MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

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.
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4087
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby srai » 06 Mar 2018 04:23

Hey, Arjun Mk.1 is 58t. Old MLC-60 bridging equipment can handle it as well as all the new MLC-70 ones. Mk.1 beat T-90S in comparative trials and yet only 124 units were ordered. That line has been sitting idle since March 2012 ... 6 years ago. If the IA was serious about inducting an indigenous tank it would have done so with Mk.1 continuous production. By now we would have had another 300 Arjuns Mk.1 manufactured. Where is the support?

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2405
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby kit » 06 Mar 2018 04:39

srai wrote:Hey, Arjun Mk.1 is 58t. Old MLC-60 bridging equipment can handle it as well as all the new MLC-70 ones. Mk.1 beat T-90S in comparative trials and yet only 124 units were ordered. That line has been sitting idle since March 2012 ... 6 years ago. If the IA was serious about inducting an indigenous tank it would have done so with Mk.1 continuous production. By now we would have had another 300 Arjuns Mk.1 manufactured. Where is the support?


i might be wrong .. but has the IA inducted any new tanks at all during this period? besides the army s capex funds are not that much

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4087
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby srai » 06 Mar 2018 04:42

^^^
Couple of years ago they ordered 400 T-90S right after rejecting Arjun Mk.2 for its weight.

Vivek K
BRFite
Posts: 1877
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Vivek K » 06 Mar 2018 05:14

kit wrote:
srai wrote:
i might be wrong .. but has the IA inducted any new tanks at all during this period? besides the army s capex funds are not that much


You are wrong, friend. Please check. The details are all over the place. Let us know what you find. If the Army could buy the more expensive and less capable T-90, why not then the Arjun? Why do we waste money on the T-72s/ At least start replacing a part of the T-72s with Arjuns.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6530
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 06 Mar 2018 05:30

Vivek K wrote:
kit wrote:


You are wrong, friend. Please check. The details are all over the place. Let us know what you find. If the Army could buy the more expensive and less capable T-90, why not then the Arjun? Why do we waste money on the T-72s/ At least start replacing a part of the T-72s with Arjuns.

T-90 is not more expensive than the Arjun. It makes full sense to maximize the returns from T-72.

The question is: Are the fighting qualities of T-72/T-90 good enough to win tomorrow's wars. If yes, everything is fine. If not, a better tank with more functionality and armour will have higher weight. The decision makers should be reasonable about what they ask for.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1169
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Khalsa » 06 Mar 2018 05:40

Funds for 2 regiments of Mk2 have been cleared.
But weight is an issue

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1196
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby sudeepj » 06 Mar 2018 07:25

T90 today has three major flaws.
1. Propellant stored all over the crew compartment.
2. Short APFSDS.
3. Lack of hard kill active protection systems.

All three issues are fixable..

A small bustle can be mounted to the rear of the turret where at least the propellant charges can be stored, if not the projectiles. A hard kill system can be retrofitted. A new autoloader will be needed for better APFSDS.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9569
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Aditya_V » 06 Mar 2018 10:13

T-90 Still suffers from with poor Night vision, poor armour protection and torsion bar setup. All everything which Arjun has then T-90 is more expensive tank. T-90 without reactive armour, night vision, A/C systems, mine plough etc is cheaper.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4087
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby srai » 06 Mar 2018 10:26

^^^+1

True cost of T-90S has been hidden in Indian procurement. They got stripped down T-90 in the original contract and then ever since they have been signing new contracts for add-ons and various remedies. DRDO R&D costs also need to be factored in for armor and main guns.

A Deshmukh
BRFite
Posts: 255
Joined: 05 Dec 2008 14:24

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby A Deshmukh » 06 Mar 2018 12:11

would not the heavier tank be inherently safer for the crew? it is no-brainer that crew will be safer inside Arjun v/s T-90.
what is the crew survivability inside lighter Arjun v/s heavier Arjun under various attacks: RPG, anti-tank mines, ATGM, Anti-tank rounds.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4087
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby srai » 06 Mar 2018 15:05

A Deshmukh wrote:would not the heavier tank be inherently safer for the crew? it is no-brainer that crew will be safer inside Arjun v/s T-90.
what is the crew survivability inside lighter Arjun v/s heavier Arjun under various attacks: RPG, anti-tank mines, ATGM, Anti-tank rounds.

We have already seen many times over the performance of Tin Can against Western heavies. The tin cans got whipped so bad in real battles that it’s hard to find reasons the IA still clings on to a vastly inferior design and refuses to acquire a superior indigenous product in the Arjun Mk.1/2.

Why are really old night blind T-72 still around when Arjun MBT can replace them?

Vidur
BRFite
Posts: 131
Joined: 20 Aug 2017 18:57

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Vidur » 06 Mar 2018 21:23

Indranil wrote:I agree with all your assertions and I hope we all heed your urge. I will try to moderate on similar lines.

At the same time, the engineer in me does revolt a little. How can I give you every capability you want of a Arjun at the weight of a T-90. You ask for better armour, better mobility, better firepower, better crew conditions, better accuracy, better fordability, all-day all-fighting capability with two sets of panaromic view generation to enable hunting while firing. You mandated a four man crew at the beginning. But, you are not ready for weight gain. Forget non-performing DRDO, is there anybody in the world who has built a tank with Arjun's specifications which is lighter than Arjun? If not, something has to give, no sir?


There are some falsehoods in your statement sir. Arjun is 10-15 tons heavier than T-90 so the weight leeway was given obviously and naturally. Kindly do not claim some impossible target was put. Problem is MK2 has a bit higher weight than even MK1 and that needs to be addressed at least to some extent. These are normal development issues and will be addressed.

Please don't mislead the discussion. There is no question that Arjun is an excellent tank and perhaps better than many others including in our armoury but it took an inordinately long time to come and big promises were made for too long that hurt the organization's credibility. Now DRDO is more realistic in their claims which helps their credibility.

In everything in life for things to work there needs to be a confluence of right thing/place at the right time. Arjun is no doubt the right thing but it came a little to late other orders had been given. People here seem to have forgotten that.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 916
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby nam » 06 Mar 2018 21:40

Indranil wrote:I agree it will be helpful for FMBT. But how long will we keep using them as technology demonstrators only?


As far I can understand, tanks are not high up the priority list, just like ATGM. They are not on critical path compared to air assets(LCH) and artillery.

So they will be in longer development cycle. It is is fine with me, if the ultimate deliverable is something which gives an edge to IA. SANT will probably see induction before Nag. DRDO needs be a arm manufacturer and keep bringing out versions. 130MM, unmanned, laser, APS, whatever it is takes to better the import option.

US & Russia have created hundreds of weapon prototypes. Not all were inducted.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 916
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby nam » 06 Mar 2018 21:53

Vidur wrote:There are some falsehoods in your statement sir. Arjun is 10-15 tons heavier than T-90 so the weight leeway was given obviously and naturally. Kindly do not claim some impossible target was put. Problem is MK2 has a bit higher weight than even MK1 and that needs to be addressed at least to some extent. These are normal development issues and will be addressed.

Please don't mislead the discussion. There is no question that Arjun is an excellent tank and perhaps better than many others including in our armoury but it took an inordinately long time to come and big promises were made for too long that hurt the organization's credibility. Now DRDO is more realistic in their claims which helps their credibility.

In everything in life for things to work there needs to be a confluence of right thing/place at the right time. Arjun is no doubt the right thing but it came a little to late other orders had been given. People here seem to have forgotten that.


I have to disagree with some of the points. Arjun was a tank based on "reactionary requirement". IA wanted a Leo clone to face off Pak M1A1.

If Pak had inducted M1A1, no one in the army will be taking about weight advantages of T90, because there would be no T90 in IA. Arjun is neither late, as there are 2000 T72 to be replaced.

However there are valid reason why IA does not want Arjun and I support those reasons. I will not hold IA or DRDO responsible for Arjun, as it was the first time for both of them. DRDO had a learning curve, IA had resource constraint and fast changing threat perception.

However FMBT will show us the real culprit, if it's induction fails.

Vivek K
BRFite
Posts: 1877
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Vivek K » 06 Mar 2018 23:09

Vidurji,

You highlight valid points. Let us take a look at these one by one.
1. Arjun MK1 is heavier than T90

Like it has been pointed out, a tank to fight the M1A1 was asked for. Capabilities were specified and all of these added up to give it the weight it has. BUT, and this needs to be understood, the GROUND PRESSURE of the Arjun is the same or lower than the T90. That means the Arjun can fight on the sands without getting bogged down.

2.MK2 is heavier

Again the specific requirements of reactive armor (even though the direct fire from a t72 on the Arjun bounced off) and the addition of a mine plough have added to the weight. Both of these can be waived without impact to operations. Mine ploughing could be left to other vehicles.

3. The Arjun is late
The Arjun is the most tested tank in the world. There were trials after trials done which would be unnecessary by any standards. The t90 was not tested similarly and would probably fail this tests too. PM Narsimha Rai rode in it if Ian not mistaken in 1995. 22 years later we still have not inducted the tank. Forget about the paltry orders of 50 odd. The second order was not fulfilled I think.

Soon the expertise gained will be lost. We will then reinvent the wheel again when research for the FMBT will start. Who loses - the Indian soldier and the Indian Taxpayer.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 49498
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby ramana » 06 Mar 2018 23:30

I was reading the USI Journal archives. Only titles are available.
Way back in early 1940s there is an article examining the role of light tanks in mountain warfare.

From here on my own views:

Then in 1948, IA used Stuart light tanks in Kashmir to fight off the Pak Army.

From 1948 to 1962 the IA concentrated on Pak and the terrain was Kashmir. Hence AMX, and Sherman regiments. The Centurion was purchased but when Vickers collaboration for Vijayanta was signed, further purchases of Centurions was stopped despite Vijayanta showing up in 1968. Recall in 1965 war, the light tanks were detached from 2 Ind Armored Brigade and sent to Chaamb.

I think 2nd Ind brigade task was all light and Sherman's for Kashmir deployment. Attaching 3rd Cavalry with Centurions was brilliant move that saved Asal Uttar.

Meantime Assal Uttar was really a touch and go with one regiment of Centurions along with AMX 15 and upgunned Sherman's facing of Pak armored division with Pattons and some M24 Chaffes.

The IA fighting spirit saved the day and realization dawned of the need for heavier tanks. The impending light tanks order was stopped and more T55 were bought. Eventually these were replaced by T72 and now T90s.

The Arjun was to replace the Vijayanta and build Indian expertise in tank design and mtg.
In early 80s, US planned to transfer Abrams. In response the Arjun design was changed to be able to face off this son of Patton.
So delay and weight gain came to bug the Arjun.
In mid 80s Gen Sunderji, figured out a new way to end the stalemate of attrition warfare and use maneuver warfare to defeat Pak.armored forces as Operational Art would dictate. In other words IA armor would move and defeat Pak and not slug it out like in 1965 and 1971 wars. Hence the emphasis changed but no one updated the Arjun requirements. And mean time the DRDO and Avadi kept going with this Arjun which if we recall is to slug it out with the Abrams. If we recall this does not meet maneuver warfare.
Instead of cancelling the requirement IA got two regiments to try it out and have a huge list of improvements which got incorporated as Mk2. Obviously there will be overweight gain with all those changes. Somewhere IA thinks there is a need for the heavy tank or they would not have agreed to the two regiments.
This where we stand now.

I think Arjun tank should be in the holding corps in Punjab as that's where their gun and missile would be useful and blunt any armor thrust from Pak just like in 1965. These could be dual deployed in Punjab and Kashmir region.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1196
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby sudeepj » 06 Mar 2018 23:37

A Deshmukh wrote:would not the heavier tank be inherently safer for the crew? it is no-brainer that crew will be safer inside Arjun v/s T-90.
what is the crew survivability inside lighter Arjun v/s heavier Arjun under various attacks: RPG, anti-tank mines, ATGM, Anti-tank rounds.


Not necessarily.. Arjun is also wider and taller. In addition, the T90 has the same Kanchan armor as the Arjun.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1196
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby sudeepj » 06 Mar 2018 23:53

Vidur wrote:
Indranil wrote:I agree with all your assertions and I hope we all heed your urge. I will try to moderate on similar lines.

At the same time, the engineer in me does revolt a little. How can I give you every capability you want of a Arjun at the weight of a T-90. You ask for better armour, better mobility, better firepower, better crew conditions, better accuracy, better fordability, all-day all-fighting capability with two sets of panaromic view generation to enable hunting while firing. You mandated a four man crew at the beginning. But, you are not ready for weight gain. Forget non-performing DRDO, is there anybody in the world who has built a tank with Arjun's specifications which is lighter than Arjun? If not, something has to give, no sir?


There are some falsehoods in your statement sir. Arjun is 10-15 tons heavier than T-90 so the weight leeway was given obviously and naturally. Kindly do not claim some impossible target was put. Problem is MK2 has a bit higher weight than even MK1 and that needs to be addressed at least to some extent. These are normal development issues and will be addressed.

Please don't mislead the discussion. There is no question that Arjun is an excellent tank and perhaps better than many others including in our armoury but it took an inordinately long time to come and big promises were made for too long that hurt the organization's credibility. Now DRDO is more realistic in their claims which helps their credibility.

In everything in life for things to work there needs to be a confluence of right thing/place at the right time. Arjun is no doubt the right thing but it came a little to late other orders had been given. People here seem to have forgotten that.


For one minute, put aside the Arjun vs T90 ACQUISITION debate and look at the MBT that the Indian Army uses on its own merits. Once you do this, you realize that T90 is a deeply flawed machine.. Because it carries propellant (resin impregnated cardboard bags of cordite, essentially) in the crew compartment, if penetrated, the tank will instantly catch fire and inflict terrible casualties on the specialized manpower. We will have it worse than the allied tankers in their 'Tommy cookers'.

The second major flaw is that the main anti armor weapon of the T90, the APFSDS round is pathetically out of date and can not be updated with something punchier because of the auto-loader design. Because its such a pathetically out of date design, T90 users rely on the missile.. But this missile is vulnerable to both electronic counter measures as well as 'silver bullet' counter measures such as active protection systems.

Pak armor merely needs to retrofit active protection systems and confidently face our entire tank army.. Their T80s do not have the same limitation on APFSDS length as the T90 (that autoloader stores the rounds vertically) and the missile can be made ineffectual by the active kill system. T90s are uniquely vulnerable because of their key design flaws.

Arjun represents not just the tank, but also design and fabrication abilities that have not been used in making the IA MBT any safer or more effective. Just mounting a bustle to the turret with a blow off panel will make the T90 a lot more survivable, and this is something that can be easily done given our inhouse capabilities but no one has even attempted to do this. Similarly, design of a new autoloader with longer apfsds has taken backseat while the Arjun vs T90 slugfest continues.

I am sorry to say this, but if conflict comes, our cavalry will pay the price of this short sightedness in blood.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 49498
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby ramana » 07 Mar 2018 00:25

Did they try to fit Arjun turret on T90?

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2047
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Prem Kumar » 07 Mar 2018 00:36

deleted by mod. you have been warned.

ManuJ
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 262
Joined: 20 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: USA

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby ManuJ » 07 Mar 2018 01:01

The excuses will continue for status quo until bold leadership lays down the law.
Then everyone will start singing a different tune and all the very valid reasons for continuing with T90 will suddenly become obsolete.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1196
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby sudeepj » 07 Mar 2018 02:21

Prem Kumar wrote:I am amazed by the duplicity of the IA Armor decision makers when they keep dissing Arjun, while simultaneously puffing up their chests and claiming "We will fight with what we have!"

Well, you were given a vastly superior tank that just wiped the floor with T-90 in comparative trials. Yet you killed it, imported defective T-90s and will shed your cavalry's blood!

All this talk of "overweight" is a joke. If you produce a world class fighting machine, change the logistics to support it. Many of these changes have already been made (example: MLC-70 bridge). And if you're still hung up with old baggage of DRDO-IA animosity, its time to change the leadership


The issue is not logistics in our area, the key issue is logistics in the enemy area where every 3 meter ditch will turn into an obstacle slowing down the momentum of any attack. In our area, I think the Arjun is still needed as a defensive/counter attack tank. T90 does not overmatch Pakistani tanks and we will suffer heavily from top attack, anti tank missiles such as the Tow2 that are available in numbers with the Pakis.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1196
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby sudeepj » 07 Mar 2018 02:23

For the love of God, someone should just weld a bustle to the back of the T90 turret and store the extra propellant charges there! Our cavalry will suffer horrendously if they ride into battle sitting atop cordite! This is not rocket science!

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4087
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby srai » 07 Mar 2018 03:45

ramana wrote:Did they try to fit Arjun turret on T90?

Would that be Karna Mk.2 :wink:

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6530
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 07 Mar 2018 04:30

ramana wrote:Did they try to fit Arjun turret on T90?

Something similar: Tank Ex

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6530
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 07 Mar 2018 05:29

Vidur wrote:There are some falsehoods in your statement sir. Arjun is 10-15 tons heavier than T-90 so the weight leeway was given obviously and naturally. Kindly do not claim some impossible target was put. Problem is MK2 has a bit higher weight than even MK1 and that needs to be addressed at least to some extent. These are normal development issues and will be addressed.

I am surprised that you said that Arjun Mk2 is heavier than Mk1. Have you seen the modifications requested. These are all additional armor and systems. Where will these come from? As to Mk1s weight, I will wait for you to show me a tank internationally which has the same specs as Arjun is much lighter. Arjun is made to IA's ASQR, correct? So I will ask who coined such an ASQR if the doctrine could not support it?

Vidur wrote:
Please don't mislead the discussion. There is no question that Arjun is an excellent tank and perhaps better than many others including in our armoury but it took an inordinately long time to come and big promises were made for too long that hurt the organization's credibility. Now DRDO is more realistic in their claims which helps their credibility.

I have been lurking on this thread for more than 10 years, and started posting in the last few months. Who am I to mislead anything? This will be my last post on this thread.

But I hope you guys stop patting each other and make a field where technological innovation and production can truly happen. In that aspect, the babus and netas of this country are a MUCH BIGGER failure than its scientist. I am sorry, but I had to say it. Spending just over a billion dollars spread over 40 years for a world class tank? I am sure I don't have to show you how much Tata Motors spends in a year of RnD.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4087
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby srai » 07 Mar 2018 05:58

^^^
Who killed the Indian world class tank?
India did!

Continues to erode decades of design & development capability by outsourcing FMBT/FRCV design to foreigners. Myopic!

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35604
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 07 Mar 2018 08:06

if this is not fake, then Arjun Mk III can be 40 tons with all the bells and whistles.

the point being, accept the capability and move on... we will see the weight reductions in subsequent phases/tranches - This should be enough ticker for @nsitaraman ji to take action. We will have a priority to build an Obsidian version of Arjun Mk 3 than a light-weight version. What is important now is getting away from the hands of existing decision makers. reactive framework needed!!!

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1239
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Manish_P » 07 Mar 2018 08:34

Not clear exactly how, sir

Even assuming it to be true, what was demonstrated was resistance to fire/heat, not against impact of projectiles (especially Sabots)

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1239
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Manish_P » 07 Mar 2018 09:38

Indranil ji, I can understand your angst but why the extreme stand, sir.

You, of all people, will surely know who the vast majority of the members here value more - military personnel, scientists, administrators, politicians..

Perhaps it's just the little one who is causing lack of sleep :wink:

Anyway I, for one, keep an eye out for your posts and humbly request you to reconsider

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3286
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 07 Mar 2018 11:43

Vidur wrote:I don’t like to comment on specific equipment but I am constrained to say that there must be more introspection before making wild insinuations. Arjun while an adequate tank does need weight reduction in MK2 and it is the development agency’s responsibility to do so. In general DRDO has been given a lot of support and decades of patience. It’s probably the most cosseted govt body. And it has finally started getting some good results across many programs. These are being fully supported by the govt and the users.

In which country do you have director of R&D agency as part of the vetoing body for defence purchases - Defence Acquaition Council. It’s like having the person taking the exam also sitting in invigilator board. But it is done to show commitment to indegenisation. But they need to be accountable too. They need to reduce weight and post that testing is an integral part of the process to check if that has happened. They cannot have a blank cheque. Personally I believe Army has been quite patient on this project.


Regarding the boarded red part: If we expect DRDO to produce world class products we need to see the support and funding given in the global context not at the National context. And then we really start seeing where we went wrong.

Regarding the bolded Blue part - Sir the point you are trying to make is irrelevant and the comparison to invigilator frankly unfair. The DAC is composed of all the stake holders and DRDO Director has a rightful place in that council. There has to be a person representing the technical sides of the matter, as no other member brings that part on the table. In the kind of set up we have where our premier RnD organization actually has to develop products rather than focusing on developing base technology which then can be used by OEMs to make products, which perhaps makes you feel like DRDO should not get a seat there. But there is a need of a representative from technical background on DAC. Until recently DRDO Secy was also SA to RM. Only recently when roles of SA to RM and DRDO Secretary are decoupled, perhaps SA to RM can occupy that position instead of DRDO Secy. But let me tell you that, from my professions experience, we see constant failures of meeting program milestones in every damn Aerospace & Defense program in every corner of the world, precisely because the top administration/Management lacks an ear to what engineers on the ground have to say about reality. So its actually a better composition of DAC where there is a technical person involved in decision making.

DEFENCE ACQUISITIONS COUNCIL (DAC)
A Defence Acquisitions Council has been created as an overarching structure with the following composition:-
Chairman:
Raksha Mantri (RM)
Members:
Raksha Rajya Mantris (RRMs)
Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) (when appointed)
Chief of Army Staff (COAS)
Chief of Naval Staff (CNS)
Chief of Air Staff (CAS)
Defence Secretary
Secretary Dept. of Defence Production and Supplies Secretary,
Defence Research and Development Secretary,
Defence Finance Vice Chief of Defence Staff (when appointed)/CISC Special Secretary (Acquisition)

Member Secretary:

Dy. Chief of Defence Staff (PP&FD)

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2031
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Katare » 07 Mar 2018 12:10

sudeepj wrote:
A Deshmukh wrote:would not the heavier tank be inherently safer for the crew? it is no-brainer that crew will be safer inside Arjun v/s T-90.
what is the crew survivability inside lighter Arjun v/s heavier Arjun under various attacks: RPG, anti-tank mines, ATGM, Anti-tank rounds.


Not necessarily.. Arjun is also wider and taller. In addition, the T90 has the same Kanchan armor as the Arjun.


T90 tank has kanchan armor? Very interesting, Source please?

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1239
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Manish_P » 07 Mar 2018 12:15

JayS wrote:Regarding the bolded Blue part - Sir the point you are trying to make is irrelevant and the comparison to invigilator frankly unfair. The DAC is composed of all the stake holders and DRDO Director has a rightful place in that council. There has to be a person representing the technical sides of the matter, as no other member brings that part on the table. In the kind of set up we have where our premier RnD organization actually has to develop products rather than focusing on developing base technology which then can be used by OEMs to make products, which perhaps makes you feel like DRDO should not get a seat there. But there is a need of a representative from technical background on DAC.


+1. Perfectly put.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 916
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby nam » 07 Mar 2018 16:04

Pakistan did not induct M1A1 probably for the same reason IA does not want Arjun! Weight, logistics, cost, training, 4 v 3 men etc.

Our tank purchases have been reactionary. Arjun for M1A1, T90 for T80 etc. There can be a argument that this is better as Pak has shown it's cards, we can adapt accordingly.

Even now Pak is testing new tanks for induction. Chances are once this happens, either Arjun MK2/ T90 upgrade will be ordered or FMBT will pushed hard.

If Atlay is inducted, the weight argument will disappear!

So given it is reactionary, we need have our ecosystem ready for a reactionary requirement from IA.

So DRDO keep bringing out Arjun versions/FMBT and wait for Pak to order a new tank!

ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 852
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby ParGha » 07 Mar 2018 21:57

The closest parallel to the Arjun story is that of the Japanese GSDF MBTs. With the 50 ton Type-90s, they started building heavy tanks approaching the Western-style approach taken by Leopards, Challengers, Abrams, etc. However the Japanese found that these heavy tanks could only cross 65% of the major bridges in their country. Mitsubishi had to go back to the drawing board, and now it has come back with the 44 ton Type-10 MBT, which apparently can cross 84% of their major bridges.

Of course, the Japanese are an island country, their naval forces are their first-line of defense, and only a small number of enemy tanks are ever likely to make land-fall and can be handled by these lighter Type-10s. In contrast, India has hotly contested land-borders and some sectors of them are perfect tank-country. So it not a 1:1 match. But I'm sure there are lessons to be learned and applied in how India designs tanks for the other sectors which are mostly light-tank or wheeled-gun country.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 916
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby nam » 07 Mar 2018 22:21

To this day I cannot understand why DRDO hasn't created a indianised t90. Probably for contractual reason.

Take a t90 shell with its engine and put in Kanchan, 125 mm India gun, autoloader, fix some of the ammo spread problem and a single piece ammo.

It would have been a perfect solution.

Vivek K
BRFite
Posts: 1877
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Vivek K » 07 Mar 2018 22:23

ParGha - that is a good story but what is its relevance in the Arjun thread? You acknowledge that you're comparing apples to oranges. It would be interesting though if you presented a table with capabilities of the Gen 1 Jap Heavy Tank and Gen 2 of the Jap light tank.
I hope that when history of tank warfare is written, Indian DGMOs are not shown in poor light for supporting a flawed Tank that could possibly lead to defeat. Please respond to the quotes below and enlighten us.

T90 is a deeply flawed machine..
  1. Because it carries propellant (resin impregnated cardboard bags of cordite, essentially) in the crew compartment, if penetrated, the tank will instantly catch fire and inflict terrible casualties on the specialized manpower. We will have it worse than the allied tankers in their 'Tommy cookers'.
  2. The second major flaw is that the main anti armor weapon of the T90, the APFSDS round is pathetically out of date and can not be updated with something punchier because of the auto-loader design. Because its such a pathetically out of date design, T90 users rely on the missile.. But this missile is vulnerable to both electronic counter measures as well as 'silver bullet' counter measures such as active protection systems.
  3. Pak armor merely needs to retrofit active protection systems and confidently face our entire tank army.. Their T80s do not have the same limitation on APFSDS length as the T90.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1196
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby sudeepj » 07 Mar 2018 23:00

Katare wrote:
sudeepj wrote:
Not necessarily.. Arjun is also wider and taller. In addition, the T90 has the same Kanchan armor as the Arjun.


T90 tank has kanchan armor? Very interesting, Source please?


This was widely reported.. but I cant find any authoritative source. A sample of the reportage is here, though it could just be another echo in an echo chamber:

http://tanknutdave.com/indian-t90-bhishma-tank/
"the Russian composite armour has been replaced with India’s own Kanchan composite."


Apparently, Russians refused to part with their armor technology and also the technology for the main gun.

I dont think Arjun is in competition with the T90 now, as there are nearly 1200 copies of the T90 in service while around 128 of the Arjun. But T90 vulnerabilities remain uncorrected, even though its well within the domestic ability to correct those

nam
BRFite
Posts: 916
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby nam » 08 Mar 2018 00:10

Vivek K wrote:I hope that when history of tank warfare is written, Indian DGMOs are not shown in poor light for supporting a flawed Tank that could possibly lead to defeat. Please respond to the quotes below and enlighten us.


Will the T-90 lead to a defeat? well we will never know. Paki armour will destroyed not by our tanks, but by IAF, LCH & Apacahes. Whatever left will be up against out T90s.

So in a way IA investing in LCH & Apaches is right way forward. It will be Paki armour against our air assets, our T-90 against Paki ATGM.

Another thing about blowing up T tanks. IA T72 turrets were blowing up in Sri Lanka, way before Desert storm and on CNN.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 49498
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby ramana » 08 Mar 2018 00:28

nam, Can you give a reference to that T72s in Sri Lanka?

Thanks.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests