Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9858
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Yagnasri » 02 Feb 2015 09:44

No permission for exports? Of course, we only import.

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2434
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Manish_P » 02 Feb 2015 10:09

Can all the tin-can supporters comment on the above?


Sanku Ji is sorely missed :)

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 » 02 Feb 2015 10:41

the report card on the T-90 looks and feels like Pappu's school report card...only the accident of royal birth giving him 1st rank in class ahead of the real topper(s). lol.

for normal guy 90+ -> A+ grade
for pappu 60+ -> A+ grade :twisted:

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Pratyush » 02 Feb 2015 11:03

Whats the purpose of the score sheet. The T 90 is the present and the future. The Arjun Mk2 will see token service, if its lucky.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10097
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby sum » 02 Feb 2015 11:42

^^ +1.

Atleast for country's sake, hope that the T-90 actually score good marks since this will be the one seeing most( if any) combat for next decades atleast ( going by the "alacrity" with which Arjuns are being inducted)

ArmenT
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 4239
Joined: 10 Sep 2007 05:57
Location: Loud, Proud, Ugly American

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby ArmenT » 02 Feb 2015 12:18

uddu wrote:The news mentions the following details
Arjun outgunned the T-90 tanks produced by Russia
Anbhazhagan the tank commander:
This tank is very important, very significant in the border areas of Punjab and Rajasthan. Do have many features that's not available in other tanks. The firepower of this tank is very accurate.
Satish from DRDO:
We use the rifled bore gun because of the need to fire multiple types of rounds.
The APFSDS round is fired at 1600 m/s. Also fires HESH round...Also grenades and whatever is required for the soldiers in war.
Then explains features of Mark-II
We were not able to export any defence equipment even though there were requirement from customers abroad.
Even for Arjun MK-I there were request but could not export because government (UPA) did not provide permission. :evil:

More accurately, the translation goes something like this (I left out the first bit from Mr. Anbhazagan).
Mr. Satish from DRDO:

If you look up there, the main armament is 120 mm. That's what they call the "main gun". It is a 120 mm. rifled bore. In the whole world, we're the only ones that use a rifled bore. If you're wondering why we're using a rifled bore, that's because there is this ammunition called HESH and to use that, we have to use a rifled bore. We can fire two types of ammunition from it, one is FSAPDS, which is the primary ammunition, which can be fired at 1600 m/sec and number 2 is the HESH ammunition. These two are the ammunition for the main gun. Other than that, we have this AD gun here, 12.7 mm. and besides that we have 7.62 machine gun for anti-personnel applications. Other than that, in this particular vehicle, if you look in the back, we also have SGDS (i.e.) Smoke Grenade Dischargers + hand-grenades and whatever other accessories are needed in war

The next incarnation is Arjun Mark II. Differences between mark II and mark I are 79 differences. Let's look at the main differences.
* From the 120 mm. gun, we can also fire missiles
* ERA - Explosive reactive armor (i.e.) it bounces off incoming projectiles
* For buried mines, this has the ploughs in front
* From a joystick controlled from inside, there is an anti-aircraft gun to shoot down incoming aircraft
* Automatic targeting sensor
* Protection from NBC warfare

Mr. Shivakumar from DRDO:
Until now, the Government has not allowed us to export any defense item. For example, Bhramos is available, many countries want it. Arjun MBT, even Mark-I, had requests (from abroad), but Government did not give permission.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21047
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 02 Feb 2015 12:54

The "light vs heavy" MBT is perhaps[s misleading ,as the "light" MBTs of the T series have a 3-man crew only,as compared with the larger "heavy" MBTs of Arjun,etc. In terms of armour thickness,ERA.,etc.one supposes that there will be little difference.Being "light" does not mean compromising upon armour and crew survivability.The later tank design/s reportedly coming from Russia (Armata?),supposed to be unveiled this year,according to western sources,indicate that the concept may be further developed into a turretless tank,further protecting the crew.Auto-loaders,auto-AA MGs are std. and a larger gun and missile capability is expected. The lighter tanks will also be cheaper to produce and cheaper to operate,with further cost savings of having one crew member less.

