MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19852
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Philip » 18 Mar 2018 17:08

Media report today. IA says that 68 or is it 78% of weaponry outdated.To be brief looking at only one weapon system, tanks. It wanted over 1000 T-72s upgraded with night vision eqpt. etc., but GOI says " no money"! Even for a measly upgrade costing less than $1M, per tank,possibly just a few hundred thou.$$ per tank ,costing overall less than $1B we can't find the money, but are ready racing to go and spend another $10B for a measly 36 more Rafales! Something does not "add up" right here if you get my meaning.

PS: I gave costs a long time ago last yr.MBTs.T-90 around $3M.Arjun Mk-1 around $5M. May be another reason why the IA prefers more T-90s, more numbers in the fleet vis-a-vis Pak....and now threat from China.As one MP put it "there is no two-front threat.China and Pak is a single front".

Shankk
BRFite
Posts: 240
Joined: 30 Jan 2006 14:16

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Shankk » 18 Mar 2018 20:12

Philip wrote:Media report today. IA says that 68 or is it 78% of weaponry outdated.To be brief looking at only one weapon system, tanks. It wanted over 1000 T-72s upgraded with night vision eqpt. etc., but GOI says " no money"! Even for a measly upgrade costing less than $1M, per tank,possibly just a few hundred thou.$$ per tank ,costing overall less than $1B we can't find the money, but are ready racing to go and spend another $10B for a measly 36 more Rafales! Something does not "add up" right here if you get my meaning.

PS: I gave costs a long time ago last yr.MBTs.T-90 around $3M.Arjun Mk-1 around $5M. May be another reason why the IA prefers more T-90s, more numbers in the fleet vis-a-vis Pak....and now threat from China.As one MP put it "there is no two-front threat.China and Pak is a single front".


Those Rafales are not just the planes we paid for. There are so many other tie-ups linked to that deal and they will be augmenting our capacities; mainly in manufacturing but probably some in defense IP or R&D. Even if just manufacturing, it's an equally important aspect of being self reliant. See this for details.

EXCLUSIVE: 1st Full Details Of Rafale’s €4-billion Make-in-India & Offsets Plan

Coming back to your figures for tincans, do you have any source to show that $3M for T-90 was for just the tank or all the addons included. It's a widely known fact that we were deceived by showing lower numbers for bare bone tanks and then had to pay extra for additional features. This has been discussed so many times here already and you must have read it too. So do you have any new evidence to show that T-90 comparable to Arjun MK-I costs $3M while Arjun costs $5M?

If not, you are just trolling and you should be banned. Please educate us or stop wasting our time.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19852
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Philip » 19 Mar 2018 00:48

Shank.The costing figs were taken from various official figs when orders were placed in batches.Open info. which I've often posted. I do my homework. As for your peurile personal comments and wating me banned, BRF is not your personal property. Countrr with youf own facts., otherwise if you have nothing worthwhile to contribute keep silent and refrain from cheap personal attacks against others.

Shankk
BRFite
Posts: 240
Joined: 30 Jan 2006 14:16

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Shankk » 19 Mar 2018 03:01

Philip, my post was mainly targeting at your constant "selling" arms of mother russia. Even in the topic where MBT Arjun was being discussed you brought in Rafale which was out of topic but you could not control your displeasure with India spending that money clearly because you wanted India to spend that money on T-90 instead. That is extremely irritating. You have done this SO many times that it is nothing but trolling. If you feel so strongly about russian interests you should be ready to hear about uselessness of your posts on "Bharat" rakshak and how others feel. If BR were my property as you alluded, I wouldn't even have to say all this to you. It would have been long taken care of. :wink:

I tried searching your posts but did not find information on MK-I level of T-90. Also searched internet but this specific information is not available. Most of the sources show original price of tanks only. So far I have not seen clear information on pricing of T-90 along with all the additions to bring it to the level of Arjun MK-I. If you point me in the right direction I'll do rest of the work. Also if I find the information you posted to be correct, I'll happy to acknowledge it right here.

Shankk
BRFite
Posts: 240
Joined: 30 Jan 2006 14:16

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Shankk » 19 Mar 2018 03:40

Here is one link I found that talks about T-90MS. Price of each tank is $4.5M. Comparable to your quoted price of Arjun, $5M. No need to mention benefits of building Arjun vs. T-90.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-current-price-of-a-T90-tank

T-90MS (heavily upgraded T-90S):

The T-90MS is among the more modern variants of the T-90 (it was unveiled in 2011). So far, its only customer has been India, which recently signed a contract for 464 T-90MS for ~$2.000.000.000 (~$4.500.000 per vehicle).

Unlike the latest T-90S contracts, these vehicles will be manufactured in Russia by Uralvagonzavod (Russia was anxious to keep some production in UVZ’s plants to preserve local jobs).

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1530
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Khalsa » 19 Mar 2018 08:22

Shankk, you must be new here.
Philip or Filipov or Comrade Filipov is most probably sitting in his barebones Linux outside Moscow and his peddling his warez from there.
Just ignore and move on.

However said that I cannot thank Russia enough for standing when it did with India and giving us the weapons at amazing pricess when they did.
however our needs are changing and all the Russian equipment does not qualify by default.

Thats whats the Russians are finding hard to accept.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2416
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby abhik » 19 Mar 2018 08:42

We are to Russia what the gulf countries are to the US/Europe, buying needless military crap in exchange for "friendship".

Nikhil T
BRFite
Posts: 1041
Joined: 09 Nov 2008 06:48
Location: RAW HQ, Lodhi Road

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Nikhil T » 19 Mar 2018 11:40

SaiK wrote:How much LAHAT was must requirement specifics when IA drafted gsqr?

I think we have to workout on new needs as we proceed.
All range and weight requirents can come in subsequent upgrades and tranches.

Let's get Arjun Mk2 in 1000 numbers and in tranches.

IA must move on.


Arjun should have been bought the day it passed AUCRT trials in 2008. This ten year long story of missed requirements is like the dossiers India sends over to Pakistan. Everyone knows the outcome, yet we have other hopes.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19852
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Philip » 19 Mar 2018 14:43

Comrade Filipov is sitting happily in Mother India and prefers scotch to vodka,Does that clear the air a bit ,da? :rotfl:

Seriously,just look at the T-90 deals over the last decade.Just $2.5M or so when first bought.Then went upto $3.0M.last deal was around $4.5 for the last order of 300+.Now a 60t+t MK-1 Arjun,reported to be around 68t now,trying to lose weight,is quoted at over $8M a pop.When it is 25% larger than a T-90,it stands to reason that all that extra Kanchan armour,ERA tiles,extra crewman,et al,cost extra. So for arguments sake,you get almost 2 T-90s for the price of one Arjun. With the IA wanting a clear numerical superiority over the PA,so that it can overwhelm Paki armoured formations with sheer weight of numbers apart from superior capability,you can understand the IA's mentality. The missile firing capability to me beggars a Q,whether Paki MBTs have that capability and with what ATGMs? Ramana has in an above post given a brief note on the evolution of the IA's armoured warfare doctrine
and that "johnny come lately",as he put it,wasn't in the plan.It was never intended originally to be so large and heavy.

Anyway that's much diesel that has been consumed over 30+ years.I'm posting a western/US view of the programme (not written in some Muscovy coffee house!) ,for some illumination,even though I feel it is unfair in attitude as we are trying to break the mould and be self-sufficient in AVs, so don't shoot the postman.This was written around 15 months ago,so things have happened in the interim,sadly,going by the second report,negatively.

1 : http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... 499?page=2
India Took 35 Years to Make Its First Tank (And It Was a Total Disaster)
Kyle Mizokami
November 27, 2016

In the mid-1970s, India began development on a totally new, advanced main battle tank that would satisfy the needs of the country’s Armored Corps. An impressive combination of firepower, armor protection and mobility, the tank was to be India’s first indigenously produced tank—and one of the best in the world. The service date for the tank, known as Arjun, was confidently set for 1985.

Instead, the Arjun suffered a tortuously long development period spanning two centuries. The final result, introduced into the army twenty-six years later than originally planned, is a mess of a tank that not even the Indian Army wants.

The Indian Army’s Armored Corps has been in existence for seventy-four years, tracing its roots to the Second World War, and has fought in every one of India’s wars with neighbor and rival Pakistan. The Corps has across has sixty-three armored regiments (the equivalent of battalions), spread across eight armored and mechanized divisions and another seven armored and mechanized brigades.

The decision to produce an indigenous Indian tank was made in 1972, shortly after the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. In 1974, the state-run Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) was tasked with developing the tank. It was to be a forty-ton vehicle, armed with a 105-millimeter gun. It would be small enough to be strategically mobile, capable of being shuttled on internal lines (roads and railroads) to vital sectors along the long border with Pakistan.

DRDO decided to make the tank, called Arjun, a mostly Indian design. The Combat Vehicles Research and Development Establishment, part of DRDO, was to design the hull, armor, turret, gun and running gear. The main gun and engine would be imported. Unfortunately, India’s defense-industrial base was nowhere near capable of creating such a vehicle. As if that weren’t enough of an obstacle, India’s world-famous bureaucracy and red-tape machine was another enemy to progress.

Today, the Arjun Mk 1 is a sixty-two-ton tank, complete with a 120-millimeter gun, advanced composite armor, a 1,400-horsepower turbocharged engine, and advanced fire control and thermal sights. Although the tank’s specifications are impressive, the actual product leaves a lot to be desired.

By 2009, thirty-five years after it was originally conceived, Arjun was “ready” for production. Despite shortcomings revealed in testing, the Indian Army was forced to buy 124 Arjuns—enough to equip just two armored regiments—to keep state tank production facilities open. By mid-2015, two years after the purchase was complete, nearly 75 percent of the Arjun force was inoperable due to technical problems.

Arjun’s armored protection evolved significantly over thirty-five years. The tank is fitted with Kanchan armor, a locally designed composite blend that is allegedly similar to British Chobham armor. Kanchan is rumored to be capable of shrugging off point-blank shots from the 125-millimeter gun of Indian T-72 tanks. Arjun is so well protected that its weight ballooned from the original forty-ton specification to sixty-two tons.

This increase in protection came at a cost—decreased tactical and operational mobility. As originally specified, a forty-ton tank with a 1,400-horsepower engine would have an impressive 35-to-1 horsepower-to-weight ratio. Unfortunately, Arjun’s weight ballooned from forty to sixty-two tons, with no corresponding increase in engine power. DRDO finally settled on a German-made MTU 1,400-horsepower water-cooled diesel engine, complemented with an Indian supercharger. Arjun’s horsepower-to-weight ratio sank to a mediocre 22.5 to 1. The vehicle’s weight also means it cannot be used in Punjab and the northern deserts of India in India’s “Cold Start” offensive strategy against Pakistan.

The Arjun’s development period was so long that major design decisions became completely obsolete. The 105-millimeter gun, perfectly adequate in the 1970s when stacked up against the NATO-standard 105-millimeter L7 gun (the M68 in U.S. Army service), and the 115-millimeter gun of the Soviet T-62 tank, were obsolete by the early 1990s.

In the end, the Arjun ended up with a 120-millimeter rifled barrel gun, capable of firing High Explosive, Armor-Piercing Discarding Sabot rounds, High Explosive Anti-Tank rounds and, perhaps not unusually for a former British colony, High Explosive, Squash Head rounds. DRDO conducted test firings of the Israeli-made LAHAT long-range antitank missile, which offered a high probability of kill against armored vehicles out to six thousand meters, but the round was dropped in 2014. DRDO claims it will develop an indigenous equivalent.

How did Arjun, which took decades to develop, end up being such a disappointment? The tank took so long to develop that technologies not even invented when Arjun was first proposed had to be added to the tank. GPS navigation, laser warning receivers, non-explosive-reactive armor and other innovations were merely research papers in 1974, but by the early 2000s were must-have inventions that added to the tank’s complexity, weight and cost.

The inability of DRDO to put its foot down and admit that it could not build the tank on time and on schedule doomed the tank. India’s state of the military art was such that a new tank would out of necessity face a prolonged development time. The more the tank project dragged on, the more the tank needed to be redesigned to incorporate new technologies. The tank was trapped for decades in a development death spiral, and the end product is correspondingly mediocre.

*(the last line is to me v.b*tchy.I would like to see how good the Japanese MBT is against A.)

DRDO is busy at work designing Arjun Mk II, which will allegedly contain many improvements over the original Mk I. The Indian Army for its part is adamant it wants no part of the Mk II until prototypes perform satisfactorily, and would much rather buy an overseas tank. The army, for now prefers the Russian T-90 tank and may express interest in the brand new T-14 Armata tank. Russian state media has reported that India is interested in the Armata as the basis of a new, localized tank. Whether that’s true remains to be seen.

Kyle Mizokami is a defense and national-security writer based in San Francisco who has appeared in the Diplomat, Foreign Policy, War is Boring and the Daily Beast. In 2009 he cofounded the defense and security blog Japan Security Watch. You can follow him on Twitter: @KyleMizokami.


2:https://www.livefistdefence.com/2017/03/big-new-hurdle-for-indias-arjun-battle-tank.html
EXCLUSIVE: Big New Hurdle For India’s Arjun Battle Tank
Shiv AroorMar 13 2017
(for copyright reasons only the link has been posted,so here's just the intro. and an xcpt.) In brief,the IA feels that at 68.6t,A-2 is very obese and even if its weight is brought down to 62t,the wight of A-1,will not have any significant advantage.,as its weight will restrict it to one particular theatre of ops,the desert/semi-desert sectors of the west.A max of 4-5 regiments of Arjun is what will be needed. So it may buy just another 118 A-2s if the weight loss programme fails,or wait and see after operating the small batch of A-2s,which with the FCRV req. make it "steepr" for Arjun to climb.

ndia’s Arjun main battle tank, possibly the country’s longest and most trouble-ridden armament programme, has just hit the latest in a history of formidable hurdles. And it’s a big one. One that amplifies the programme’s inextricable quality as a faraway castle that will never be fully realised by its makers or embraced by its customer, a tragicomic meandering that began with a requirement, stupefyingly enough, right after India’s 1971 war with Pakistan. In the tech world, the Arjun would be veritably vaporware.


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


3.And now the latest being debated right now!
https://www.livefistdefence.com/2018/03 ... ility.html
Army Sits On Arjun Tank Order Over Missile-Firing Capability
Shiv AroorMar 17 2018
Last year, Livefist reported on an unprecedented weight reduction exercise that had been ordered by the Army, throwing the Arjun Mk.II’s path to production plan out of gear. It was reported recently that the DRDO is fighting an expectedly losing battle on that front too.


PS:Apologies of some of this was posted earlier,but it gives a clearer pic of the issue.
PPS:Wait for the clarion call for the Armata from the IA sometime in the future!

Shankk
BRFite
Posts: 240
Joined: 30 Jan 2006 14:16

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Shankk » 19 Mar 2018 23:19

Khalsa wrote:Shankk, you must be new here.
Philip or Filipov or Comrade Filipov is most probably sitting in his barebones Linux outside Moscow and his peddling his warez from there.
Just ignore and move on.


Khalsa, I am not really new here. I first registered on BR in year 2000 then had to change my userid due to site related issues. Anyways.

I have nothing against Philip. This is the very first time ever I addressed him personally. Neither do I have anything against Russia. They have stood by us for long though for their own interests. They are not SU anymore, neither are we old India. Realities must be taken into account. Regarding Philip, he acts brazenly like a Russian shill and that gets irritating. He doesn't stop despite being called out repetitively. Hence my address to him.

Shankk
BRFite
Posts: 240
Joined: 30 Jan 2006 14:16

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Shankk » 19 Mar 2018 23:19

Philip wrote:Seriously,just look at the T-90 deals over the last decade.Just $2.5M or so when first bought.Then went upto $3.0M.last deal was around $4.5 for the last order of 300+.Now a 60t+t MK-1 Arjun,reported to be around 68t now,trying to lose weight,is quoted at over $8M a pop.When it is 25% larger than a T-90,it stands to reason that all that extra Kanchan armour,ERA tiles,extra crewman,et al,cost extra. So for arguments sake,you get almost 2 T-90s for the price of one Arjun.


Thanks Philip for your post but I am not clear about claims. There are more claims in your post about Arjun MK2 costing $8M but I don't see any source. That's alright. I'll make an attempt to find that myself unless you want to provide a source. Let's make few things clear from your point of view.

1. Do you think T-90 tank in it's latest avatar same or better than Arjun MK2?
2. How much does T-90 with same features as Arjun MK2 weigh?
3. Does latest T-90 that is comparable or better than Arjun MK2 cost half the price of MK2?
4. If both the tanks are similar in capability and price, which tank should be manufactured by India?
5. If answer at the end of above question is Arjun, will you please stop making the case of T-90?

Thanks.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19852
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Philip » 19 Mar 2018 23:55

Arjun's cost is available at Wiki at $8,6M. Unless 500 are built it is going to be a huge loss.DRDO.
The T-90 weighs not more than 45t compared to Arjun MK-1 at 62t and MK-2 at 68.6t.Pl. remember that Arjuns have 4 crew compared to 3 on the T-series incl. the latest Armata, which is how they can keep weight down.The entire IA 's support infrastructure is for AVs of T series size.Arjun is too large, details debated ad nauseum earlier.As the latest Shiv Ar. pieces state, it's too heavy and even a few t weight loss for the A-2 won't make it terribly attractive for the IA.

This is why obtaining spares has become v.difficult MK-1 has, according to a report, left a huge no. non-functional.

The two tanks are different in size and concept and used in diff.combat terrain.With a few tbousand T'

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2455
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Katare » 20 Mar 2018 00:37

One thing is sure that Indian babudom gets late, runs over budget and may come up short on performance but it hardly ever fails. Arjun will get over it's issues and IA will survive the Russian inspired officer corp of current generation.

In the end all these trials and demands by IA brass would make it one hell of a tank if it is not already there.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2333
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby nam » 20 Mar 2018 01:02

Arjun MK2 will not be inducted in large because induction of a tank is not a priority, over say LCH or APS. T72 are been upgraded with 1000bhp engine and MK2 ERA. So they will be replaced with Arjuns. Moreover why go for more Arjuns when FRCA is been planned.

let's not get our hopes high and move on.

So i would suggest to DRDO, please start work on FRCA/FMBT. IA wants a 3 man,sub-50 ton tank.Either take the T90+engine shell, put Indian components in to it or come up with a prototype which gives us a edge.

We are done with the learning curve, show us what you got.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2455
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Katare » 20 Mar 2018 01:29

DRDO should not do any of it untill Arjun is fully supported. You can’t keep developing products and not induct them. No induction no more product development lets play the user trial user trial for few more years.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4102
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby srai » 20 Mar 2018 03:15

nam wrote:Arjun MK2 will not be inducted in large because induction of a tank is not a priority, over say LCH or APS. T72 are been upgraded with 1000bhp engine and MK2 ERA. So they will be replaced with Arjuns. Moreover why go for more Arjuns when FRCA is been planned.

let's not get our hopes high and move on.

So i would suggest to DRDO, please start work on FRCA/FMBT. IA wants a 3 man,sub-50 ton tank.Either take the T90+engine shell, put Indian components in to it or come up with a prototype which gives us a edge.

We are done with the learning curve, show us what you got.

Who will fund the R&D? Who will buy it?

Note: Look what happened to some DRDO products like Abhay ICV. Did the IA buy any?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19852
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Philip » 20 Mar 2018 10:30

One v.important point that we're forgetting with both Arjun and the LCA is that they have a high firang component.The LCA is better off because the GE engines and spares are easily available.Now dozens of Mk-1s are reportedly non- operational because of difficulty in obtaining spares from abroad , the west.This is similar to the situ of short supply of Sov. era eqpt. after the USSR collapsed.These components have not been farmed out to Ind. industry at inception, perhaps because there seem to be onstant redesign and uncertainty of large orders.

T-series MBTs by virtue of their large number, are easier to operate as the spares inventory would perhaps contain similar components, some of which have already been farmed out to Ind. industry.

Ashutosh Malik
BRFite
Posts: 115
Joined: 07 Mar 2009 18:47

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Ashutosh Malik » 20 Mar 2018 11:44

Therefore, why not import the whole product? After all there is no difference between importing some parts, and importing the entire thing.

Sound logic I would say.

Philip wrote:One v.important point that we're forgetting with both Arjun and the LCA is that they have a high firang component.The LCA is better off because the GE engines and spares are easily available.Now dozens of Mk-1s are reportedly non- operational because of difficulty in obtaining spares from abroad , the west.This is similar to the situ of short supply of Sov. era eqpt. after the USSR collapsed.These components have not been farmed out to Ind. industry at inception, perhaps because there seem to be onstant redesign and uncertainty of large orders.

T-series MBTs by virtue of their large number, are easier to operate as the spares inventory would perhaps contain similar components, some of which have already been farmed out to Ind. industry.

Akshay Kapoor
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1627
Joined: 03 May 2011 11:15

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Akshay Kapoor » 20 Mar 2018 11:51

Cross posting. Very good effort by CVRDE on another front. Do see the video.

There is another video that I recommend very highly. Its a speech by the Sankaracharya ji of Puri organized by CVRDE. Brilliant. Kudos to CVRDE for this. He makes the point that our kings used to fight from the front and right up to very recently - even late 1800s when they (and many queens) fought against british. And now they sit in A/C rooms and give away the hard fought gains of the soldiers. Many other points. 'Vedic Battle Art'

Here it is :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzR63H6g0nU

rkhanna
BRFite
Posts: 1143
Joined: 02 Jul 2006 02:35

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby rkhanna » 20 Mar 2018 12:15

Note: Look what happened to some DRDO products like Abhay ICV. Did the IA buy any?


While I agree with the sentiment the example is off. The Abhay was ALWAYS a pre-technology demonstrator/platform and was never intended to be offered to the forces. Its a platform where various DRDO R&D for AVs (specially the FICV) are tested including new sights / optics, Turret / Weapon systems, Automotive systems, Crew comfort, Driver / Weapons Bay ergonomics etc.

I believe 2 Platforms were produced - one with composite Armour and another Steel.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19852
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Philip » 20 Mar 2018 16:07

Not the answer, total import.Look at the examples of the MKIs, Jags.More than 70% is now made from local raw material.I can't understand why some deals are different from others.There should be some general policy with imported ware.% to be localised within a definite timeframe.JVs like BMos , Barak-8 ( though some say that there's little desi input), for future futuristic projects .
Where no one will assist us, no alternative but to develop it ourselves like Srat. missile programme, Agnis, etc.

Nevertheless, we missed an opportunity around 2000, when even with Arjun on, we should've pursued a family of AVs to replace Sov./Ru hardware from 40-50t MBTs to ICVs, missile carriers, etc.This could've even been a JV with a partner if there were areas outside our design capability.The Russians have taken over a decade to develop their latest generation of the Armata family. The commonality of components makes it very cost effective and easy to maintain on the battlefield, which will allow a greater % to be combat capable.In the long run what is essential to have the numerical superiority.

nrshah
BRFite
Posts: 574
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 16:36

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby nrshah » 20 Mar 2018 17:00

Phillip
Why not make JV with Russia form our strategic protection as well. let only Russian army protect us.

For sake of good why do always feel we are incapable?? Designs issue outside our capabilities, wtf... And what great.design is T90 and Armata... THE SO CALLED SUPERIOR TANK COULD NOT EVEN COMPLETE A PEACE TIME RACE AND BROKE DOWN... GOD ONLY KNOW HOW WILL IT FARE IN A REAL WAR SITUATION

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2333
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby nam » 20 Mar 2018 17:08

Katare wrote:DRDO should not do any of it untill Arjun is fully supported. You can’t keep developing products and not induct them. No induction no more product development lets play the user trial user trial for few more years.


Sorry, but this would be a wrong way to look at things. US & USSR developed and discarded 100's of prototypes and ideas. Majority of them were not inducted.

That is what made them innovative. So DRDO needs to innovate and provide systems which no one else has or no one provides.

End of the day, if DRDO products are not inducted GoI loses money. If IA buys imported stuff, GoI loses money.

This is not between DRDO & IA. Both are GoI entity. If GoI is not bothered about the loss, why should DRDO or IA care about the same?

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2333
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby nam » 20 Mar 2018 17:09

srai wrote:Who will fund the R&D? Who will buy it?


Very simple answer for the both the question. Ministry of Defence.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4102
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby srai » 20 Mar 2018 17:27

nam wrote:
srai wrote:Who will fund the R&D? Who will buy it?


Very simple answer for the both the question. Ministry of Defence.

:mrgreen:

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2455
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Katare » 20 Mar 2018 19:10

Of course, if you were paying i am certain It’ll be a different story.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19852
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Philip » 21 Mar 2018 09:21

We have historical " baggage" from Sov. era days.V.difficult to get out of the trench.A " ramp" however is being built in the post- Sove era with JVs being given more importance than outright buys to get us out of the trench.There is a western one also, but smaller! However, we don't have the R&D resources of either east or west, costing them quadrillions over a century of development, upon which they bring out new novel weaponry of the likes of the the last Putin announcement.

So we have to draw up our requirements for futuristic weaponry anticipating what is possible in 10 yr.periods for the next 50 years and what weaponry in use today will have to be replaced and when.A v.difficult task one must admit, but as said, in the phased decade approach one gets a clearer picture of what core tech. we must master.Looking next to our ability to go it alone or search for a JV partner.In certain key cases like S-400s, there is little point in us trying to reinvent the wheel based upon it, but continue work on our own ABM system to eventually complement it and acquire more desi systems later on.

In the case of AVs, we have failed to think big.30 years ago all we could hhink of Whatever happens to Arjun, it is evident that the FMBT or whatever it is now called, should be our desi version of a family of AVs as with the Armata.Acquiring one AV from Tatas, another from Mahindra's,whoever ,plus the fare dished out by the CVRDE, will end up giving us a logistic nightmare on the battlefield.To save time we should look at some foreign programmes and see which if any have similarities with our requirements and whether there could be some TOT/JV whatever which also give the req.futuristic. weaponry like hyper-BMos.

Ashutosh Malik
BRFite
Posts: 115
Joined: 07 Mar 2009 18:47

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Ashutosh Malik » 21 Mar 2018 12:39

I am not a defence expert. Have spent time setting up and running businesses.

However, I would like to place this thought on this platform - The import of tanks will no longer happen. Whatever Indian Army may think currently about the Arjun in its current shape, size etc., the next tank will be developed in India, with or without Arjun. There will be no 1000s of "T-Whatevers/ Some other name" being imported anymore. The technology value adds there, from anybody in the world, will not make a decisive difference. With engineering and manufacturing strength increasing in India, no other country will need to be sought for an entire tank system. At most we will see some specific components coming in to the weapon system designed by public or private players in India. Time will tell whether I am on the right track. Could be wrong too, but trends are unmistakable.

Philip wrote:We have historical " baggage" from Sov. era days.V.difficult to get out of the trench.A " ramp" however is being built in the post- Sove era with JVs being given more importance than outright buys to get us out of the trench.There is a western one also, but smaller! However, we don't have the R&D resources of either east or west, costing them quadrillions over a century of development, upon which they bring out new novel weaponry of the likes of the the last Putin announcement.

So we have to draw up our requirements for futuristic weaponry anticipating what is possible in 10 yr.periods for the next 50 years and what weaponry in use today will have to be replaced and when.A v.difficult task one must admit, but as said, in the phased decade approach one gets a clearer picture of what core tech. we must master.Looking next to our ability to go it alone or search for a JV partner.In certain key cases like S-400s, there is little point in us trying to reinvent the wheel based upon it, but continue work on our own ABM system to eventually complement it and acquire more desi systems later on.

In the case of AVs, we have failed to think big.30 years ago all we could hhink of Whatever happens to Arjun, it is evident that the FMBT or whatever it is now called, should be our desi version of a family of AVs as with the Armata.Acquiring one AV from Tatas, another from Mahindra's,whoever ,plus the fare dished out by the CVRDE, will end up giving us a logistic nightmare on the battlefield.To save time we should look at some foreign programmes and see which if any have similarities with our requirements and whether there could be some TOT/JV whatever which also give the req.futuristic. weaponry like hyper-BMos.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1827
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Manish_P » 21 Mar 2018 12:53

Ashutosh Malik wrote:With engineering and manufacturing strength increasing in India, no other country will need to be sought for an entire tank system. At most we will see some specific components coming in to the weapon system designed by public or private players in India. Time will tell whether I am on the right track. Could be wrong too, but trends are unmistakable.


+1. Very well put indeed

nrshah
BRFite
Posts: 574
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 16:36

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby nrshah » 21 Mar 2018 13:35

Philip wrote:We have historical " baggage" from Sov. era days.V.difficult to get out of the trench


You are right Philip, it is a baggage...and India will have to ensure that however hard it be, we will not leave any baggage for our next generation. They will not have out of world design tanks that break down in peace time games...

Akshay Kapoor
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1627
Joined: 03 May 2011 11:15

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Akshay Kapoor » 21 Mar 2018 13:38

We have demonstrated entire system design capabilities in many projects including Tejas. That by itself is an important infact crucial capability. Then many sub systems have been designed in India. Kamchan armour is a great innovation I think. I don’t know about the suspension but I’m reasonably sure a big part of its design is Indian. Yes engine is imported and many of the electronic equipment but we are making progress on the electronic components as well. We are weak in engines across all platforms. So solution is to perhaps just buy and stockpile. You can’t and shouldn’t address all systems. Remember comparative competitive advantage theory of economics. Each nation specialises in and makes what it’s good at and then trades.

No system will be 100 sourced from India. Nor should it be. But we should stockpile important complements to cater for war and associated denial regimes.

Akshay Kapoor
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1627
Joined: 03 May 2011 11:15

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Akshay Kapoor » 21 Mar 2018 13:42

Ashutosh Malik you are absolutely on the right track. The trends are unmistakable and I get confirmation again and again in my interactions across the spectrum.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2333
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby nam » 21 Mar 2018 17:25

Akshay Kapoor wrote:We have demonstrated entire system design capabilities in many projects including Tejas. That by itself is an important infact crucial capability. Then many sub systems have been designed in India. Kamchan armour is a great innovation I think. I don’t know about the suspension but I’m reasonably sure a big part of its design is Indian. Yes engine is imported and many of the electronic equipment but we are making progress on the electronic components as well. We are weak in engines across all platforms. So solution is to perhaps just buy and stockpile. You can’t and shouldn’t address all systems. Remember comparative competitive advantage theory of economics. Each nation specialises in and makes what it’s good at and then trades.

No system will be 100 sourced from India. Nor should it be. But we should stockpile important complements to cater for war and associated denial regimes.


Suspension is Indian. It has been upgraded to handle 70 tons. It is beautiful to watch it in action!

The major component which is not Indian is Renk transmission, Engine & Sights, else everything else is desi. These could be easily built in India, if there was enough orders. There is a engine program already underway. We have also up-rated the T72 engine to 1000bhp.

In the area of IR sights, Tonbo is bringing out some truly TFTA stuff.

Designing and building a new tank is a low hanging fruit for us now. Production & QC are the usual headache from OFB. However I think it is much better compared to the initial days!

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52432
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby ramana » 22 Mar 2018 05:11


Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19852
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Philip » 22 Mar 2018 06:55

Ramana, did you get me email?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52432
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby ramana » 22 Mar 2018 10:04

Yes I did.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19852
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Philip » 22 Mar 2018 10:46

Tx.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19852
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Philip » 22 Mar 2018 10:57

Tx.Yes, in '65 we should've boxed on and captured Lahore ! Either kept it permanently or exchanged or used as a bargaining chip for huge Paki retreat.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7310
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Rakesh » 23 Mar 2018 05:19

X-Post from the Tejas Mk1A dhaaga...

Indranil wrote:3. The Arjun is too heavy or not? If not, why no orders yet!

Just my humble thoughts on this whole Arjun saga. Let me start off - and correct me if I am wrong - with a few *FACTS*;

Fact #1 - The Mk2 does not meet the requirements of the Armoured Corps in *LARGE* numbers (in excess of 500 - 750 tanks). No point in rehashing the old stories - too heavy, too wide, no missile capability, etc. Been There, Done That.

Fact #2 - Over 2,400 T-72s will need replacing soon and thus the launch of the Future Ready Combat Vehicle (FRCV) program. More on that later.

Fact #3 - The Russians have not fulfilled their contractual obligations on the T-90. They were supposed to provide technology transfer (a term loosely used, with no one having any *REAL* idea what that means) on the T-90. What India considers ToT is not what the OEM sees...despite all the promises made during pre-contract signature, up-selling phase. That has been proven time and again on various platforms - tanks, ships, planes, radars, etc. India has more often got the short end of the stick on this issue. But I digress. Point to note though - thus the reason for the FRCV.

Fact #4 - The Armoured Corps has now launched a new competition for a Future Ready Combat Vehicle (FRCV) program ---> https://www.livefistdefence.com/2017/11 ... opens.html

ToT has reared its ugly head again in the above and we all know how this will end up, if a foreign tank in purchased.

So perhaps below is *SOMETHING* that can be looked into;

- So the Armoured Corps wants a "medium weight (45-50 ton) platform required to operate across developed / semi desert/desert terrain and in high altitude areas across the entire spectrum of conflict...." ? If that is what they want, give it to them. But there is one caveat. It should be an Indian designed and Indian manufactured tank. So basically CVRDE onlee. No foreign companies are needed.

- The Armoured Corps wants the FRCV induction by 2025-27? Anyone who follows Indian military programs with serious interest - on BRF or elsewhere - is fully aware that is a timeline that can *NEVER* be met. I am sorry, but that is laughable. That is less than 10 years away, good luck! So I am not going to buy the argument that CVRDE cannot develop a working prototype within that time frame. If the GoI can invest billions in acquiring a foreign FRCV, it would be hypocritical to not invest in an Indian-designed FRCV.

- I have read many posts on BRF (and in this thread alone) that India has overcome the technological challenges in tank design. However this post from BRF Member nam is spot on and I quote him here ---> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7051&p=2260260#p2260260

nam wrote:Suspension is Indian. It has been upgraded to handle 70 tons. It is beautiful to watch it in action!

The major component which is not Indian is Renk transmission, Engine & Sights, else everything else is desi. These could be easily built in India, if there was enough orders. There is a engine program already underway. We have also up-rated the T72 engine to 1000bhp.

In the area of IR sights, Tonbo is bringing out some truly TFTA stuff.

Designing and building a new tank is a low hanging fruit for us now. Production & QC are the usual headache from OFB. However I think it is much better compared to the initial days!

- In light of the above, basically to consider the Armata, the South Korean tank and whatever other designs is foolishness. If someone can tell me that CVRDE is incapable of coming up with a new design, please tell me why. Is it because of a lack of funds? lack of R&D? lack of resources? What is the reason?

- To reject Arjun because it is too heavy, too wide or whatever is FINE. You are the user. You make the final decision, but there are solutions to work around them. Many of them have been incorporated. So once the suggestions have been incorporated, the next logical step is to acquire the tank, no? This is not about the platform (Arjun Mk2), but to waste the resources that CVRDE has at its disposal and invest the billions in a foreign FRCV platform does not make any sense whatsoever.

- Order 500 - 750 Mk2s in the interim, till the Indian-designed FRCV comes along. A foreign FRCV platform will take longer than 10 years to arrive anyway. Is the Armoured Corps willing to wait for a minimum of 10 years - to begin the replacement of the aging T-72 - till a foreign FRCV platform comes? If so, then buy a foreign FRCV platform and waste money and get no value in return.

I just realised this is MMRCA onlee :lol:

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7310
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Rakesh » 23 Mar 2018 05:48

Rakesh wrote:"medium weight (45-50 ton) platform required to operate across developed / semi desert/desert terrain and in high altitude areas across the entire spectrum of conflict...."

The above is the FRCV specifications. Can someone post a link (from an official websiste) if there is one? Below is the *WEIGHT* of just two of the tanks in consideration. Does anyone know of the other competitors?

T-14 Armata: 48 tonnes (or 52.91 tons) ---> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-14_Armata

K2 Black Panther: 55 tons ---> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K2_Black_Panther

Tauba, Tauba....ab kya karenge? Both are overweight! Armata by nearly 3 tons and K2 by 5 tons. They do not meet GSQR specifications on weight. I hope the specifications that were upheld to the most *STRINGENT* standards for the Arjun, is applied to the foreign FRCV platform as well by the MoD. One can only wish the Babu crosses all the Ts and dots all the Is.

So if this eliminates these two and there is just one vendor left, will that not make it a single vendor situation?

Added L8r: I found the other two tanks in the contest. This looks like single vendor situation. Oh wait, I know the solution. Just amend the specification. Problem solved. I simply took tension :)

T-84 Oplot: 48 tonnes (or 50.71 tons) ---> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-84

AMX Leclerc Series XXI: 57.4 tonnes (or 63.27 tons) ---> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMX_Leclerc

Why is the Leclerc *EVEN* being allowed to compete in the FRCV competition? Where is 50 tons and where is 63+ tons? That is a 13 ton difference. Is this not a violation of the specification?

Industry expresses ‘fears’ over India’s future combat vehicle program
https://www.defensenews.com/global/asia ... e-program/

The FRCVs will weigh less than 50 tons and will have multiple variants, including the primary variant of tracked main battle tank; tracked light tank; wheeled version; bridge layer tank,; trawl tank and mine ploughs; armored recovery vehicle; self-propelled artillery gun/howitzer; air-defense gun/missile system; artillery observation post vehicle; engineer reconnaissance vehicle; and armored ambulance role.

“Indian Army wants FRCVs similar to the Russian T-14 Armata, Ukrainian Oplot, French LeClerc and South Korean K2 Black Panther main battle tanks,” a senior Army official said.

To quote a thread title from Hakeem, after reading the above two paras...sorry but I am going to die laughing :lol:


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest