Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
VKumar
BRFite
Posts: 284
Joined: 15 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Mumbai,India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby VKumar » 18 Aug 2017 23:39

Mihir wrote:
negi wrote:By the way please to post the details of this field of study since you seem to post about it with so much authority

Here. Feel free to get an M.Tech in Mechanical or Civil engineering and then come educate us about bridge fatigue.

negi wrote:before you respond make a list of bridges their age and then tell me how did you conclude they can only support 50 tonnes not more not less in all these years :)

This is why I advised you to read my posts before commenting. The director general of DRDO has said that canal bridges in Punjab were incapable of supporting the Arjun Mk-II's weight. I don't know about you, but I consider him to be a credible source ... not one that someone with that half-baked knowledge allegedly acquired in a first year engineering course could easily dismiss.


Isn't pressure critical rather than weight? What is the pressure those bridges are designed for? How does Arjun pressure compare with T SERIES pressure?

pandyan
BRFite
Posts: 343
Joined: 31 Jul 2006 05:12

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby pandyan » 19 Aug 2017 00:10

This has all the details. Arjun weight is very much comparable to other MBTs and ground pressure is comparable to T90. Since it is a locally developed product, any further weight optimization should improve the numbers even more.

ramana wrote:Very good summary of the Arjun Mk2 and the case for making more of it by Col.(R) Arun Kumar

Dated Sep 2014

Creating Capability : Main Battle Tank

http://www.defproac.com/?p=982

He suggests 500 of them.

Samay
BRFite
Posts: 1143
Joined: 30 Mar 2009 02:35
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Samay » 19 Aug 2017 01:25

VKumar wrote:
Mihir wrote:Here. Feel free to get an M.Tech in Mechanical or Civil engineering and then come educate us about bridge fatigue.


This is why I advised you to read my posts before commenting. The director general of DRDO has said that canal bridges in Punjab were incapable of supporting the Arjun Mk-II's weight. I don't know about you, but I consider him to be a credible source ... not one that someone with that half-baked knowledge allegedly acquired in a first year engineering course could easily dismiss.


Isn't pressure critical rather than weight? What is the pressure those bridges are designed for? How does Arjun pressure compare with T SERIES pressure?

It seems like the D R D O has lately discovered that the infrastructure is not suitable to develop tanks of that weight category, and there seems to be no shame in all establishments.. The situation wont improve either , until a new GSQR of flying Arjun is made.
Then again there will be 10 more years of Nation building by DRDO would start.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47569
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ramana » 19 Aug 2017 01:33

Samay, It doesn't help to be sarcastic.

It would be nice to know what those improvements were and how they resulted in increased weight.

Samay
BRFite
Posts: 1143
Joined: 30 Mar 2009 02:35
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Samay » 19 Aug 2017 01:35

Yes, we need Ambanis in DRDO .

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47569
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby ramana » 19 Aug 2017 02:19

Marten wrote:.....

Found a more illustrative DRDO publication on FMBT.
http://publications.drdo.gov.in/ojs/ind ... 11426/5924



Very good article paper shows they are using systems approach to FMBT conceptual design. The authors education is impeccable.

I like the last paragraph where they discuss the designer's dilemma between evolutionary and revolutionary tank design. The latter gives more flexibility.

I wish they had a serving Armored Forces officer as a co-author to show its an integrated product with user inputs.

Knowing the conservatism of the Armored Corps. I would think a mix that is basically evolutionary and can be changed out to revolutionary would be safe bet. E.g. the turrets in an evolutionary design which could be swappable to bring in commonality would be more desirable to the service.
The LPG would be over the top for now but could be changed out in a new turret when it matures.

Vivek K
BRFite
Posts: 1712
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Vivek K » 19 Aug 2017 11:04

Is this another wild goose chase the IA is leading DRDO on with unrealistic GSQRs to come back and claim that DRDO cannot deliver and is always late and therefore IA should be allowed to import the Adhaphata = I meant the Armata.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7467
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Pratyush » 19 Aug 2017 11:14

pandyan wrote:This has all the details. Arjun weight is very much comparable to other MBTs and ground pressure is comparable to T90. Since it is a locally developed product, any further weight optimization should improve the numbers even more.

ramana wrote:Very good summary of the Arjun Mk2 and the case for making more of it by Col.(R) Arun Kumar

Dated Sep 2014

Creating Capability : Main Battle Tank

http://www.defproac.com/?p=982

He suggests 500 of them.



The arjun ground pressure and top speed becomes comparable to the t 90 after putting on 10 tons of weight.

This is some thing that is ignored by people nearly all the times.

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1489
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Sid » 19 Aug 2017 11:47

Porkies were actually evaluating M1 ABRAMs in 1988. But luckily their el presidente Zia was assassinated, just after he witnessed its unsuccessful demo, and that billion $$ sale never happened. Examples that were bought for demo are still there.

If they had bought Abrams, we would have bought similar heavy tanks without thinking about either Infra upgrades or transportation. It's hard to believe that we developed a heavy MBT for 30 yrs without thinking once about any of these constraints.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 792
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Manish_P » 19 Aug 2017 13:01

Sid wrote:Examples that were bought for demo are still there.


:shock: Really. The chinese probably would have had a real good look at them.

Bala Vignesh
BRFite
Posts: 1854
Joined: 30 Apr 2009 02:02
Location: Standing at the edge of the cliff
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Bala Vignesh » 19 Aug 2017 20:53

Manish_P wrote:
Sid wrote:Examples that were bought for demo are still there.


:shock: Really. The chinese probably would have had a real good look at them.

Google Chacha doesn't seem to know about that. Not even a single tnagential reference in any of my search strings. If they are there, they have kept that secret damn well!!

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 792
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Manish_P » 20 Aug 2017 09:36

Bala Vignesh wrote:
Manish_P wrote:
:shock: Really. The chinese probably would have had a real good look at them.

Google Chacha doesn't seem to know about that. Not even a single tnagential reference in any of my search strings. If they are there, they have kept that secret damn well!!


The chinese copy (in looks) all american systems they can lay hands on. Their newest MBT does not much look like the Abrams. Hence i wondered.

DrRatnadip
BRFite
Posts: 326
Joined: 31 Dec 2016 00:40

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby DrRatnadip » 20 Aug 2017 13:22

http://m.timesofindia.com/india/army-to ... 142661.cms

Army to add more teeth to T-90 battle tanks


NEW DELHI: As part of efforts to enhance its strike capability, the Army is now working on a project to add more teeth to its T-90 main battle tanks by arming them with a third generation missile system.
Currently, the T-90 tanks are equipped with a laser guided INVAR missile system and the Army has decided to replace them with a third generation gun-launched missile, army sources said.
"As the design of the existing INVAR missile has been maximised, both in terms of range and depth of penetration (DoP), it is imperative to upgrade it to next generation missiles with enhanced capability," according to a document related to the project.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7467
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Pratyush » 20 Aug 2017 13:41

Not really surprising as the russians are working on a new 125 gun launched ATGM that reportedly has twice the range of previous missiles. I think that the IA will ask for it.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/militar ... as-abrams/

Vivek K
BRFite
Posts: 1712
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Vivek K » 20 Aug 2017 22:29

I think that the best teeth for the T-90 is - a) LARGE investment in spares inventory available in every theater; b) Army should wake up and face the facts - T-90 is a maintenance intensive POS - so handle it likewise build up maintenance depots; c) not buy additional T-90s and d) invest in a larger force of tow trucks to bring back defective T-90s back.

Of course - this would all become unnecessary if they would sell the T90s to a third country and buy Arjuns!! Better crew protection, better accuracy!

jayasimha
BRFite
Posts: 400
Joined: 09 Feb 2011 17:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby jayasimha » 21 Aug 2017 12:22

https://ofbeproc.gov.in/scripts/itt_pq/ ... system.xls

Notice of Invitation for ‘EXPRESSION OF INTEREST’ to Assist in Design, Manufacture and supply of Suspension system for Futuristic Infantry Combat Vehicle (FICV)

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2381
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby JayS » 23 Aug 2017 11:24

Most Recent DRDO Science Journal is on Combat Vehicles. Lots of papers.

Vol 67, No 4: Combat Vehicle

http://publications.drdo.gov.in/ojs/index.php/dsj

Marten
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2176
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Marten » 23 Aug 2017 12:01

Very interesting reading. The first one was what I had referenced earlier. However, while reading further down that list...
Present and Futuristic Trends in Weapon System: Arun Kumar Roy, P.H. Lankennavar, V.S. Ghadge
About The Authors

Arun Kumar Roy
Armament Research and Development Establishment, Pune India
Mr A.K. Roy has completed BSc Engg. (Mechanical) from MIT, Muzaffarpur and MTech (Thermal and Fluid Engg.) from IIT, Bombay. Presently he is Scientist E and heading Ordnance and Recoil System division of Advanced Towed Artillery Gun System (ATAGS) at Armament Research and Development Establishment, Pune. He has been working for the design and development of armament system of tank and artillery gun. He has worked for the design and development of weapon systems of 120 mm MBT Arjun and 155 mm x 52 cal of ATAGS. He has published/presented more than 25 papers in journal/ symposium/conference.

P.H. Lankennavar
Armament Research and Development Establishment, Pune India
Mr P.H. Lankennavar has completed BE (Mechanical) from Gogte Institute of Technology under Karnataka University, Dharwad, in 1996. Presently working as Scientist in Advanced Towed Artillery Gun System (ATAGS) division at Armament Research and Development Establishment, Pune. Since then he has been working for the design and development of armament stores for tank and artillery guns. Presently he is working for the design and development of weapon system for ATAGS gun.

V.S. Ghadge
Armament Research and Development Establishment, Pune India
Mr V.S. Ghadge is currently Scientist ‘G’ and Associate Director in Armament Research and Development Establishment, Pune. He was associated with the design and development, performance evaluation trials and integration of armament system of main battle tank MBT Arjun, a project of national importance. He is currently leading a team of scientists for design and development of 155 mm x 52 cal ordnance and recoil-system for ATAGS gun.

5. MUZZLE BRAKE
The muzzle brake is a mechanical device attached at the muzzle end of the barrel or an integral part of the barrel. The very purpose of the muzzle brake is to absorb some of the recoil impulse by deflecting propellant gases, and thereby reducing the force of recoil of the gun. Muzzle brake by its typical geometrical construction shares around 30 per cent - 45 per cent recoil energy. Thus around 55 per cent - 70 per cent recoil energy remains to be absorbed by the recoil system.
The muzzle brake causes imbalance in moments because of its location at an extreme end of the Barrel. The muzzle brake is either screwed or welded to muzzle end tip. The problem of imbalance of moments aggravates if calibre length of the gun is larger. It has to withstand high pressure gas flow. By diverting the gases to reverse direction the required purpose of reduction of thrust on the gun support system is achieved. Therefore, high strength to mass ratio is a major criterion in selecting material for muzzle brake Secondly, since it is fitted at the muzzle end tip, the outside diameter of the muzzle brake will approximately be around 2 to 2.5 times larger than the outside diameter of Barrel at muzzle end for its better performance. Types of Muzzle Brakes used in tank and artillery guns are shown in the following Fig. 10 and the study shows the free recoil velocity of a typical gun with various types of muzzle brake is as shown in Fig. 11.

Image

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1361
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby srin » 25 Aug 2017 08:58

We need to start indigenizing the T-90 gradually - put our fire control software, our gun barrel, our armour, our APU, our engines and gearbox and APS. Blaming Russians for the lemon that it is doesn't make sense after a point, esp when we have our own design capabilities.

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1726
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby uddu » 25 Aug 2017 11:56

^^^ :D
http://tanknutdave.com/indian-t90-bhishma-tank/
Indian sources are quoted as saying:

“The thermal imaging system of the T-90 tanks were faulty from the initial stage.”

“DRDO had earlier attempted to mount air conditioning systems on the tanks, but were stopped by Russia, citing intellectual property rights,”

And you want every item to be replaced? :rotfl:

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17243
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Philip » 25 Aug 2017 19:44

http://www.defencenews.in/article/India ... sts-283867
Indian Army's T-90 Tanks are becoming deadly, but mechanical problems persists
Friday, August 25, 2017
By: Deccan Herald

The Indian Army plans to make its Russian-origin T-90 and T-72 frontline battle tanks more lethal by upgrading their missile systems. The government has approved the purchase of third-generation anti-tank missiles capable of hitting targets upto 8 km away during day or night. It has also approved $375 million for the purchase of armoured vehicle protection and counter-measure systems against anti-tank guided missiles for the T-90s. Modernisation and upgradation of weapon systems is an ongoing process and crucial for T-90 and T-72 tanks, the mainstays of the Army's offensive formations. Two recent incidents, however, have somewhat put battle-readiness of the Army’s armoured arsenal under a cloud.

The Indian Army was knocked out of the fourth edition of the international tank biathlon at the Alabino proving grounds near Moscow recently after both its main and reserve T-90 main battle tanks developed mechanical problems. The T-72 tanks have also given trouble on the field and during training exercises on many occasions. Earlier this month, a driver who took out a T-72 tank for a trial run at the Heavy Vehicles Factory in Avadi died after a gas leak inside the cabin from a fire detection system.

There have been breakdowns and a few minor accidents in the T-series tanks during deployment or training exercises. Quoting sources in Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), media reports have attributed these snags to a mismatch between imported and indigenously-made components. Although technology transfer is available, certain parts need to be imported. It is imperative that the Defence ministry addresses these issues under its ‘Make in India’ programme while modernising the Russian T-series tanks.

At the same time, the DRDO must learn from these snags to perfect the Arjun tanks that are being manufactured in Avadi and are yet to be inducted into the Army. The indigenous manufacture of battle tank Arjun was cleared in 1974. Four decades later, the project has not only overshot its timeline but also incurred huge cost overruns. So far, only two of the Army's 64 armoured regiments have been equipped with this tank. Even if the required numbers can be produced by a miracle, infrastructure for mechanised warfare — such as rail transportation, bridges and tank transporters -- will have to be beefed up to facilitate its deployment as the Arjun is much heavier than the T-90. This could mean that the Army will have to wait decades before its armoured formations are fully self-reliant. The Army has reasons to be concerned about the slow pace of indigenisation. Especially when at the biathlon, China’s indigenous Type-96B tanks shone and finished second, behind Russia in the medal tally.


PS:T-90 MBTs are now being made at Avadi.Regardless of any issue of eqpt./TOT unavailable from Russia, a matter which should be decisively resolved (464 more T-90s were reportedly ordered not too long ago),the quality of MBTs and other AVs built by Avadi has cropped up from time to time.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17243
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Philip » 25 Aug 2017 19:55

Contd. from above,how we _F_ up things!

http://thestrategictimes.com/indian-t-72-tank-blunder/
THE INDIAN T-72 TANK BLUNDER
Posted on July 17, 2017
The first country outside Europe to begin producing the T-72 was India. In 1978, India began purchasing 500 T-72, T-72M and T-72M1 tanks directly from the USSR. At the same time, steps were taken to begin production of the T-72M1 at the Heavy Vehicles Factory at Avadi, totaling some 900 tanks. The T-72M1 is locally known as the Ajeya.

(Indian Army T-72 , photo credit – INDRA Networks)

The Indian Army introduced the T-72 tank as an interim main battle tank in 1979. The tanks were due for overhaul after 12/10 years. While these tanks were imported since 1979, the majority of the present fleet was imported during 1982-86.

It is incumbent upon the Ministry of Defence to set up the overhaul facilities for equipment soon after their induction, so that the facilities are available by the time the first overhaul is due. Ministry sanctioned a project called `Red Rose’ in April 1986 for overhaul and maintenance of tanks. Short closure of this project after 1989 was mentioned in Paragraph 15 of Audit Report No. 8 of 1993. Keeping in view the available facilities at Ordnance Factories, Ministry decided in July 1991 to entrust the responsibility of overhaul to Ordnance Factory Board.

Ministry accorded sanction in September 1993 i.e. four years after the closure of Project `Red Rose’, for setting up of facilities to overhaul 70 tanks per annum at Heavy Vehicles Factory Avadi at a cost of Rs 12 crore and 170 tank engines per annum at Engine Factory Avadi at a cost of Rs 6.50 crore with planned date of completion as December 1995. Equipment valuing Rs 4.69 crore already imported under the earlier project ‘Red Rose’ were to be transferred to Heavy Vehicles Factory/Engine Factory Avadi. By this time, 368 tanks imported during 1979 to 1982 had become due for overhaul. In addition to the engines fitted with tanks, pooled engines were also due for overhaul.

The sanction envisaged creation of capacity for overhaul of 12 tanks by March 1995, 40 cumulative by June 1995, 70 cumulative by December 1995 and thereafter 70 per annum. Similarly, 25 engines were to be overhauled by September 1994, 40 cumulative by March 1995, 170 cumulative by December 1995 and 170 per annum thereafter. The sanction also provided for manpower strength of 614, including 484 industrial employees for Heavy Vehicles Factory Avadi and 188 including 141 industrial employees for Engine Factory Avadi. This manpower was to be met through redeployment of the available sanctioned manpower of these factories/sister factories.

The delay in initiating the tank overhaul facility had led to accumulation of 368 tanks by the time the tanks were taken up for overhaul. By the time the envisaged capacity of overhaul of 70 tanks per annum could be achieved even as per the project schedule 200 tanks per annum were being added to the tanks due for overhaul every year. :((
Similar situation prevailed in respect of overhaul of engines at Engine Factory Avadi, though the mismatch was a little less than those for the tanks. Thus, even with reference to the designed capacity of overhaul, there was a serious mismatch between the requirement and the capacity.

This mismatch has been further aggravated by dismal performance of the two factories, which is likely to render large number of tanks and engines unserviceable for a very long time. Large number of tanks and engines becoming due for overhaul at a time is attributable to their induction in bulk particularly during 1982-86. Ministry ought to have taken advance action to meet the requirement of overhaul, so that the Army is not saddled with such a large number of tanks needing overhauling.

The poor performance of both factories is all the more striking in the background of low capacity utilisation of production of T-72 tanks. Against the annual capacity of 200 tanks, the Heavy Vehicles Factory has been producing only between 48 and 92 tanks during the three years 1996-1999.

The arrears at the end of March 1998 had gone up to 698, which can be overhauled in not less than 10 years, even if the factory, works at the maximum capacity of overhaul of 70 tanks, every year. In between large number of tanks due for overhaul will be also added, particularly since large number of indigenously produced tanks will also be due for overhaul. Against targeted overhaul of 553 engines, Engine Factory Avadi overhauled 287 and issued only 244 to Army up to 1997-98. Shortfall in overhauling of engines was attributed to non-availability of testing facilities and insufficient manpower.

Heavy Vehicles Factory (HVF), Avadi requires armor plates of 60 x 750 x 4000 mm dimensions in manufacture of T-72 tanks and its overhauling. In May 1996 HVF assessed a requirement of 74,036 kgs of armor plates for manufacture of 232 original tanks and overhaul of 100 tanks. The net deficiency after taking into account available stock worked out to 61,190.254 kgs of armor plates. HVF procured 60,024 kgs armor plates from Steel Authority of India Limited, Rourkela between February 1997 and January 1998 against its order of September 1996.

(T-72 M1 Stock armour profile with Steel Armour)

Director General Ordnance Factories manufactured 770 barrels for T-72 tanks deviating from critical heat treatment schedule for tempering of barrels without consulting the original designer. This resulted in manufacture of defective barrels. 11 barrels burst in firing from tanks causing accidents. 454 defective barrels valued at Rs 44 crore were held in stock and the remaining 305 barrels fitted in the tanks were under process of investigation as of June 1999.

*(This is an astonishing dereliction of duty and frankly a criminal act,which should anywhere else see the individual prosecuted and sent to jail!
This is how the taxpayer's money is squandered by the DPSUs and babudom,protecting this gross incompetence.)

Department of Defence Production and Supplies placed an order on Mishra Dhatu Nigam Limited., Hyderabad in October 1989 for supply of 774 barrels to be fitted in T-72 tanks, at a cost of Rs 67.73 crore. Mishra Dhatu Nigam Limited, in turn, placed a letter of intent in March 1990 on Director General Ordnance Factories for converting black forging hot rolled bars i.e. input raw materials into finished, machined and tested barrels. The letter of intent envisaged that the tempering of barrels would be carried out in two stages viz. in first stage in the temperature range of 520-550°C and in the second stage in the temperature range of 530-570°C. The barrels were to be supplied by the Director General Ordnance Factories to Central Ordnance Depot Jabalpur only after testing by Controllerate of Quality Assurance (weapons) Jabalpur. Field Gun Factory supplied 770 barrels to the Central Ordnance Depot Jabalpur between 1992 and 1996. :oops: The Quality Assurance Establishment had, however, passed these barrels despite their tempering at reduced temperature, as fit for use. :oops:

During firing in September 1992, from a T-72 tank, the barrel cracked causing an accident. Further in 35 more accidents occurred till March 1998, ten more barrels cracked/burst. Russian specialists, who investigated the cause(s) of the accidents, observed that the deviation from prescribed tempering temperature was the direct cause of such breakages, and that the protocol signed in 1985 was without consulting the original designer. Army Headquarters decided in December 1997 to withdraw all barrels tempered at 460°C and below. As of June 1998, 454 such barrels valued at Rs 44 crore from stock were identified and rejected and remaining 305 barrels fitted on tanks were under investigation.

In order to manufacture T-72 tanks, Heavy Vehicles Factory (HVF), Avadi procured 1237 sets of hydraulic control system (Code-66), from Hindustan Machine Tools (HMT) Ltd., Ajmer between August 1993 and April 2000 against four supply orders of Ministry of Defence placed between September 1987 and February 1999. Code-66 items comprised of value device, pipeline assembly etc.

Indian Army had complained about the failure noticed in Code-66 ex-HMT assembled in T-72 Tanks. A meeting was therefore arranged in December 2000 between HMT, Controller of Quality Assurance/Heavy Vehicles, Avadi and HVF and it was held that though some damages could have been caused to some components in transit, poor quality of Code-66 ex-HMT could not be ignored. It was therefore decided to backload all the available stock of pipelines/hoses held by HVF to HMT for revalidation of quality problem and also for servicing/rectification.

HMT, however, refused to undertake repair/revalidation at their cost on the ground that (i) stores had been damaged while storing at HVF, heavy damage had taken place due to improper loose packing done in old and extraordinary big packing cases, (ii) items supplied from 1996 onwards had not been used, (iii) studs in the oil priming pump were broken due to mishandling at HVF, (iv) leakage through breather hole was due to aging effect of oil seal since the stores were kept unused for long duration at HVF and (v) warranty period was over.

Armoured Vehicles Headquarters (AVHQ), Avadi, stated in June 2004 that the defects were not noticed at the time of drawal of the item but the functional problems occurred after the items were fitted in the tanks/during trials. They also added that the quality problem was not attributed to improper storage/mishandling as the stores were stored properly with original packing. The contention of AVHQ is not tenable since the HVF paid for all repairs/revalidation which amounted to tacit acceptance of its lapse.




A Q to be asked is whether these "short cuts" like barrel tempering at lower temps,did result in considerable monetary savings and whether the IA was charged at the initial rate for a higher std.! If so,this would indicate corruption at the highest level in the respective DPSUs,and we find no mention of any accountability of those responsible.

If this is the sad and sorry state of affairs of T-72 production,one can well imagine the same DPSUs responsible manufacturing the T-90 as well as Arjun! One supposes that in the future we wills ee another detailed report like this about the true story of the manufacture of T-90,Arjun,etc.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17243
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Philip » 25 Aug 2017 20:33

Pl ck this link for excellent pics of the new T-90MS of which we've ordered 464. The MBT may feature Kanchan armour and other tech developed for Arjun,plus fire Nag missiles when available.The pics show some imp. improvements in turret shaping/ERA,side slat skirts to defeat RPGs,etc.

T-90 MS of India: Important Features
http://thestrategictimes.com/t-90-ms-of ... -features/
India is going to procure 464 T-90 MS main battle tank from Russia. These T-90 MS will be operated alongside existing 1250 T-90 Bhismas (total estimated no of Bhismas are expected 1377) . The new procurement is keeping in mind growing threat of Peoples’ Republic of China and their armoured concentration in Himalayan region. The need of T-90 MS in the region already explained . Now here we should concentrate on features Indian T-90MS are going to get.
Like T-90 Bhismas, Indian T-90 MS too will be a further upgraded version of original Russian T-90 MS versions. Several modifications will be done. Some of the features which will be incorporated in MS, developed both indigenously or by a foreign country,are….
1) Armour :
A new kind of armour will be used in the turret. But it wasn’t explained if the new armour feature will be a new improved version of Indian composite armour, Kanchan Armour ( the latest version of it is used in Arjun Mk 2) or a new indigenous explosive/non explosive reactor armour (latest indigenous ERA-IIs are used in Arjun Mk-2, Bhisma and Combat Improved Ajeyas). The source however assured either one will be implemented.
Either in the case, will feature better protection than Russian counterparts.
2) Main Gun :

An Indianised improved version of 125 mm 2A46-M5 Rapira main gun will be used. Currently Bhismas and Ajeyas have indigenous 125 mm guns which are equivalents of 2A46/2A46-M5 gun, but in case of Indian T-90MS, an improved version will be used.
3) Engine :
Russian V-92S2F turbocharged diesel engine, developing 1130 hp power. Unlikely indigenous engine will be used.
4) CLGM :

Fully laser guided Lahat missile will be used. This feature is originally developed for Arjun series tanks, but now MS will also get the deadly feature.
5) NAG ATGM :

Not just Lahat, high chances of Nag too being attached to the tank to increase lethality.
6) Indigenous Missile Approach Warning System
7) Possibly LEDS 150 Active Protection System, or indigenous system if successful may be incorporated
8) Integrated Battlespace Management System developed by BEL.
9) Software-defined radio suite and a health-and-usage management for on-board systems diagnosis by BEL.
10) Fibre-optic gyro-based land navigation system by HAL .
11) Russian cryogenic cooling system to reduce heat signature
12) New Kalina Fire Control System or FCS
13) DRDO/Elbit Laser Warning Control System
14) DRDO/BCL Mobile Camouflaging System
15) New aerosol smoke grenades will be attatched
16) Vaccum or Lekalo rounds may be procured

There are lots of more infos are available, but only some very important features are mentioned here. All the features mentioned are expected to be fulfilled. T-90 MS is a new generation main battle tank, which India will modify to a finest level.
The first delivery of T-90 MS expected to be during 2019-20. But, once delivered, along with Arjun Mk-2 it will be a total game changer.

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1726
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby uddu » 25 Aug 2017 20:35

Wow. T-90 need Kanchan Armour. We could sell Arjun to the Russian's. What you say Philip.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17243
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Philip » 25 Aug 2017 21:43

They've gone ahead with the Armata :rotfl: But frankly,how many can they afford to build? I think that the delayed series prod. of the tank has been eco reasons,as the Russians are pushing for greater naval/sub capability and finishing development and start production of the SU-57,MIG-35 and other helo/aviation projects,plus missile development.The report I posted in the Ru td.,its naval reqs. for the future, said that a new STOVL fighter,WEG bird and helos were on the anvil.I don't think that Russia envisages any spat with NATO or an EU state at all. The UKR ,the only theatre of poss. conflict can be easily countered with its existing MBTs and air power .

If the report is accurate,then finally some common sense is being applied.We debated a long time ago why we did not leverage the T-72/90 prod. to have more desi features ,esp. replacing Ru/Sov. components which were difficult to obtain.

Recent reports say that both Iraq and Iran are to get T-90s,Iran the same T-90MS that we're obtaining,but most prob. with "export" performance. Our T-90s as mentioned above would have superior features.There's also a report about the BMPT "Terminator-1/2",based upon the T-72 chassis ,of which a first batch is being bought by the RuArmy.Interesting design,would be v.useful in the Himalayas. Could we develop something similar in a short time?

https://sputniknews.com/military/201708 ... t-vehicle/
Xcpt:
Currently, there are two versions of the vehicle based on the T-72 battle tank chassis — "the Terminator 1" and "the Terminator 2." They're both earmarked for export and haven't been purchased by the Russian Defense Ministry.
The BMPT-72 is fitted with a state-of-the-art guided weapons system and is capable of destroying enemy infantry vehicles, tanks and other armored objects, as well as helicopters.

'Terminator' in Syria: Russian One-of-a-Kind Tank Support Vehicle 'Tested in Combat'
The vehicle is armed with two 30-mm 2A42 automatic cannons that can be loaded with 850 rounds of ammunition, four laser-guided Ataka-T anti-tank missile systems and one coaxial machine gun with a remote reloading mechanism.
The BMPT also carries four launchers for 9M120-1 (or 9M120-1F/4) guided anti-tank missiles, which are capable of hitting their target at a distance of up to six kilometers. Moreover, there are two AG-17D automatic grenade launchers.
The vehicle, which has a crew of three, can survive in different climates and zones, including urban areas, and in any light conditions.
Last edited by Philip on 25 Aug 2017 22:00, edited 1 time in total.

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1726
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby uddu » 25 Aug 2017 21:49

And we moved ahead with the MK-II. If the Russians find Armata inadequate (which they will in few years time) then let India offer the Mk-II variant and it's variants to the Russians. Let the Russians also enjoy a strong tank that can provide them the best of protection against the NATO beasts sitting next to them. Who will offer the Russians tanks like we do. :) Only us right. And hope they don't infringe on intellectual property rights and copy stuff without our permission.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17243
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Philip » 25 Aug 2017 22:02

Frankly,the Armata i a revolution in MBT design,crewless automated turret,etc.etc.Arjun MK-2,with its large 4-man crew turret,smaller gun,etc., is a generation earlier.It also weighs around 10t less!

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1726
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby uddu » 25 Aug 2017 22:11

And that revolution concept came from where? Arjun. They tried to do some protection, better spacing, larger tank..still nowhere close to Arjun's protection i bet. 10t less and 10t less protection.

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1361
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby srin » 26 Aug 2017 00:42

uddu wrote:^^^ :D
http://tanknutdave.com/indian-t90-bhishma-tank/
Indian sources are quoted as saying:

“The thermal imaging system of the T-90 tanks were faulty from the initial stage.”

“DRDO had earlier attempted to mount air conditioning systems on the tanks, but were stopped by Russia, citing intellectual property rights,”

And you want every item to be replaced? :rotfl:


Yes. The T-90 was a bad deal (done in panic when Paks purchased T-84) and an inferior product compared to Arjun. And we should be ordering hundreds of Arjuns.

However, at some point, our men in those tanks will be in a shooting war against Pak or Chinese or both. If the combat effectiveness (survivability, firepower, mobility and crew comfort) is significantly increased due to replacing every module of T90 with that of Arjun, we should do it.
And under those circumstances, what Russians think has no bearing on us. Nor does it matter to those men that someone else decided to buy T90s and not Arjuns.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14383
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Karan M » 26 Aug 2017 02:36

T-90 is fixable. We just have to change:

Gun sights
Gun
FSAPDS ammo
Ballistic computer
Change the engine
Add an AC
Add an APU
Indigenize the armor
Modernize the missiles

Apart from that it is a fine tank - Philip keeps informing us.

It should be air transportable by C-17s as well though not parachutable. In any case they wouldnt have worked, so we could alwsys bomb the Chinese with our T-90s.
Last edited by Karan M on 26 Aug 2017 03:03, edited 1 time in total.

Cybaru
BRFite
Posts: 1888
Joined: 12 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Cybaru » 26 Aug 2017 02:38

Karan M wrote:It should be air transportable by C-17s as well though not parachutable. In any case they wouldnt have worked, so we could alwsys bomb the Chinese with our T-90s.


LOL

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8450
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby UlanBatori » 26 Aug 2017 02:50

It is only when you scrimp on numbers that you find urselves insisting that every unit be an all-powerful, versatile, up-2-date one. Why not use the T-90s for whatever they do best, like stay in trenches as a mobile artillery gun platform? The other tanks can do other missions.
Same with LCA: field hundreds. Not all can do everything.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14383
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Karan M » 26 Aug 2017 02:58

Using the T-90 as an arty piece in the trenches is a capital idea. It no longer needs an engine then. The pesky radiator issue is automatically resolved.

Similarly by deploying it only against the Chinese we no longer need an AC. Though all the hot air from the PLA may warrant one.

Since the chinese are tying pakistan to their rear via OBOR (something which the Pakistanis "deeply" appreciate no doubt), we can request the Pakistanis and their overlords all fight with us only in cold climes, during daylight ( the evenings will no doubt be busy anyhow for the TSP guys), so no need for pesky night sights on the T-90 either.

I am sure MOD and DGMF did similsr strategic planning when acquiring these super tanks which Indian media solemnly assured us were state of the art, unlike the domestic Arjun.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3870
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Manish_Sharma » 26 Aug 2017 03:16

Philip wrote:They've gone ahead with the Armata :rotfl: But


Russian Army has rejected Armata....

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14383
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Karan M » 26 Aug 2017 03:21

That cannot be so, why the Armata is Russian, that automatically means its successful.

It must be a DPSU conspiracy. Surely. The Russians are not capable of making any mistakes whatsoever.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1050
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby sudeepj » 26 Aug 2017 04:28

Karan M wrote:T-90 is fixable. We just have to change:

Gun sights
Gun
FSAPDS ammo
Ballistic computer
Change the engine
Add an AC
Add an APU
Indigenize the armor
Modernize the missiles

Apart from that it is a fine tank - Philip keeps informing us.

It should be air transportable by C-17s as well though not parachutable. In any case they wouldnt have worked, so we could alwsys bomb the Chinese with our T-90s.


Dont forget the autoloader and extended bustle with blow off panels! It would be nice to.. you know.. not sit on a few rounds of propellant!

:rotfl:

Rishi_Tri
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 58
Joined: 13 Feb 2017 14:49

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Rishi_Tri » 26 Aug 2017 04:50

sudeepj wrote:
Karan M wrote:T-90 is fixable. We just have to change:

Gun sights
Gun
FSAPDS ammo
Ballistic computer
Change the engine
Add an AC
Add an APU
Indigenize the armor
Modernize the missiles

Apart from that it is a fine tank - Philip keeps informing us.

It should be air transportable by C-17s as well though not parachutable. In any case they wouldnt have worked, so we could alwsys bomb the Chinese with our T-90s.


Dont forget the autoloader and extended bustle with blow off panels! It would be nice to.. you know.. not sit on a few rounds of propellant!

:rotfl:


:) :D

Why not rename Arjun to say T-100, and have them delivered by An 124 flown by a Russian crew who speak only Russian? :)

Mukesh.Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 644
Joined: 06 Dec 2009 14:09

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Mukesh.Kumar » 26 Aug 2017 15:01

Rishi_Tri wrote:
sudeepj wrote:

Dont forget the autoloader and extended bustle with blow off panels! It would be nice to.. you know.. not sit on a few rounds of propellant!

:rotfl:


:) :D

Why not rename Arjun to say T-100, and have them delivered by An 124 flown by a Russian crew who speak only Russian? :)


With a few Natashas thrown in as cheerleaders. :twisted:

DavidD
BRFite
Posts: 854
Joined: 23 Jun 2010 04:08

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby DavidD » 26 Aug 2017 22:34

How much does the Arjun cost vis-a-vis the T90? The Russians always liked cheaper, easier to manufacture tanks that can be produced and replaced in numbers, does that philosophy fit with the IA?

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5681
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9, 2014

Postby Indranil » 27 Aug 2017 03:30

Mukesh.Kumar wrote:
Rishi_Tri wrote:
:) :D

Why not rename Arjun to say T-100, and have them delivered by An 124 flown by a Russian crew who speak only Russian? :)


With a few Natashas thrown in as cheerleaders. :twisted:

Okay. We have gone too far now. Lets stop it here.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jpremnath and 57 guests