they representing?? Pakistan?? Sri lanka??



The whole darn T 72 \t 90 is imported and youa re talking of Arjun's imported components??

and give me a link or quote for the rubbish about army not wanting to build a new logistics setup unless this is your interpretation about rail , bridge etc a decade ago
Last edited by Surya on 03 Feb 2010 07:27, edited 1 time in total.

ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 961
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby ParGha » 03 Feb 2010 07:11

Out of curiosity, what does license production of T-72s and T-90s in India actually mean? Are all the core components to build the basic tank produced in-country? How about the materials? Basically I am asking, can India continue to produce tanks on an emergency basis if the supplies from Russia (Poland?) are disrupted? TIA.

SivaVijay
BRFite
Posts: 136
Joined: 09 Apr 2009 19:23

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby SivaVijay » 03 Feb 2010 08:47

What I could infer from the posts above is that IA is reluctant to any change, but the irony is we have a neighbourhood where unless you evolve and adapt your neighbours are gonna make your life hard. I might be wrong, but this gives me a idea that the IA is or is becoming a inflexible army and that really worries me....I would be glad to be reassured by some gurus that its not the case.

But what he said is that the IA liked the T-90 because in many ways it didn’t need to change operational tactics for training tank crews. Its silhouette was nearly the same as the T-72, which meant that tactics applied for the T-72 could be used directly for the T-90. Such as, how much minimum distance would you need to maintain from an enemy tank when you hide behind a dune.


Weren't the Russian tanks designed for an armoured thrust rather than defence, and moreover doesn't the latest Indian doctrine emphasis on armoured thrust rather than defence from behind dunes . What is it that I am not understanding here...? Kindly enlighten me...

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 03 Feb 2010 08:51

I do not think we manufacture the T72/T90 engines, the thales-catherine thermal imagers . info on the ammo is iffy - we certainly import rounds but produce some as well . the tank barrels are produced in kanpur ofb.


its a good question to ask - after decades what is the import content of
T72 and what is planned for T90 ?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Bhaskar » 03 Feb 2010 09:11

Rather than buying more Arjun tanks, Indian Army to spend billions on refurbishing outdated T-72s

(2nd part of a 3-article series on next month's comparative trial between the T-90 and the Arjun)
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2010/02/rather-than-buying-more-arjun-tanks.html
EDIT : Already Posted by Aditp, Apologies.
Last edited by Bhaskar on 03 Feb 2010 09:45, edited 1 time in total.

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4520
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby putnanja » 03 Feb 2010 09:14

Bhaskar, aditp has already posted the same article in this very page.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 03 Feb 2010 09:28

pargha

For T 72 I would make an educated guess
at least the big pieces are probably CKDs - engines etc, also any TI sights etc.

If we were producing all the major things indigenously then surely we would not be running to poland, etc for upgrades

even if we could produce the parts which private manufacturer would take it up for the small quantities???

I was told recently even the Tatras are CKDs -

rakall
BRFite
Posts: 798
Joined: 10 May 2005 10:26

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rakall » 03 Feb 2010 09:47




Good to see " I piloted T72, so I know tanks. Arjun is a junk" ShookLaw now so shaken & stirred that he has become an ardent supporter of Arjun..

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby aditp » 03 Feb 2010 10:14

rakall wrote:



Good to see " I piloted T72, so I know tanks. Arjun is a junk" ShookLaw now so shaken & stirred that he has become an ardent supporter of Arjun..


Only proves that the good karnail is impartial enough to recognise an improved product that has ultimately evolved to become superior.

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7009
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Anujan » 03 Feb 2010 10:49

I know that the name calling is in jest, but please lets spare Shukla-ji.

It speaks volumes about his honesty and open mindedness that he came around and has written quite a few articles strongly supporting the Arjun tank.

Arjun has been called everything from "late" to "overweight" and had its (non existent) torsion bar broken in the DDM. If anything, we should respect the fact that he served in uniform. Moreover, pro Arjun jingos need journos like him to have a fighting chance against the "OMG!! 30 YEARS LATE OVERWEIGHT TANK!!!" clueless DDM and lifafa types.