We however are saddled with upgraded T-72s,T-90s as the bulk of our armour. We possess them in large number and cannot simply wish them away.For whatever kneejerk reason the T-90s were acquired,after Pak bought T-80s from the UKR on the cheap after the USSR collapsed,these tanks are going to be the mainstay for at least another decade or two. Arjuns can complement them by replacing old tanks due for pensioning as we have hoped to replace MIG-21s with LCAs.Here,the Arjun is already in series production unlike the LCA.Mk-2 with its improvements should be evaluated for both production rates and cost. Current production/upgradation capability at Avadi is inadequate.400+ Arjuns are supposed to be required to recover R&D costs and the GOI must support the same. However,unless production is ramped up,we will yet again face shortfalls and see imports/CKD kits in the future. One would also wish that we start an R&D programme looking beyond A-2 towards an FMBT for the future,whose prototype could arrive post 2020.

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 1177
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby shaun » 02 Feb 2015 13:16

^^^
those lines of so called arguments were expected, what next, 2 men armata for pakis purchasing t-99!

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9858
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Yagnasri » 02 Feb 2015 13:30

^and so on.

Per year, as per my mango recollection, IA retires some 50 tanks. If they are replaced by say 60 Arjuns, then we can have a regiment of Arjuns increasing per year. Further, we can altogether stop importing of T-90 immediately and convert all the production lines to Arjun. Order 1200 arjuns at once and with around 120-150 Arjuns total per year we will have a production line running for a decade with upgrades along the line. With huge orders, costs will come down and required infra etc can be created.

Will
BRFite
Posts: 637
Joined: 28 Apr 2011 11:27

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Will » 02 Feb 2015 14:04

Pretty soon you will see the IA clamouring for the Russian Armata Tank. :evil:

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9858
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Yagnasri » 02 Feb 2015 14:08

Sorry. No. Unless it is named as T-100 or T-91, we will not import it.

member_28305
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 41
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_28305 » 02 Feb 2015 15:15

uddu wrote:Made in India, Made for India :)
India's battle tank Arjun mark II is all set to hit the grounds



Real Funny that reporting is..... :mrgreen:

The reporter explained that the ERA will rebounce the incoming shells as rubber balls... :lol:
even they animated some balls bouncing off the tank.

KBDagha
BRFite
Posts: 160
Joined: 10 Dec 2005 21:47
Location: Mumbai

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby KBDagha » 02 Feb 2015 16:13

Arjun Mk.II Tank Clears All Army Trials, Service Next Year !!! :) :) :) :)
http://www.spslandforces.com/exclusive/ ... -Next-Year

However, no plans to order more... :evil:

member_20453
BRFite
Posts: 613
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_20453 » 02 Feb 2015 16:58

Happy news but very sad state of affairs, perhaps we can cap the production of T-90 to 1500 and order a 1000 Arjun MK-2, perhaps Modi sahib can push this deal, if IA needs tanks, they should have no other choice than the Arjun mk-2.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srai » 02 Feb 2015 17:14

The IA needs to replace around 2000 T-55 & T-72 MBTs over the course of next 15 years. Thats more than half of its planned fleet of around 3500 MBTs. Yet, they can't seem to find room for even 300-500 Arjun MBTs!

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 » 02 Feb 2015 18:11

Room is being reserved for the t100.

Someone needs to give a briefing to the big boss on this scam.
Heads need to be cracked.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby RoyG » 02 Feb 2015 18:50

Philip wrote:The "light vs heavy" MBT is perhaps[s misleading ,as the "light" MBTs of the T series have a 3-man crew only,as compared with the larger "heavy" MBTs of Arjun,etc. In terms of armour thickness,ERA.,etc.one supposes that there will be little difference.Being "light" does not mean compromising upon armour and crew survivability.The later tank design/s reportedly coming from Russia (Armata?),supposed to be unveiled this year,according to western sources,indicate that the concept may be further developed into a turretless tank,further protecting the crew.Auto-loaders,auto-AA MGs are std. and a larger gun and missile capability is expected. The lighter tanks will also be cheaper to produce and cheaper to operate,with further cost savings of having one crew member less.

We however are saddled with upgraded T-72s,T-90s as the bulk of our armour. We possess them in large number and cannot simply wish them away.For whatever kneejerk reason the T-90s were acquired,after Pak bought T-80s from the UKR on the cheap after the USSR collapsed,these tanks are going to be the mainstay for at least another decade or two. Arjuns can complement them by replacing old tanks due for pensioning as we have hoped to replace MIG-21s with LCAs.Here,the Arjun is already in series production unlike the LCA.Mk-2 with its improvements should be evaluated for both production rates and cost. Current production/upgradation capability at Avadi is inadequate.400+ Arjuns are supposed to be required to recover R&D costs and the GOI must support the same. However,unless production is ramped up,we will yet again face shortfalls and see imports/CKD kits in the future. One would also wish that we start an R&D programme looking beyond A-2 towards an FMBT for the future,whose prototype could arrive post 2020.


Oh come on. How long are you going to believe this BS? Without any firm orders how can you expect a ramp up in production. It's common sense. We have a SUPERIOR product which tops this T-series garbage in almost every respect.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21047
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 02 Feb 2015 19:00

Please read my post carefully.

It would be v.interesting to examine CVRDE's annual production of tanks,plus tanks upgraded per yr and examine it in the light of the IA's tank inventory and future upgradation and augmentation. As Yag has suggested and what I also said in my post,replacing obsolete tanks with Arjuns should be the priority. The exercise of upgrading all T-72s which can absorb modernisation should be reviewed.I think there was a post about a yr. ago on the same subject, to review T-72 upgradation ,curtailing it,while producing T-90s as planned as they are superior to the T-72s,leaving the extra production capability created by modernizing lesser numbers of T-72s for Arjuns and using/converting some of the available T-72s for specialized variants. This way the money saved for upgrading elderly T-72s could go into new Arjuns,increasing Arjun production. The cost of new Arjuns MK-2 should also be examined to see whether a larger production line will bring down costs significantly. If the reports are accurate that Arjun Mk-2 has passed its tests,priority should be given to its production.

Please also remember that the cost factor is v.important in the light of the current defence capital budget being cut for all 3 services. Being a larger tank with an extra crew member too,will cost more than a T-90 both in acquisition and in operations/maintenance.Don't forget that the "indigenous" Arjun uses a German engine. There is a significant import content in it too.Saving money on curtailing the upgradation of old T-72s in favour of Arjun is a line that should be pushed hard.

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 1177
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby shaun » 02 Feb 2015 19:32

^^^^
Cost is not a factor when the money will be in circulation in India itelf , cost should be a factor when we import anything that too inferior.

Please go through the CAG reports , why T-90 and Su-30 Mki production in India is behind schedule and is getting substituted by direct imports when targets could not be achieved.

Import and production of Tin-cans should be stopped ASAP.

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 1177
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby shaun » 02 Feb 2015 20:08

More.
Image

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby RoyG » 02 Feb 2015 20:25

Philip wrote:Please read my post carefully.

It would be v.interesting to examine CVRDE's annual production of tanks,plus tanks upgraded per yr and examine it in the light of the IA's tank inventory and future upgradation and augmentation. As Yag has suggested and what I also said in my post,replacing obsolete tanks with Arjuns should be the priority. The exercise of upgrading all T-72s which can absorb modernisation should be reviewed.I think there was a post about a yr. ago on the same subject, to review T-72 upgradation ,curtailing it,while producing T-90s as planned as they are superior to the T-72s,leaving the extra production capability created by modernizing lesser numbers of T-72s for Arjuns and using/converting some of the available T-72s for specialized variants. This way the money saved for upgrading elderly T-72s could go into new Arjuns,increasing Arjun production. The cost of new Arjuns MK-2 should also be examined to see whether a larger production line will bring down costs significantly. If the reports are accurate that Arjun Mk-2 has passed its tests,priority should be given to its production.

Please also remember that the cost factor is v.important in the light of the current defence capital budget being cut for all 3 services. Being a larger tank with an extra crew member too,will cost more than a T-90 both in acquisition and in operations/maintenance.Don't forget that the "indigenous" Arjun uses a German engine. There is a significant import content in it too.Saving money on curtailing the upgradation of old T-72s in favour of Arjun is a line that should be pushed hard.


Again you're skirting the issue. If we are producing most of the tank in house, and it is SUPERIOR to the one we're importing, the plan should be to up the order and replace all of the T-junk. With economies of scale the costs should come down. Even with the 4th person in the tank, the tank itself is a safer design and has better offensive and defensive weaponry.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21047
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 02 Feb 2015 20:43

The CAG reports ad nauseum and parliamentary reports as well have time and time again berated the DPSUs for failing to meet targets and the services on their procurement policies regarding imports as opposed to indigenous projects. Reg DPSU failings,whether this is due to poor management ,plus/or deliberate low production-to facilitate imports is a moot Q. The current policy is "make in India". However which Indian so-called desi weapon system is more than 70% indigenous? Almost every weapon system apart from our strategic missiles has a significant import content.The Arjun and LCA both have firang engines. One gent in the know laughed at me when I mentioned "indigenous radars".He said almost everything was imported and touted as being indigenous. Take all our principal naval radars for instance,They are either Russian,European or Israeli. When will we develop our own AESA radar for fighters too? There are cut-off dates which the services have to adhere to and take crucial decisions to maintain their required combat capability.The max indigenization of any programme appears to have been with the MKIs,now "70%" built from materials sourced within India. That figure is planned to go upto almost 100% within a couple of years. barring titanium ,of which Russia has massive reserves. The revamp of the DRDO/DPSUs and accountability as in the pvt. sector is essential if the situ is to be improved.

We also lack the requisite R&D facilities and infrastructure for the huge gamut of defence eqpt. and human resources. It takes 800-1500 scientists/tech staff for designing just one new class of N-sub (US figs)! Press reports said that "200" Russian technical staff were associated with the ATV programme. Given our shortfalls,it is highly optimistic and unrealistic that we will be able to completely avoid foreign imports whether they be total systems or components/tech. The P-8Is,C-17s,C-130Js have been total imports,so will be the Chinooks and Apaches. We do not have both the expertise or cash to make everything in India.The hard truth is that a certain degree of imports will be needed.Let's not fool ourselves.Then there are also quality issues ,HAL in particular,whether it was locally built MIGs or now the ALHs which are in trouble in Ecuador and have also experienced problems in India. As mentioned above ,substantial costs are incurred in forex for imported components. Reducing that content is the task. We are now in the transition stage of getting things "made in India" while reducing totally imported systems.

Coming back to the Arjun.There are two considerations.One rate of production and cost for both . What is the cost difference between a T-90 and Arjun Mk-2 and how long does it take to build each? Let's first ascertain how many Arjun MK-2s we can build per yr. and work backwards and what it will cost for let's say a min batch of 400+. The IA has made a decision in the past to acquire T-90s in large qty as its principal MBT ,built up an infrastructure,training,manpower,etc.,and is proceeding along those lines. It can't suddenly change direction. It has to maintain its combat capability and numbers. To maintain those numbers,upgrading the large fleet of T-72s was planned.One simply cannot dump hundreds of tanks which still have significant life in them,Therefore a trade-off is required after review as to the viability of reducing/capping T-72 upgrades,how many new T-T-90s to be built and how many Arjuns also built to stay as far as possible within the IA's budget while still maintaining the requisite numbers. It's very easy to say that anything built in India means the money stays at home! When the entire Rafale deal is weighing in the balance because of costs, and as said before cuts are being made in capital acquisitions,the bean counters make the final cut.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2724
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby darshhan » 02 Feb 2015 21:01

If T-90s and 72s are not good then BMPs are even worse. Infantry combat vehicles based on Arjun chassis is the need of hour. BMPs would have a very low survival rate in combat I suspect. Israel has actually tried something like this with Namer which is based on merkava chassis. Both T series and BMPs are crpf standard actually. Indian army deserves better.

Note: Please do post your observations and suggestions regarding Arjun on my gov.in. The feedback will go directly to Namo. Complaining on brf has limited utility.
Last edited by darshhan on 02 Feb 2015 21:05, edited 1 time in total.

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby PratikDas » 02 Feb 2015 21:02

@SJha1618: Dalals are making wantonly false arguments in favour of a fully imported tank while shamelessly running down a superior indigenous tank.

@SJha1618: As far as I am concerned more orders for the Arjun Mk-2 is a critical test of Modi's avowed #MakeInIndia push.

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 1177
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby shaun » 02 Feb 2015 22:22

@philip

I just don't understand what you are so desperately trying to sell . Will Russia or say any other tank manufacturing country will ever accept Arjun even if we prove them that their tank is inferior to ours ??

wake up ,things are changing like this never before CAG report or else we would have kept on arguing that we produce lemons !!!

devesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5129
Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby devesh » 03 Feb 2015 06:51

DELETED.
Last edited by Indranil on 03 Feb 2015 07:33, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: Abusive language towards the armed forces will not be tolerated. USER WARNED AND BANNED FOR 2 WEEKS.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16830
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby NRao » 03 Feb 2015 07:27


Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2481
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Vivek K » 03 Feb 2015 07:51

Great! So it is ok for posters to use false basis for criticizing domestic products?

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 1177
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby shaun » 03 Feb 2015 08:05

You can not blame IA for that , some minuscule percentage who have a decision making power along with MOD brought us to this situation. My blood boils when our valiant warriors sacrifice their lives ,limbs only because they don't have proper body armour , weapons , gadgets even proper armoured vehicles ( the attack on army camp on mohara , The encounter between the Army and the group of terrorists which commenced in the early hours of Friday lasted for over six hours. During the initial period of operation, one of the terrorists started firing at the vehicles of the QRTs rushing to the site, following which one Maruti Gypsy overturned, leading to casualties of the security forces ) why the hell maruti gypsy ??????

In such heightened situations, AL and TATA trucks are used as army personnel carrier, if i remember correctly there was one video grab where those pigs first disabled that truck by killing its driver and then killing all its occupants as there was no protection what so ever owing to the thin skin of the truck .

why can't we have better armoured vehicles for CT operation , if we can't build one , why not import it directly ??????
even the LSV trial is in limbo why can't there be import substitute for that all these years when our troopers getting killed , maimed in this actual low intensity war ????????
Last edited by shaun on 03 Feb 2015 08:58, edited 2 times in total.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8226
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Indranil » 03 Feb 2015 08:09

Vivek K wrote:Great! So it is ok for posters to use false basis for criticizing domestic products?

The action doesn't warrant an explanation, but I will still provide one.

1. Which of the following doesn't happen in BR: Supporting desi products vehemently and/or criticism of the armed forces? But using foul words for the armed forces, or a constitutional position, or a research scientist will attract a warning and ban. No questions asked.
2. Wonder why you don't have any problems when I warn people for showing disrespect to our research scientists?

And most important of all.
3. Let the moderators do their job. Creating this nuisance every time somebody with your viewpoint gets a warning, may earn you a warning as well.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2481
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Vivek K » 03 Feb 2015 09:04

'tis the season for warnings eh!

To be fair, Indranil you (unlike some on both sides) have been fair and controlled in dealing with conflicting views. I don't have an axe to grind either way though some posters with anti-domestic leanings go really far. Ultimately it is for the armed forces to realize (like Cmmdr Mao of the IN said sometime back) that there are huge advantages of buying local products. The CAG report is quite damming but it did not help the Arjun win additional orders. Ban or no ban - that is a fact. A tank that destroyed the T-90 90% of the time (IA's own admission) cannot find any place in the army.

That is a shame we must all endure and live with.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21047
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 03 Feb 2015 11:01

Look,in our country decisions on defence are made after years of nitpicking between the services,MOD/babudom and the political masters. 26 years and we've still to get new arty. One can't simply stop a programme which is being implemented unless there are exceptional reasons for doing so. The services/IA also have budgets which are fixed,now being cut for capital acquisitions.If we also want Arjun Mk-2,which is supposed to have made the grade,inducted in large numbers,rate of Arjun production and costs are essential factors.The IA will also want its numbers to be happy as planned earlier. It is not that the T-90 is bad tank,Arjun may be better.The simplest way to promote more production of Arjuns is to curtail numbers of T-72s,the oldest in service from being upgraded which is going on. Tlhese tanks will have less service life even after an upgrade than a new tank. The money thus saved on them earmarked/spent on Arjuns. The T-90s are superior to T-72s are the mainstay of the armoured corps,and even if they too have to be curtailed/capped in favour of Arjun,the money spent thus far on orders of eqpt,etc.,can't be dumped.The production run planned and paid for will have to run its course. It is the IA's call on what the numbers should be,of upgraded T-72s,T-90s and Arjuns.New tank production approved by the MOD but not yet paid for can certainly be diverted in favour of Arjun.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8226
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Indranil » 03 Feb 2015 12:08

Philip sir,

One has to give it to you. The ingenuity in the excuses that you have come up over the years is really amazing :D

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 1177
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby shaun » 03 Feb 2015 12:31

Did any one realize why acquisition of military hardware tends to be scam free while comparing to acquisition we make from others even though 70% of our hardware are of russian origin ???

It took six years for us to translate russian TOT manual for producing t-90 over here !!!!!

Production of tincans of all hue and colors should be stopped ASAP and the exceptional reason is ,we have an indigenous alternative , Arjun kicking the tins and defeating them hands down .

The chronology is like this

1 Arjun developed to replace T-72s
2. Arjun field trials failure
3. Import t-90 as paki got t-80
4. Arjun field trial failure
5. Upgrade t-72
6. Arjun field trials failure
7. produce t-90 here
8. Arjun kicked t-90 but dubbed failure
9. produce and import more t-90 and upgrade t-72 , come up with arjun mk2

member_26622
BRFite
Posts: 537
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_26622 » 03 Feb 2015 12:47

For the brave souls riding in to battle in Tincans, we should feel ashamed of our inability to give them a decent fighting chance even before they put their fighting boots on. The difference in protection is like swimming with swimming trunks (Tincans) or wet suit (Arjun) in freezing waters.

Value of Life in India is nothing - that's the real fact. Otherwise folks could not have walked away scot free after committing this kind of transgression.

Sarcasm on

Why don't posters get that we traded the British monarchy for Russian KGB/Putin evil? Welcome to the banana republic of India. Hopefully the Russian common folks realize their folly soon and kick out this antiquated dinosaur Putin, in process we get a chance to be freed again.

I sincerely hope that India part ways with Russia (and not jump in to American lap. Best to learn from Chinese). Russians supreme ability to self destruct is beyond comprehension. They have serially put maniacs in to power and paid the price million times over. I cannot pity them as we, Indians are worse off. We have been slaves for last 1000 years and when we finally got free, we voted a dynasty in to power - until Modi broke the glass ceiling.

Most Indians miss the significance of voting a commoner in to power. This is the Indian equivalent of the french revolution - getting rid of Royalty for Liberty.

Sacracsm off

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2724
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby darshhan » 03 Feb 2015 13:20

I think Philip has a point here. There is space for both T series and Arjuns in India. T series and BMPs can be transferred to various state police forces and home guards (I doubt if even BSF or ITBP will accept them without interference). Arjuns and advanced ICVs will be procured and operated by Indian army.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9858
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Yagnasri » 03 Feb 2015 13:21

Let us summarize the arguments against LCA and Arjun:

1. Arjun is costly. (which may not be true in the first place). It is better than Tin Cans. But IA needs standardize. Already have in has infra for producing Tin Cans. Creating infra for Arjun is costly. ( I am not sure of it) Lot of Tin Cans are already in use. Tin Cans are also good. IA operational Doctrine ( I do not know what is it. Other gurus have to tell mango people like me) We have a very little capital expenditure provided in our budgets. There is no infra for Arjun. So it is ok to continue with tin can production and not ordering Arjun in large numbers.

2. Rafale is costly. Very very Costly. Any upgrades for it in future are also mostly likely to be very very very costly. No infra for Rafale. Creating it is costly. IAF already operates lot of kinds of ACs. No need to standardize. We get another new type. LCA is very very cheap. It can be produced in huge numbers locally which will further reduced the costs. It is also quite good. Infra can be created easily and cheaply for LCA. IAF needs Rafale class as per its operational requirements. (Once again I do not know what they are. Gurus have to tell mango men like me) So we almost dump LCA and get Rafale. If and when LCA mk2 comes and IAF is satisfied with it and there is money we may order few ACs in LCA Mk2. It is possible that after Rafale the cost of purchase may kill most of the other capital assets for a long long time to come. So chances of LCA Mk2 being ordered in good numbers are little. So let us purchase Rafale now.

Can't we see almost same kinds of arguments are made against Arjun are made for Rafale and against LCA and for Tin Cans.

Can anyone gurus explain???

prahaar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2797
Joined: 15 Oct 2005 04:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby prahaar » 03 Feb 2015 14:05

darshhan wrote:I think Philip has a point here. There is space for both T series and Arjuns in India. T series and BMPs can be transferred to various state police forces and home guards (I doubt if even BSF or ITBP will accept them without interference). Arjuns and advanced ICVs will be procured and operated by Indian army.


Darshhanji, transferring MBT to police/home guard/BSF/ITBP makes zero sense. Technically there is no wherewithal to operate/maintain. Doctrinally as well, makes zero sense. You do not want T-72/90 firing cannons/guns in our own cities. In the best case, if cost permits, T-72/90 could be transformed to ICV/APC/all-terrain artillery replenishment/etc. The best option is to gradually replace old imported arms with new acquisitions consisting of Arjuns/Advanced ICVs.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2724
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby darshhan » 03 Feb 2015 14:25

prahaar wrote:
darshhan wrote:I think Philip has a point here. There is space for both T series and Arjuns in India. T series and BMPs can be transferred to various state police forces and home guards (I doubt if even BSF or ITBP will accept them without interference). Arjuns and advanced ICVs will be procured and operated by Indian army.


Darshhanji, transferring MBT to police/home guard/BSF/ITBP makes zero sense. Technically there is no wherewithal to operate/maintain. Doctrinally as well, makes zero sense. You do not want T-72/90 firing cannons/guns in our own cities. In the best case, if cost permits, T-72/90 could be transformed to ICV/APC/all-terrain artillery replenishment/etc. The best option is to gradually replace old imported arms with new acquisitions consisting of Arjuns/Advanced ICVs.


Come on man. You are forgetting republic day parades. These state units and home guards would look so good and awesome in their tanks. Don't you agree. Philip will start orgasming just by thought of it.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21047
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 03 Feb 2015 14:45

Indranil,it's not ingenuity but the hard truth. How many years has it been since the Rafale was selected? 3 decades now since the LCA was started with series production yet to fructify.Let's not talk about HAL's IJT and BT. The problems with Dhruv,attributed by some to an inadequately powerful (firang) engine. Any bets on which engine will power our classified UCAV? Kaveri anyone? What about the decision to start the second line of subs.It was conceived when Ad,Bhagwat was chief and only now cleared! Our decision making is world renowned with no equal.

Therefore,as said before,unless in exceptional circumstances, lack of funds being one,there will be no way that such a programme will be stopped fully.Future orders can be decided upon which is the best tank in terms of doctrine,performance ,cost-effectiveness too. The IA can easily absorb both T-90s and Arjuns,and don't forget both are locally built.I'm all for acquiring 400+ Arjun Mk-2s if they perform well and we can afford them.Some historical facts.

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/T-90S.htm
From available info,the tank was ordered way back in 2001 (310 T-90S),a further order of 300 licence-built by HVF Avadi in 2006,deliveries beginning in 2008.

http://www.army-technology.com/news/news62778.htmlThe first batch of domestic-built T-90 tanks have been received by the Indian Army.
The ten T-90 tanks, each valued at between Rs14 crore and Rs15 crore, were manufactured at the heavy vehicles factory in Chennai, which plans to produce 100 tanks a year.

The IA hopes to acquire 1650 T-90s by 2020.
Now Arjun costs vary from report to report.Here's one quoting from the "horses' mouth",Dr.Chander himself. If one goes by this report,Arjun will cost at least 50 cr. per tank,in comparison with the 15cr. for a T-90 .3 T-90s for the price of one "36-38%" indigenous Arjun Mk-2! [b]So please gents,don't say that money/costs is not a factor when 60%+ of the Arjun Mk-2 is imported.and 40% of the Mk-1
[/b]
India drops Israeli missile for Arjun Tank
Rahul Singh, Hindustan Times, New Delhi
| Updated: Sep 22, 2014

The homemade Arjun Mk-2 tank has suffered a major setback, with a critical Israeli anti-tank missile to be fitted on it failing to meet the army’s requirements.

The development comes at a time when the defence ministry has set the ball rolling for buying 118 Arjun Mk-2 tanks at a cost of more than Rs 6,600 crore.

The tank developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) is an upgraded version of the Mk-1 variant, 119 of which have been inducted in the army.

One of the most significant upgrades proposed in the new tank is its missile-firing capability.

However, the failure of the laser homing anti-tank (LAHAT) missile, manufactured by the Israeli Aerospace Industries, will seriously hinder the ongoing project as the DRDO will now have to work on an indigenous missile that can be fired from the tank.

In an exclusive interview to HT, DRDO chief Avinash Chander said, “The LAHAT missile doesn’t figure in our plans anymore. We are dropping it. We have been working on a tube-launched anti-tank missile, which hopefully can be configured for the tank’s cannon.”

The Mk-2 variant is supposed to have nearly 80 improved features over the previous version, including more than 15 major technology upgrades.

Chander said the LAHAT missile did not meet the army’s requirements of engaging targets at ranges of less than 1,200 metres. It has an effective range of 6,000 metres.

The major improvements on the new tank include better firepower, integrated explosive reactive armor, advanced laser warning and countermeasure system, a mine plough, a remotely-operable anti-aircraft weapon, advanced land navigation system and enhanced night vision capabilities.

However, the army may not be able to fully exploit the tank, powered by a German engine, as it is too heavy at 67 tonnes.

The Mk-2 may be hailed as an Indian-made tank but it represents barely 36-38% indigenisation, compared to 60% on the Mk-1. “The indigenous quotient has fallen because the major improvements over Mk-1 required imports,” the DRDO chief said.


The army raised its maiden armoured regiment equipped with Arjun Mk-1 tanks in May 2009, more than 35 years after the project was conceived. The Arjun was earlier plagued with problems concerning its fire control system, suspension and poor mobility.

Currently, Russian T-90s and T-72s are the mainstay of India’s tank fleet.


As an aside,I wonder whether one has noticed in the UKR conflict,tanks with ERA panels protecting the corners/side skirts of the tracks instead of the usual armoured plates? Ck the pic in the link.
(http://rt.com/news/228643-ukraine-rebel ... -campaign/)
This may be because tandem warhead RPG rounds will be able to penetrate the armoured panels.Something for our boffins involved in our AV development to chew upon.
Last edited by Philip on 03 Feb 2015 15:24, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests