Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8308
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Pratyush » 15 Jun 2015 19:26

I am relieved that the army has not asked for photon torpedo in this iteration of the FM BT.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19839
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 15 Jun 2015 20:07

Five years from now there will be another RFI for future tank.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srai » 16 Jun 2015 04:19

Singha wrote:sounds like they want the suspension of a BMW, the engine of a ferrari, protection of a merkava, and firepower of a abrams...at the cost of a T90 :rotfl:

...


The cost should hold true for order of 120 tanks only :P

Hobbes
BRFite
Posts: 219
Joined: 14 Mar 2011 02:59

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Hobbes » 16 Jun 2015 06:32

Considering the glacial speed of events in the DGMF, it is entirely possible that the document was created several months ago in a pre-Armata time, and hastily modified to accommodate the Armata style multiple product-single chassis concept, hence the "medium tank".

JMT...

member_28233
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 16
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_28233 » 16 Jun 2015 06:35

Pratyush wrote:I am relieved that the army has not asked for photon torpedo in this iteration of the FM BT.

That will be one of the 93 changes they will demand on the original for the MK2....the one they might consider buying in quantity. Some of the others include:

[*] A DiLithium crystal powered Warp Drive
[*] A cloaking device
[*] Protective Force Field
[*] Tractor Beam
[*] Built-in Replicator
[*] Built-in Transporter
[*] Shape-shifting function
[*] Ability to traverse/hop across 12 Dimensions
[*] Time Travel

etc.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srai » 16 Jun 2015 09:03

Karan M wrote:Five years from now there will be another RFI for future tank.


It will be more like five years from now PA gets new Chinese MBT Type-99. There is panic amongst the Indian generals to purchase an equivalent. Armata T-14 to the rescue!!!

P Chitkara
BRFite
Posts: 355
Joined: 30 Aug 2004 08:09

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby P Chitkara » 16 Jun 2015 16:29

Completely unfair!! I wonder why was shape morphing and trans warp drive left out?

Aim for the stars but please, not stars in a distant galaxy gazillions of light years.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9779
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Rakesh » 16 Jun 2015 16:53

Armata: The ultimate tank.
These are the voyages of the Indian Armoured Corps...
Its never-ending mission: to explore this new Russian tin can,
To create a RFP based on the Armata's specifications.
And to boldly go where no man has gone before....

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8308
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Pratyush » 16 Jun 2015 17:03

Rakesh

one correction. To boldly screw where no one has screwed before. :P :twisted: :rotfl:

P Chitkara
BRFite
Posts: 355
Joined: 30 Aug 2004 08:09

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby P Chitkara » 17 Jun 2015 14:15

Pratyush wrote:Rakesh

one correction. To boldly screw where no one has screwed before. :P :twisted: :rotfl:


:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2394
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby VinodTK » 18 Jun 2015 03:46

Is India's Main Battle Tank Finally Doomed?
Last week, the Indian Army released a global request for information (RFI) inviting responses by 31 July to develop a multi-purpose Future Ready Combat Vehicle (FRCV) in order to replace older license-built Soviet-era main-battle tanks (MBTs).

“The Indian Army is planning to design and develop a new generation, state-of-the-art combat vehicle platform for populating its armored fighting vehicle fleet in the coming decade. This vehicle, which will be called the future ready combat vehicle (FRCV), will form the base platform for the main battle tank which is planned to replace the existing T-72 tanks in the Armored Corps,” the RFI reads.

The Indian military envisions the FRCV system as a platform for as many as 11 different tracked vehicles, including light tracked, wheeled, bridge layer and trawl tanks, self-propelled howitzers (SPH), air defense guns, artillery observation post and engineering reconnaissance vehicles, and armored ambulances.

Additionally, the RFI notes that the FRCV “should be in the ‘Medium Tank’ category” and should “match contemporary MBTs in engagement ranges, all weather day/night fighting capability, depth of penetration and variety of ammunition.” The Indian Army wants the new FRCV ready for induction by 2025-27 – a deadline that almost certainly will have to be extended given India’s defense procurement track record.

Consequently, in the meantime, India will do well to continue upgrade its 1900 strong T-72 MBT force. As I noted in a previous article (“Breakdown: What’s Happening With India’s Tank Force?”), New Delhi has so far failed to successfully mass-produce an indigenously developed modern main battle tank.

The recent RFI could also very well ring the final death-knell for India’s indigenously developed third generation Arjun MK-I main battle tank – a poorly designed vehicle (e.g., too much heavy armor versus too little horsepower) that encountered repeated delays due to a flawed procurement and testing process. Almost eighty percent of the 124-strong Arjun MK-I tank force is currently grounded due to more than 90 technical issues.

India has been working on an improved version of the Arjun, the MK-II, which has done very well in comparative trials with license-built Russian tanks such as the T-90M. It displays more than 93 improvements over the older version and contains 60 percent locally manufactured components. However, a decision to indigenously develop a new anti-tank missile to be fitted onto the MK-II will, in all likelihood, delay the induction of the upgraded platform.

As I noted in my previous article:

Due to the repeated delays, India decided to acquire T-90s main battle tanks from Russia in the early 2000s. While the first 310 were directly imported from Russia, India is currently locally producing a customized and improved version of the T-90, the T-90 M Bhishma. A total of 500 T-90 and T-90 M tanks are currently in service in the Indian Army. India plans to field 21 tank regiments of T-90s by 2020 through license-production, with 62 tanks per unit and more than 1,300 armored fighting vehicles total, although that number could go up.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srai » 18 Jun 2015 04:08

^^^

The author got his details wrong on the Arjun comparative trials; it was Mk.1 vs T-90S not Mk.2. Except for the missile firing part, Arjun Mk.1 bested the T-90S. He also sounds confused about the 93 upgrades/enhancements, which he calls defects. Horsepower is adequate for its weight. And regarding grounding, that had more to do with spare parts procurement practices of the IA than with Arjun itself. Look at other servicibility rates for IA's equipment overall.

All in all this one can be labeled as a DDM piece. They need to get the details correct.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54822
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby ramana » 18 Jun 2015 04:13

Also after the improvements suggested by IA and incorporated the Mk2 has weight gain of 4 tons!
If earlier Mk1 was heavy this one is even more heavy based on improvements demanded by IA.

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1653
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Sid » 18 Jun 2015 06:31

VinodTK wrote:Is India's Main Battle Tank Finally Doomed?
......................

...............
Additionally, the RFI notes that the FRCV “should be in the ‘Medium Tank’ category” and should “match contemporary MBTs in engagement ranges, all weather day/night fighting capability, depth of penetration and variety of ammunition.” The Indian Army wants the new FRCV ready for induction by 2025-27 – a deadline that almost certainly will have to be extended given India’s defense procurement track record.
.........................
.


Instead of such vague requirements, it will be much easier if we can say what we actually want to buy. This will save us from a lengthy 10yr dog and pony show which will ultimately result in direct government to government contract for Armata.

But on the bright side, who knows in 10yrs Armata MKI might be available and will provide Russians ample time to actually develop all those wonderful ideas which are still on paper (ahem.. i mean already in production).

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8308
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Pratyush » 18 Jun 2015 06:43

The ideas will be developed with Indian money. With India getting screwdriver rights. The best part will be that the Arjun will still beat the imported product. After which the IA will ask for 100 improvements in Arjun for it to become acceptable to it while ordering 2000 imports.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby niran » 18 Jun 2015 07:13

Pratyush wrote:The ideas will be developed with Indian money. With India getting screwdriver rights. The best part will be that the Arjun will still beat the imported product. After which the IA will ask for 100 improvements in Arjun for it to become acceptable to it while ordering 2000 imports.

you forget current MOD is bania to the core, earlier was like we want this MOD would procure now IA sends in a procurement request, MOD request back you have left out the finance part mistake perhaps, rectify it and send in the finances lets us say in 3 days time. you will to see it for yourself to believe the takleef in MOD babus and IA procurement affsars running around explaining themselves from financial POV, just wait for few months IA will find new love named Arjun :rotfl:

krisna
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5829
Joined: 22 Dec 2008 06:36

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby krisna » 18 Jun 2015 07:17

niran wrote:< snip> just wait for few months IA will find new love named Arjun :rotfl:


if it truly happens - you and rest of the folks(including moi) battling for Arjun deserve "Arjun" loads of mithai. :)
am also waiting for "make in India, buy in India" to happen esp armed forces.

Other fervent wish to see India exporting weapons to countries surrounding our enemies.
anyway one step at a time

member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_22539 » 18 Jun 2015 08:24

^Exactly what is going to happen. What I would give to see the scene when the retarded old fools in the DGMF have to explain their nonsense in financial terms.

Avinash R
BRFite
Posts: 1973
Joined: 24 Apr 2008 19:59

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Avinash R » 18 Jun 2015 08:38

It's disgusting watching the IA doing everything it can to kill indigenous development and then unfairly blaming the DRDO scientists.

Coming up with a technically impossible set of goals and preparing ground to import foreign goods in lieu of kickbacks.

Its shamefully we are watching our nation's defenses being degraded in front of our eyes and doing nothing about it.

I hope Modi and his national security team take a hard look at the corrupt dealings of these traitors in the army and deal with them strictly.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby niran » 18 Jun 2015 08:59

Arun Menon wrote:^Exactly what is going to happen. What I would give to see the scene when the retarded old fools in the DGMF have to explain their nonsense in financial terms.

the answer

AvinashR wrote:I hope Modi and his national security team take a hard look at the corrupt dealings of these traitors in the army and deal with them strictly


MOD motaboss is reviewing, DGMF files daily DGMF are to explain the files first thing every Monday morning if they explain themselves (inclusive of the financial aspect) it is approved every fortnight.

the flies tells me motaboss has asked for justification on T90s maintenance/upgrade bills and why has IA not ordered Arjun to replace Vijayant tanks (note now it is Vijayant for now) he has provided the real figures about finances in INR right down to the INR spent on presentation by Ruski teams(yeah it was MOD money on Ruski team as opposed to Ruski money) WRT T90, DGMF is currently in the process of tallying the figures by motaboss and scratching his beard for an explanation or else... all within a time limit of 8 weeks from today. let us see his explanation.

most prolly motaboss will say no have that much moolah, have this much onree, you need this much MBT so the best is Arjun, oh! don't worry, will talk to Avadhi, they will ramp up production go get me a proposal for the same and yes i want it by next Monday (heaven forbid if this is a fridin)

Avinash R
BRFite
Posts: 1973
Joined: 24 Apr 2008 19:59

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Avinash R » 18 Jun 2015 11:09

^ Glad to hear the good news but the corruption is endemic in the army procurement process. Since independence the army has a long history of requesting a weapon system and then when finally the weapon is ready to be delivered shifting the goalposts and buying a foreign system.

example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRDO_Anti_Tank_Missile
.......
The DRDO Anti-tank missile (ATM) is a first generation wire-guided missile developed in India by Defense Research & Development Laboratory (DRDL) of Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO). It has a subsonic speed up to 300 ft/s (91 m/s) with a range of 1.6 km and carries a 106 mm HEAT warhead.

In 1959, India started a feasibility study on a First Generation Anti Tank Missile (ATM). New General Staff Qualitative Requirements (GSQR) were issued and the task of preliminary study and wind testing was assigned to Department of Aeronautics and Institute of Science, Bangalore.

In 1962, DRDO was granted 6,00,000 Indian Rupees to begin work on developing an Anti-Tank missile due to conflict with China in Ladakh. It has a range of 500 meters to about 4 km.

The missile was test-fired near Imarat, a village on the outskirts of Hyderabad, which held the reliability order of 65%. The test trials were attended by Gen Bewoor, then Deputy Chief of Army Staff of the Indian Army. The missile was tested 16 times and hit its target 14 times. Two Indian army teams which were trained on European ATMs, Cobra and ENTAC, carried out the tests

In 1969 ATM project was terminated as the Indian Army revised its General Staff Qualitative Requirements (GSQR). The new GSQR extended the range of the missile from 1.6 km to 3 km. They also required the previously man-portable missile to be capable of being mounted and fired from a mobile-launcher. This led to production of SS11B1 at Bharat Dynamics Limited (BDL), Hyderabad under license from France.
......

who benefits from this criminal enterprise? the foreign weapons lobby and the corrupt people in the army.

who is the loser? The indian tax payer and the scientists who lose morale and have rightly come to the conclusion that the army will not accept weapons designed by them and in turn will badmouth them using the presstitutes in the media.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srai » 18 Jun 2015 12:28

^^^
Another shameful sabotage by the IA on an indigenous program. By now 50-years later, imagine what types of ATGM designed and developed in India would have been! No need for Israeli or American ATGM in 2015. It shows lack of long-term strategic vision. The generals fail to understand that to be considered a true world power you need to have indigenous MIC to support your aspiration. You will only be a second class power being depended on foreign systems.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12407
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Aditya_V » 18 Jun 2015 13:25

srai wrote:^^^
Another shameful sabotage by the IA on an indigenous program. By now 50-years later, imagine what types of ATGM designed and developed in India would have been! No need for Israeli or American ATGM in 2015. It shows lack of long-term strategic vision. The generals fail to understand that to be considered a true world power you need to have indigenous MIC to support your aspiration. You will only be a second class power being depended on foreign systems.


I dont think its fail to understand but are pushed to make such decisions by the arms import lobby. Having anther competition is not in the interests of dominant countries in the world and they use every leverage from children's Visas, safety, MOD, Babuddam , politicans in select promotions etc to further thier interests.

Armymen afterall have to follow orders and its alaways easier for the press to say Army, airforce want it and quote an outlier rather than stating, so and so politicians, arms vendors, middle agents and media owners profit from these decisions.

I am sure there is some back room pressure which is not discussed in the press.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8308
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Pratyush » 18 Jun 2015 13:39

The building of the domistic MIC was not really the core focus of the armed forces. If it was, it would be a bonus. You need to look at the political context in which the armed forces exist, in order to have an accurate understanding of why the domestic MIS has not been build in the country since 1947.

Kailash
BRFite
Posts: 1062
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 02:32

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Kailash » 18 Jun 2015 14:11

Pratyush wrote:The building of the domistic MIC was not really the core focus of the armed forces. If it was, it would be a bonus. You need to look at the political context in which the armed forces exist, in order to have an accurate understanding of why the domestic MIS has not been build in the country since 1947.


For every rupee sent outside the coutry, they have give one back to MOD from their budget. Seriously, I hope someone infuses a sense of strategic worth of a local MIC and IA's obligation to support it, atleast in peace time.

What is more important to fight a war - the man or the machine? If machines are everything, why all the training? When the machines stop during a war, due to armtwisting or a blockade, they will realize the value of each fighting man's life. May be imported maal saves a few lives when they begin the war, but unless your MIC significantly developed, you cant crank out numbers during a war.

Time to become realistic about what you have and what you want, form your strategies based on that - rather than basing your GSQR on latest brochures. Spending on the infrastructure to move Arjuns where you want them is better than help arm Russians with your money.Only realistic way to put the brakes on this attitude is to ration their budgets.

We have take the turn somewhere. Yes politicans let us down, we suffered one defeat in the hands our bigger neighbour. We didnt learn, may be its time we lose one more war to get some seriousness. Every jawan is willing to put down his life for the country, should make us realize that the country is worth more than any individual's (or IA's) wellbeing.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16831
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby NRao » 18 Jun 2015 16:43

Glad to hear the good news but the corruption is endemic in the army procurement process. Since independence the army has a long history of requesting a weapon system and then when finally the weapon is ready to be delivered shifting the goalposts and buying a foreign system


The problem is wider than the Army itself.

The Government and people of India need to take a good deal of the blame for such things.

Not too late to change it either.

member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_22539 » 18 Jun 2015 18:24

^That may be the case, but we must remember, the Indian Navy is part of India too. The DGMF has been downright anti-national with its boundless love for imports.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54822
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby ramana » 18 Jun 2015 19:35

Avinash R wrote:^ Glad to hear the good news but the corruption is endemic in the army procurement process. Since independence the army has a long history of requesting a weapon system and then when finally the weapon is ready to be delivered shifting the goalposts and buying a foreign system.

example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRDO_Anti_Tank_Missile
.......
The DRDO Anti-tank missile (ATM) is a first generation wire-guided missile developed in India by Defense Research & Development Laboratory (DRDL) of Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO). It has a subsonic speed up to 300 ft/s (91 m/s) with a range of 1.6 km and carries a 106 mm HEAT warhead.

In 1959, India started a feasibility study on a First Generation Anti Tank Missile (ATM). New General Staff Qualitative Requirements (GSQR) were issued and the task of preliminary study and wind testing was assigned to Department of Aeronautics and Institute of Science, Bangalore.

In 1962, DRDO was granted 6,00,000 Indian Rupees to begin work on developing an Anti-Tank missile due to conflict with China in Ladakh. It has a range of 500 meters to about 4 km.

The missile was test-fired near Imarat, a village on the outskirts of Hyderabad, which held the reliability order of 65%. The test trials were attended by Gen Bewoor, then Deputy Chief of Army Staff of the Indian Army. The missile was tested 16 times and hit its target 14 times. Two Indian army teams which were trained on European ATMs, Cobra and ENTAC, carried out the tests

In 1969 ATM project was terminated as the Indian Army revised its General Staff Qualitative Requirements (GSQR). The new GSQR extended the range of the missile from 1.6 km to 3 km. They also required the previously man-portable missile to be capable of being mounted and fired from a mobile-launcher. This led to production of SS11B1 at Bharat Dynamics Limited (BDL), Hyderabad under license from France.
......

.



AvinashR, Thanks for the link and the report. In mid 70s IITM, random vibrations lab had a fiberglass ATM for studies. I used to wonder what the heck was it. The link takes you to Mosquito page. The ATM model looked vaguely like that.


I guess it went into developing the Nag control laws.

Also Wings of Fire documents Kalam insisted on developing an ATM and named it Nag after Dr. Nag-Chaudhri, the DRDO chief behind the ATM project.

If it was so close to complete the IA should have used a few in 1965 war and the 1967 Nathu La incident.

From technical point of view you see DRDL hallmarks:
- Dual pulse motors : star grain booster and end burn sustainer
- Gyroscope guided missile
- Use of existing 106mm HEAT warhead from RCL.
And damn inexpensive at Rs6 lakh development cost.
Could have made a very good bunker buster for Ichogil Canal defences.

The IA folks who rejected it should be shot. I guess their counterparts in TSP already had the Cobra made by MBB.

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 » 18 Jun 2015 21:15

i think we can save money by disbanding dgmf and getting russian armour brochures directly from their consulate.
there is no need for another marketing office if all they like is russian kit.

pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby pragnya » 19 Jun 2015 02:51

ramana wrote:Also after the improvements suggested by IA and incorporated the Mk2 has weight gain of 4 tons!
If earlier Mk1 was heavy this one is even more heavy based on improvements demanded by IA.


IIRC all 183 improvements/modifications/addons/replacements etc.. asked for by the IA was part of an intiative for a "weight loss" programme launched after Arjun "blew" away (as per some jernail turned journo) the T-90. what's the result? instead of weight loss, DRDO ends up with weight gain!! whose fault is it?

still, IA went out of their way to accomodate - by 'redefining' the new "medium" wt category with an upper limit @ about 55T or thereabouts. (dont ask for source. won't tell). :wink: what happens? while Armata sits sweetly in this new medium category, Arjun can't even dream!!

so, what choice IA has? can someone enlighten?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19839
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 19 Jun 2015 05:41

Pragnya

>>>IIRC all 183 improvements/modifications/addons/replacements etc.. asked for by the IA was part of an intiative for a "weight loss" programme launched after Arjun "blew" away (as per some jernail turned journo) the T-90. what's the result? instead of weight loss, DRDO ends up with weight gain!! whose fault is it?

Arjun blew away the T-90 per official trial data released by CAG as well. Please look it up. The only reason the T-90 was rated somewhat equivalent in the overall firepower metric was thanks to missile firing capability. In other criteria, including fire on the move, the Arjun is far ahead of the T-90.

Note there is no CAG "interpretation" or usual bean counting subjectivity here. Plain and simple staff requirement data.

Image

Leaving that aside, your claim that it was a weight loss program alone for Arjun (93, not 83) improvements is completely inaccurate.

Some were armor/firepower focused eg missile, FSAPDS/new round, ERA+ passive protection sensors, new sight, some were tech improvements for ease of use (muzzle ref sight), some reliability and cost improvements (new roadwheel), and so forth. Most of these improvements were streets ahead of the T-90 anyhow which has nothing of the sort. The Army asked for an even higher power APU on the Arjun. Improve its watch capability without starting the main engine, significantly. The T-90 has no APU.

Add all these together, and no way can weight decrease. The ERA alone would significant add weight. This despite the fact that current Arjun has protection in the same class as the T-90 using passive armor alone.

>>>what happens? while Armata sits sweetly in this new medium category, Arjun can't even dream!!

Armata sits nowhere. Its hilarious that some demo is trotted out and suddenly its in some category. Anyone who looks at how much time and effort Russian prototypes take to enter production, in recent years, would wonder at such comments.

What you have seen on the parade is a prototype. Its not a production model, its not a proven item. Production units will have more weight.

Next, there are significant issues with the design as it stands currently, huge turret with minimum armor (chances of mission kill being high). In contrast, current tanks with heavily armored turrets stand a much better chance of surviving a stand up fight.

Completely disproportionately sized doghouse optics (again, chances of mission kill being high).

No clear idea about whether the Russians have managed to tackle the issue with stabilization influencing motion sickness for commanders in a fixed position w/crew (this was one of the reasons the US didn't go for an unmanned turret in eons past).

Yes, Arjun can't dream of being where the Armata is. That's a good thing, because right now, Armata is a pipedream. It will be taken apart by any first class MBT fielded today & is yet to achieve even the basic operational performance of any in production MBT like the Arjun or even the T-tanks (but for their horrible sight issues).

To achieve even a fraction of the capability western MBTs achieve (and which Arjun Mk1/Mk2 seek to replicate), the Armata would have to:
1. Get more armor (as versus the mockup turret)
2. Improve main armament demonstrably (instead of talk about super rounds)
3. Improve optics to worldwide standards (right now Russia can't even field a single worldclass FCS+TI sight combo)
4. Demonstrate high reliability in operational trials
5. Redesign the tank for a better silhouette to properly take advantage of its so called unmanned turret (otherwise no advantage of fielding a tank that can be M-killed)

In the whole process, one would rather stick with what works, which is the Arjun and derivatives thereof. Instead of taking one more Russian lemon and then running around the whole world, asking the Israelis, to DRDO to Indian industry to somehow rectify fundamental flaws with the design such as its inability to field complex electronics which cant withstand heat.
Last edited by Karan M on 19 Jun 2015 07:01, edited 1 time in total.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19839
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 19 Jun 2015 06:05

Regarding the trials:

Comparative field trials of MBT Arjun with T-90 tanks took place in February/ March 2010. Till such time, the Army had been consistently reporting quality problems in MBT Arjun; this was also reported to the Standing Committee on Defence (2007-08). The comparative trials were on four parameters viz. fire power, survivability, reliability and miscellaneous issues of the tank with weightage of 40, 35, 15 and 10 respectively. As per the trial report, MBT Arjun performed marginally better than the T-90 tank in accuracy and consistency of firepower. However, T-90 tank performed better in lethality and missile firing capability. The Army concluded (April 2010) that “Arjun had performed creditably and it could be employed both for offensive and defensive tasks with same efficacy of T-90 tank.” The Army also recommended upgrades to make the Arjun tank a superior weapon platform. We were informed (February 2014) that the Mark-II version of MBT Arjun was under trials by the Army and that it would include the upgrades recommended by the Army.

We found that the MBT Arjun and T-90 tank were not exactly comparable in missile firing ability; the higher score of T-90 tank was mainly due to missile firing ability which was not in the design of MBT Arjun. Barring missile firing ability, the scores of MBT Arjun and T-90 tank would be 25.77 and 24.50 respectively in firepower. In the overall comparative score, T-90 tank scored 75.01, marginally higher than MBT Arjun which scored 72.46, mainly because of higher score on missile firing ability of T-90 tank.


In short, the tanks performed equivalent in all metrics bar firepower (otherwise the score reports would have been lopsided in favor of the T-90).

Funny, how the Army was reporting all sorts of problems with the Arjun and suddenly the trials are held, and the complaints ceased for a while.

The marginal advantage to the T-90 accrued from the long range (and expensive) Refleks which has a higher penetration ability than most other rounds. With that taken out of the picture, the Arjun outperformed the T-90 in firepower trials. Again, note these were per whatever criteria the IA utilized - we don't know whether the IA for instance fired on moving targets at >20km/hr for which the Arjun excels. At slower targets, the T-90 would approach Arjun performance.

In short, with further improvements, eg ERA to existing armor, the Arjun would pull far ahead of the T-90. Leave aside internal changes etc.

What the Army/DGMF have savvily (and cynically done) is sabotage the program by ordering so few that spares production and sustainment become a challenge. The plan is quite clearly to keep using this as a stick and then deinduct the tank over time, citing it as a problem.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby niran » 19 Jun 2015 06:48

^^^^^ the report does not say anything on the accuracy of Arjun fire on the move(stationary targets) at 500 meters, 1000 meters, 2000 meters and 3000 meters arjun scored full marks T90 40% then retest with on the move for Arjun and stationary for T90 Arjun full T90 73% then the test altogether deleted.

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 » 19 Jun 2015 06:56

Pappu went up against a highly seasoned campaigner got his head handed back. so the exam was discredited and pappu was still passed on the principal's discretion. in any other country pappu would get a F and demoted two classes down.

pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby pragnya » 19 Jun 2015 06:58

Karan M,

that IA has effectively killed the Arjun is an 'urban legend'.

but come on, you are one poster who can see thro' both the poster and the post - for which i have admiration for you. it is surprising that you are responding to posts which are filled to the brim by 'sarcasm' just like the above ones!!! :roll:
Last edited by pragnya on 19 Jun 2015 06:58, edited 1 time in total.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19839
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 19 Jun 2015 06:58

Niran, very interesting, I take it thats direct info? I recall you had posted on the firepower trials even before.

Any data on the armor, reliability etc match up?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19839
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 19 Jun 2015 06:59

pragnya wrote:Karan M,

that IA has effectively killed the Arjun is an 'urban legend'.

but come on, you are one poster who can see thro' both the poster and the post - for which i have admiration for you. it is surprising that you are responding to posts which are filled to the brim by 'sarcasm' just like the above ones!!! :roll:


Sorry, couldn't make out at all you were being sarcastic. Usually smilies etc do the trick to make me understand. The net is a tricky medium. So just responded with data. Hopefully some others not familiar with the Arjun debacle would find it interesting.
Last edited by Karan M on 19 Jun 2015 07:04, edited 1 time in total.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19839
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 19 Jun 2015 07:03

Per Niran's post, the T-90 seems to be an even bigger dawg than we had thought. The original estimate was only the thermal optics were an issue. Looks like the whole FCS plus stabilization is far behind that on the Arjun or on world class western tanks.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19839
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 19 Jun 2015 07:05

Singha wrote:Pappu went up against a highly seasoned campaigner got his head handed back. so the exam was discredited and pappu was still passed on the principal's discretion. in any other country pappu would get a F and demoted two classes down.


The basic issue is that a bunch of folks at the DGMF level have sabotaged the program even after it came good. It remains to be seen whether the present GOI can force the issue and reverse such stupidity.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby niran » 19 Jun 2015 07:08

like the Arjun fire computer with M$ joystick acquired/aimed and discharged a round in under 4 seconds or the 4 man crew were able to put in 12 rounds on a stationary target in 10 seconds flat while T90 could manage 23 seconds and full one minute(60 sec)? discounting the fact after discharging the 5th round T90 fire kompooter konked and another tank was used to complete the test.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 5 guests