More power to Shukla-ji (everything is forgotten please come back :mrgreen: )

Amit J
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 84
Joined: 27 Dec 2009 18:16
Location: CLASSIFIED

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Amit J » 03 Feb 2010 11:08

rohitvats wrote:
Amit J wrote:.....<snip>
What is the apprx cost of the BTR-90 given tht the Stryker costs 1.5 mil USD apiece as per wiki


IMHO, it is not prudent to compare the price of BTR-XX with Stryker.The american product as usual comes with hell lot of bells and whistles....if we have to..we need to compare the base/bare minimum spec Stryker with any other IFV.


So... do you know the cost of a BTR-90 ?

wig
BRFite
Posts: 1906
Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby wig » 03 Feb 2010 11:08

this is offtrack, but; nevertheless,
building a tank, aircraft, ship or gun or whatever means primarily developing human skill sets in a very wide variety of fields.
as a nation we need to invest time and money to ensure that the necessary skills can be developed. no amount of buying off the shelf will ever ensure that, our citizens can develop the skills required in multifarious technologies. that skill will only come over time, generations and if we as a nation are prepared to invest money and loads of it without griping. we wont build the best maybe the first time but, i for one am suire that the next will be a world beater. hence the cost and time overruns need to be taken in our stride! cheerio

bart
BRFite
Posts: 712
Joined: 04 Jan 2008 21:33

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby bart » 03 Feb 2010 11:09

I think it also shows the difference between a gentleman who has actually served in the Army, vs Shiv Aroor or the Mohtarma-outh

Anujan wrote:I know that the name calling is in jest, but please lets spare Shukla-ji.

It speaks volumes about his honesty and open mindedness that he came around and has written quite a few articles strongly supporting the Arjun tank.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9915
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Yagnasri » 03 Feb 2010 20:16

Somewhere up here Price of T90 as 14 Cr and Arjun 17.5 Cr. Then how come T90 is said to very much cheap.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby d_berwal » 03 Feb 2010 20:26

Narayana Rao wrote:Somewhere up here Price of T90 as 14 Cr and Arjun 17.5 Cr. Then how come T90 is said to very much cheap.


124 Arjun x 17.5 cr = 2170cr

2170cr / 14per/t90 = 155 T-90

29 more tanks for the same money spent

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7737
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 03 Feb 2010 20:36

d_berwal wrote:
Narayana Rao wrote:Somewhere up here Price of T90 as 14 Cr and Arjun 17.5 Cr. Then how come T90 is said to very much cheap.


124 Arjun x 17.5 cr = 2170cr

2170cr / 14per/t90 = 155 T-90

29 more tanks for the same money spent


And you do realize that in due course that price/tank for Arjun will come down when more tech. is produced locally and economies of scale kick in? And even today, with X% of the content being local, that X% goes into local economy?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 03 Feb 2010 20:38

yeah you would need the extra tanks to absorb the attacks per Herr Guederians theory a few pages ahead :)

Many ways to slice and dice this - and show that its better spent on 124 Arjuns rather than 155 T 90s

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7737
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 03 Feb 2010 20:45

Surya wrote:yeah you would need the extra tanks to absorb the attacks per Herr Guederians theory a few pages ahead :).....
.... :rotfl: :rotfl: :mrgreen:

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Jagan » 03 Feb 2010 21:03

Here is a post by Ajai Shukla that perhaps gives the reasoningfor the change of mind

There is a major breakdown of trust between the CVRDE and the DGMF. For years, the CVRDE claimed that they would provide the Arjun in short order... and failed to deliver on those claims. Now that the tank is in good enough shape to be introduced into service, the DGMF finds itself unable to shed its old mindset of "if it's Arjun, it must be scuttled unceremoniously".


Essentially what he is saying - "The Arjun sucked when I saw it last in service . but things have improved since then, its quite good now"

manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2523
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby manjgu » 03 Feb 2010 21:19

Wig .. i totally totally agree with you. with induction of Akaash, rapid strides in LCA, Arjun .. all need to be encouraged.

How about a contigent from BR for the arjun vs t 90 trials :-))) :mrgreen:

on a lighter note was watching a movie "Sergent Bilko" and how he got a hovercraft tank approved and saved his base and boss !!

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4520
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby putnanja » 03 Feb 2010 21:24

The good colonel has seen the light! And his articles have been mostly pro-India with no bias towards anyone ( ok, a little bias against DRDO, but that is acceptable:D)

Let us stop name-calling the few journalists who can atleast understand defence issues. We can't expect him to be 100% right about everything. But given the state of defence reporting in India, he along with vishnu som etc stand out in the crowd.

He may still lurk around BR just like Vishnu. Let us try our best to provide more ammunition to them so they can shoot straight, rather than shooting down everything they say.

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4520
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby putnanja » 03 Feb 2010 21:29

Wasn't there an offer by the german engine manufacturers for the next version of the engine used in Arjun that was supposedly 30-40% lighter than the current one?

If the army had accepted the Arjun take 4-5 years back, with orders for more, the MkII arjun would have been more lighter and cheaper too with local production of many items driving down costs

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby d_berwal » 03 Feb 2010 21:47

putnanja wrote:Wasn't there an offer by the german engine manufacturers for the next version of the engine used in Arjun that was supposedly 30-40% lighter than the current one?

If the army had accepted the Arjun take 4-5 years back, with orders for more, the MkII arjun would have been more lighter and cheaper too with local production of many items driving down costs



IA accepted ARJUN in 2001, it took 9+ years to produce enough for 1 Regt, Second Regt Still to get New Tanks, may be by next month

Germans never offered new engine :( (u have a source)

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 03 Feb 2010 21:55

we do not have details of how many years was because of problems and how many years because of the the Army stubborness


Also T 90s have been accepted with problems (I am still waiting for T 90s trials on open source)

Also not unusual for problems when someone is doing something for the first

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby d_berwal » 03 Feb 2010 22:07

Surya wrote:we do not have details of how many years was because of problems and how many years because of the the Army stubborness


Also T 90s have been accepted with problems (I am still waiting for T 90s trials on open source)

Also not unusual for problems when someone is doing something for the first


Production facility was setup only in 2008 ....

The problems of T-90 did not render the equipment unusable.

The Trial DATA will never be made public.. :)
Last edited by d_berwal on 03 Feb 2010 22:10, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby merlin » 03 Feb 2010 22:10

d_berwal wrote:
putnanja wrote:Wasn't there an offer by the german engine manufacturers for the next version of the engine used in Arjun that was supposedly 30-40% lighter than the current one?

If the army had accepted the Arjun take 4-5 years back, with orders for more, the MkII arjun would have been more lighter and cheaper too with local production of many items driving down costs



IA accepted ARJUN in 2001, it took 9+ years to produce enough for 1 Regt, Second Regt Still to get New Tanks, may be by next month

Germans never offered new engine :( (u have a source)


Accha theek hai, now its ready. How much is the IA willing to order?

As for the Germans, I wonder if they can be persuaded to supply 883 or Europack if, say, the Arjun order is bumped up to 500. 500 engines plus spares is a large enough order size.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby d_berwal » 03 Feb 2010 22:20

merlin wrote:

Accha theek hai, now its ready. How much is the IA willing to order?

As for the Germans, I wonder if they can be persuaded to supply 883 or Europack if, say, the Arjun order is bumped up to 500. 500 engines plus spares is a large enough order size.



Germans can be, but how fast can we come up with a redesigned ARJUN, with new engine.

Europack is almost 25-30% lesser in volume and weight. Just changing the engine will not do... the whole profile of MBT will change, recoile counterbalance, cg etc....

If it comes faster then next version of T-xx i dont see a issue...

- With the current CS strategy... hw many IBG's can be converted to ARJUN.... wrt T-90S in the same timescale.

anyway ARJUN MkII or serial upgarde is in pipeline... lets waite n watch.. 124 is not bad for now. Let IA refine its operational procedures with 124... we all will see more if it fitts well in desired role.

But ask IA a blank check of 500 is impossibel because a blank check of 124 was a bad exp for IA which took 9+yrs to metarilise... :)


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest