MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby ramana » 21 May 2017 11:40

Philip, And that facing the Chinese has to be done by the forces with what weapons they have. It's not all in the faujis hands. The MoD procurement folks tarried in getting the spares needed from abroad adding to the Arjun woes by benching quite a few.

Add DRDO claims of indigenous development with imported components in Arjun. By now they should have setup a supply chain to get them made locally or import the consumables or those that wearout.
There is a lot of blame to go everywhere.

Last but not the least the Forum members themselves who being mostly engineers side with developers than the users. We want the local products to succeed and ignore the hurdles in the way for the user to adopt them.

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

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Gyan » 21 May 2017 11:56

Due to lack of bridges on Paki side, we should replace even T-90 tanks with hot air balloons imported from Switzerland or New Zealand or somewhere similar.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby ramana » 21 May 2017 12:01

No. India has bridge laying tanks.

And other bridges have adequate capacity for armored vehicles.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1461
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Thakur_B » 21 May 2017 14:30

...and the thread has devolved to neckbreaker vs bridge breaker debate.. :roll:

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: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Marten » 21 May 2017 14:39

Ramana saar, some of us are far closer to users than the engineers around. And being part of the ecosystem or seeing it up close, can safely say corruption is the main cause for the Arjun saga. Anyone who supplies to the IA will know. We know folks who do and I cannot tell you how badly off things are.

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

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby aditp » 21 May 2017 21:18

shiv wrote:
aditp wrote:I've always noted, that the Arjun's main gun is always pointed upwards, even when it is on manoeuvers, while the western tanks always move with the gun horizontal (somehow that looks more TFTA). Can anyone tell why this orientation of the Arjun's gun? is this a hangover from the T-72 where the gun would break the Driver's neck in forward position?

Please link some photos/videos of the TFTA stuff. I cannot recall seeing anything that made me feel anything of the sort. Also please provide a source of information about this T-72 gun breaking necks.

With respect BRF serves to propagate good stuff or bullshit and we need to make sure which is which.


Shiv Saar, it was just a query about the gun orientation of the Arjun as always seen.

But regarding the T72, the following images may help illustrate. Pls note the gap between the gun in horizontal position and the open driver's hatch

T72 Gun horizontal

T72 gun up and driver visible

Now, isn't this TFTA,
atleast for photo-ops

Suresh S
BRFite
Posts: 727
Joined: 25 Dec 2008 22:19

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Suresh S » 21 May 2017 21:23

So sad prof Marten. I heard the same thing about the navy from my cousin brother a generation ago. I found it difficult to believe then. I suspected as much but to get confirmation of that suspicion is sad really.
Last edited by Suresh S on 22 May 2017 01:13, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 21 May 2017 21:32


Sorry those images don't prove anything in the absence of information that a head will get knocked off. Do you have that information or are you simply guessing?

In my view what appears TFTA to you can be described in two different ways, one kind and one unkind
1. The kind view is that the gun is aiming at a nearby target - maybe within 500 meters, the gun pointing up is going for a target further away
2. The unkind view is in symbolism: A tank with its gun pointing down is a gesture of submission. In tank displays - captured tanks are always kept with gun pointing down. Own tanks and victorious tanks always have guns pointing up "proudly" but they will point down only in salute to a supreme commander.

To me the tank gun pointing down looks downright stupid - but that is my opinion and you may have a different view on this

There is no need to cook up silly reasons - there is a good reason for pointing the gun up. Tank shells are fired at targets maybe 1.5 to 2 km away and the muzzle velocity is about 700 m/sec. at that muzzle velocity the shell will take about 3 seconds to travel that distance. In 3 seconds the shell will fall 44 meters or 144 feet the height of a 14 storey building. So the gun has to point up to compensate for the drop due to gravity. If it points straight ahead the shell will hit the ground less than 1/2 km in front of the tank.
Last edited by shiv on 21 May 2017 21:41, edited 1 time in total.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18669
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 21 May 2017 21:40

aditp wrote:I've always noted, that the Arjun's main gun is always pointed upwards, even when it is on manoeuvers, while the western tanks always move with the gun horizontal (somehow that looks more TFTA). Can anyone tell why this orientation of the Arjun's gun? is this a hangover from the T-72 where the gun would break the Driver's neck in forward position?


Adit, if the gun doesn't move, it means its locked in position or the stabilization is on. Keeping the barrel upwards is indeed safer for the crew located forwards, namely the driver. However I suspect its merely a locked position or stabilization being on. The barrel can be moved down.
http://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/images/mbt-arjun.jpg
http://im.rediff.com/news/2015/jul/07lead3a.jpg

Now see the second image. If the barrel is down and rotated the driver is in danger, if he pops out. Hence I presume the barrel is just kept in a safe position wherein the turret can be rotated without impacting the driver position.

If you see videos and the barrel does not wobble, then it means the position is a locked safe position with the gun stabilized.

In short, its likely designed in as a standard position for the gun to be kept during peacetime or when the turret/gun are not being used.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7390
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Prasad » 21 May 2017 22:30

Perhaps light at the end of the tunnel. CVRDE GM said at the sides of the defence indigenization meet that they're ramping up preparation and expect mark2 orders very soon.


rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7702
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby rohitvats » 22 May 2017 11:53

Marten wrote:Ramana saar, some of us are far closer to users than the engineers around. And being part of the ecosystem or seeing it up close, can safely say corruption is the main cause for the Arjun saga. Anyone who supplies to the IA will know. We know folks who do and I cannot tell you how badly off things are.


Can you elaborate how corruption in the IA is responsible for Arjun fiasco?

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: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Marten » 22 May 2017 12:09

rohitvats wrote:
Marten wrote:Ramana saar, some of us are far closer to users than the engineers around. And being part of the ecosystem or seeing it up close, can safely say corruption is the main cause for the Arjun saga. Anyone who supplies to the IA will know. We know folks who do and I cannot tell you how badly off things are.

Can you elaborate how corruption in the IA is responsible for Arjun fiasco?

Can you assure that Russian suppliers are being handed contracts that are unbiased and clean? (No!)
Can your Arjun component suppliers ensure ASRs are to their benefit? (No!)

You know very well how the process works. Not much more can be said here since you will ask for proof next, which you also know will never turn up (and certainly NOT because all of US are spiffy clean). You can close your eyes to the current system and claim patriotism drives all of us, or you can take a look or speak with any contractor and know the reality.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5095
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby jamwal » 22 May 2017 19:06

The winning tank in comparitive trials is not getting any orders while the imported maal which has no proper targeting system, weak armour, heaveir ground pressure, no TOT , no air-conditioning is being bought in thousands. To mAke it worse, technologies from. Arjun and bein g integrated in to tincans in order to bring them up to mark.

Now you may bring in weight, size, bridge arguments and start a cyclical discussion when others will say that it was army who asked for features of a a heavy tank in first place.


Only a naive babe in woods will attribute preference for t90 and disdain for Arjun as something not related to corruption and \or incompetence in army and maybe to some extent in mod.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7702
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby rohitvats » 22 May 2017 19:30

jamwal wrote: <SNIP>Only a naive babe in woods will attribute preference for t90 and disdain for Arjun as something not related to corruption and \or incompetence in army and maybe to some extent in mod.


And only prejudiced and lazy minds on BRF, who cannot see beyond their rhetoric, see corruption as the only reason for such issues. By that yardstick, every Indian product would've been shafted. From Pinaka to Akash to Dhruv. Because IA+MOD combine can simply use the Arjun template and apply that to every product, no? If DRDO cannot get MOD to push IA on Arjun, how does everything else pass the muster?

Every defense deal is a money spinner. Some more, some less.

I know it is a wasted effort here but let me repeat this one more time - IA's reluctance to take Arjun is organizational. It all starts from that. It began when T-90 was not even in picture and T-72 was the main tank. Arjun viability and philosophy was questioned even before first lot entered the army. Another twist in the tale is complete lack of confidence in CVRDE to provide required numbers in required time and with required technology. Yes, they screw up on T-90 delivery schedule as well. But when push comes to shove, Russians supply the numbers. Many cry at this inefficiency and favors to Russians but its not IA's job to draft and sign watertight agreements with OEMs, follow-on them or get DPSUs act together.


That IA bungled up on Arjun GSQR and then did not own up the mistake, making it jump around in one test after the another and refusing outright to accept the tank is known. But it stems not from corruption but the above mentioned organization preference.

Unless you accept the main problem, you'll continue to main these childish comments.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5095
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby jamwal » 22 May 2017 19:38

Oh yes, i am childish, but this is not immature fanboyism which defends the indefensible with covoluted arguements and shifting goalposts , just like IA. Lol

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7702
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby rohitvats » 22 May 2017 19:39

Marten wrote:Can you assure that Russian suppliers are being handed contracts that are unbiased and clean? (No!)
Can your Arjun component suppliers ensure ASRs are to their benefit? (No!) You know very well how the process works. Not much more can be said here since you will ask for proof next, which you also know will never turn up (and certainly NOT because all of US are spiffy clean). You can close your eyes to the current system and claim patriotism drives all of us, or you can take a look or speak with any contractor and know the reality.


You can tone down the preachy language.

Your explanation is as trite as the comment which followed your original post. T-90 is not being forced down IA's throat because some people are making loads of money on the contract. Though, stuff like that also happens.

T-90 is in IA service because IA wants it to be in Service. That some people make money on the sideline is byproduct of this decision and not the other way around. These men make money irrespective of whether the product is imported or Indian.

And IA does not hand out contract or signs agreements or works out the price points or terms of engagement. MOD does. Does it involves men from Services. It bloody well does, on a case to case basis.

Only +ve takeaway from T-90 saga is that IA sticks to its decisions and works on improving on its short-comings.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7702
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby rohitvats » 22 May 2017 19:41

jamwal wrote:Oh yes, i am childish, but this is not immature fanboyism which defends the indefensible with covoluted arguements and shifting goalposts , just like IA. Lol


My mistake. You comment was on the line of famous pat-on-the-back 'BRF ahead of curve' argument.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8118
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Pratyush » 22 May 2017 21:11

I am amazed by some of the arguments against arjun. CVRDE can't build arjun but it can build T 90. A tank is a tank. If one can be built another can be built as well. No

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7702
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby rohitvats » 22 May 2017 21:16

Pratyush wrote:I am amazed by some of the arguments against arjun. CVRDE can't build arjun but it can build T 90. A tank is a tank. If one can be built another can be built as well. No


That comment about Arjun and CVRDE is not an argument against Arjun. But about IA's lack of faith in CVRDE.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5095
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby jamwal » 22 May 2017 21:33

Army has no faith in bloody civilian CVRDE.
-OK, Good hai.


>T-90 is in IA service because IA wants it to be in Service.
>These men make money irrespective of whether the product is imported or Indian.
:rotfl:

Civilians have little faith in army and it's working in this case.
-How dare you ! You are wannabe ahead of curve child.



Amazing logic sir.

Anyhow, enjoy your lala land logic. I'd have enjoyed exchanging posts on this matter if I had a bit more time, but unfortunately busy for sometime to come or maybe just getting too old for this stuff.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7774
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 22 May 2017 22:51

All of you calm down, go get yourself a cup of coffee, and then return to the keyboard.

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: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Marten » 22 May 2017 22:54

Rohit, say what you want but the IA definitely is posing like the Arjun is being shoved down its throat. As for decision making not being affected, your explanation and defence, admirable as it appears, is a wasted effort in rhetoric. Same organization manufactures both, but suppliers on one product offer more money. Dispute this as much as you want, but reality will remain unaffected by your or my devotion to IA or Drdo etc.

Have you spoken yet to one supplier of imported products? If not, please do and come back to us about corruption being unbiased and my preachy language etc. Until then, sorry but your opinion is just uninformed by reality.

Indranil, my last post on this but I do not see any untoward behavior or aggression in my posts on this thread.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7227
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby nachiket » 23 May 2017 00:42

Heh. The Arjun needs to be shoved down the IA's throat. No more foreign tanks. The MoD has the authority to declare this. But no one over there seems to have the balls or perhaps the vision to do it. Maybe Parrikar could have done it eventually after getting tired of the endless trials and modification requests. But with him gone there is truly no hope. Might as well close this thread and forget about the Arjun.

Avik
BRFite
Posts: 193
Joined: 06 Oct 2009 00:16

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Avik » 23 May 2017 00:55

Given the conspiracy theories swirling around, sharing a couple of not-too-old youtube videos on what an Indian company (Ashok Leyland) thinks about IA's trials

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WM6pz3ziqE8


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5yz6m6QiO8

nirav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2020
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 00:22
Location: Mumbai

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby nirav » 23 May 2017 02:08

I'm quoting wiki figures here, so pardon me if I'm off..
Arjuna cost is @ 8.7 million usd whereas T-90 is at half the cost, 4-4.5 million usd.

The performance of heavy tanks in the middle East vs the kornet mijjiles makes one wonder about the rationale of going in for a super expensive heavy tank.
Sh.Ajit Doval gave an insight into strategic thought process of the powers that be by indicating in his talk @ SASTRA university that the days of huge tank battles are long gone.
Iirc the Arjun tanks need was floated in response to the pakis rumoured to be procuring the M1abrams back then.

If the army says it needs a light tank, DRDO/cvrde would do well to come up with an affordable light tank @ fmbt to ensure the armatas don't get mass inducted.

I doubt if the IA ever indicated it wanted to go in for an ALL heavy tank fleet.

Srutayus
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 68
Joined: 29 Aug 2016 05:53

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Srutayus » 23 May 2017 04:10

Cost will go down with increased orders. The investment in development has to be spread over the order, manufacture of parts becomes cheaper with a greater order, greater Indianisation and vendor development becomes possible for components with a larger order... Which is why DRDO has been saying that an minimum of 500 is necessary for the investment.
And 500 is still a small part of the Indian tank fleet.

Since we already have such large numbers of medium Russian tanks, they can be used for maneuver forces while the Arjun can be used for the break through role with its heavier armour, its greater survivability, mine plough etc. The HESH round for the 105mm rifled gun of the Vijayanta was known to be very accurate and potent against fortifications. The HESH round fired from the 120mm rifled gun of the Arjun is even better, indeed DRDO has been testing this round for this very purpose.
Image
And of course, we can upgrade our tank as necessary without going back for permission and paying the original maker.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9560
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Yagnasri » 23 May 2017 05:15

From what I remember T90 comes without any bells and whistles and hence the low cost. They do not even have ACs which are needed to be exported. So the cost comparison is not correct.

IA quite rightly has problems with OFB and other PSUs. T90 improves the logistics situation. They also have issues with slow dev of Arjun. All is ok. But Arjun specifications were given by them only. We all know that the system is developed for the first time in our nation and we did a fairly good job. Once the system proves with self, then IA need to find a role for it. I do not agree that there is no role for Arjun at all. In a highly urbanised situation which IA find itself in Pakijab I am sure as a mango, of course, Arjun which is better protected will have a role. It will also have a role in Rajasthan border. IA needs some 50/60 tanks a year just as a replacement for the damaged and old systems. One Arjun regiment could have been raised on year to year basis for 10 years so that the product cost could have been recovered.

I also do not know if the stand that IA is mere a customer and has no responsibility for local systems. Shivaji/Marathas and Rajputs developed courses suitable to India in the old days and Vijayanagara has to import horses at great cost. We are not as rich as Vijayanagara.

IA is not seriously looking at this weakness of dependence on imports. If anything they shall be more concerned about it than the civilian babus of MoD. I do not agree that we need to even import rifles from abroad when we can make them in India.

As I posted long back, GoI needs to ban the import of all equipment needed for IA immediately. Navy and IAF requirements may be imported for the time being. Unless some serious pressure is put on babus of MoD there will be no development of local systems and no inclination to accept them. It will bring in the private sector a large way as it done in artillery systems.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8118
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Pratyush » 23 May 2017 08:10

rohitvats wrote:
Pratyush wrote:I am amazed by some of the arguments against arjun. CVRDE can't build arjun but it can build T 90. A tank is a tank. If one can be built another can be built as well. No


That comment about Arjun and CVRDE is not an argument against Arjun. But about IA's lack of faith in CVRDE.


As was mine. Or every single t 90 in service would be imported fully built from russia.

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: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Marten » 23 May 2017 08:58

The joke is on two fronts:
1. Why were comparative trials held between tincans and Arjun if not for evaluating which to induct? Argument about ratio and area of operation is also quite innovative brought in. Heh
2. Folks are more than willing to accept Wiki figures on T90 when CAG reports clearly state most subsystems were not included in Tincan prices to project lower costs. That strawman can only be used by the blind, who couldn't read the total improvements asked for by the IA. Catherine ti itself was added just recently - do Tincan prices reflect the same?
3. Really shocking to see well read folks defend the indefensible through various arguments. Why were the improvements being asked for if the DGMF never intended inducting the new version? Can you not comprehend the throttling of budget for spares by buying below the minimum feasibility?
4. Folks using the superb rhetorical argument about why IAF pilots need to have the best in the sky do not want to use their own logic for the "heavy" MBT. It is obviously easier to say IA doctrine says "light" 52 ton tanks are required for all terrain and not heavy 65 tonners. Hat tip to you.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4332
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby srai » 23 May 2017 10:09

Marten wrote:The joke is on two fronts:
...
2. Folks are more than willing to accept Wiki figures on T90 when CAG reports clearly state most subsystems were not included in Tincan prices to project lower costs. That strawman can only be used by the blind, who couldn't read the total improvements asked for by the IA. Catherine ti itself was added just recently - do Tincan prices reflect the same? ...


Oldest trick in the book. Make it look cheap initially to get the contract signed. Then there are series of follow-on contracts for everything else over the course of many years; thus hiding the true cost.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7227
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby nachiket » 24 May 2017 00:40

srai wrote:Oldest trick in the book. Make it look cheap initially to get the contract signed. Then there are series of follow-on contracts for everything else over the course of many years; thus hiding the true cost.

They may have fooled us once with that. But if we continue to ask for more of the same whilst sidelining a homegrown alternative, the lentils are black at our end onlee.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1604
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Khalsa » 11 Jun 2017 16:04

Image

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1604
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Khalsa » 11 Jun 2017 16:05

Arjun Mk.2 MBT Now A Firm Reality

Contrary to widespread speculation, the Indian Army (IA) has not forsaken or given up on the Arjun Mk.2 main battle tank (MBT). Instead, for the past four years, the IA’s Directorate General of Mechanised Warfare has been overseeing a collective developmental effort involving the DRDO, and the MoD-owned defence public-sector undertakings and private-sector OEMs that will in the near future result in a fully-loaded 60-tonne MBT armed with a 120mm smoothbore cannon while retaining the existing 1,400hp powerpack.


Read the complete article @
http://trishul-trident.blogspot.co.nz/2017/03/arjun-mk2-mbt-now-firm-reality.html

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1461
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Thakur_B » 11 Jun 2017 16:13

^^ Smoothbore ? Really ?

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1604
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Khalsa » 11 Jun 2017 16:49

Thakur_B wrote:^^ Smoothbore ? Really ?

Good Point I did not even register it .... that can't be right.

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

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Gagan » 11 Jun 2017 17:55

Don't underestimate the smooth bore reference.
This could be the IA's new ploy to disrupt the Arjun

arijitkm
BRFite
Posts: 136
Joined: 12 Oct 2009 23:23

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby arijitkm » 11 Jun 2017 20:42

As per IDRW nearly 93 indigenously made Arjun Mk.-1, which was grounded due to lack of spares are running again.

http://idrw.org/grounded-arjun-tanks-up-and-running-again/

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby shiv » 12 Jun 2017 07:06

arijitkm wrote:As per IDRW nearly 93 indigenously made Arjun Mk.-1, which was grounded due to lack of spares are running again.

http://idrw.org/grounded-arjun-tanks-up-and-running-again/

Those tanks had to wait 18 months for imported spares. Un frickin-believable. Maybe I am a bit slow on the uptake - but it suddenly occurs to me that the Arjun, at least in part, may have been a bad joke played on the nation (and Army) by Avadi/DRDO. Let me explain that - much as I have been an Arjun fan.

It appears (to me) that Arjun specs were taken from the Army and a tank designed around components that were partly imported and partly made in house. It seems as if DRDO said "Here's a tank for you - if you like it we will make more but you give orders so we can import the components".

Eventually the tank did become better than imported tanks but it is stuck in a chicken or egg situation. Unless the Army gives orders the imported parts cannot be ordered. And unless the imported parts are there there will be no Arjun. The Army does not know what parts will wear out first and cannot pre order those parts. Avadi cannot pre order parts because they have no orders.

The solution could be "make in India" but unless every bit of Arjun is sourced from reliable Indian sources the Arjun is dead. We may just have to move on in a transparent manner where DRDO/Avadi and the army are very clear as to what the Army needs versus what the PSU can actually supply without pretending that they are making it all in house and can supply any number of tanks and parts on demand.

Sadly it looks like the PSU/DRDO combination have been treating the army like I get treated on SP road in Bengaluru when I go to buy a spare - say a laptop battery. The shopowner NEVER says no. He says "Yes we have it in stock. Please sit down. Have tea". After 15 minutes you ask him and he says "It will be here in 5 minutes". He has asked his cousin 4 km away to send it through narrow crowded roads. The part arrives - after 1.5 hours. If this is true I cannot blame the army for treating the PSU like I treat such shopowners. Once I know that the part I need is going to take a long while, I simply walk out and go elsewhere.

My prediction. The Arjun is dead. The nation will have to shake its head and move on. This is not a great revelation. It's been looking like that for a while. PSU's will have to learn to lick their disappointment just like DCNS has to do just that for lack of further Scorpene orders. We are the first to ask for on-time deliveries and good quality. The Americans are masters at that. The Russians are not - but our PSU's - modeled on the Soviet model have been even worse - at least in the past. This must change. HAL/BEL have become "Navratnas". OFBs have not

I have heard the China example too often and hear howls about "scredrivergiri" But look at any major Chinese project and you find that they have always started with massive imports and consultancy/collboration/licencing for a project and have tried to shift to in house production, And they too have failed on many counts just like India

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: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Marten » 12 Jun 2017 07:19

Shiv saar, just two minor observations. You as a customer actually went to SP Road to find the dealer and say give me this part. And secondly, China (PA) commits to orders for its products and works on making things work. This trials after trials is reserved for two things in India: Judicial system, and IA orders for (unwanted) indigenous products such as the Arjun. You are right about everything else including the point about the Arjun having been killed.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests