Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11195
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Gagan » 06 May 2017 00:45

Do enough cosmetic changes so that it is a new product.
There are design ideas that have been used in the Merkava and the Armata that need to be looked at - for example the engine up front of the Merkava, allowing there to be a door in the back for crew to escape from, or being used as an APC even, and Armata's electronics etc

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2636
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby nam » 06 May 2017 00:52

DRDO knows that T90 scores over Arjun in the 3 man crew and logistics commonality with T-72. DRDO should have brought out a prototype of souped up T90 with some "brochure capability" like 130 mm etc. Waiting for GSQR is a dog chasing tail exercise.

DRDO needs to start thinking like a arms developer. It is not a scientific institution.

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3732
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby hnair » 06 May 2017 12:29

DRDO's Tank-Ex tried to do just that, with T72 frame. Did not go anywhere

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4322
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby srai » 06 May 2017 18:41

Image

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1249
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Gyan » 06 May 2017 20:53

Tank Ex was like advanced T-90 with turret bustle. But got canned without even serious discussion. I don't think India will ever have a serious military industrial complex.

aditp
BRFite
Posts: 438
Joined: 15 Jul 2008 07:25
Location: Autoland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby aditp » 07 May 2017 01:05

Gyan wrote:Tank Ex was like advanced T-90 with turret bustle. But got canned without even serious discussion. I don't think India will ever have a serious military industrial complex.


Didn't it have gun recoil issues? The lighter T72 Chassis not being able to withstand the recoil property and cracking up at places? Read that some moons ago.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4322
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby srai » 07 May 2017 08:00

aditp wrote:
Gyan wrote:Tank Ex was like advanced T-90 with turret bustle. But got canned without even serious discussion. I don't think India will ever have a serious military industrial complex.


Didn't it have gun recoil issues? The lighter T72 Chassis not being able to withstand the recoil property and cracking up at places? Read that some moons ago.


That was 155mm SP.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2142
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Vivek K » 07 May 2017 08:28

casually thrown harmful snippets to bring down local development - quite like the torsion bar failure of the Arjuns.

Marten
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2176
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Marten » 07 May 2017 08:37

Vivek, basically saying Tincan series cracks under usage.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8117
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Pratyush » 07 May 2017 10:47

aditp wrote:
Gyan wrote:Tank Ex was like advanced T-90 with turret bustle. But got canned without even serious discussion. I don't think India will ever have a serious military industrial complex.


Didn't it have gun recoil issues? The lighter T72 Chassis not being able to withstand the recoil property and cracking up at places? Read that some moons ago.



It was when the Daniel 155 mm turret was mounted to test usability and show proof of concept. The hull was unsuitable for the application. So they used Arjun hull and developed Bhim.

ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 881
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ParGha » 07 May 2017 16:18

nam wrote:Take T-90 shell. We anyway manufacture barrel & it has kanchan armour.


The T-72s -- maybe even the T-90s -- were sold without radiation-protection lining, as per standard Soviet export control practices.

Did India ever come up with its own lining and sealing for these tanks? Does Arjun series have any?

In India's neighborhood, I would think that it is absolutely essential for tanks and IFVs to have such protection to operate around a dirty-bomb attack or a Pak "demonstration of will" (i.e. nuking an empty piece of their own land). The bulk of India's light/motorized infantry forces will die like flies if they have to operate in such a zone.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2636
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby nam » 07 May 2017 17:04

hnair wrote:DRDO's Tank-Ex tried to do just that, with T72 frame. Did not go anywhere


I would say the effort was misdirected. DRDO took a shortcut. Very understable as there was a tested option.

It carries the issue of 4 versus 3 men. With Arjun turret T72 units will need 25% more manpower to operate the tanks, even if we ignore the logistics issue. Moreover the turret must be as 2-3 times heavier than T72 turret, potentially making it much heavier than T-90 and also a weak 700-800hp engine. Would fail in both weight and P2W ratio.

Far too radical change for what was an upgrade option.

DRDO could still propose a T90 style turret with Arjun gizmos, Indian autoloader and single piece ammo as an upgrade option for T-72. I don't know why this was not considered.

After all T90 Is an upgraded T72!

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7226
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby nachiket » 07 May 2017 17:35

Designing and developing an autoloader compatible with single-piece ammo would be a non-trivial task. Our T-90's still use two-piece ammo.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7226
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby nachiket » 07 May 2017 17:43

Gagan wrote:Once the Arjun Mk2 modifications are complete, DRDO and Avadi need to start an advanced light tank program too. Base it on technologies developed in the Arjun, but make it light - a fresh design, involve the Army's designated people in the project from the begining, and the Def Min to himself monitor the progress.
Target a completion in 4 years or so.

A light tank to replace all the T-72s, and other leftover tanks.

Forgive me but I hope DRDO does nothing of the sort. They designed and built a tank according to the Army's GSQR and proved it is better than their current tank only to see the Army endlessly delaying procurement by asking for more and more changes while buying more of the inferior foreign tanks in parallel.

They should not be asked to work on any new tank design unless the DM makes it clear to the army that the government will not pay for any more imports of foreign tanks.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2636
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby nam » 07 May 2017 18:31

nachiket wrote:Designing and developing an autoloader compatible with single-piece ammo would be a non-trivial task. Our T-90's still use two-piece ammo.


Probably will be a modified variant/based on ATAGS autoloader, but we have to do it anyways for FMBT. Also much better than waiting for FMBT to replace all the T72.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20149
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Philip » 08 May 2017 12:48

Nachi,the GOI has given more "weight",pardon the pun, to the IA than the DRDO over the MBT issue. It sees the logic of having greater commonlaity in the MBT fleet ,making everything from spares,support,ammo and the key logistic factor...on both sides of the border,as spelt out in a prev. post,than a one-off buy of a fe whundred Arjuns of which the IA say have their problems too. This must be examined by the MOD/GOI. If after weighing the pros and cons they prefer the IA's roadmap for their MBT fleet,one must leave it at that.Arjun is also becos of its excess weight,size,etc. much more costly than a T-90.Prev. posts have given the costs. Let's not forget that a v.large component of Arjun is also imported! Therefore,even if Arjun is ordered,it hugely benefits firang entities. This is probably why the GOI in its wisdom prefer to listen to the IA and obtain cheaper and larger numbers of T-90s.
A few crumbs might be thrown the DRDO way with another batch ordered,but it won't make any major difference in the battle order of the IA where T-series MBTs will bear the brunt of armoured assaults.

Where the DRDO/CVRDE and IA need to come together is on the FMBT design asap. If they don't bury the hatchet, we will see in the future yet another firang MBT arrive to be built under licence!

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7385
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Prasad » 08 May 2017 13:37

Essentially, I wont buy your product today for it contains imported maal. So i'll buy fully imported maal that you have to customise to our conditions and then come sit with me and we'll discuss how you spend the next fifteen years designing something i'll poke holes at. Once again, failure lies in project management when user balks at the end of a long project.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8117
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Pratyush » 08 May 2017 14:28

Why bother with a domestic tank. Just buy the Armata and get it over and done with. Everything else is just maya.

dinesh_kimar
BRFite
Posts: 366
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby dinesh_kimar » 08 May 2017 16:06

Tank-Ex would off course have a 120 mm rifled barrel, which the army would reject as they prefer, for various legacy reasons, the 125 mm smoothbore. If DRDO is really serious, they should think such ideas through.

Other factors- same logistics, thermal sights , fire on the move, better armour protection, etc. are indeed good.

Maybe, should hv put the 1000 HP engine for better performance

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Singha » 08 May 2017 16:51

any major new proj like armour must be ONLY agreed to by DRDO if its a C919 model....600 guaranteed orders on the day of its 1st flight.

without a guaranteed market its useless to make such big long term products only to see it cast out.

else let the IA have its fun debugging the armata with the russians, Drdo should reject any calls for help when inevitably a lot of things that worked in siberia, crap out in india or gap between field show and brochure show. let IA fully "own" and fix the baby it births. no more dharmic joint family business and no free childcare.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20149
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Philip » 09 May 2017 18:36

Cost,cost,cost. If the IA wants 4500-5000 MBTs by 2020 whatever,the MBT must be affordable to acquire in such large number.The point being made about China and orders of hundreds of transports is very valid. W'eve been told that to recoup the dev. costs of Arjun,at least 500 MBTs need to be ordered. If the A-2 has made the grade,there is a valid argument that at least a few hundred could be acquired given the vast variety of terrain that we have to fight on.Arjun could be used where it is easiest to operate logistically and like the T-80/T-72 combination, knock the stuffing out of the enemy on the west. This however requires the GOI to open its purse strings and increase by at least 1% of the GDP the def. budget.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ramana » 09 May 2017 23:08

^^^ Above is BS and you know that. 5000 tin can MBTs will be ripped open by opponent acquiring cheap ATGMs etc. Since when did IA worry about cost. they should worry about quality.
A tank that survives the battle to fight is worth more than a tin can which is good for showing numbers.
Nobody will sell/give you 5000 tanks by 2020. Its not just there.
So get realistic or end up fighting with pitch forks because of dilly dallying and refusing local product.


Where is the 500 Arjun order?
Only 124 tanks in one order and another repeat.
Have you seen videos of T-72 family of tanks performance since 1991 Gulf War?

And logistics question can be answered by \forward basing in strategic locations and not in Deccan and take two months to form up. Base repair depots can be also forward positioned near those basing areas.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2523
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby abhik » 09 May 2017 23:45

At the end of the day what is needed is a political decision, and that has been completely lacking.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4322
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby srai » 10 May 2017 08:39

In an alternate world, this is what would have happened:
  • 240 x Arjun MBT Mk.1 -> to be rebuilt to Mk.2 standard at MLU [2 armored brigades (4 regiments @60/regiment)] [status -> production complete]
  • 360 x Arjun MBT Mk.2 [3 armored brigades (6 regiments @60/regiment)] [status -> in production]
  • 600 x Karan MBT -> final upgrade for T-72s [10 regiments @60/regiment] [status -> production near completion]
  • 50 x Arjun BLT [status -> in production]
  • 100 x Arjun ARRV [status -> in R&D/LSP]
  • 100 x Arjun 130mm Catapult -> gun to be upgraded to 155mm Dhanush [status -> production complete]
  • 200 x Arjun Bhim 155mm SP [status -> in R&D/LSP]
  • 2400 x Arjun MBT Mk.3 -> (50/55T FMBT) [40 regiments @60/regiment] [status -> in R&D]
Note: T-90S limited to 1200 units (or 20 regiments).

:twisted:

Marten
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2176
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Marten » 10 May 2017 09:23

abhik wrote:At the end of the day what is needed is a political decision, and that has been completely lacking.

How? When the IA is showing in trial after trial that Dil mange more (only) from Arjun? Waiting for someone to turn up and show us how it is all ebil Jt Secy who is TKiraning the Arjun, and not DGMF. He would be a liar, of course.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9554
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Yagnasri » 10 May 2017 09:28

The main problem is the political leadership. I had a lot of hopes on MP and he did some good things. But on Arjun even he could not do much. Now with Kungfu figher doing a part time job we can not expect much.

kvraghav
BRFite
Posts: 790
Joined: 17 Apr 2008 11:47
Location: Some where near the equator

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby kvraghav » 10 May 2017 09:51

I do not believe that a honest political leadership will go against the IA decisions. The govt has no competency to intervene in IA decision unless for malicious gains. If they do intervene for swadeshi products, the IA will simply point out the failures of the desi products and cite that the Political leadership caused jawans death for pushing desi products, cleverly hiding the failures of foreign ones. The examples should be Arjun vs T90, new Desi rifles vs Trevor. The Trevors were very unreliable in the initial batch but IA was so patient with it. Whether it is executive, judiciary or the Army, once you move into the comfort zone of AC and start looking at your family very closely, we just deviate from the path of right and i think we have to acknowledge this. My Rant is done.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2142
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Vivek K » 10 May 2017 10:27

Raghav - "honest political leadership" - isn't that an oxymoron?

And, the MOD needs to show more courage. When Arjun MK1 beat the shit out of the IA's pet T-90 (please don't use sacred Indian names to adorn these foreign tincans), what excuse can their be. The T-90s break down more than the Arjuns (even the Armata had to be towed in its first official display), the Arjuns offer better survivability - so why should the politico take into account unrealistic IA fears.

kvraghav
BRFite
Posts: 790
Joined: 17 Apr 2008 11:47
Location: Some where near the equator

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby kvraghav » 10 May 2017 10:38

Vivek K wrote:Raghav - "honest political leadership" - isn't that an oxymoron?

And, the MOD needs to show more courage. When Arjun MK1 beat the shit out of the IA's pet T-90 (please don't use sacred Indian names to adorn these foreign tincans), what excuse can their be. The T-90s break down more than the Arjuns (even the Armata had to be towed in its first official display), the Arjuns offer better survivability - so why should the politico take into account unrealistic IA fears.

"Honest political leadership" is not a oxymoron. The definition of honesty is changing. Honest would best be defined as someone who does the work correctly and takes a commission for elections rather than for personal gains. I know people would disagree but that is what is the norm now since every other voter expects 2000 rs from the candidates no matter how honest he is.
The IA has various reasons like transportation and weight. They will simply tell the MOD that building Arjun was a wrong decisions taken by the then DGMF and they do not want to carry on with it. If the MOD pushes and in the next battle, if even one Arjun is stuck in sand, they would put that blood onto the hands of Modi even though there can be hundreds of T90 stuck in the desert.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2142
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Vivek K » 10 May 2017 10:47

And not one Arjun will be stuck in the sand since its ground pressure (pressure = force over area) is less than the tincan. Likely they will want more T90s to account for some getting stuck in the sand and lesser Arjuns since they don't get stuck.

Heavier gross weight yes. But has an analysis been performed to determine the impact of the Arjun on existing bridges? Civil Engineers use factors of safety of 2-3 therefore all Indian bridges should be capable of supporting the Arjuns.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20149
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Philip » 10 May 2017 13:32

Some Xcpts. from the Live Fist report on the hurdles Arjun is facing for future orders. It throws light on some important aspects,but nowhere are the cost comparatives stated which is equally important.

https://www.livefistdefence.com/2017/03 ... -tank.html
Xcpts:
Even if all goes well, it is now clear that the Arjun Mk.II will only be fully deployable if the government beefs up road/bridge infrastructure to able to handle the tank’s heft. That alone is an alarming development that adds pressure on a system beyond the Army’s direct control. The Arjun family of tanks are principally for a potential war with Pakistan. The tanks are too heavy to be airlifted to any of the sectors India currently shares with China. And the new deployability concerns rule out moving them there by rail either.

What has further eroded the DRDO’s case for the Arjun is the fact that over 100 (of 124) Arjun Mk.I tanks have remained grounded since mid-2015 over a shocking unavailability of foreign spare parts — a deeply ironic situation for a platform that was meant, in part, to preclude precisely such a pitfall. While reports suggest the grounded Mk.Is are to begin rolling again soon, the grounding has slung additional mud on the overall Arjun ownership experience. It was the last thing the DRDO needed as it attempted to build a case for more Arjun sales to the Army.

The redesign exercise on the Mk.II shackles the Arjun tank to its endless, looping development and proving cycle — one that it hasn’t been able to break out of for decades. Top sources in the Army say that while there is government pressure to endorse the Arjun tank as an Indian product, the Army doesn’t believe it makes sense to buy more of a tank that will be operationally restricted to the desert/semi-desert sectors of the west. A maximum of four or five Arjun regiments across variants is what the Army believes it needs, given what the tank has been proven to be capable of. If the weight reduction exercise doesn’t work out, the Army takes delivery of those 118 Arjun Mk.IIs on schedule and will certainly not order any more. If it does work out, it remains to be seen if the Army will sign up for additional units. Couple this with larger numbers of the T-90S and the preliminary Future Ready Combat Vehicle (FCRV) effort, the Arjun’s onward roll gets infinitely steeper.

The Arjun programme, as the DRDO has said before, is a dead loss if the Army doesn’t order more than 500 tanks in total. Right now, the numbers are nowhere close. Nothing is.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8117
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Pratyush » 10 May 2017 13:58

I am forever amazed by some peoples ability to ke on posting absolute trash when it comes to running down arjun.

Any way in order to prevent by BP from shooting through the roof I will start putting people on ignore list.

Ps how to put users in ignore list.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Austin » 10 May 2017 17:22

Video outs a deadly LoC secret. Indian Army using tanks to inflict punitive strikes along the border

Transformers: Retired tanks functioning as bunkers

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18654
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Karan M » 10 May 2017 19:57

lol unnithan discovers what we discussed on BRF several years back.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18654
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Karan M » 10 May 2017 19:59

pratyush, the dude is a shill for the russians plain and simple.

barak-8, where both sides contribute tech? great scam.
brahmos, where it is ditto? great success and bodes well for PAK-FA.

its not petty bias alone but a deliberate interest in running down indian programs to benefit one side.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8117
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Pratyush » 10 May 2017 20:04

Austin wrote:Video outs a deadly LoC secret. Indian Army using tanks to inflict punitive strikes along the border

Transformers: Retired tanks functioning as bunkers



This is a bad idea if it is actually being implemented.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8117
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Pratyush » 10 May 2017 20:08

Karan M wrote:pratyush, the dude is a shill for the russians plain and simple.

barak-8, where both sides contribute tech? great scam.
brahmos, where it is ditto? great success and bodes well for PAK-FA.

its not petty bias alone but a deliberate interest in running down indian programs to benefit one side.


Before the forum nuked itself this guy was the only member on my ignore list. Post reinstatement I decided to be a bit more tolerant. But enough is enough. He is back on my ignore list.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ramana » 10 May 2017 20:42

Philip wrote:Some Xcpts. from the Live Fist report on the hurdles Arjun is facing for future orders. It throws light on some important aspects,but nowhere are the cost comparatives stated which is equally important.

https://www.livefistdefence.com/2017/03 ... -tank.html
Xcpts:
Even if all goes well, it is now clear that the Arjun Mk.II will only be fully deployable if the government beefs up road/bridge infrastructure to able to handle the tank’s heft. That alone is an alarming development that adds pressure on a system beyond the Army’s direct control. The Arjun family of tanks are principally for a potential war with Pakistan. The tanks are too heavy to be airlifted to any of the sectors India currently shares with China. And the new deployability concerns rule out moving them there by rail either. :rotfl:

{What a joke of an excuse. I really think this is a case of "if you want to beat the dog, you will find a stick!" The Army can forward base these Arjuns near the borders and build base repair depots alongside. Then the old excuse of needing three months to get rolling is no longer valid. This has been going on since 1965 war. And using tnaks against China doesn't occur except in local pockets. its not like a armada of 5000 tanks rolling to take over Xinkiang. So this excuse is also invalid.]{/I}

What has further eroded the DRDO’s case for the Arjun is the fact that over 100 (of 124) Arjun Mk.I tanks have remained grounded since mid-2015 over a shocking unavailability of foreign spare parts — a deeply ironic situation for a platform that was meant, in part, to preclude precisely such a pitfall. While reports suggest the grounded Mk.Is are to begin rolling again soon, the grounding has slung additional mud on the overall Arjun ownership experience. It was the last thing the DRDO needed as it attempted to build a case for more Arjun sales to the Army.

[I]{SO the foreign spare parts issue is a sudden awareness? The 100 tanks just broke down one day? Did the Arjuns gets special neglect to bring about this situation? Did the Army get spare parts ordered or just went about Khoi hai attitude that some one will take care of the problem? As tanks broke down did the base repair depots contact the OFB factory to ensure spare parts are in the pipeline? Looks like logistics management is woefully lacking in the Armored corps in their desire to ensure the Arjun fails.}



The redesign exercise on the Mk.II shackles the Arjun tank to its endless, looping development and proving cycle — one that it hasn’t been able to break out of for decades. Top sources in the Army say that while there is government pressure to endorse the Arjun tank as an Indian product, the Army doesn’t believe it makes sense to buy more of a tank that will be operationally restricted to the desert/semi-desert sectors of the west. A maximum of four or five Arjun regiments across variants is what the Army believes it needs, given what the tank has been proven to be capable of. If the weight reduction exercise doesn’t work out, the Army takes delivery of those 118 Arjun Mk.IIs on schedule and will certainly not order any more. If it does work out, it remains to be seen if the Army will sign up for additional units. Couple this with larger numbers of the T-90S and the preliminary Future Ready Combat Vehicle (FCRV) effort, the Arjun’s onward roll gets infinitely steeper.


{Redesign effort is due to the Army. There was no desire on the DRDO part to redesign. This is bare faced untruth.

And by the way there will be no tank battles on China front. Where is the tankable country?
}

The Arjun programme, as the DRDO has said before, is a dead loss if the Army doesn’t order more than 500 tanks in total. Right now, the numbers are nowhere close. Nothing is.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ramana » 10 May 2017 21:12

Here is a January 2017 new report on the 100 Arjun tanks spare parts issue.
Again it goes back to tardy procurement process.
And read the many silly statements coming from seniors.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 463651.cms


PUNE: The grounded fleet of indigenously made Arjun Mark-I tanks is soon to be operationalised as the Army has found the required imported components and addressed snags in the tanks.

About 75% of the 124 tanks with the Army were grounded one-and-a-half-year ago.

Major General P Dixit, Commandant of Armoured Corps Centre and School (ACC&S), an institute which carries out various courses for Armoured Corps officers, said: "The snags in the tanks were identified thoroughly. The fleet was grounded as we were not getting imported components for the tanks. Now we are getting the components and the fleet will be operationalised in the coming months."

The Army has inducted around 125 Arjun tanks developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation and manufactured by state owned Heavy Vehicles Factory at Avadi in Chennai.

A senior official from HVF, Avadi, said: "The entire fleet of the tanks was grounded for more than a year which was a major setback for the Army. However, the ministry of defence had set up a special committee comprising experts from DRDO, HVF and senior Army officers to find foreign manufacturers who could supply the spare parts." The parts are coming from various countries, including Germany. Because of the tedious procurement process, it is getting delayed eventually affecting repairs of the tanks, the official added.





And see the CAG report on comparison of Arjun and T-90

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B5kbqZLCQAIo_V2.png:large

And decide if T90 is modern.....

Arjun is supposed to be in desert/semi-desert but the water ingress requirement is double that for modern T-90!!!!!!

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53475
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ramana » 11 May 2017 00:58

Folks do we know the bridge load capacity of the Engineering regiments?
And the bridge laying tanks?

How much load in tonnes can they safely carry?


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests