Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

[nelson]

there are good nos of upg T72 now notwithstanding the various problems and n number of upgrade pkgs. being 42tons with 2t of ERA, why arent these deployed in large number in overstrength armour brigades in ladakh and sikkim instead of buying 300 new T90. its just another backdoor buy if the T90...

Partly, it may be because of the travails in inducting the tanks at these places. If T-72 are inducted they would require to be replaced in another 15 years(say). If new T-90ms are inducted they might serve out a longer period, without necessitating deinduction of T-72 and fresh induction of whatever.

[mody]

What is the Indian Express nonsense. The article is dated 6th of April 2013, but still has J.J. Singh as the army chief and only 15 arjuns in IA Service. According to the article the Ashwamedha exercise just ended. Officially Ashwamedha ended on 3rd of May 2007!!!
Still on top of the article it says Latest news!!! Can't get any worse then this.

BY the way that was the time that daggers were really out to try and kill the Arjun project, amongst the vested interests in IA. Shame!!

[mody]

T-72 tanks are currently already deployed in North Sikkim. They are to be replaced by T-90.
The Arjun would be a great replacement, if the army wants.

[nelson]

@mody
It is exactly this replacement business that can be avoided if fresh T-90ms are inducted instead of inducting more T-72 first and then replacing it with whatever.

It would be pertinent to find out how many are already deployed. Since you have (recently) visited N Sikkim you can throw some pointers. If reports are correct they are planning to induct a brigade strength there.

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/1587622/r ... chinas-pla

As we all know brigade >> regiment >> squadron.

[Viv S]

You do realize that these are all rough figures. Its not like the media reported figures are correct down to last day and decimal. Qublling over 25 or 30 tanks is entirely pointless at this level of granularity.

Simply stating the figures I read. No quibble intended.

Again T 90? You need to retool the Arjun line because you want Arjuns to be Mk II standard. T 90 line has nothing to do with this.

Please dont keep bring in extraneous factors, a good discussion will degenerate.

Why do you want the Arjuns to be Mk2? The Mk1 is good enough to be in service so you keep it in production. The Mk2 if and when if becomes available gets serviced by a second line.

No you are wrong Mk 2 production was possible by 2013 IF all the tests last year are cleared. Why not?

Sanctioned in 2010, in production by 2013. Not practical. Development takes time.

Also you dont understand production lines I am afraid. A major improvement of a line does often neccessiates down time. Even if no down time was needed (for the sake of argument) -- we see max down time of about 6 months if things stay on schedule.

I'm afraid you're not understanding the point here - the Mk1 is good enough to remain in production. The Mk2 should have serviced by a second production line with the T-90 production being rolled up.

Question is, why does a mature Arjun tank's production merit closure albeit a temporary one, while the T-90 gets a pass?

Err because they are two ^^different products^^ And a T 90 cant magically transform into a Arjun line or vice versa?

And the Mk1 and Mk2 are two ^^different products^^

The IA doesn't need the T-90, not with the Mk1 in production. Clearly a second Mk2 line could have been setup with the T-90 production winding down.

No proof whatsoever of that statement. IA ordered 124 tanks in 1999 which will be fulfilled in 2012. Army placed a 124 tank order in 2008-9 for Mk II which is yet to be executed.

1600 orders for Russian tank and 124 orders for the Indian tank that features every improvement requested by the IA. And you don't think the IA's approach has been detrimental to the Arjun program.

Because the merits of Arjun were recognizable only post 2008. You cant ask IA to wait around for a road map in the fond hope it will some time come true. In fact they did precisely that for 25 years leading to a situation where no purchases were done for 25 years while they sat and waited.

If in 2005 they could not foresee the direction of the Arjun program and the results of the comparative trials, clearly their judgement deserves to be questioned.

It was not possible to wait any longer, it was already too late.

And events since have proved them wrong.

What are you talking about? T 90 line we are talking about is in Avadi. A captial expense has been made on the line. Why do you want it wasted in a fit of pique?

Capital has expended on the Arjun program as well. I'm asking how much money is lost if the Arjun replaced the balance order for the foreign tanks on a one-to-one basis.

You are not making any sense. As of now, Arjun is the non standard tank. Logistics are in favor of T 72 and T 90. Yet Arjun is being persisted with because going forward, a mix of T 90 and Arjuns will exist. There are 2500 T series (72/90) and the production of Arjun for all intents are purposes has just begin.

If the Army is to field 3000 tanks once the T-72 is phased out, logistically 2300 Arjuns + 700 T-90s is an better combination. Seeing as the Arjun is going to continue as the IA's FMBT, tying off the T-90 production is an obvious decision.

We still have enough T 55 etc and IA has had two or three tanks. So while standardizing on one tank might be a good goal, it is not going to happen in next 10-20 years in any case (already existing T will live that long)

It is also possible that IA will keep two lines of tanks, of different weights. It is a perfect reasonable approach. Till a 50 ton FMBT comes across

You may not like Ajai Shukla's reporting, but doesn't change the fact that the writing is on the wall for the FMBT. There is no fundamental revolution or generational leap in tank technology that has taken place or is expected to take place that merits a new FMBT program.

Are you being deliberately difficult? We are talking of manufacture here in Avadi.

So in your opinion in terms of forex the T-90 costs less than the Arjun.

Well net cost paid in terms of money is in favor of T 90s. In terms of capabilities till mK II comes across, T 90 is still ahead.

So the T-90 is ahead of the Arjun in 'terms of capabilities'. Finally you've come out and said it.

Because that line has to be upgded. When equipment is upgd it goes offline. Basics

The Arjun is good enough for induction in its present form. The Mk2 should have been produced at a newer line with the T-90 converted in short course and the Mk1 line converted eventually.

No Sir it is not a fact, let alone a self evident one. Sorry to say it is completely meaningless statement with no rhyme or reason. lack of supporting evidence can not be passed off as self evident statement.

Heck even T 72 will be upgded and will exist for next 20 years. You are complaining about T 90s?

The T-90 by virtue of its roots doesn't deserve to compete with the Arjun on a level footing. And it'll get whooped by tanks that it does deserve to compete with on a level footing - Leopard II for starters (plenty of which are available for a song from the Bundeswehr's reserves).

The IA is to induct a finite number of tanks over the next 30 years and any Arjun supporter worth his salt would agree that every last rupee spent deserves to go towards the Arjun program, an Indian tank. The premise of your entire argument is that the capital lost on the T-90 line at Avadi will be 'massive', a very vague term. And until that statement's clarified I'll hold off weighing it against the loss to indigeneity and war fighting potential.

[mody]

@mody
It is exactly this replacement business that can be avoided if fresh T-90ms are inducted instead of inducting more T-72 first and then replacing it with whatever.

It would be pertinent to find out how many are already deployed. Since you have (recently) visited N Sikkim you can throw some pointers. If reports are correct they are planning to induct a brigade strength there.

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/1587622/r ... chinas-pla

As we all know brigade >> regiment >> squadron.

Nelson don't now the actual figures and I guess that would be classified perhaps, but there seem to be 1-2 regiments already deployed.
I also happened to see a single tank being transported by road, on a trailer truck. Though this was just south of Gangtok, I suppose it was headed up north. So the deployment was still going on or more numbers were being added. It would seem foolhardy to continue with T-72 deployment or even increase the current nos., if eventually all of them are to be replaced by T-90.

Some of the bridges in the north have been upgraded to 70 ton capacity and are full concrete, 2-way bridges. But, most of the others are still 40 ton, 1 way bridges only. Initially looking at the condition of roads and infrastructure, it seemed impossible that IA would be able to deploy armour in that region. In fact I had taken a few pictures of the roads to put on BR, just to show how bad they were, and that having heavy armour in that region would be extremely difficult. Obviously at the time I was not aware that armour had already been deployed. I had only read about the recent plans to have 1 independent armour brigade each for Ladakh and Sikkim regions.
But then all doubts vanished, when we had to stop and pull our vehicle to the side for a few BMP-IIs which were coming thundering down the road. Do have pictures of the BMP-II.
Photography of the army camps was strictly forbidden, for obvious reasons, but anything on the road was fair game. Atleast this is what a few army guys themselves told me.

[amit]

One thing I fail to understand is if indeed the Army thinks it needs T90s in the North East then why can't existing T90s be modified to whatever standard that's required and be sent there, with their numbers being filled with a fresh Arjun order. I find it rather incredible to believe a that a tank developed for Russian conditions (the present T90s in our inventory) cannot be deployed in the north east and we have to import yet another variety of tank while Arjun's order remains stuck at 248 with little chance of an increase.

[Pratyush]

^^^

You cannot enjoy the services of Natashas when you build Arjuns at home.

[nelson]

@mody

A squadron of tanks has been there in N Sikkim for quite some time. Circa 2007-2009 it was replaced by a squadron of T-72.
http://www.rediff.com/news/2009/jul/28t ... haroor.htm

What you have seen enroute, during your visit to N Sikkim, might be part of augmentation of the existing squadron. I doubt if there is a regiment of armour up there, as of now. Hopefully, the new accruals will materialise in the timeframe in which a brigade is to be inducted.

[nelson]

@mody

and in the span of few posts, your opinion has contradicted the facts that you observed.

T-72 tanks are currently already deployed in North Sikkim. They are to be replaced by T-90.
The Arjun would be a great replacement, if the army wants.

Some of the bridges in the north have been upgraded to 70 ton capacity and are full concrete, 2-way bridges. But, most of the others are still 40 ton, 1 way bridges only. Initially looking at the condition of roads and infrastructure, it seemed impossible that IA would be able to deploy armour in that region.

[mody]

Nelson there is no contradiction.
Initially to my non-military layman eyes looking at the condition of the roads and the infrastructure, it seemed that no tanks could possibly operate there.

However, beyond 15,000 ft, you reach the extension of the tibetan plateau. The land is flat and can be used easily for tanks.

The challenge is to get the tanks upto the plateau in the first place. However, IA has done it. If they could get tanks up the Zoji La in 1948, sure they can get tanks up here in 2013.
A lot of the small bridges are all 40 ton capacity bridges. However, IA engineers used special support equipment, to get the tanks across. Note that the 40 ton bridge would not be able to support the T90 and T72 also. The tanks were driven across the bridge, after providing necessary support to the bridge.
Similarly the Arjun's can also be taken up there. One has to consider the empty weight of the tank, while they are being transported. Also if IA is serious about getting the Arjun there, they can perhaps remove the extra ERA packs and maybe some other equipment to reduce the weight and help with the transport.

Once on the plateau, the Arjun's would be unstoppable. Please also note, that Tanks in Sikkim, would also be used for offensive purpose, to put pressure on the chinese. Because of the terrain and the infrastructure, its almost like a one-way street for tanks in North Sikkim. Only way forward is onto the plateau, towards china. There is very little possibility of using tanks to get lower into Sikkim or W.B. thereafter. For this reason, having Arjuns in Sikkim and by the same logic also in Ladakh would be great.

[nelson]

...A lot of the small bridges are all 40 ton capacity bridges. However, IA engineers used special support equipment, to get the tanks across. Note that the 40 ton bridge would not be able to support the T90 and T72 also. The tanks were driven across the bridge, after providing necessary support to the bridge.
Similarly the Arjun's can also be taken up there. One has to consider the empty weight of the tank, while they are being transported. Also if IA is serious about getting the Arjun there, they can perhaps remove the extra ERA packs and maybe some other equipment to reduce the weight and help with the transport.
...

As on date, only T-72 have been taken across the bridges of load class 40, that you mentioned. It could be possible because, unladen weight ( tank less full fuel, ammunition and gunner) of T-72 is approximately 40 tonnes. I do not think the same can be done with Arjun Mk 1 whose unladen weight is above 55 tonnes. May be some civil engineer can pitch in, with details of safety factor in permissible loading of such bridges.

[amit]

It is interesting that both for Punjab as well as Sikkim capacity of bridges is sought as a justification for pitching for a foreign product despite the presence of a superior local product. I ask again: how difficult is it to agument load capscity of bridges?

[nelson]

I would care to mention that even though weight of tank is a pertinent issue at discussion there need be no parallel between theaters of Punjab and Sikkim. To qualify this in words of @mody, as far as Sikkim is concerned...

Initially to my non-military layman eyes looking at the condition of the roads and the infrastructure, it seemed that no tanks could possibly operate there.

However, beyond 15,000 ft, you reach the extension of the tibetan plateau. The land is flat and can be used easily for tanks.

The challenge is to get the tanks upto the plateau in the first place. However, IA has done it. If they could get tanks up the Zoji La in 1948, sure they can get tanks up here in 2013.

...whereas the operational area in Punjab is a different game altogether. JMT.

[Pratyush]

It is interesting that both for Punjab as well as Sikkim capacity of bridges is sought as a justification for pitching for a foreign product despite the presence of a superior local product. I ask again: how difficult is it to agument load capscity of bridges?

What you need is the will to augment the capacity of the bridges.

[NRao]

Mody,

Thanks for the info. Interesting. (Are the bridges marked for weight in the area by any chance?)

A few observations.

The T-72 deployment, as clearly stated in this article is for defensive purposes. So, once they are transported there the issue of crossing bridges becomes irrelevant for the most part. These tanks are not expected to go on the offensive, they may, but not expected. So, I would not confuse the topic any more than it is already by talking of replacing them with any other tank. Their purpose is entirely different than the T90-Arjun topic.

The T-90MS tanks that the Army seems to be insisting on is for a Strike corp that is being raise for the "NE" and thus would necessarily participate in an offensive effort - that is what they are there for. The curious item of interest is that India (perhaps not the Army - although some articles claim that the IA "expressed interest") did show a great deal of interest in a Polish light tank - the Anders. At 45T the claim was that it was a good fit for the region.

However, at some point in time the entire topic of a light tank vanished and the T-90MS came into the picture. IIRC the Arjun was considered to be too big for the theater, which is a perfectly reasonable thought. While the issue along the Western front, mostly in the Punjab, is bridges being unable to take a particular load, the issue in the NE has been terrain - and not bridges so much. Light tanks - as far as I can recall - were preferred so that they could be moved along easily, both in peace and in times of war.

On the topic of bridges in the Punjab, I really do not see an issue - IF the Army wanted to resolve this problem. Prefab bridges are dime a dozen and India has been - for some 3/4 decades - good at prefab. And since this is a strategic effort, I just do not think the cost is prohibitive either from that PoV. The effort should not take very much time either. To be sure, I am talking of bridges, across canals only and only on the India side the Punjab - which is where the problem seems to be rather acute.

[amit]

Nelson,

thanks for an informative post. What I find interesting, or perhaps the correct word is puzzling is that the Army thinks it need yet another variant of the T90. To me it sounds more like an excuse to import more. I can't wrap my head around the face that a tank made for Russian conditions can't be deployed in Sikkim (with whatever modifications that are required). The 390 or so thanks that the Army wants can be argument by Arjuns. Such a move would take the Arjun order to above 500, the apparent breakeven point for the project.

[Pratyush]

Why the T 90 MS, what makes it special? I mean it other then the weight.

[NRao]

Nelson,

thanks for an informative post. What I find interesting, or perhaps the correct word is puzzling is that the Army thinks it need yet another variant of the T90. To me it sounds more like an excuse to import more. I can't wrap my head around the face that a tank made for Russian conditions can't be deployed in Sikkim (with whatever modifications that are required). The 390 or so thanks that the Army wants can be argument by Arjuns. Such a move would take the Arjun order to above 500, the apparent breakeven point for the project.

I am not sure that the Arjun would be right choice for deployment on the Indian side of the NE border.

Best is to purchase an Anders type of a machine for that purpose.

Otherwise send the T-90 from the Western front to the NE and replace the T-90s (on the Western front) with Arjuns.

[nelson]

T-90MS is an advanced version of T-90S the older export variants of the tank that India operates. I do not know of any specialised capabilities of T-90MS that suits its use in Sikkim and Ladakh.

[amit]

I think the T90MS could be a sort of litmus test about the future of Arjun. If the Army goes ahead, then I think one can conclude Arjun is dead in the water - with all the implications that entails.

[symontk]

From my work place lot of folks have visited Manasarovar. One thing they noticed was that, it was too hot once you cross Himalayas from India / Nepal side onto Tibet (I was surprised). Wouldnt be a challenge to a T-72 & T-90 to perform in those hot climes?

[Anujan]

One of the distinctive features of the Arjun tank is its hydro-pneumatic suspension, distinct from and far more advanced than the "torsion bar" arrangement that conventional MBTs (including the T-90) feature. The Arjun's suspension provides a smoother ride, making the tank a more stable gunnery platform that permits more accurate engagement of targets whilst on the move.

Improving the Arjun's already great suspension

To set the record right...

So it took somewhat like 30 years to fix the torsion bar problems!! The project started in 1980 did it not?

[chiru]

So it took somewhat like 30 years to fix the torsion bar problems!! The project started in 1980 did it not?

there was no torsion bar to start with == hence there was no problem

added later:

i think i just fed a T.R.O.L.L, silly me

[Anujan]

^^^^
Why was there no torsion bar? Was Avadi incapable of making even a torsion bar?

[Drishyaman]

So it took somewhat like 30 years to fix the torsion bar problems!! The project started in 1980 did it not?

there was no torsion bar to start with == hence there was no problem

added later:

i think i just fed a T.R.O.L.L, silly me

I have seen people using this 'torsion bar' trick in this thread earlier also to catch a person not having much knowledge on Arjun

[NRao]

I think the T90MS could be a sort of litmus test about the future of Arjun. If the Army goes ahead, then I think one can conclude Arjun is dead in the water - with all the implications that entails.

Has the Army changed their mind on ordering more Arjuns? I was under the impression that the 240/8 was it, no more. Which is why the Russian person's statement that India wants 300 more T-90s is very concerning.

[Sanku]

Mods, are you going to do something about the comedians who post two line flame baits since their pet agenda are getting washed out by facts?

Moderator response
No. Particularly not since you resorted to ad hominems to characterize them anyway. Sophisticated trolling comes in many flavors, not just your own.

[Anujan]

I have seen people using this 'torsion bar' trick in this thread earlier also to catch a person not having much knowledge on Arjun

THANK YOU!! For agreeing with me. I posted an article that clearly stated that Arjun has torsion bar problems. The posters here posted unverified articles that Arjun does not have a torsion bar. So obviously one or the other is true. Thinking about it, it doesnt matter what is true to prove the final point.

What people here dont realize is that it is not a question of which tank is better, but which tank is available in numbers and can be serviced in numbers.

(A) If Arjun does in fact have torsion bar problems, why wasnt it fixed? Was it a DRDO issue with poor design or was it an Avadi issue of poor quality control?

(B) If Arjun does not have a torsion bar to begin with, why not? If Avadi cannot even produce enough torsion bars for tanks, how do they expect to produce enough arjuns in quantity to fight a war? DRDO might have good designs to begin with, but Avadi does not have the production capacity what use is it? Then Arjun is just a paper tank.

It is the duty of every taxpayer to question why the production capacity of something trivial like torsion bars have not been ramped up.

[Sanku]

You do realize that these are all rough figures. Its not like the media reported figures are correct down to last day and decimal. Qublling over 25 or 30 tanks is entirely pointless at this level of granularity.

Why do you want the Arjuns to be Mk2? The Mk1 is good enough to be in service so you keep it in production. The Mk2 if and when if becomes available gets serviced by a second line.

I'm afraid you're not understanding the point here - the Mk1 is good enough to remain in production. The Mk2 should have serviced by a second production line with the T-90 production being rolled up.

And the Mk1 and Mk2 are two ^^different products^^

Well there are few basic assumptions above which are wrong. Mk1 is NOT good enough. Mk2 is what Arjun was always intended to be. For example the missile firing capability was a inherent part of Arjun, but is still not available in Mk1 and will be in Mk2. So you are basically wrong, when you say that Mk2 and Mk1 are different products. Mk2 is what Mk1 should have been all along frankly.

If you say things like Mk2 and Mk1 are two different products, then I am afraid you are just being facetious and a serious discussion just can not happen.

So no, keeping a line for Mk1 at this point of time makes no sense. It is like making new non upgd T 72s when T 90s are available because you have a T 72 line.

1600 orders for Russian tank and 124 orders for the Indian tank that features every improvement requested by the IA. And you don't think the IA's approach has been detrimental to the Arjun program.

OTOH I think IA has supported Arjun through thick and thin. It has given it a full unit worth of support to test and develop over 10 years. It has persisted with Arjun even after it kept missing deadlines, multiple times. Orders have been placed for Arjun BEFORE Arjun was ready.

What else can IA do?

If in 2005 they could not foresee the direction of the Arjun program and the results of the comparative trials, clearly their judgement deserves to be questioned.

No, no one can foresee anything about Arjun. People have waited 30 years because they kept foreseeing things.

In any case, 2005 was ALREADY TOO LATE. ALREADY LATE. The fact that T 90s would be inducted in large numbers was a foregone conclusion in 99 when the first order was made.

It has taken 12-13 years with Russian assistance to have 1000 tanks in service, starting from 1999. Arjun was in 2008 where T 90 was in 1999 (in fact still lacked some features which T 90 had in 1999)

It was absolutely no option but to induct T 90s in large number. Even today whether Arjuns can be made in large numbers remain to be seen. Avadi has been making a hash of all production plans for T 90s and T 72 updgs anyway. No reason to assume they wont do it for Arjun.

If the Army is to field 3000 tanks once the T-72 is phased out, logistically 2300 Arjuns + 700 T-90s is an better combination. Seeing as the Arjun is going to continue as the IA's FMBT, tying off the T-90 production is an obvious decision.

That may or may not be a better combination, but the point is moot. It can not happen. Arjuns are maturing too slowly. IA can not wait. IA should not wait.

You may not like Ajai Shukla's reporting, but doesn't change the fact that the writing is on the wall for the FMBT.

Actually it was shown from direct quotes by Dr Saraswat that Shukla was lying (once again)

So the T-90 is ahead of the Arjun in 'terms of capabilities'. Finally you've come out and said it.

I always said that? As of today, till Mk 2 comes across, T 90 is a slightly better tank (ERA/missiles etc etc). Mk2 will make Arjun decisively better.

The T-90 by virtue of its roots doesn't deserve to compete with the Arjun on a level footing.

Thats all very nice, but the army has to fight a war, and it is armor fleet was already hurting. So while the sentiment is nice, the real requirement of having a tank fleet with competitive technology can not be denied.

Our threat scenario ensures that.

The IA is to induct a finite number of tanks over the next 30 years and any Arjun supporter worth his salt would agree that every last rupee spent deserves to go towards the Arjun program,

False choice. There is no common budget where one is coming at the expense of other. This "chose between Arjun or T 90" is not even on horizon. It is about 20 years away. Best case.

Right now, we are still having to chose to Upgd T 72s, that is the reality.

[Drishyaman]

Sorry Sir !! I wasn't agreeing with you in anyway... I was rather , which probably you have overlooked on purpose.. ?

The plain answer to your question is Arjun MBT doesn't have torsion bar and in its place it has hydro-pneumatic suspension which is considered technologically advanced. This is what I have seen many a people confirming earlier also in this thread...
So, to your question below -

(A) If Arjun does in fact have torsion bar problems, why wasnt it fixed? Was it a DRDO issue with poor design or was it an Avadi issue of poor quality control?

(B) If Arjun does not have a torsion bar to begin with, why not? If Avadi cannot even produce enough torsion bars for tanks, how do they expect to produce enough arjuns in quantity to fight a war? DRDO might have good designs to begin with, but Avadi does not have the production capacity what use is it? Then Arjun is just a paper tank.

These questions have been already answered by 2 persons. Not sure, why are you not considering the below two statements ?

How can the Arjun have torsion bar problems when the Arjun runs on Hydropneumatic Suspension?

One of the distinctive features of the Arjun tank is its hydro-pneumatic suspension, distinct from and far more advanced than the "torsion bar" arrangement that conventional MBTs (including the T-90) feature. The Arjun's suspension provides a smoother ride, making the tank a more stable gunnery platform that permits more accurate engagement of targets whilst on the move.

Improving the Arjun's already great suspension

To set the record right...

[Sanku]

I have seen people using this 'torsion bar' trick in this thread earlier also to catch a person not having much knowledge on Arjun

Some comedy.

Anujan-ji. So you have upgd, from making two line flame baits to 2 paragraph flame baits, ok I will bite.

=======================================

But first

Drishyaman ji -- the issue dates back to about 10 years or so, when Arjun was being panned by some on BRF (and on DDM) that its torsion bars broke. Now since Arjun's suspension is hydo-pneumatic, it certainly could not be the case or could it?

There was lot of mirth and folly for the poster who said this. IIRC, Shukla used to post on BRF those days. I guess unlike us, he has since found people would pay for what he writes.

So was Shukla being totally dishonest when he posted that? Or clueless (like he seems to have become when he gets paid for his words)

Yes and no. What some comedians dont get, is that at one point of time Arjun ACTUALLY DID have torsion bars as a alternative

http://www.defencejournal.com/2001/september/tank.htm

The Arjun tank uses a hydro-pneumatic suspension system, which has been giving problems. This system required recharging every 300 km in desert and semi-desert conditions. On soft ground it required recharging every 250 km. In the desert heat and dust sealing of fluids and gas malfunctioned causing leakage and requiring more frequent maintenance. Inherent design flaws in the hydro-pneumatic suspension were aggravated by the increase in the tank’s weight, which was above the maximum specified by the Army. Owing to these problems two prototype tanks were equipped with torsion bars as an alternative.

So yes, some Arjun tanks were indeed made with torsion bars in 1994-97 time frame. Guess what ? This information is ALSO present on BRF

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/I ... harma.html

So Shukla of the "no one pays me for what I write" era while still not very sharp, was not totally lost either. He was not totally wrong, only managed to mix himself up on details.

Now while I can not prove it with a link. The torsion bars prototypes were not pushed for, since they did not work either. The torsion bars did not take the weight of Arjun. So there was no alternative but to fix the hydro-pnumatic suspension. Which seems to have been finally fixed only by 2008. (Since 2006 AUCRT did show issues with suspension)

So while the comedy is all fine and dandy (this is not meant for you but to those who think they are being clever by the torsion bar comment) -- it only trivializes serious discussions and turns it into a jamboree.

=====================================================

Anujan ji, the new posters on this thread dont know what you are doing by the "torsion bar type of strange comment" -- but the oldies are old enough to not to fall for the "supposed sarcasm" either.

Deal with facts as they exist sir-ji. There is already Shukla for the comic fiction.

[Viv S]

Well there are few basic assumptions above which are wrong.

- Mk1 is NOT good enough.

-Arjuns are maturing too slowly. IA can not wait. IA should not wait.

-till Mk 2 comes across, T 90 is a slightly better tank

-the real requirement of having a tank fleet with competitive technology can not be denied.

You were always in a flame war with someone or the other, with only fragments of arguments available to see, and you were so insistent that you were an Arjun supporter, that I assumed your position in the matter had do with the finer issues like logistics. Never really got to see a cataloged list of your core beliefs. Hence the 'high quality debate'.

Just out of curiosity, who else on the forum/thread shares your opinion as to the factual validity of the above?

OTOH I think IA has supported Arjun through thick and thin. It has given it a full unit worth of support to test and develop over 10 years. It has persisted with Arjun even after it kept missing deadlines, multiple times. Orders have been placed for Arjun BEFORE Arjun was ready.

What else can IA do?

Clearly ordering more than 124 units of the Mk2 was off the table.

[NRao]

The picture I am getting:

1) Avadi is a problem. Irrespective of T-90 or Arjun or T-72 upgrade
2) Arjun MK II >>>>> Any T-90 series
3) Bridges on the Western sector pose a problem for the Arjun (WRT its weight)
4) The NE requires a "light" tank

From the above:
a) #3 is the only item that makes the T series viable,
b) #3 is rather easily solvable if we consider the bigger picture: $45 Billion for 144 MMRCAs and 144 FGFAs, billions more for Naval assets,
c) The cost of replacing a single bridge should be close to or less than paying for a single T-90 tank from russia. 100 tanks, 100 bridges replaced
d) Replacing these bridges is as strategically important as the MMRCA/FGFA efforts

[KrishnaK]

What about the bridges on the other side ?

[NRao]

What about the bridges on the other side ?

what about them?

That problem has always existed and will continue to no matter what. Fully expect the Pakis to blow them as they retreat.

[Karan M]

Sanku:shock:

You were always in a flame war with someone or the other, with only fragments of arguments available to see, and you were so insistent that you were an Arjun supporter, that I assumed your position in the matter had do with the finer issues like logistics. Never really got to see a cataloged list of your core beliefs. Hence the 'high quality debate'.

Good realization. Now stop engaging the gentleman intent on being a troll and wasting your time. Even to counter all the rubbish, one has to wonder whether the tradeoff in terms of effort and time aka braincells one loses is worth it.

Just out of curiosity, who else on the forum/thread shares your opinion as to the factual validity of the above?

[/quote]

The two Russia rakshaks, who else. A couple of stirrers pop up from time to time but the Russia rakshaks are consistent.

[Karan M]

[

Yes and no. What some comedians dont get, is that at one point of time Arjun ACTUALLY DID have torsion bars as a alternative

http://www.defencejournal.com/2001/september/tank.htm

The Arjun tank uses a hydro-pneumatic suspension system, which has been giving problems. This system required recharging every 300 km in desert and semi-desert conditions. On soft ground it required recharging every 250 km. In the desert heat and dust sealing of fluids and gas malfunctioned causing leakage and requiring more frequent maintenance. Inherent design flaws in the hydro-pneumatic suspension were aggravated by the increase in the tank’s weight, which was above the maximum specified by the Army. Owing to these problems two prototype tanks were equipped with torsion bars as an alternative.

Quoting defencejournal, a rabidly anti Indian site for claims on the Arjun. Brilliant.

And compared to this, Shukla is comic-fiction. Your logic never ceases to amaze.

FYI. torsion bars were tried on the Arjun after one senior Army worthy asked for them stating that since some western tanks still used them, they should be good. At the end of the day, the hydropneumatic system won out on better peformance.
End of story..

Anujans sarcasm about how the current Arjun is being slagged idiotically for systems it doesn't have, stands.

[KrishnaK]

NRao,
The point I'm trying to make is: if the IA is going to use it's own bridges to cross rivers in Pakistan, why not do the same inside India ? Besides, lots of bridges do get taken without being blown up.

[Karan M]

Lets see the much vaunted link based research now.

Here is proof of INVAR being made at BDL (MOD site) - 2006 report

http://mod.nic.in/reports/AR-eng-2012.pdf


7.114 Besides producing indigenously
developed Prithvi (Tactical battle field Surface
to Surface Missile ) & Akash (Surface to Air
Missile), both missile systems under the
IGMDP, BDL is engaged in the production
of Konkurs-M and Invar (3UBK-20) Anti Tank
Guided Missiles (ATGMs) in collaboration with
Russia, and Milan 2-T ATGM in collaboration
with MBDA, France.

Engaged in the production of does not mean *successful production* or that all kinks are overcome.

Here is proof of BDL successfully making Invars -- BDL site
http://www.epicos.com/EPCompanyProfileW ... x?id=21663
Bharat Dynamics Ltd manufactures guided missiles and allied equipment specialized in second generation anti-tank guided missiles of medium range (2 km) and long range (4 km).

In additional, the company also offers products like:

KONKURS-M: It is designed to destroy moving and stationary armored targets with Explosives Reactive Armours at a range of 75 to 4000 meters.

Invar: Invar is weapon fired from the Gun barrel of T 90 Tank, which is intended to destroy stationary and moving targets with speeds up to 70Km/hr.

Press blurb about products both current and upcoming.

More discussion on BRF itself here
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 3#p1273833

d_berwal
even if large orders were give the the production capacity is not even enough for training purposes.

1700 konkurs a year for 2000+ BMP II and similar amount of FLAME launcher versions (man portable and light vehicle mounted.)

assuming 50% gunners of BMP II fire one missile a year for practice the production + Missile fired in exercises and demos + fired in training of man portable version we are well short of training needs leav aside the war reserves.

Same is the case of Invar missiles,
In fact the consumption of Invar is more as T-90 regiments are in conversion where on an average each Gunner would end up firing 5-6 minimum. + the field firing needs + the exerciser and training needs.

The need for import is there as the targets for production of BDL are not even equal to training needs of IA.

Claims by d_berwal, a poster/more speculation .. The need for imports could be as simple as that the initial batches of INVAR didnt work.

Invars being ordered in large numbers
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... ge-missile

The Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) cleared these two pending proposals of the defence ministry on Thursday evening. As was first reported by TOI earlier, the MoD had fast-tracked the Army's project to acquire 10,000 3UBK-Invar missiles from Russia for Rs 1,386 crore, while defence PSU Bharat Dynamics Ltd will manufacture another 15,000 of these missiles fired from the 125mm gun barrel of the T-90S tanks at a cost of Rs 2,079 crore.

Shows nothing apart from desparation. Even Krasnapols were ordered in numbers even as they were failing in trials. The point is none of this shows anything about whether INVAR works or not.

So what does that show
1) Invars are being made at BDL in large numbers since 2006

No, INVARS claim to have entered production in 2006. Whether that production was successful, we have contrary claims..

2) Invars are working successfully

Not a single report there..

3) More Invars are needed since BDL cant keep up with the requirement.

Or because what BDL got in terms of Russian kits was junk and Army wants them quick anyhow from the Russians since they want T-90 ammo asap

Now in 2006 we know that one batch of Invar's failed during assembly (perhaps first batch) -- we know that BDL was assembling -- we know that Russian made INVARS were working then -- we know that the problem was later corrected.

We dont know any of that.

So while there is no official statement on what caused the failure, there was speculation that BDL had goofed up initially and later they managed to gettheir systems to work.

This is your attempt to blame BDL for a possible Russian design/QC flaw.