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.
nam
BRFite
Posts: 1585
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby nam » 13 Sep 2018 14:29

We may have to hold our horses regarding the claim on delivering 6 months before deadline. Similar claims were made about OPV by RDEL... nothing to show.

The CVRDE has been looking to scale up the manufacturing capacity of Arjun tanks to meet the Army’s requirements. Private sector players were hence considered as an alternative supply line in addition to the Ordnance Factory Board, which has so far been the sole supplier of indigenous components for the MBTs.


For me this is the crux of Arjun's problems. Forget weight, capability, local etc.. it is OFB. Forget IA, even I would think 10 times about a important defence kit, whose sole supplier is... OFB. You can worry about weight, once you get the tank. With OFB.. you are not even guaranteed to recieve on time.

People may have forgotten about the horrible QC issues which plagued the first batch of Arjun.

Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 499
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Trikaal » 13 Sep 2018 14:34

nam wrote:It may be less than 60 ton, instead of 50.

Even that would be BIG NEWS. But there's no other report regarding the same.

rahul_r
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 04 Mar 2005 18:58
Location: U.S.A

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby rahul_r » 20 Oct 2018 14:59

Not sure if this was posted before - a documentary on Arjun

https://youtu.be/2ald_CxPdHM

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2523
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby tsarkar » 02 Dec 2018 07:59

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DtUdKXoWwAA ... &name=orig

This is important news. It specifically mentions Armoured Recovery Vehicles for Arjun ordered. This means IA is building up infrastructure for Arjun for induction in larger numbers, just like Airfields and Shelters were modernised for Su-30 induction.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2523
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby tsarkar » 02 Dec 2018 08:02


chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2836
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby chola » 02 Dec 2018 08:17

tsarkar wrote:https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DtUdKXoWwAAw-IJ?format=jpg&name=orig

This is important news. It specifically mentions Armoured Recovery Vehicles for Arjun ordered. This means IA is building up infrastructure for Arjun for induction in larger numbers, just like Airfields and Shelters were modernised for Su-30 induction.


Great news if it is future planning. But it could be fixing a previous lack of infra for the 300 already in service.

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2254
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby abhik » 02 Dec 2018 09:33

^^^
There are around 120 in service (not 300).

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1585
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby nam » 02 Dec 2018 14:28

It could just mean a regular buy of ARV. T90 numbers are increasing, there would be old ARV that might need replacing etc.

Buying Arjun based ARV means ability to use for tseries and Arjun tank. Also increases parts availability for Arjun tank and catapult.

I am not complaining. Need to induct Arjun based platform as much as possible. It will set the logistics base for a Indian tank.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9879
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Aditya_V » 02 Dec 2018 18:54

I hope that the Army is doing some long term planning

1. With 1000HP of T-90 and T-72 made in numbers these will form the numbers and our medium tank.
2. Arjun Mk2 should form 600-800 numbers of our heavy tanks.

We probably can't do something like the US which has fielded only heavy tanks, probably not affordable for us. we probably have go for a mix where the Superior Arjun is used in Desert and plains therters, the T- series is cheaper and probably more easily transported in numbers. 1 on 1 Arjun will be probably knock out a T-90 but the heavies have costlier logistics footprints, and real world Tank battles are rarely 1 on 1

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2836
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby chola » 02 Dec 2018 19:33

abhik wrote:^^^
There are around 120 in service (not 300).


Yes, you’re right Abhik ji. Only 124 officially inducted. I was thinking of the orders (124 Mk1 in 2000, 124 Mk1 in 2010, 124 Mk2 in 2010.)

Karthik S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4259
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 12:12

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Karthik S » 02 Dec 2018 19:36

I recall Doval stating that Tanks won't be of much help in future wars to the north, missiles will matter the most, and wrt pakis, tanks will not be required at all, don't know what he meant by that.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15742
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 02 Dec 2018 21:20

He was mistaken, lets just leave it at that. In a conventional war, tanks will matter a lot. And in terms of RAW et al, we have a long way to go to develop the capabilities or the political will to pay TSP back in its own coin, as consistently as they do to us.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1585
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby nam » 03 Dec 2018 00:58

I hope DRDO just go ahead and creates a prototype of 45-50 ton, 3 crewed, unmanned turret based on their study. Given the lower weight it can use the engine from T90, which is been produced in OFB. This will give commonality with T90 logistics to some extend, and close the biggest issue with Arjun. Weight, logistics & 3 man crew.

We cannot create a Arjun which IA wants, based on the current design and components involved.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 691
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby ks_sachin » 03 Dec 2018 01:37

Aditya_V wrote:I hope that the Army is doing some long term planning



Oxymoron?

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9879
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Aditya_V » 03 Dec 2018 17:37

Sorry Sir, I didnt get it, I am sure there is some one doing it

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9879
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Aditya_V » 03 Dec 2018 17:39

nam wrote:I hope DRDO just go ahead and creates a prototype of 45-50 ton, 3 crewed, unmanned turret based on their study. Given the lower weight it can use the engine from T90, which is been produced in OFB. This will give commonality with T90 logistics to some extend, and close the biggest issue with Arjun. Weight, logistics & 3 man crew.

We cannot create a Arjun which IA wants, based on the current design and components involved.


I do think we will need both 45 ton tank in numbers and 60-65 tonne tank in lesser numbers

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1585
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby nam » 03 Dec 2018 19:14

Aditya_V wrote:I do think we will need both 45 ton tank in numbers and 60-65 tonne tank in lesser numbers


A tank's weight is due to the protection level that is required for a certain design. T90 with crew is more compact than Arjun with 4 crew, hence require less armor because of smaller size. So lesser in weight.

If a 45 ton tank provides the required protection to it's crew, then there is no need for 60 ton tank.


We have the required subsystem to build a 45 ton tank. DRDO just needs to go ahead.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5993
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Rakesh » 03 Dec 2018 21:46

Aditya_V wrote:Sorry Sir, I didnt get it, I am sure there is some one doing it

No thinking is happening Saar....

RFI for Future Ready Combat Vehicle for the Indian Army
https://indianarmy.nic.in/writereaddata ... v%2017.pdf

From page 2 of the above link, under the Essential Parameters sub-heading....

"The Future Ready Combat Vehicle will be a tracked fighting vehicle of Medium Weight Class (All up combat weight not to exceed 50 Tons ± 15%)...."

So the tank weight must be between 42.5 tons to 57.5 tons, as 50 tons ± 15% has a variance of 7.5 tons. Now the Arjun does not meet those parameters (surprise, surprise!), because....

Arjun Mk1: 58.5 tonnes (57.6 long tons; 64.5 short tons)

Arjun Mk2: 68 tonnes (66.93 long tons; 74.96 short tons)

It was the Armoured Corps that wanted the Arjun to be a heavy tank in response to the possible purchase of the M1 Abrams by Pakistan in the 1980s. The Armoured Corps let DRDO develop the Mk1, then criticized the design, made DRDO come up with a better variant (Mk2) and then criticized that design too! The last set of improvements requested from the Armoured Corps was laughable - they wanted DRDO to incorporate a series of improvements on the Mk2 with a net zero weight gain. DRDO is not Houdini.

They are doing screwdrivergiri on the T-90 right now in Avadi. A design that is superior to the T-72. If the Army wants to replace the T-72 with a tank that weighs less than the Arjun, then let DRDO develop a 50 ton tank to replace it. Why do you need a foreign design? This RFI is tailor written for the T-14 Armata, which is what the Armoured Corps wants.

Here are the four tanks in consideration for the Future Ready Combat Vehicle contest....

AMX Leclerc Series XXI: 57.4 tonnes (56.49 long tons; 63.27 short tons) ---> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMX_Leclerc

K2 Black Panther: 55 tonnes (54.13 long tons; 60.62 short tons) ---> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K2_Black_Panther

T-14 Armata: 48 tonnes (47.24 long tons; 52.91 short tons) ---> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-14_Armata

T-84 Oplot: 46 tonnes (45.27 long tons; 50.71 short tons) ---> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-84

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15742
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 04 Dec 2018 04:51

The real reason for the weight concerns are the canals and DCB defenses in the western sector used by TSP. The IA is really concerned about the quantum of engineering effort it will take to surpass them. They cant afford to junk and replace the existing equipment tailored around the T series.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50763
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby ramana » 04 Dec 2018 06:30

Do you think India will abide by Indus Water Treaty in such a war?
We will stop the flow of water as needed.

I think the IA needs to have second look at the Arjun requirement.

In 1965 the Centurions were bought at minimal buy (~185) with the hope that the Vickers tank will soon be made at Avadi. The first of them was rolled out in 1967 after the war.

The Armoured Corps generals thought that they will be like cavalry and riding on chargers and bought the light weight AMX-13. While Pak was getting Pattons by the boatload. They got two Armored divisions worth.
After the war had to cancel the light tanks and buy more medium tanks. That is how T-55s entered the picture.
And these had to be up gunned with the L-7 105mm tank gun. And promptly sent to reserves.
T-55->>T-72->>T90
It was the bravery, innovation and ingenuity of the personnel that changed the tide in 1965 and yet myopia still persists.

I think the problem is the British training that still persists.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15742
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 04 Dec 2018 06:35

Canals may be empty. They still need to be forded.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 691
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby ks_sachin » 04 Dec 2018 07:58

ramana wrote:Do you think India will abide by Indus Water Treaty in such a war?
We will stop the flow of water as needed.

I think the IA needs to have second look at the Arjun requirement.

In 1965 the Centurions were bought at minimal buy (~185) with the hope that the Vickers tank will soon be made at Avadi. The first of them was rolled out in 1967 after the war.

The Armoured Corps generals thought that they will be like cavalry and riding on chargers and bought the light weight AMX-13. While Pak was getting Pattons by the boatload. They got two Armored divisions worth.
After the war had to cancel the light tanks and buy more medium tanks. That is how T-55s entered the picture.
And these had to be up gunned with the L-7 105mm tank gun. And promptly sent to reserves.
T-55->>T-72->>T90
It was the bravery, innovation and ingenuity of the personnel that changed the tide in 1965 and yet myopia still persists.

I think the problem is the British training that still persists.


What British training....


1965 was a different war...today the Generals can have a t-90 and still win.

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 6586
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby disha » 04 Dec 2018 08:32

I do not think it is due to myopia. I will like to give once a benefit of doubt to the Army, the MOD and the OFB here.

Here is my thinking., the nature of tank warfare has evolved. In fact the tank warfare evolved from WWI and was best exemplified as Blietzkrieg in WWII. After that the entire concept of regiments of heavy tanks fighting regiments of opposing heavy tanks have hit a stone wall based on changing war doctrines.

So going for AMX-13 light tank was not a bad idea, but the fear and panic created by Patton tank put paid to such an effort.

In 1965 itself PVC Abdul Hamid knocked out 8 tanks and the grenadiers armed with nothing but jeep mounted RCLs and mines destroyed overall 13-15 tanks. This is utter decimation of the concept of using MBTs. That is using the terrain to its advantage, a small and dedicated but very mobile team knocked out a company of tanks!

The overall battle of Asal Uttar reinforced the above several times. "Light" tanks like AMX-13 and "Medium" tanks like Sherman (which comprised the bulk of the force) decimated the entire assault. It was more like a turkey shoot. At the loss of 10 tanks, some 100 enemy tanks were destroyed

This was again reaffirmed in battle of Longewala. The post defenders with their RCLs claimed some dozen tanks. And bogged down the assault. The fighters finished off the rest in the morning. 34 tanks were destroyed.

All it shows is that heavy tanks show up as very slow lumbering behemoths against a nimble and fast moving enemy. In fact Khetarpal with his tank Famagusta and his dedicated fellow soldiers knocked off 10 tanks with his not-state-of-the-art centurions. Think through it, Khetarpal if he would have gone within 200 mtrs of the M1 A1 tank (that is right into them), he would have created havoc! The M1A1 stand off distance is 200 mtrs!! In his battle, Khetarpal engaged the bakis at extreme close range (<100 mtrs).

In fact, in 1971 one can say that Indian Army tanks swam to liberate Bangladesh. Compared to behemoths like Patton, the PT-76 used would be ultra-flyweight categories (coming in only at @15 tonnes!). The Indian blietzkrieg was helicopters and floating tanks. https://medium.com/war-is-boring/indias-armored-cavalry-rolled-and-swam-into-bangladesh-90b3281b2099.

Not that the 50+ tonne battle tank has completely outlived., its need is still going to be there. Though it will not be the "Main" Battle tank. With mobile warfare, Rudras with Helinas and LCAs with guns and rockets can decimate any battle tank company in the open easily.

The very role of the tank is rightfully questioned. The tank warfare evolved over the plains of Europe and N. Africa and may not be replicable every where, particularly when faced with a very nimble adversary.

The T-14 armata is an entirely evolved concept. It is an automated cannon with minimal crew and extreme protection of crew. The cannon is a huge 125 mm and completely remotely controlled machine guns. Its main 'weapon' is "Afghanit" which protects it from incoming projectiles actively.

In effect a very modern 'medium' or even 'light' tank with <50 tonnes can be both mobile and effective and at the same time can be air transported as needed.

I think the next step for Arjun Mk III is to actually shed some weight., a redesign is in order with more automation. And there is nothing wrong to it, western nations have not introduced any new major tank design (the last one being the Leopard 2s/M1As).

IA already has T-90s and Arjun Mk2s. It can form a core for the next decade or two while IA transitions to more lighter tanks with less tank crew and more active protection.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6982
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Prasad » 04 Dec 2018 08:53

Dishaji,
Great points. Question is, will IA sit with DRDO and make one in quick time? Doubt cvrde will say bad things if they see such cooperation from the user with a guaranteed plan to buy x00 number of tanks in y years with a structured development plan.

nandakumar
BRFite
Posts: 828
Joined: 10 May 2010 13:37

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby nandakumar » 04 Dec 2018 11:52

ramana wrote:Do you think India will abide by Indus Water Treaty in such a war?
We will stop the flow of water as needed.

I think the IA needs to have second look at the Arjun requirement.

In 1965 the Centurions were bought at minimal buy (~185) with the hope that the Vickers tank will soon be made at Avadi. The first of them was rolled out in 1967 after the war.

The Armoured Corps generals thought that they will be like cavalry and riding on chargers and bought the light weight AMX-13. While Pak was getting Pattons by the boatload. They got two Armored divisions worth.
After the war had to cancel the light tanks and buy more medium tanks. That is how T-55s entered the picture.
And these had to be up gunned with the L-7 105mm tank gun. And promptly sent to reserves.
T-55->>T-72->>T90
It was the bravery, innovation and ingenuity of the personnel that changed the tide in 1965 and yet myopia still persists.

I think the problem is the British training that still persists.

I am not sure that India is in a position to stop water from the West flowing rivers. Other than Kishanganga we don't have any structure for stopping the flow of water in those river. Even today on the East flowing rivers it has been officially conceded that about 6% of the water still flows into Pakistan.

aditp
BRFite
Posts: 435
Joined: 15 Jul 2008 07:25
Location: Autoland

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby aditp » 05 Dec 2018 00:44

Gurus, below is a screenshot from of the title song taken from a 1980s TV serial by legendary war movie director Chetan Anand called Param Vir Chakra. Do I see an early rpototype of the Arjun here. It seems the DRDO logo/crest is painted on the left fender of the tank.

Image

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50763
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby ramana » 05 Dec 2018 02:04

Disha Good points.
Prasad, CVRDE has some next generation tank concept papers in Def Sci. Journal.

VKumar
BRFite
Posts: 444
Joined: 15 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Mumbai,India

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby VKumar » 06 Dec 2018 03:29

disha wrote:I do not think it is...

Tanks now have active and passive defense against missiles and other projectiles. Armor too has become sophisticated and better.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5993
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Rakesh » 06 Dec 2018 03:32

^^^^ Please do not quote an entire post, to only put in a one-liner. I have edited your post. Thank You.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2668
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby kit » 06 Dec 2018 04:01

One needs to think about unmanned tank "swarms" quite like drones to be the future of mechanised warfare..even the amratas are built with future unmanned options in mind

VKumar
BRFite
Posts: 444
Joined: 15 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Mumbai,India

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby VKumar » 06 Dec 2018 20:43

Rakesh wrote:^^^^ Please do not quote an entire post, to only put in a one-liner. I have edited your post. Thank You.


Apologies.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5993
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Rakesh » 06 Dec 2018 21:17

No apologies necessary Saar.

And Disha, very nice post.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19640
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Philip » 06 Dec 2018 22:29

Said before.Like the Europeans have done with the Le Clerc and Leopard,mate the proven upgraded T-90 turret with the Arjun-2's chassis. You get a much lighter tank with better speed , range, 3- man crew etc. A cost-effective solution.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15742
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 06 Dec 2018 22:55

Are you for real to propose such an absurd solution? The T-90s ammo hoist system is completely exposed and would take a ton of effort to integrate into the Arjun hull and completely negate the Arjuns crew protection advantage. And how is the T-90 turret proven? The Army is currently shopping for solutions to upgrade it.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: anupamd and 38 guests