Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2620
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Vivek K » 08 Nov 2016 00:01

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/mod-clears-defence-deals-worth-over-rs-82000-crore-procurement-of-83-tejas-jets-and-464-tanks/articleshow/55295197.cms


NEW DELHI: India today cleared major defence proposals that will greatly boost its air and land power and future combat performance.

.......
The DAC also approved the procurement of 15 light combat helicopters. It also approved the procurement of 464 T-90 tanks. The T-90 is a third generation Russian battle tank. It is in service of the Russian armed forces. India had first purchased T-90s from Russia in 2001.
.....


Everyone needs to hang their head in shame. The loot of taxpayer funds continues under Modi ji. 464 tincans and not even one Arjun!!

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1709
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Khalsa » 08 Nov 2016 00:58

^^^ Agreed
Such a shame.... not even one more regiment of Arjun Mk2.
Instead should have been 3 Regiments of Arjun Mk2s.

F@#$ F!@# F!@#$

RohitAM
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 47
Joined: 25 Oct 2016 21:28

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby RohitAM » 08 Nov 2016 01:50

I honestly want to know as to what the Army sees in a foreign tank which was beaten black-and-blue by our indigenous tank, after accusations by DRDO ensured that Arjun tanks would not be sabotaged further in field and user trials. I hardly believe that the Army can be so blind so as to select as its MBT an imported tank in which further equipment has to be installed and systems upgraded to make it competitive, while the Arjun comes with all those features as standard.

Army: We got the T-90...oh wait, it does not have great armour, non-working TI's, and no air-conditioning, since it is not optimized to fight in the desert.
DRDO: Here's Arjun Mk.I - its features are better in every way than the T-90...
Army: Hmmpphh...but its not imported maal na?? Where are the kick-backs and the Sonyas and Natashas?? Include these 70+ new features on the tank...come back to us with all these included features...oh, and can you please install Arjun's air-conditioning unit in the T-90, as well as incorporate other Arjun features into the Russian tank?

Makes my blood boil...the Arjun Mk.II can definitely go toe to toe with some of the best tanks in the world, but our own army doesn't want it.
Last edited by RohitAM on 08 Nov 2016 02:59, edited 1 time in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55258
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ramana » 08 Nov 2016 01:59

niran Any pictures?

Also were the Vijayantas used in battle and if so how did they fare?

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 880
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Mihir » 08 Nov 2016 04:27

Rohit, the view in the Army is that it is unreliable and too heavy, and even if its issues are resolved, it will be too late. I've been told it's the equivalent of a Tiger, whereas the T-72/90 are like the T-34 and M4. On a one-to-one basis, it can beat the T-90, but it lacks the reliability and mobility to be quickly redeployed to a different sector and react to quickly changing situations. As part of a combined arms formation, they'd rather have the T-90, even with its flaws.

If you counter that by saying that the Arjun was designed based on the Army's QR, there's much hemming and hawing and shrugging of shoulders, and the retort you get is, "It is what it is."

Rishi Verma
BRFite
Posts: 1019
Joined: 28 Oct 2016 13:08

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Rishi Verma » 08 Nov 2016 04:30

Yes it's a shame DAC clears T-90 purchases instead of Arjuns. Why not one army officer tweets / writes to the powers to be about such a scam? Or is there something army / MoD knows we don't? Is it a failure of DRDO to market / promote the Arjun? We should try to find the reasons (asking def. journos for one) instead of rona dhona.

Rammpal
BRFite
Posts: 290
Joined: 23 Sep 2016 12:21

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Rammpal » 08 Nov 2016 08:31

Mihir wrote:Rohit, the view in the Army is that it is unreliable and too heavy, and even if its issues are resolved, it will be too late. I've been told it's the equivalent of a Tiger, whereas the T-72/90 are like the T-34 and M4. On a one-to-one basis, it can beat the T-90, but it lacks the reliability and mobility to be quickly redeployed to a different sector and react to quickly changing situations. As part of a combined arms formation, they'd rather have the T-90, even with its flaws.

If you counter that by saying that the Arjun was designed based on the Army's QR, there's much hemming and hawing and shrugging of shoulders, and the retort you get is, "It is what it is."


What're the reliability issues with Arjun anyway ?
Mobility challenge is a common issue with all tanks, yes ?

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Austin » 08 Nov 2016 12:22

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/ind ... t-projects

464 T-90 Tank for $206.89 million , Each T-90 cost ~ $2.24 million

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Austin » 08 Nov 2016 15:17

some wrong figures throw by Defence News should have realised this was Vivek Raghuvanshi :roll:

DAC figure AoN was also given for the repeat order of 464 Russian origin T90 tanks which are being manufactured by the Ordnance Factory Board for Rs 13,448 crore http://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/c ... tanks.html

That comes to around USD 2 billion for 464 T-90 Tank , Unit cost is ~ USD 4.3 Million , Most certainly this is the cost of T-90MS

Link- http://www.armyrecognition.com/november ... 11162.html

Details on T-90MS -- http://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_r ... tures.html

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Austin » 08 Nov 2016 15:22

T-90MS in Kuwait Trials


MaverickV
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 15
Joined: 23 Aug 2016 18:45

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby MaverickV » 08 Nov 2016 15:24

How come 83 LCA Mk1A cost $7.69 billion. This way each plane costs around $85m.
Is HAL also providing kickbacks for purchases now :wink:

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby tsarkar » 08 Nov 2016 16:59

Mihir wrote:Rohit, the view in the Army is that it is unreliable and too heavy, and even if its issues are resolved, it will be too late. I've been told it's the equivalent of a Tiger, whereas the T-72/90 are like the T-34 and M4. On a one-to-one basis, it can beat the T-90, but it lacks the reliability and mobility to be quickly redeployed to a different sector and react to quickly changing situations. As part of a combined arms formation, they'd rather have the T-90, even with its flaws.


Rishi Verma wrote:Or is there something army / MoD knows we don't?


You need to study the history of the Indian Armoured Corps to understand this.

In 1941, the 2nd / 32nd Armoured Division was formed as was 43rd Armoured Division to fight the Germans/Italians in North Africa. These never materialized since by 1943/44 the British had the upper hand.

Thereafter in battles of Imphal, Kohima & Burma, IA worked with US made Grant light tanks in infantry support role. The light tanks were very successful in jungle terrain. The Japanese won Kohima until British tanks came up. +1 for Light Tanks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of ... nnis_Court

In 1948 Kashmir War Operation Bison saw Stuart Tanks beat Pakistani raiders at Zoji La Pass. The Pakistanis thought the terrain was impossible for tanks. +2 for Light Tanks

Naushera and Rajouri were cleared by light tanks. +3 for Light Tanks

Indian Army is primarily Infantry oriented with Tanks in a supporting role, hence Light Tanks were preferred for Infantry Support. In 50s & 60's, we purchased AMX-13 turretless light tanks.

In 1962, we airlifted AMX-13 on An-12 to Leh where they fought in the Battle of Chusul butchering the Chinese. The Chinese thought the terrain was impossible for tanks. +4 for Light Tanks

1965 Chamb. One squadron of 20 Lancers under Major Bhaskar Roy with AMX-13 tanks holds back two Pakistani Regiments with Patton and Sherman tanks destroying 13 enemy tanks that day.

Major Roy was awarded the Maha Vir Chakra. (BTW he was a maternal cousin of my father).

http://twdi.in/node/1467
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20_Lancers_%28India%29

This action is no less gallant than Longewala. +5 for Light Tanks

In the actions of Asal Uttar, Phillora & Chawinda, it was the heavier Centurions that clashed with the Pattons. +3 for Heavy Tanks

In 1971, PT-76 defeated Pakistani Chafee in Battle of Garibpur. In the marshy Bangladesh terrain, the PT-76 was quite mobile. They also forded many rivers. +6 for Light Tanks.

The Battle of Basantar saw the heavies clash again. +4 for Heavy Tanks

T-72's also deployed to Sri Lanka & Ladakh. +7 & +8 for Light Tanks

So to summarize its history, the mobility of light tanks in Kohima, Zojila, Naushera, Rajouri, Chusul, Chamb, Garibpur, Bangladesh campaign, Sri Lanka and the ability to provide support to Infantry in territory thought impossible/impassible for tanks is key to IA doctrine.

Though in blunting enemy armoured assaults, it was the heavier Centurions that were required.

As per the calculations above, light tanks were twice used vis-a-vis heavy tanks in situations where tank use was thought to be impossible/impassible.

Presently Pakistanis and Chinese have Soviet variants and inspired tanks, and Arjun is seen as an overkill, with T-90 with INVAR missiles more than adequate for Al Khalid and T-80UDs and their Chinese cousins.

Had Pakistanis acquired US M1, then the story would've been different.

Presently T-72s operate at Ladakh and other impossible/impassible territories. Hence this doctrinal preference for medium tanks.

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4524
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby putnanja » 08 Nov 2016 18:41

Austin wrote:some wrong figures throw by Defence News should have realised this was Vivek Raghuvanshi :roll:

DAC figure AoN was also given for the repeat order of 464 Russian origin T90 tanks which are being manufactured by the Ordnance Factory Board for Rs 13,448 crore http://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/c ... tanks.html

That comes to around USD 2 billion for 464 T-90 Tank , Unit cost is ~ USD 4.3 Million , Most certainly this is the cost of T-90MS



I don't think its T-90MS, there was no reports of India signing up for MS, the once being assembled in Avadi is T90M. The additional cost could be due to the Catherine FC thermal imaging system, which was supposed to be expensive.

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 880
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Mihir » 08 Nov 2016 21:36

tsarkar, good post, and I agree. The more I read up on the Arjun, the more I realise that the IA's requirements branch screwed up big time in defining the requirements for the tank. They got unduly worried about the Abrams and demanded a tank that would perform extremely well in a handful of very limited scenarios and pretty poorly in most others. And when the CVRDE built what they demanded, they had the gall to accuse the scientists and engineers of screwing it up and building a machine that was "too heavy".

PS: Wasn't there one engagement just before Asal Uttar where M4s of the Deccan Horse smashed Pakistani Pattons? The superior gunnery training and really made itself felt.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1901
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby sudeepj » 08 Nov 2016 23:24

Arjun will be inducted only for the desert regions. End of story. The project was envisaged when Pakis were getting M1s and therefore would have had to upgrade their end of the infrastructure. With the infrastructure on that side crumbling the way it is and not up to date on our side, there is no chance that the beast will be inducted in massive numbers. Its a shame.. because overall, its a much better tank than the T90.

People mention Sarvatra as if its a panacea. But that bridge is not combat tested. Laying down a bridge if the opposite bank is contested is not a simple thing. It can be done, but no general commanding a tank division will want to introduce yet another element of uncertainty. Even if an advance is slowed down by a couple of hours, that may be too long in the fast paced battle anticipated today. Even in 1965, it was a 24 hour delay that bogged down the advance on Lahore. In 71, it was a 10-12 hour delay around Longewala that doomed that offensive from a major victory. In WW II, capturing the Ludendorf rail bridge cut short battle of the Rhine by weeks. Had the Americans not been able to do that, they would have paid in thousands of lives. Today, that crucial time will likely be down to a few hours at the most. If the enemy is competent, even such a short delay can prove disastrous.

The real scandal is the inability of Avadi to incorporate Arjun technologies (the suspension, the longer APFSDS, the FCS, the muzzle reference, the APU, the bustle with blow off panels) into the base T90 design. The PWD culture of 'humse to kisi ne kaha hi nahi..' (nobody asked us to do it) must change. Some complain that this cant be done because IPR. I think, this argument is nonsense. We have already paid the Russians for the numbers produced. Aint nothing they can do to stop us from modifying a design that we have already paid for. Even today, some Arjun technologies do find their way into the T90. (Kanchan composite armor, which is why the Indian T90 is heavier than the Russian).

Now, there is a T90 MS that fixes some of the original 'bugs' in the T90 design and will likely be ordered in greater numbers. Instead of being a gutter mouth and blaming 'ghooskhors' and 'natashas', see the reality and the mess that the Defense Industrial Complex is in and urge powers that be to fix it.

*I mean, how difficult can it be to build a ****** autoloader? Or to change that design.. 4 or 5 reasonable engineers should be able to do it..

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 » 09 Nov 2016 00:25

tsarkar, Sir, what stopped the IA from realizing what you have outlined so well in your post?
Why would they ask for a Abrams counter instead of a T-72 replacement or two?

We have read the history of tank warfare several times on this thread, but never a reason that co-related the reason for Arjun SR being raised vs. Sahadev/Nakul/W-50/FMBT.

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3520
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Aditya G » 09 Nov 2016 05:19

Bum La in AP.

Looks good for tanks.

Image

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1593
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ks_sachin » 09 Nov 2016 06:34

Mihir wrote:tsarkar, good post, and I agree. The more I read up on the Arjun, the more I realise that the IA's requirements branch screwed up big time in defining the requirements for the tank. They got unduly worried about the Abrams and demanded a tank that would perform extremely well in a handful of very limited scenarios and pretty poorly in most others. And when the CVRDE built what they demanded, they had the gall to accuse the scientists and engineers of screwing it up and building a machine that was "too heavy".

PS: Wasn't there one engagement just before Asal Uttar where M4s of the Deccan Horse smashed Pakistani Pattons? The superior gunnery training and really made itself felt.


Also you have to consider that by the time the tank was ready threat perceptions had changed so back to something like a T series adversary and the new incumbents in Directrate General of Mechanised Forces did not have Arjun on agenda.

I do not agree with this myself but over the years I have tried to understand the logic of this from senior armd offrs including the Bde Cdr when Arjun was first inducted. reliability issues , organisational inertia.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1593
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ks_sachin » 09 Nov 2016 06:36

sudeepj wrote:Arjun will be inducted only for the desert regions. End of story. The project was envisaged when Pakis were getting M1s and therefore would have had to upgrade their end of the infrastructure. With the infrastructure on that side crumbling the way it is and not up to date on our side, there is no chance that the beast will be inducted in massive numbers. Its a shame.. because overall, its a much better tank than the T90.

People mention Sarvatra as if its a panacea. But that bridge is not combat tested. Laying down a bridge if the opposite bank is contested is not a simple thing. It can be done, but no general commanding a tank division will want to introduce yet another element of uncertainty. Even if an advance is slowed down by a couple of hours, that may be too long in the fast paced battle anticipated today. Even in 1965, it was a 24 hour delay that bogged down the advance on Lahore. In 71, it was a 10-12 hour delay around Longewala that doomed that offensive from a major victory. In WW II, capturing the Ludendorf rail bridge cut short battle of the Rhine by weeks. Had the Americans not been able to do that, they would have paid in thousands of lives. Today, that crucial time will likely be down to a few hours at the most. If the enemy is competent, even such a short delay can prove disastrous.

The real scandal is the inability of Avadi to incorporate Arjun technologies (the suspension, the longer APFSDS, the FCS, the muzzle reference, the APU, the bustle with blow off panels) into the base T90 design. The PWD culture of 'humse to kisi ne kaha hi nahi..' (nobody asked us to do it) must change. Some complain that this cant be done because IPR. I think, this argument is nonsense. We have already paid the Russians for the numbers produced. Aint nothing they can do to stop us from modifying a design that we have already paid for. Even today, some Arjun technologies do find their way into the T90. (Kanchan composite armor, which is why the Indian T90 is heavier than the Russian).

Now, there is a T90 MS that fixes some of the original 'bugs' in the T90 design and will likely be ordered in greater numbers. Instead of being a gutter mouth and blaming 'ghooskhors' and 'natashas', see the reality and the mess that the Defense Industrial Complex is in and urge powers that be to fix it.

*I mean, how difficult can it be to build a ****** autoloader? Or to change that design.. 4 or 5 reasonable engineers should be able to do it..


so should be inducted at all. is the money better spent on actually getting proper manufacturing facilities for a decent rifle, better boots, better quality helmets, flak jackets etc...

Do we need that much or armour today - just pondering..

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Austin » 09 Nov 2016 13:44

putnanja wrote:
Austin wrote:some wrong figures throw by Defence News should have realised this was Vivek Raghuvanshi :roll:

DAC figure AoN was also given for the repeat order of 464 Russian origin T90 tanks which are being manufactured by the Ordnance Factory Board for Rs 13,448 crore http://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/c ... tanks.html

That comes to around USD 2 billion for 464 T-90 Tank , Unit cost is ~ USD 4.3 Million , Most certainly this is the cost of T-90MS



I don't think its T-90MS, there was no reports of India signing up for MS, the once being assembled in Avadi is T90M. The additional cost could be due to the Catherine FC thermal imaging system, which was supposed to be expensive.


It cant be the T-90 , The T-90 that India uses is the one that we freezed in 1999-2000 and it has Catherine FC .

The sticker price for T-90 is $ 2.5 Million and T-90MS $ 4-4.5 million , Thats the sticker price but actual price would be lower.

Under the Skin T-90 MS is a new Tank compared to T-90 , The difference is as big as Su-27 and Su-35 or Su-30MKI flanker.

The DAC is just the approval and now they will negotiate and then CCS will clear it but if $2 billion is cost for 464 tank then its certainly the T-90MS

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4524
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby putnanja » 09 Nov 2016 14:21

Austin wrote:
It cant be the T-90 , The T-90 that India uses is the one that we freezed in 1999-2000 and it has Catherine FC .

The sticker price for T-90 is $ 2.5 Million and T-90MS $ 4-4.5 million , Thats the sticker price but actual price would be lower.

Under the Skin T-90 MS is a new Tank compared to T-90 , The difference is as big as Su-27 and Su-35 or Su-30MKI flanker.

The DAC is just the approval and now they will negotiate and then CCS will clear it but if $2 billion is cost for 464 tank then its certainly the T-90MS


I doubt its T-90MS, haven't seen any report on India discussing deal for T-90MS. The $2.5m was without many essential items including night vision devices, if I recall Ajai Shukla's article long time back, when he had compared T-90 and Arjun prices.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Austin » 09 Nov 2016 14:41

putnanja wrote:I doubt its T-90MS, haven't seen any report on India discussing deal for T-90MS. The $2.5m was without many essential items including night vision devices, if I recall Ajai Shukla's article long time back, when he had compared T-90 and Arjun prices.


The cost is a clear give away no need to doubt.

India wont be building the same T-90 that they first built in late 90's in 2017-18 , T-90MS is a different breed and indeed there are enough news article if you dig and even Armoured Cops chief interview which spoke about upgrading T-90 in capabilities that T-90MS have.

OFB can easily build the T-90MS much like it can build the T-72 CIA or Arjun Mk2 they are based on same base platform

DAC is just the first set of approval , even if they take things fast they would take atleast a year to negotiate and get it ccs approval.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21234
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Philip » 09 Nov 2016 15:44

The problem is Avadi.They have so much on their plates,from T-72 upgrades to producing T-90s,Arjuns,which they cannot chew at all simultaneously successfully,hence the slipping timelines,quality,etc.Frankly,it has bitten off more than it could chew.So, "as per usual" the GOI has decided to acquire more firang/Russian models of the improved variety. It does beat me too why the IA/DRDO did not see the need for developing an auto-loader.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Austin » 09 Nov 2016 16:22

here is T-90 upgrade to T-90M standard for Russian Army

http://gurkhan.blogspot.in/2015/06/90-3.html

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2620
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Vivek K » 09 Nov 2016 18:16

Wow! People are now bashing DRDO for not incorporating Arjun tech into the tin can!! How low can you fall- first you throw 2 billion dollars for an import that is not needed then you want the defeated tech to be used in the loser tank?

Imagine what investing 2 billion dollars into domestic facilities for producing Arjun's instead could have meant for employment starved Indians!! Indians will continue in poverty because GOI is taking food away from locals to feed and appease foreign vendors!!

Mehra bharat Mahaan! Maybe the next election Indians should give Kejriwal a chance.

Abhisham
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 86
Joined: 09 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: Singapore

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Abhisham » 09 Nov 2016 20:13

The total in-service numbers for T-90 don't tie-up. There have been three contracts for T-90 since 2001 for 310, 330 and 347 tanks respectively with the last contract signed in 2007. Not sure how many completely manufactured tanks have been supplied by Avadi in addition to the above assembled kits. With the latest approved numbers not sure if there is any manufacturing taking place in Avadi.

As for the Arjun majority of armored core officers who hold a view about Arjun have never physically been on one. Whereas the soldiers and officers in the 43rd armored regiment love the tank. Arjun was never planned in the armored force structure from the beginning, the whole directorate for mechanized force is sold out to the Russians.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8437
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Pratyush » 09 Nov 2016 21:21

How do we know, that Avadi is not producing the kits from Russia, resulting in the production from Avadi. Which means that that the total numbers is 310+330+347=987.

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 880
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Mihir » 09 Nov 2016 22:24

sudeepj wrote:The real scandal is the inability of Avadi to incorporate Arjun technologies (the suspension, the longer APFSDS, the FCS, the muzzle reference, the APU, the bustle with blow off panels) into the base T90 design.

Aside from the muzzle reference system, the rest would be impossible to do without a major redesign of the entire vehicle. It would've been much easier to design a new tank from scratch.

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1657
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Sid » 09 Nov 2016 22:59

^^^DRDO did something like this and it was called "Tank EX".

Any indigenous effort on armoured R&D was not defeated by an enemy shell but by us.

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 880
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Mihir » 10 Nov 2016 01:21

Tank-Ex was a tech demonstrator. As I understand it, it did not carry all the systems that a production MBT does (imagine the challenges of taking the chassis of one tank, the turret of another, and redistributing their internal and external components so that they worked together seamlessly) engineers did the bare minimum necessary to see it through a few rounds of preliminary trials. The trials showed that the chassis was not strong enough to handle the Arjun's more powerful gun. It was a very useful R&D exercise, but it never would have seen operational service.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2620
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Vivek K » 10 Nov 2016 07:37

Well, again if Arjun has the "more powerful gun" then why stick with the tincans?

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1593
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ks_sachin » 10 Nov 2016 08:01

Vivek K wrote:Well, again if Arjun has the "more powerful gun" then why stick with the tincans?


It was a tech demonstrator mate....They wanted to see whether it would work. If it did then there were other possibilities that could be explored. that is what R&D is all about..

The chassis could also not handle the weight of the turret....

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2620
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Vivek K » 10 Nov 2016 08:59

You probably typed before reading AND understanding my post, my friend. The question is - if like Mihir states that the Arjun's gun is more powerful than what the tincan hull can support, then why not go for the more powerful gun on the more powerful hull - i.e. the Arjun.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8437
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Pratyush » 10 Nov 2016 09:12

Because the T 90 main gun can fire missiles and Arjun main gun cannot. GLCM doesn't count as it is made in india.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2620
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Vivek K » 10 Nov 2016 09:15

Arjun has demonstrated the Lahat.

Bart S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2527
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Bart S » 10 Nov 2016 09:49

Vivek K wrote:Arjun has demonstrated the Lahat.


But but....has it been demonstrated in summer, winter, monsoon trials etc? Underwater? What about in zero gravity environments? :P

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8437
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Pratyush » 10 Nov 2016 10:00

Vivek K wrote:Arjun has demonstrated the Lahat.


The fume extractor of Arjuna is not powerful enough to deal with the firing of the missile. That is why the tank cannot be used. Never mind that the main gun ammo can kill any tank at realistic battle field range.


Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 880
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Mihir » 10 Nov 2016 11:16

Vivek K wrote:You probably typed before reading AND understanding my post, my friend. The question is - if like Mihir states that the Arjun's gun is more powerful than what the tincan hull can support, then why not go for the more powerful gun on the more powerful hull - i.e. the Arjun.

Because a tank is more than just the gun? :-?

Gah, you're making me defend the T-90!

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1593
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ks_sachin » 10 Nov 2016 11:25

Vivek K wrote:You probably typed before reading AND understanding my post, my friend. The question is - if like Mihir states that the Arjun's gun is more powerful than what the tincan hull can support, then why not go for the more powerful gun on the more powerful hull - i.e. the Arjun.


i understood clearly..response is still the same..it was an exploratory design and mating


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests