Production of Arjun tank to start soon

Rajeev
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 51
Joined: 20 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: New York

Production of Arjun tank to start soon

Postby Rajeev » 22 Jan 2001 21:31

<A HREF="http://www.timesofindia.com/today/22indu9.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.timesofindia.com/today/22indu9.htm</A> <P><p>[This message has been edited by RajRajeev (edited 22-01-2001).]

Rajeev
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 51
Joined: 20 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: New York

Re: Production of Arjun tank to start soon

Postby Rajeev » 22 Jan 2001 22:01

Dont be surprised if like sudden LCA flight , u see mass prodcution and export of Arjun soon Image

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Production of Arjun tank to start soon

Postby NRao » 22 Jan 2001 23:37

BTW, the link is :<BR> <A HREF="http://www.timesofindia.com/today/22indu9.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.timesofindia.com/today/22indu9.htm</A> <P>Also, the DM states that:<P>He said production of the Arjun MBT had been ordered and serial roll out was on the lines. "But economies of scale could not be achieved by merely sale of the state-of-art tanks to the Army", he said adding "we have to look for exports and joint collaboration". <P>Which means that they are looking for export orders, but, also foriegn colaboration. <P>Which country?<P>And, what happens to the T-90?<P>Or, does it mean that they take parts of T-90 and incorporate them into Arjun? <P>Since he says the same is true for the LCA, again which country would like to buy a LCA type of an aircraft and do we expect to "merge" the SU-30MKI and LCA (components only)?<P>Interesting

Rajeev
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 51
Joined: 20 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: New York

Re: Production of Arjun tank to start soon

Postby Rajeev » 22 Jan 2001 23:57

Niranjan , interesting observation .<P>BTW , I fixed the wrong link . Thanks for pointing out .

dsandhu
BRFite
Posts: 110
Joined: 07 Aug 1999 11:31

Re: Production of Arjun tank to start soon

Postby dsandhu » 23 Jan 2001 00:11

Is this going to be another trickle down along the assembly line , which took years and years for the model to role out as was the case of the Vijayanta by the Avidhi tank factory?<P>

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Re: Production of Arjun tank to start soon

Postby JCage » 23 Jan 2001 07:16

Hope they fixed the fcs and the armour holds up...Paul Lakowski had reported that it appeared to be steltextolite fiber composite which doesnt hold up in front of long rod penetrators.<p>[This message has been edited by nitin (edited 22-01-2001).]

Kuttan
BRFite
Posts: 439
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31

Re: Production of Arjun tank to start soon

Postby Kuttan » 23 Jan 2001 08:59

What has changed suddenly, so that LCA, ALH, Arjun, all are being sent into serial production?<P>I get the feeling that ABV, GF Abdul Kalam etc. have taken to browsing BRF. <P>Abdul Kalam ==="Appam"??? Image

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Production of Arjun tank to start soon

Postby svinayak » 23 Jan 2001 09:05

It looks like India(GOI) has been doing one of biggest misinformation campaign regarding LCA,Arjun etc. in the last decade and has been successful!

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Production of Arjun tank to start soon

Postby NRao » 23 Jan 2001 10:29

Acharya,<P>Hope you are right.<P>Who knows, we may have taken POK and will get to know about it in 2010 Image.

jairaj
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 8
Joined: 15 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: bangalore, india

Re: Production of Arjun tank to start soon

Postby jairaj » 23 Jan 2001 10:51

He said production of the Arjun MBT had been ordered and serial roll out was on the lines. <P>If this is a good tank, this is good news.<BR>If this is a mediocre tank,then it is bad news to mass-produce it and force it on the army.<P>Same goes for LCA. LCA was seen in tame level flight, no maneuvres unlike presentation of Russian aircraft prototypes. Undercarriage was not retracted due to fear of not being able to release it again and cause crash landing. Undercarriage copied line by line from Mirage undercarriage, saw the process.<BR>

Kuttan
BRFite
Posts: 439
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31

Re: Production of Arjun tank to start soon

Postby Kuttan » 23 Jan 2001 11:00

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Undercarriage copied line by line from Mirage undercarriage<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>This is called: "maintainability / interchageability / off-the-shelf parts" etc. Somebody is being smart there. <P>Maybe the purpose of keeping the undercarriage down, Jairaj, is to make it easier for the aircraft to roll down the assembly line? Image<P>So, if I read right, in Russia they do barrel rolls and Cobra maneuvers on the first test flight? <P>The P-51 Mustang went from first go-ahead to production roll-out in 9 months. So, getting LCA models off the lines in another 2-3 years is not at all bad. Does NOT imply that the production model is the same as the first flight test model. <P>

merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Re: Production of Arjun tank to start soon

Postby merlin » 23 Jan 2001 12:26

Well, well, well! Who needs appam, jairaj is here Image<BR>

Saurabh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 32
Joined: 10 Dec 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Production of Arjun tank to start soon

Postby Saurabh » 23 Jan 2001 15:01

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andy Chan: <B>I don't know much about hardware, but IA is getting T-90, so having two Type of MBT for similar role? From what I understand T-90 is about 10 tons lighter, how are those two tanks operate?</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>T-90 is a faster, more maneuverable tank and also packs a more solid punch 'cause of it's missiles. But this is at cost of it's armour, which IMO is a very high price in view of presence of air launched ATGMs.<BR>PLA has "reportedly" given Red Arrow ATGMs to Pakistan and believ me <B>If anyone is firing a ATGM or HEAT round at you, you would rather be in an Arjun than a T-90</B><P>------------------<BR>Adios<BR>Saurabh

somnath
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3416
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: Singapore

Re: Production of Arjun tank to start soon

Postby somnath » 23 Jan 2001 15:08

Hi,<BR>I have always amazed at allusions to T-90's "superiority" arising out of its ability to fire missiles. How is it pertinent to a MBT? Theatre air defence would anyway be the mandate of specialised AD groups, consisting of Tungushkas and other SAM launching platforms. And I am sure carrying missiles would compromise on the no. of tank rounds the T90 would carry..Which effectively means that it will be compromising on its basic punch...So shall we have specialised air defence tanks???That will be really bizarre...<P>Somnath

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Re: Production of Arjun tank to start soon

Postby JCage » 23 Jan 2001 18:04

Repeat post.....deleted.<p>[This message has been edited by nitin (edited 23-01-2001).]

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Re: Production of Arjun tank to start soon

Postby JCage » 23 Jan 2001 18:19

Somnath,<BR>The Refleks (successors of the svir) arelaser beam guided rounds are atgms with tandem warheads...they are meant to engage far targets~5 kms.The svir was meant to engage till ~4kms.Upto 6 may be carried...cost considerations will vary the loadout too.When the IA originally wanted to upgrade the t72's with the same capability,upto 6 svir missiles were preferred per tank..this too when in 1993 each svir cost around 45,000$ making 30 such rounds equivalent to the cost of a baseline t72.However prices have fallen considerably and the IA may be getting the present ones-the refleks- at about 15,000$ each.The refleks CAN be used to engage helicopters too...but is not expressly for that purpose.It is primarily for long range AT targets.<P>The t90 is very well protected compared to all previous variants...the 72's /original t80's.<BR>It has a level of protection without k5 superior to that of the baseline M1A1 and comparable to that of the M1A1(HA).K5 protection is also about 60% ..which also enhances the protection against both heat and apfsds projectiles or long rod penetrators.<BR>A new TI sight from sagem,better gun stabilization and new fcs...a 1000 hp engine and it adds upto a good punch.<BR>The "vladimir" t90 with a welded turret offers even better protection..but afaik,india is going in for the t90s and not the vladimir.<P><BR>Saurabh,<BR>The t90 IS well protected.<BR>Check out pauls gem.. <BR> [URL=http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/ubb/Archives/Archive-000001/HTML/20010105-1-002230.html]http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/ubb/Archives/Archive-000001/HTML/20010105-1-002230.html[/UR L] <P><BR>Regarding the arjun,<BR>There have been some doubts about the fcs and the kanchan armour.The army has expressed doubts over the kanchan at one time...but subsequent tests seemed to have allayed them.<P>These problems ofcourse being different from the issue of the army having to replace its rolling stock and the arjun's weight being too much for much of the critical support infrastructure-bridges,roads.<BR>There are certain issues with the arjun but they CAN be overcome...the 1 ISSUE which remains is the army disagreeing on cost grounds...the logistics and other costs.Besides the t90 can easily take care of the alkhalids and t80's.<P>Personally,i would prefer both.<P>regards,<BR>nitin<P><p>[This message has been edited by nitin (edited 26-01-2001).]

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Re: Production of Arjun tank to start soon

Postby JCage » 23 Jan 2001 18:32

And i forgot...<BR>The t90 has the shtora 1 Self protection system for use against being targetted by atgms...both laser guided AND wire guided.So the allusion to vulnerability to air launched atgm's is a bit off the mark.<P>The arena goes even one step further...but that is not part of the indian deal.

Hitesh
BRFite
Posts: 793
Joined: 04 Jul 1999 11:31

Re: Production of Arjun tank to start soon

Postby Hitesh » 23 Jan 2001 21:18

I spoke to some army guys. They like the performance of the tank to some degree but it completely messes up the logistics chain that to overhaul the entire logistics chain just for a tank was not worth the cost to get that tank. The tank exceeds the dimensions of the logistic chain and as we all professionals know that the true mark of a professional army is a well organized logistic network that serves a high degree of the Army's needs.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Re: Production of Arjun tank to start soon

Postby JCage » 23 Jan 2001 22:38

GD,<BR>You'll be dead by then or are you planning on doing a Rip wan vinkle?

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Re: Production of Arjun tank to start soon

Postby JCage » 23 Jan 2001 22:47

Hitesh,<BR>Got any more info on the Arjun?Does that mean the army IS kinda happy with the Arjun but for the logistics part?

Hitesh
BRFite
Posts: 793
Joined: 04 Jul 1999 11:31

Re: Production of Arjun tank to start soon

Postby Hitesh » 24 Jan 2001 02:24

The army is kinda happy with most performances of the tank but it is not something that the army likes to brag about. It sufficiently meets their needs but the logistics things put a big damper on it. The performance was not enough to warrant an entire overhaul of the logistics chain. Also it is too expensive for their taste since they have other requirements and needs to fulfill such as more artillery, gun radar finders, better combat engineering equipment such as minesweepers and clearers and longer tank bridges, modern communication equipments capable of overcoming most jamming and ensure secure communications. They want to be able to equip each platoon with 3 or four radios which is very expensive for a 1 million man army.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Re: Production of Arjun tank to start soon

Postby JCage » 24 Jan 2001 02:54

Damn,its always money!Hope they induct the tank in limited numbers at the very least to act as the core of an armoured thrust.<BR>Anyway,logistics are paramount.<P>So they fixed the obvious defects.Thats reassuring.The sad part is very little on the arjun is available.eG...The Kanchan armour has no details released,we dont know anything about the 120mm Gandiva..its muzzle velocity etc.They fixed the fcs it appears,if the army is finally satisfied.<p>[This message has been edited by nitin (edited 23-01-2001).]

Rajeev
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 51
Joined: 20 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: New York

Re: Production of Arjun tank to start soon

Postby Rajeev » 24 Jan 2001 04:45

There is something interesting about Arjun tanks Image<BR> <A HREF="http://the_kitsune.tripod.com/Rifts-Earth-Vehicles/Indian_Arjun_MkII_MBT.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://the_kitsune.tripod.com/Rifts-Earth-Vehicles/Indian_Arjun_MkII_MBT.htm</A>

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Re: Production of Arjun tank to start soon

Postby JCage » 24 Jan 2001 16:33

The link is utter BS...it appears to be from a wargaming scenario.<P>Kanchan..the arjuns armour package ISNT era.Drdo press releases have claimed that is laminated armour in the chobham class....afaik it is patently untrue since india never had any programs to develop DU armour which is what is the backbone of the chobham.<BR>Kanchan may be a composite armour utilizing fibrous material-steltextolite...while it offers less weight,it is susceptible to apfsds projectiles.There were reports trhat the arjun was to be upgraded with era.This would lend credence to the above report since era significantly downgrades the protection of both apfsds and heat projectiles.<P>Paul lakowski had done an armour estimation of arjun...i'll try and post that.<P>regards,<BR>nitin

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Re: Production of Arjun tank to start soon

Postby JCage » 24 Jan 2001 16:37

Hi,<BR>This is pauls original post.<BR>---------------------------------------------<BR>FRont Arjun turret looks like 50cm -57cm KE & 84-83cm HEAT, while Type 90 [Al Kahlid] is about 60cm-63 KE & 102-112cm HEAT....[ Estimates from JANES A&A-95/96]<BR>Glacis ~ 47cm LOS <BR>Lower hull ~45cm LOS <BR>Front upper turret ~ 48-50mm @ 80° ~ 27-28cm LOS<BR>Front turret ~ 60-65cm LOS <BR>Top turret ~ 45mm <BR>Rear turret ~35mm & 20mm plates and ~ 40cm spaced armor.<BR>Rear hull 35mm & 20mm plates with ~ 2 meter thick spaced armor.<BR>Side Hull should be similar to T-72 or 60mm RHA plus rubberized side skirts about 25mm thick. <BR>Side turret 40cm? <P>Both can mount ERA<P><BR>The ammo situation goes to the Chinese Israeli developed ammo , simply because we have no info on the Indian gun <P>What do you know about Kanchan armor? On the face of it, doesn't sound all that impressive?Fibreglas sandwiched between steel...is there any indication of flexing plates or NERA? BDD?<P>---------------------------------------------

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Production of Arjun tank to start soon

Postby Raj Malhotra » 24 Jan 2001 21:07

I think we all acknowledge that the Arjun is much-maligned programme of DRDO. I think both DRDO and Army are to blame. DRDO for underestimating the extent and complexity of task and starting a half-baked effort. The first MBT prototype type rolled out in 1985. Yeah! Army for its unrealistic demands and foot dragging.<P>On the other hand our appraisal of the achievements have also been too pessimistic.<P>First the numbers to be manufactured is 124 in 5-6-7 years which is considered too less. Well why don’t we add the 32 prototypes and PPS which definitely are not going to be thrown away and might be worked up to production standard. In the meanwhile one can be sure some models of Mark-II will be built. Let us make a wild estimate of 20. So say in next 6 years 124 + 32 + 20 = 176 tanks are not bad for the first effort while we are still learning the ropes. I think better than T-90S (alias upgraded T-72) assembly effort.<P>Next the main bugbear of Arjun is supposed to be lack of power. 1400 hp at 60 tons gives 23-24 hp/ton. How this is bad compared to challenger-1200hp, t-72-750hp, t-90-840 to 1000hp, merkava-900hp? is beyond me? (Even assuming the derating).<P>Incidently the older articles refer to Mtu 838 for Arjun while BR refers to Mtu 873. What is the performance difference?<P>Does the news regarding increment of 40% in price means some new mtu model was being tried?<P><BR>As regards the FCS I would assume that by the time the production variants start coming out in 2003 it will be as good as promised if not already is.<P>The accuracy problems seem to have been traced to ammo and seems to have been worked out. One can be sure that Arjun main gun a rifled devil fireable on the move can beat the **** out of anything puki now and in future.<P>Cost. Everybody have their own estimate. But the official word is $ 425 million for 124 which is US$ 3.42 for each tank and I suppose plus PRODUCTUON FACILITIES.<P>Though I must add that the Arjun seems to have retained the chunky look around its turret and the slopes we all wish for haven’t been incorporated. Why?<P>Also for the lovers of light and disposable, the Army seems to want to incorporate the armor for missile defense also. How is it compatible with light is beyond me?<P>Also a heavily armored tank is more compatible with the concept of limited war where the idea would be to make shallow penetrations and do lot of damage. While having capacity to survive new versions of missiles. Remember it is very disheartening to face a tank that you can’t kill. If a tank has 25% more fire power and Armour then losses are not necessarily 5 is to 4 but can be 5 is to 1. Nobody should forget the mincemeat made out of T-72 in Chechanya. <P>There is lot of opinion that DRDO should go for some other (than Mtu) engine but which one?<P>Perkins of Challenger taken over by USA<BR>Merkava AVDS is again US<BR>Abrams is US gas. (grin)<BR>T-90 Japs ain’t even going to sell you army candy.<BR>Le hyperbar is a disaster with its gas? Supercharger<BR>I don’t think Ukraine – Pak – China is a good idea.<BR>Ariete I don’t know which engine Italians use.<P>Which other than Mtu is left? SAAB is supposedly developing variable compression engines. Will take some time to appear in tanks I suppose.<P>India is supposedly has invited Poland, Ukraine and Russia for negotiations to enter into JV to develop 1000-1200-1500 hp engines. Again financing Russian new tech is like funding China military. (Picking off shelf is something else). Will somebody comment on Poland capabilities?<P>Incidentally is Germany still ready to supply us Mtu engines- POK-II and all ?<P>Me thinks Drdo should reignite the engine effort again and involve the private sector and PSUs. The same core can be used for:<P>Military engines<BR>Marine<BR>Commercial<BR>Gensets<P>Any new info about any recent Drdo efforts in this regard?<P>If indigenous effort is not going on then Mtu is the only and the best choice. Reportedly now they are offering a new 883–1500hp-Europack. It is supposedly smaller, lighter and more fuel-efficient.<P>The key to reducing the weight in a tank is to reduce its volume. Also the extra width of Arjun and bulges in the hull may be due to bulky Mtu 838 engine. (It was also criticized as being a derivative of marine engine and suffering excessive derating in hot climate). If India can wangle 883 through JV or tech transfer than it may solve 90% of Arjun problems-perhaps!<P>Sorry, If you are bored with my ranting.<BR>

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Re: Production of Arjun tank to start soon

Postby JCage » 24 Jan 2001 22:45

Raj,<BR>good post...makes one think.We definitely are in a jam regarding the engine.A 1500 hp one would be eminently suitable but mtu wont give us that....make do with the 1400 hp one(at present) is the only way.<P>"The accuracy problems seem to have been traced to ammo and seems to have been worked out. "<P>Where did you get that info from?Hope its true!<P>"Also a heavily armored tank is more compatible with the concept of limited war where the idea would be to make shallow penetrations and do lot of damage. "<P>Agreed but then mobility is also an issue.Many bridges,roads etc on both sides of the Loc cant take the arjuns weight.<BR>WRT mobility i dont refer to deep strikes but to quick deployment of available assets.<BR>Besides,kanchan IS an issue...the army it appeared was dissatisfied with it acc. to old press reports.They claimed that drdo was so secretive that even they had not been told what it was.<P>I agree with the mtu engine derating in desert climates...didnt know it was a legacy of its "marine" past.One of the biggest challenges for dro was to keep redesigning the cooling pack to overcome that.it resulted in the gun being unable to depress beyond a certain degree in the "behind"<BR> position as the cooling pack was an obstruction.<P>regards,<BR>nitin<p>[This message has been edited by nitin (edited 24-01-2001).]

Shirish
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 53
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31
Location: India

Re: Production of Arjun tank to start soon

Postby Shirish » 24 Jan 2001 22:54

Does anyone know how much the tank weighs in at, after taking into account the full load of ammo and fuel, and warm fuzzy bodies ?

Nandai
BRFite
Posts: 175
Joined: 14 Jul 2000 11:31
Location: Sweden

Re: Production of Arjun tank to start soon

Postby Nandai » 24 Jan 2001 23:58

I read an article about MTU yesterday, and according to that article the Arjun uses the MB838 rated at 1030kW.<BR>The Ariete is powered by a Fiat engine developing 937kW.<BR>Could anyone briefly tell me what the problem with the engine is, is it the price, its performance or that it is german. <BR>Could the "Europack" engine be used on the Arjun?<BR><P>------------------<BR>Nandai<P>Since time began,<BR>the dead alone know peace.<BR>Life is like melting snow.

Sribabu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 31
Joined: 21 Dec 2000 12:31

Re: Production of Arjun tank to start soon

Postby Sribabu » 25 Jan 2001 01:31

How about giving the task of engine development to BHEL/Chittaranjan locomotives/Diesel locomotive works . They have been making huge diesel engines for long and could put their experience for some use.<P>I believe that India has the capability to develop the required units. What is required is some political will to develop the required technologies.<P>I will not blame the Indian Army for it's specifications for the MBT. They should ask for more. What is lacking is want to give more to the Army than they asked for.<P>Sri

Nandai
BRFite
Posts: 175
Joined: 14 Jul 2000 11:31
Location: Sweden

Re: Production of Arjun tank to start soon

Postby Nandai » 25 Jan 2001 18:49

The Swedish Leopard2S are powered by the standard Leopard2 engine, a 1500hp piece. I think the only tanks that have entered service with the "Europack engine(1500hp)" are the LeClercs in Abu Dhabi service.<BR>Here is a trivia fact for you, the MTU engine first intended for the Arjun is the same engine used bu the OF-40s in Dubai service.<P>------------------<BR>Nandai<P>Since time began,<BR>the dead alone know peace.<BR>Life is like melting snow.

Nandai
BRFite
Posts: 175
Joined: 14 Jul 2000 11:31
Location: Sweden

Re: Production of Arjun tank to start soon

Postby Nandai » 25 Jan 2001 19:00

Just a few simple little questions. <BR>What sort of tanktransports will the Arjun require? Does the tanktransport that are currently in service be able to handle the Arjun which is in the 60ton category, quite alot heavier than anything else in IA:s service.<BR>What sort of tanktransports does the IA use, are they specialised vehicles, or civilian vehicles that have been adapted to be used as transports.<P>------------------<BR>Nandai<P>Since time began,<BR>the dead alone know peace.<BR>Life is like melting snow.

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Production of Arjun tank to start soon

Postby Raj Malhotra » 25 Jan 2001 20:16

Regarding Arjun there are so many questions but no answers?<P>Regarding Ammo business I read about it long time ago and can't remember the reference though the issue regarding accuracy has not risen for some time is possibly an indicator of something.<P>Incidently what does window like thing does Arjun has on (on lookers) right next to barrel and in middle of turrent. Whatever it is, it is achilles heel in the middle of a very sensitive area which is supposed to be very heavily reinforced.<P>Does the lack of sloping edges on the turrent of arjun has something to do with layered armour? which may be difficult to shape as an edge without making it vunerable?

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Production of Arjun tank to start soon

Postby Raj Malhotra » 25 Jan 2001 20:35

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nitin:<BR><B>Raj,<BR>good post...makes one think.We definitely are in a jam regarding the engine.A 1500 hp one would be eminently suitable but mtu wont give us that....make do with the 1400 hp one(at present) is the only way.<P>"The accuracy problems seem to have been traced to ammo and seems to have been worked out. "<P>Where did you get that info from?Hope its true!<P>"Also a heavily armored tank is more compatible with the concept of limited war where the idea would be to make shallow penetrations and do lot of damage. "<P>Agreed but then mobility is also an issue.Many bridges,roads etc on both sides of the Loc cant take the arjuns weight.<BR>WRT mobility i dont refer to deep strikes but to quick deployment of available assets.<BR>Besides,kanchan IS an issue...the army it appeared was dissatisfied with it acc. to old press reports.They claimed that drdo was so secretive that even they had not been told what it was.<P>I agree with the mtu engine derating in desert climates...didnt know it was a legacy of its "marine" past.One of the biggest challenges for dro was to keep redesigning the cooling pack to overcome that.it resulted in the gun being unable to depress beyond a certain degree in the "behind"<BR> position as the cooling pack was an obstruction.<P>regards,<BR>nitin<P>[This message has been edited by nitin (edited 24-01-2001).]</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P><BR>I think the bigger issue about the engine may be its dimensions, weight and derating.Though off the cuff it is very difficult to imagine anybody being much better than Germans in engines.<P>Arjun will initially serve in particular sectors and by the time it enters in numbers in next 10-20 years then it is adequate time to improve roads. Otherwise we should fly Spitfires and not Su-30s<P>Tell which western tank armour's composition u know for sure?<P>Also T-90 will not kill off Arjun. India has always maintained two lines of production/supply for all important equipment.<P>India has substancial capacity regarding T-72 and it will be foolish to throw it away. Think of T-90 as advanced T-72 which it is.<P>Also actually having T-90 is an argument for heavy Arjun. As T-90 is one of best tanks in its class, and why make a clone of it when we can buy it cheap. Better to make Arjun. This will force pukis to wet pants whenever they hear a rumble.<BR>

rahulm
BRFite
Posts: 1135
Joined: 19 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Production of Arjun tank to start soon

Postby rahulm » 26 Jan 2001 09:20

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Raj Malhotra:<BR><B><BR>Me thinks Drdo should reignite the engine effort again and involve the private sector and PSUs. The same core can be used for:<P>Military engines<BR>Marine<BR>Commercial<BR>Gensets<BR></B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Yes. Or try to modify an existing indigenous engine core. I share your thoughts about german engines. And Deutz-MWM engines are made in India by Ruston-Pune. <P>I do not know how suitable they are for tanks (ramana mentions: from factor and mult-fuel capability). I would rather have an indigenous, HSD only, tank engine than an imported one that also runs on some exotic hydrogenated vegetable oil (DALDA!).<P>In the late eighties, Ruston MWM's were successfully trailed in on BEML-Kolos TATRA trucks.<P>In an earlier post (which I did not archive) i posted some info. that I got from a first hand talk with an ex DRDO senior.<P>There were 2 schools of though re: Arjun engine. One wanted the Indian pvt. sector to develop, the other wanted to import. The import lobby won due to "other" considerations and the MTU was selected .<P>I wonder if the Bear has Gas Turbine engines and if they will part with the tech. IA for some reason does not like GT's in tanks.<P>Indigenous is best in the long term. We must nurture DRDO Design.It is all we have. Manufacture can be privatised. <P>Rahul<P>[This message has been edited by rahulm (edited 25-01-2001).]<P>[This message has been edited by rahulm (edited 25-01-2001).]<p>[This message has been edited by rahulm (edited 25-01-2001).]

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20739
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Production of Arjun tank to start soon

Postby Philip » 26 Jan 2001 17:51

Arjun's limited production only means that the GOI is keeping part of the huge workforce suitably emloyed,even thought the tank is anything but a success.It is decades obsolete in concept and will in 5 years time be really seen to be so.Smaller,faster,tanks,new engines, with two man crews and increased gun and missile firepower are in the development stage in the major military nations.Britain is supposed to be developing a "plastic" tank with new materials.The related development of very heavily armed helicopters,capable of taking out tanks at long ranges is also moving away tank concepts for current very heavily armoured behemoths that we see today.<P>Smaller crews with auto loading systems make for smaller sizes,lower profiles,more fuel carrying capacity leading to longer ranges,more ammo stowage and reduced costs.Future warfare is likely to be highly mobile and set piece strategies will be at risk as greater detection capabilities due to future increased use of UAVs and UCAVs,making hiding armoured formations far more difficult.The Yugoslavs did indeed fool NATO by extensive use of dummies and the use of hnd held SAMs forcing NATO to deliver it's weapon loads from higher altitudes,thereby saving most of its armour in Kosovo.This is an exception though,as ground troops were not used at all by NATO,making recon on the ground difficult, only left to special forces.<P>We should therefore begin work on a succesor to Arjun,with battles of the future in mind,instead of simply producing large numbers of a tank that has clear drawbacks.Petrhaps cooperation with Russia or France or both to produce a new "millenium" tank is needed.Pooling resources of another country makes sense.We can avoid watsing time as we did over the LCA and get the prototypes ready within 4-5 years.

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Production of Arjun tank to start soon

Postby Raj Malhotra » 26 Jan 2001 20:53

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rahulm:<BR><B> Yes. Or try to modify an existing indigenous engine core. I share your thoughts about german engines. And Deutz-MWM engines are made in India by Ruston-Pune. <P>I do not know how suitable they are for tanks (ramana mentions: from factor and mult-fuel capability). I would rather have an indigenous, HSD only, tank engine than an imported one that also runs on some exotic hydrogenated vegetable oil (DALDA!).<P>In the late eighties, Ruston MWM's were successfully trailed in on BEML-Kolos TATRA trucks.<P>In an earlier post (which I did not archive) i posted some info. that I got from a first hand talk with an ex DRDO senior.<P>There were 2 schools of though re: Arjun engine. One wanted the Indian pvt. sector to develop, the other wanted to import. The import lobby won due to "other" considerations and the MTU was selected .<P>I wonder if the Bear has Gas Turbine engines and if they will part with the tech. IA for some reason does not like GT's in tanks.<P>Indigenous is best in the long term. We must nurture DRDO Design.It is all we have. Manufacture can be privatised. <P>Rahul<P>[This message has been edited by rahulm (edited 25-01-2001).]<P>[This message has been edited by rahulm (edited 25-01-2001).]<P>[This message has been edited by rahulm (edited 25-01-2001).]</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Well R, I cannot perhaps agree more.<P>One of the main bugbears of the Indian indigenous defence programme has been the engines. This is being slowly addressed. For instance<P>Gtx and Pt-7 will address substantial Indian requirements for turbofan-jet engines<P>Hal has entered into collaboration agreement with Turbomeca of France for developing a advanced version of Helo engines to be used in ALH <P>As regards the engines used in turboprop aircraft there does not seem to be any info. Though India shall be requiring engines for UAV, hansa, saras, LTA etc.<P>Marine Gas turbine engines again seem to suffer from lack of co ordinated policy. I think Kirloskar has supplied assembled engines, BHEL has provided Bhopal engines and now HAL is also venturing into Gas turbine engines. I really did not understand the interest of HAL with companies with more experience in the field like BHEL around. I think BHEL should lead the charge for marine gas turbine engines.<P>As regards diesel engines again a lack of co –ordinated policy or even a determined programme is evident.<P>Incidentally I wonder which engines are used in Nissan jeeps and Shaktiman tanks or for that matter in BMEL vehicles.<P>Okay here is my proposed suggestion for GF<P>Diesel Engines upto 250 hp are widely available and manufactured in India<P>What we need to do is develop the following class of engines with commonality of design <P>Around 300-500 hp for heavy trucks and BMPs<P>Around 1000hp-1500hp for tanks<P>Around 2500hp-10000hp for marine engines<P>It should be more preferably a joint venture between a PSU and a pvt co so that the technology can be used extensively in civilian sector transport, commercial & industrial vehicles, gensets, railway engines etc.<P>Gt engines have been a disaster. try tanknet.org<P>

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Production of Arjun tank to start soon

Postby Raj Malhotra » 26 Jan 2001 20:58

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nandai:<BR><B>I read an article about MTU yesterday, and according to that article the Arjun uses the MB838 rated at 1030kW.<BR>The Ariete is powered by a Fiat engine developing 937kW.<BR>Could anyone briefly tell me what the problem with the engine is, is it the price, its performance or that it is german. <BR>Could the "Europack" engine be used on the Arjun?<P><BR></B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Well from info of Nandai even Ariete engine is not a possibility as it seems around 1300hp<P>The article on BR on Arjun is very well written and seems well informed. Additionally with recent news of 40% price increase I will expect a more modern engine therefore I will go by Mtu 873 and hope for Mtu 883 in future.<P>

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Production of Arjun tank to start soon

Postby Raj Malhotra » 26 Jan 2001 21:03

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Guru Dronacharya:<BR><B>US army devotes about 2 huge 10/8 wheel all-terrain HEMTT heavy trucks for each tank in a armoured div. Plus there is a recovery vehicle used to change engines and such thats even bigger than the M1! The fuel is usually brought in tankers or in certain cases may be airlifed to fwd sites by chinooks. <P>[This message has been edited by Guru Dronacharya (edited 23-01-2001).]</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Incidentally with T-90 at 46-50 tons the weight of Arjun at <BR>56-58 tons does not look terrible. Also one cannot compare with American Abrams as they more in 70 tons category. <P>Also Guruji i feel that u know for sure that Abrams are fuel guzzlers and u are just giving a view as a talking point.<p>[This message has been edited by Raj Malhotra (edited 26-01-2001).]

Raj Malhotra
BRFite
Posts: 997
Joined: 26 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Production of Arjun tank to start soon

Postby Raj Malhotra » 26 Jan 2001 21:15

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by philip fowler:<BR><B>Arjun's limited production only means that the GOI is keeping part of the huge workforce suitably emloyed,even thought the tank is anything but a success.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P><BR>Sorry to say MR. adm i disagree.<BR>if this is the logic then we should start from F-22 and not LCA.<P>


Return to “Military Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest