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

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.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14585
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 14 Nov 2017 13:53

Gagan wrote:KaranM
I don't need to go to Arms Fair to look at DRDO products !!!
Thank you very much


Its an easily implementable suggestion, no need to take needless umbrage. Defexpo and Aero India come to.mind, At these places alone, if you had seen these systems, you wouldn't be having those questions about fit and finish etc. The average services unit will not have the breadth of the entire product range either for their displays, let alone visits to a single manufacturer. It is only at these fairs the public can move between a BEL assembled Akash to a TATA Pinaka to an OFB made rocket and correlate with all reports of product efficiency.

Anyone who has seen these products up close would know the huge difference between an OFB made Arjun and an ECIL made unit for instance! That is the real issue in the existing structure IMO.
Last edited by ramana on 30 Nov 2017 23:37, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: ramana

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14585
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 14 Nov 2017 13:56

Gagan wrote:If ISRO can have the Antrix, why can't DRDO have a similar marketer hain ji?


DRDO intends to use Brahmos as its export agency for commercial deals beyond just the Brahmos missile.

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1726
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby chola » 14 Nov 2017 15:41

JayS wrote:
abhijitm wrote:I have a radical solution for this domestic vs foreign maal.

Create a customer. Create independent air force and army units with their own command structure and tasked to use only and only domestic products. no choice. Start will 1 squadron and 1 corps under one integrated command.. call it like Commander In Chief something. Give them special benefits so that talented people want to join. Call them Republican Guards or something. Give control of certain domestic systems only to them like icbm and strategic command, navigation system, millitary satellite constellation etc. Make them special.


I have better solution. Pokharan-3. :lol: :lol:


Yeah, we must need some testing for our newest n-bum designs. lol

But only half kidding. The ideal situation is where we are not embargoed on technology per se but just from buying the fully assembled weapon systems.

This would force us the armed forces to accept our iwn products but allow us access to lathes, machine tools, subcomponents (which we can RE) etc. to build our own. Full-on embargos by the West like on Iran or Noko would make things harder.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 538
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby nam » 14 Nov 2017 15:57

From the looks of it, IA wants a 3 man, auto-loader version of Arjun.

If DRDO is imaginative, get the 1500 Europack( until Bharat pack is available), a version of autoloader from ATAGS, single piece ammo, smoothbore and put together a Arjun MK3.

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 987
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Thakur_B » 14 Nov 2017 18:12

nam wrote:From the looks of it, IA wants a 3 man, auto-loader version of Arjun.

If DRDO is imaginative, get the 1500 Europack( until Bharat pack is available), a version of autoloader from ATAGS, single piece ammo, smoothbore and put together a Arjun MK3.


Better still, integrate LeClerc autoloader with modifications.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 538
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby nam » 14 Nov 2017 18:20

One of the problems I do have with a DRDO kind of setup is that it is not a true "arms manufacturer". DRDO will not move a finger until they have a GSQR & funding approval from GoI.

If it was a company, they would have brought out a 3 man with auto-loader by now, instead of running circles on reducing weight on a MBT.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7528
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Pratyush » 14 Nov 2017 18:53

Why not DM just declaring a policy NO MORE IMPORTS

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5866
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby nachiket » 15 Nov 2017 02:54

nam wrote:One of the problems I do have with a DRDO kind of setup is that it is not a true "arms manufacturer". DRDO will not move a finger until they have a GSQR & funding approval from GoI.

If it was a company, they would have brought out a 3 man with auto-loader by now, instead of running circles on reducing weight on a MBT.

Where will they find funding for their pet projects? They have enough trouble getting funds sanctioned for projects that they already have requirements for.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14585
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 15 Nov 2017 03:05

^^ Exactly. DRDO has been censured in parliament for even having projects that were cancelled. CAG has rapped them on the knuckles for importing one excess LRU for the Tejas as a backup in case the primary one didn't work out. Our desi firms won't even invest in R&D, with three notable exceptions being Bharat Forge, L&T and TATA SED. Given this milieu, without GOI policy changes, expecting either DRDO or the private sector to commit to bluesky R&D or capex without any firm orders from MOD would be expecting the investors to be nuts.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48072
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby ramana » 15 Nov 2017 05:06

nam Only in fiction we have any Western company put up own money to build a weapon system hoping there will be buyers.
The stock market will kill them if they don't get the order.
Its not cheap to make weapon prototypes.

At most they will make a ppt chart deck and put up 1% of the cost to claim IP rights and then get govt funding.
Even then the dwgs belong to the govt.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10736
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Gagan » 15 Nov 2017 05:20

[Edited]
Last edited by ramana on 30 Nov 2017 23:39, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: ramana

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby abhik » 15 Nov 2017 08:18

Have people forgotten about the Abhay ICV that was developed over 10 years ago? Instead of inducting it we spent a decade to get screwdrivergiri FICV. If IA wanted a 45t tank then one could have been developed by now (10 years after Arjun mk1) went into production.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 538
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby nam » 15 Nov 2017 17:22

nachiket wrote:
nam wrote:One of the problems I do have with a DRDO kind of setup is that it is not a true "arms manufacturer". DRDO will not move a finger until they have a GSQR & funding approval from GoI.

If it was a company, they would have brought out a 3 man with auto-loader by now, instead of running circles on reducing weight on a MBT.

Where will they find funding for their pet projects? They have enough trouble getting funds sanctioned for projects that they already have requirements for.


Which is why I said this kind of a setup is problematic..

DRDO has been asked to take up the role of a arms manufacturer, without the required autonomy to do so..

This is where industry needs to set up to own a DRDO product and carry on Product support and iterations.

DRDO cannot do product iteration without approvals.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17795
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Philip » 16 Nov 2017 12:46

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ind ... 656686.cms
Armoured vehicles must operate on western and northern border: Army chief

PTI | Nov 15, 2017,
Army chief Bipin Rawat said that future warfare will be hybrid in nature and forces need to build the capability to deal with it
Rawat noted that the Army was looking at modernising its mechanised forces and there should be a timeline for it.
The Army is looking to introduce modern tanks and ICVs (Infantry Combat Vehicle) from 2025-2027.

NEW DELHI: With changing patterns in terrain, armoured vehicles like battle tanks must have the capacity and capability to operate on the western as well the northern border, Army chief Gen. Bipin Rawat said on Wednesday.
Future warfare will be hybrid in nature and forces need to build the capability to deal with it, Rawat said.
He was addressing the inaugural session of a seminar on 'Future Armoured Vehicles India 2017' here.
Some part of the Thar desert is hardening, the Army chief said. With the development of canals, barren land has turned green and population density has increased, posing challenges.
"With the canal systems evolving, we have to address the requirement of bridges and the manner in which these armoured fighting vehicles will negotiate them. That is why I say the battlefield will turn complex... the terrain will add to the complexities," Rawat said.
Whatever be the future, he added, armoured vehicles must have the capacity and capability to operate on the western as well the northern border.
"Therefore, whatever weapons we are going to introduce must be capable of interoperability on both the fronts," he said.
Rawat noted that the Army was looking at modernising its mechanised forces and there should be a timeline for it.


http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/f ... 460822.ece
Futuristic combat vehicle plan a game changer: Army
SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 15, 2017 21:45 IST

The Army has a requirement for more than 2,600 vehicles. File photo
They will replace the Russian T-72 tanks currently in use

The two ambitious projects to equip the Army with futuristic combat vehicles are a game changer for the Indian industry, a senior Army officer said on Wednesday.

“The Futuristic Infantry Combat vehicle (FICV) and Future Ready Combat Vehicle (FRCV) programmes are going to be the biggest game changers for the Indian defence industry ecosystem… Sometimes big ticket items take little more time but they do not fall. I am confident that very shortly you will hear the FICV going into the next level,” said Lt. Gen. AB Shivane, Director General Mechanized Forces while addressing a seminar on armoured vehicles organised by the Centre for Joint Warfare Studies.

The FICV is an ambitious effort to indigenously design and manufacture a futuristic infantry vehicle by the private industry by roping in foreign Original Equipment Manufacturers.

The Army has a requirement for more than 2,600 vehicles.

On the other hand, the FRCV is a tender for the procurement of futuristic tanks through the Strategic Partnership model. Last week, the Army had issued the Request For Information (RFI) for 1,771 tanks. Lt. Gen. Shivane said the FRCV would replace the Russian T-72 tanks presently in service.

Speaking at the seminar, Army Chief Gen. Bipin Rawat said the Army was passing through an important phase in equipment management.

Arjun tanks to continue

Rejecting reports that the FRCV programme would “scuttle” the indigenous Arjun tank, Lt. Gen. Shivane said the service had already inducted the Arjun Mk-1 tanks. :rotfl:


ET .Xcpts:
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 662525.cms
Army’s requirement of ‘theatre-wise’ tanks and vehicles could face development and logistical issues

Army’s requirement of ‘theatre-wise’ tanks and vehicles could face development and logistical issues
The fact that mechanised forces are key factors for victory in the battlefield, the army which is on the search for a future tank and an infantry combat vehicle, here today said it wants them to be operable in any front, including along the frontiers with China and Pakistan. But it does not want a “one size fits all” solution and instead seeks theatre-wise vehicle platforms.

Currently, the army primarily operates Russian T-72 and T-90 tanks in areas of Punjab, Rajasthan, Jammu, bordering Pakistan, besides T-72s in Ladakh and North Sikkim, bordering China. A section of the army says that the T-72s are not very effective in Ladakh, because they are heavy and create logistical nightmares in bringing them up to high altitude areas. They also cannot be brought down and so will “die” up there, hence the requirement of light tanks. There is a debate within the army on whether there is a requirement of such tanks for the northern border, sources explained.

“The counter-argument is that if tanks are already operating there then what is the need for light tanks. Also, by having theatre-wise tank platforms, the army will need variety of tank transporters, different training expertise, ammunition and most importantly the budget for it,” explained sources.

This is where the FRCV comes in, wherein its platform for the battle tank, can operate along the northern and western borders. Experts explain that if this main battle tank cannot operate at the high altitude areas of the northern borders, then its lighter version will. “But the question that remains is how would this be done. To create a light tank, one would have to shed weight of the main tank, which could include reducing its armour, having a lower calibre gun and so smaller ammunition,” said experts.

Meanwhile, there are also other indigenous tank projects for the army. Lt Gen AB Shivane, the army’s DG Mechanised Forces, at the seminar said that contrary to media reports, as the Arjun Mark 1 matures its Mark 2 version will be considered, provided it goes through trials. Sources explained that each Arjun Mark 1 tank which are in service with the army, weighs about 62 tons, much higher than the required medium class tank. This ensures that the tank cannot be driven over bridges along the borders, because the bridges cannot bear their weight. The Arjun Mark 2 weighs close to 68 tons. Its weight has to be reduced, said sources.

Meanwhile, there are also other indigenous tank projects for the army. Lt Gen AB Shivane, the army’s DG Mechanised Forces, at the seminar said that contrary to media reports, as the Arjun Mark 1 matures its Mark 2 version will be considered, provided it goes through trials. Sources explained that each Arjun Mark 1 tank which are in service with the army, weighs about 62 tons, much higher than the required medium class tank. This ensures that the tank cannot be driven over bridges along the borders, because the bridges cannot bear their weight. The Arjun Mark 2 weighs close to 68 tons. Its weight has to be reduced, said sources.

Sources also added that the FRCV is a replacement of the DRDO’s Future Main Battle Tank (FMBT) program. Top army officers said that the DRDO can participate with its FMBT design for the FRCV project. Although the project is under the Strategic Partnership model that focusses on developing the private sector, the DRDO will act as an Original Equipment Manufacturer and be in race with high class global tank manufacturers. The manufacturer, however, will be an Indian private firm.


Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17795
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Philip » 16 Nov 2017 13:14

The IA does not want to be left behind in the "Great Indian Defence Stakes"! Why should only the IAF and IN get new toys?

http://www.defencenews.in/article/India ... eal-444544
Indian Army sets ball rolling for biggest-ever Arms acquisition deal
Thursday, November 16, 2017
By: Business Standard

Army chief General Bipin Rawat and a battery of senior generals on Wednesday explained the details of India's biggest-ever weapons acquisition — the ongoing procurement of futuristic tanks and infantry combat vehicles (ICVs), estimated to be worth Rs 80,000-1,00,000 crore each. :idea:

Pakistan already feels threatened by India's vast tank strength. This includes three strike corps, each with hundreds of tanks and ICVs. In addition, eight-to-ten tank-heavy "battle groups", drawn from defensive corps, are poised to scythe through Pakistan in a "Cold Start" offensive. While tanks, with their heavy armour protection and huge guns spearhead an advance into enemy territory, tracked ICVs move close behind them, carrying infantrymen to occupy the captured area. The procurement explained by Rawat, which include new tanks and ICVs, would significantly enhance Pakistan's insecurity.

Justifying the build-up, Rawat said: "Tanks are expected to operate on the western front as well as the northern borders [with China]."

Three tracks ::

The generals told a defence industry gathering that the mechanised forces would be boosted on three parallel tracks. The first is the manufacture of 1,770 advanced, 50-tonne tanks — termed Future Ready Combat Vehicles (FRCVs) — under the "strategic partner" (SP) policy to replace the ageing T-72 fleet. For this, private Indian firms will bid in partnership with global "original equipment manufacturers" (OEMs) to set up a production line in India by 2025-27.

*(Man Utd. have a certain Juan Mata.Will the IA buy a certain Ar Mata too?) :rotfl:

Last Wednesday, the army floated a global "request for information" inviting global OEMs to outline what they would offer India. Simultaneously, the ministry is shortlisting Indian SPs that will bid in partnership with the chosen OEMs. "This process involves identifying a mature, in-service tank in the world, which can be tweaked to meet our requirements," said Lieutenant General M J S Kahlon, the army's planning chief.

While the FRCV will be a derivative of an in-service tank, the "future infantry combat vehicle" (FICV) will be a brand-new, futuristic system. It will be pursued under the "Make" procedure, with the defence ministry funding 90 per cent of the development cost, and the private firm paying 10 per cent. Six firms/consortia have submitted proposals for the FICV, and the MoD must select two. These will design competing FICV prototypes and build an estimated 2,600 of the winning design.
"The FICV and FRCV will be game changers for indigenous defence industry," said the mechanised forces chief, Lieutenant General Ashok Shivane.


Kahlon pointed out that this would be the first time indigenous production would take care of our armoured requirements. "So far, we bought all our armour on a government-to-government basis — from the west till late 1960s and from the Soviet Union and Russia since then."

That dependence forced the army to adapt its warfighting doctrines to platforms that had never been designed with India's tactical needs, geography and manpower in mind. "We bought what was available and adapted our doctrines onto that," rued Kahlon.

Since the FRCV and FICV projects are time-consuming projects, the army will simultaneously upgrade the existing T-72 tank fleet to remain battle-worthy till the new platforms are inducted. Shivane said T-72s would get more powerful engines, day- and night-vision thermal sights, and improved guns and ammunition.

"The chosen vendors would also take care of life cycle management of his equipment, with indigenous solutions coming from him. This would make good operational sense for us and good business sense for the vendors," said Shivane.

The FRCV is intended to carry out roles other than that of a tank. The RFI states it will be the base platform for a range of additional armoured vehicles, including self-propelled artillery and air defence guns, mine trawls, bridge-layer tanks (BLTS), armoured engineering vehicles, etc.

Looking beyond the heavy, tracked FICV, both Rawat and Kahlon raised the need for a wheeled infantry carrier that could move on roads, and in towns and cities, without damaging infrastructure. "Imagine infantry being able to travel in its own transport, with ballistic protection, wherever it needs to go… say all the way up to Leh," said Kahlon.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7528
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Pratyush » 16 Nov 2017 13:35

What makes indian army think that a 120/125 mm tank guns will remain relevant for the next 30 to 40 year's.

That they are asking for this weapon on FRCV. Why not ask for a 140 mm or 130 mm or 152 mm guns.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 538
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby nam » 16 Nov 2017 15:44

There is a comment from the reports that FRCV will be derivative of existing tank, which could mean either Arjun or T-Series! This saga will go on..

Overall, the army seems to be want the winner to support the entire life-cycle. This indicates they want to get rid on their dependency on OFB.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 949
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Manish_P » 16 Nov 2017 16:11

"So far, we bought all our armour on a government-to-government basis — from the west till late 1960s and from the Soviet Union and Russia since then."

That dependence forced the army to adapt its warfighting doctrines to platforms that had never been designed with India's tactical needs, geography and manpower in mind. "We bought what was available and adapted our doctrines onto that," rued Kahlon.


Thereby lies the roots of the vicious cycle we find ourselves in :(

Only made-for-India (ideally with made-in-India) can get us out of it.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3663
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby srai » 16 Nov 2017 17:24

Show me the money!

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3663
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby srai » 16 Nov 2017 17:26

Manish_P wrote:
"So far, we bought all our armour on a government-to-government basis — from the west till late 1960s and from the Soviet Union and Russia since then."

That dependence forced the army to adapt its warfighting doctrines to platforms that had never been designed with India's tactical needs, geography and manpower in mind. "We bought what was available and adapted our doctrines onto that," rued Kahlon.


Thereby lies the roots of the vicious cycle we find ourselves in :(

Only made-for-India (ideally with made-in-India) can get us out of it.

40 years of using T-series has institutionalized doctrines. No place for "Western" Arjun.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 949
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Manish_P » 16 Nov 2017 18:05

"We bought what was available" (and affordable) being done by the GOI of the time is understandable... and "adapted our doctrines onto that" being done by the military, is also perfectly understandable

We seem to have come some good way forward since those days, in terms of our economical, technical and political standings

Need to leverage that to step by step to break the vicious circle of dependency on outsiders.

Like Shiv ji has said in the LCA thread, we must resist the first and easy temptation to indulge in blame gaming and looking for a scapegoat. All it does is results in bad mouthing our own institutions (the developers and the users). And that too only on the basis of just some mainstream Media reports which seem to be mostly speculations or have vested agendas or clever diversions.

For remarks in TOIlet it might be expected, but here on BRF it is really sad when it happens.

Let facts and data do all the talking

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3663
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby srai » 16 Nov 2017 18:36

Philip wrote:The IA does not want to be left behind in the "Great Indian Defence Stakes"! Why should only the IAF and IN get new toys?

http://www.defencenews.in/article/India ... eal-444544
Indian Army sets ball rolling for biggest-ever Arms acquisition deal
Thursday, November 16, 2017
By: Business Standard

Army chief General Bipin Rawat and a battery of senior generals on Wednesday explained the details of India's biggest-ever weapons acquisition — the ongoing procurement of futuristic tanks and infantry combat vehicles (ICVs), estimated to be worth Rs 80,000-1,00,000 crore each. :idea:

...


When you add $8 billion Rafale deal plus the upcoming 110 SE MII and P-75I, etc and then including IA's own 155mm guns, AD, AAC and new Mountain Strike Corps, that comes out to be a lot. Where is the money?

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 949
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Manish_P » 16 Nov 2017 20:14

srai wrote:
When you add $8 billion Rafale deal plus the upcoming 110 SE MII and P-75I, etc and then including IA's own 155mm guns, AD, AAC and new Mountain Strike Corps, that comes out to be a lot. Where is the money?


Now that is a truly multi-billion dollar question (perhaps even a trillion dollar one :) )

I would have really loved to see a dedicated thread on BRF for our yearly defense budgets, prioritization, allocations, expenditure & forecasting.

It would be useful in giving an added dimension about the systems being discussed in the regular threads

Even if was updated/active once or twice a year, but there were knowledgeable contributors, like for instance those on the Demonetization & GST threads (in the economics forum), it would be really interesting & could give some real clues about our way ahead.

(If there is a thread, request to pls. direct me to it)

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1067
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby sudeepj » 16 Nov 2017 22:35

nam wrote:
sudeepj wrote:
You mean when the shrapnel from the APS grenades hit the missile, only the precursor charge will blow up and not the main charge? Pass on what you are smoking please.


You saying there is no shrapnel and blast in era?

You already have what I smoke.


When someone answers a question with another question, they are almost always bullshitting. You have no clue what you are talking about, and the extent of your ignorance is exceeded only by your arrogance. Carry on the bullshitting.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14585
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 17 Nov 2017 00:51

Sudeepj - kindly mind your language. You can express your disagreement more civilly, surely.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14585
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 17 Nov 2017 00:57

Meanwhile, back on topic.

Irony has gone for a toss:
http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 075_1.html

Exhibit A:

"This process involves identifying a mature, in-service tank in the world, which can be tweaked to meet our requirements," said Lieutenant General M J S Kahlon, the army's planning chief.

While the FRCV will be a derivative of an in-service tank, the "future infantry combat vehicle" (FICV) will be a brand-new, futuristic system.


..followed by:

Exhibit B:
Kahlon pointed out that this would be the first time indigenous production would take care of our armoured requirements. "So far, we bought all our armour on a government-to-government basis — from the west till late 1960s and from the Soviet Union and Russia since then."

That dependence forced the army to adapt its warfighting doctrines to platforms that had never been designed with India's tactical needs, geography and manpower in mind. "We bought what was available and adapted our doctrines onto that," rued Kahlon.


So can the good General please inform us which in-service mature tank in the world is NOT designed to the developing country's tactical needs, geography and manpower and can hence be easily tweaked into matching Indian needs and so forth.

This is again just another mess. IA's MRCA so to speak.
And ta dah!

the ongoing procurement of futuristic tanks and infantry combat vehicles (ICVs), estimated to be worth Rs 80,000-1,00,000 crore each.


And where will this Rs80,000 crore come from, the current economy which is struggling to meet the IA/IAF Revenue budget, let alone such grandiose capital expenditure ones? The same budget which is yet to meet IA restocking for ammunition.

An entire e-forest will disappear over RFI/RFP and then the Russians will offer the developed for India Armata.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14585
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Karan M » 17 Nov 2017 01:01

This is an Army the bulk of whose infantry dont have modern tactical gear. Whose C3I is yet to be modernized. Whose ammo reserves are yet to be built up. Whose current frontline tanks - the T-90 suffer from heat issues, poor ammunition, and overheating radiators, none of which have been resolved. They have an existing tank developed for their needs, which is "too heavy". With even that being said, how exactly will spending Rs80,000 crores somehow add punch to the IA as versus rectifying the glaring deficiencies above as a priority. Which would be far more fiscally supportable.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3663
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby srai » 17 Nov 2017 03:22

^^^

In the meantime they have wasted 10-years by not giving the go ahead to an indigenous FMBT R&D.

ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 833
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby ParGha » 19 Nov 2017 19:39

Lolz, hundreds of years from now archeologists will be able to find out all about Russian tanks by digging around the borders of an erstwhile Chinese civilization: T-34s in Manchuria, T-55s in East Turkestan, T-62s along the Amur River, T-72s in the Himalayas, and who knows where outdated T-90s and T-14s will go to be buried in static defense.

Vivek K
BRFite
Posts: 1781
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Vivek K » 20 Nov 2017 04:02

And Karan M - the mainstay of the fleet is the derelict T-72 some of which are modernized. The rest ...... less said the better.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17795
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Philip » 20 Nov 2017 16:03

During the CW era we were able to get MIGs and T Series MBTs from the Soviets at friendship prices.Remember that the West denied us many items like subs (UK) and the Soviets stepped in.We were thus able to have a good numerical superiority over Pak in most depts. to offset the supposed qualitative advantage it had being a CENTO member too.Pak was quickly supplied by Jordan,Turkey and others with weaponry when it waged war with India.It also was able to get large numbers of Chinese eqpt. which was the Chin. clones of Sov. milware.

The HF-24 was the first genuine weapon system made for Indian needs.I don't think that the designers of Arjun, which wasn't the IA, anticipated that Arjun would end up so heavy and overweight.Essentially heavily influenced by the German Leopard MBT, using a similar engine too, its dimensions increased commensurately.

With the experience of the last few decades, and challenges for the future,the next time round the IA must be in the design driving seat and freeze the dimensions and other requirements for the next gen. of AVs so that they cannot be rejected and operate in all terrains , either as a "jackass of all terrain", I simply can't see how one MBT can operate like the USMC's anthem , "from the hills and mountains of Himalaya, to the beaches of Andaman...!"

We will require a new MBT for the bulk of the IA's armour
and a light tank like the Sprut ( with ERA) that was also amphibious like the erstwhile PT-76 that served us so well in BDesh.Over to you IA and the CVRDE....

Vivek K
BRFite
Posts: 1781
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Vivek K » 20 Nov 2017 23:44

Philip wrote:During the CW era we were able to get MIGs and T Series MBTs from the Soviets at friendship prices.

One probably need to read up "friendship prices" and its impact on Indian industry in the 90s to really understand the depth of thefriendship. There was a factor of the price that was publicly known and some that wasn't. Later, a fund was created to be used by Russian Industries in the 90s as complete payment. These friendship prices played havoc with Indian industry.

Remember that the West denied us many items like subs (UK) and the Soviets stepped in.

Remember that Nations do not have friends - only interests and these change over time. If one remains locked in forever....! Also remember that Russian Aviation Industry was in a state of collapse in the 90s when India helped sustain them with 1) 100% advance payment of approx. $2 billion (about 5300 crores) without seeing anything in return for almost a decade; 2) Purchase of the crappy Mig-29Ks that are hangar queens today and IN is floating an RFI for 57 aircraft (which will cost at least $10 billion).

So before we tom-tom russi-desi bhai bhai, let us look at history in the correct perspective - not a biased one.

The HF-24 was the first genuine weapon system made for Indian needs.

So why was the HF-24 just "thrown away" when the Mig-21 is still flying 50 years since introduction? Both aircraft probably entered squadron service in the IAF at about the same time. For all its faults, the IAF would have been better off sticking with the HF-24. Supply disruptions in the Mig-21 lead to death of several pilots in peacetime.

Of course there also was the Vijayanta - IA should have continued its serial development instead of sending Indian jobs overseas.

I don't think that the designers of Arjun, which wasn't the IA, anticipated that Arjun would end up so heavy and overweight.Essentially heavily influenced by the German Leopard MBT, using a similar engine too, its dimensions increased commensurately.

Are you an engineer? If you spec the Leopard, can you avoid the weight?

We will require a new MBT for the bulk of the IA's armour

Totally a waste of taxpayer money for the DRDO to design anything for the IA.

Katare
BRFite
Posts: 1889
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Katare » 21 Nov 2017 02:22

FRCV and FICV are so ambitious and lucrative that they will never be successful. IA need to go to DRDO and ask it make them a tank and this time don't ask them to make 4 man crew tank expect it to weigh as much as a three man crew tank.

Arjun Mk1 was over weight so IA wanted to add more armor, mine plough and 80 other crap on it and now they are surprised that it has gained 8 tons. There is a limit to any BS, such a waste of national resources - send DRDO on a mk2 goose chase every time it makes a mk1 product.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48072
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby ramana » 21 Nov 2017 02:53

Its called "Bring me a rock!" approach.

So you go and get a rock.
They will say not that another one.

You get the picture.

Since 1971 they have not fought a real war.

Its all CI or border clashes.
So they can afford the tom foolery.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17795
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Philip » 21 Nov 2017 13:25

Where was Indian industry prepared to design and build modern fighters during the CW? We could not do so with an engine,and the generally subsonic underpowered HF-24 was outclassed by the Mach 2.0 MIG-21. The MIG-21 local manufacturing helped create a running aircraft industry and with time,we managed to improve the basic avatars finally into the Bison which performed v.well against the US's latest fighters when the first exercises began.Take tanks.The Vijayanta was the Vickers light tank. The Arjun programme,which began 30+ years ago,still uses a German engine.Why couldn't an Indian firm been asked to develop the same? We were lucky that the Soviets stepped in and supplied us with their mil. hardware,otherwise the wars of '65 and '71 would've had different endings.WE were able to acquire weapon systems both in large number at low cost. No missile boats,no raid on Karachi and the MIGs that blew away the PAF both in the east and west. Even at Kargil,the PAF's F-16s fled when IAF MIG-29s locked on to them,as they well knew of its superiority to the F-16 from NATO reports/intel after examining E.German MIGs.

It's becoming v.convenient in some quarters to try and rewrite history ,at a time when Pak was supported to the hilt by the US and West (Nixon's rantings and ravings against India),when Nixon sent the Enterprise into the Bay of Bengal,only o be warned by the Sovs. that their N-subs would have to act of the IN was attacked.We were denied western mil eqpt. esp. at a time when our industrial base was much lower than it is today. Remember that the LCA prorgamme was from the outset depending principally on western aircraft OEMs.The FBW system was our indigenous development and when sanctions were imposed,the US quarantined it as we had sent it for testing to the US at the time. Even today,the progress that we're making in building N-subs,BMos and other cutting edge programmes, are due to Russian assistance,with nothing comparable from any western country barring barak-8!

Rishi_Tri
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 79
Joined: 13 Feb 2017 14:49

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Rishi_Tri » 22 Nov 2017 03:39

Karan M wrote:Meanwhile, back on topic.

the ongoing procurement of futuristic tanks and infantry combat vehicles (ICVs), estimated to be worth Rs 80,000-1,00,000 crore each.


And where will this Rs80,000 crore come from, the current economy which is struggling to meet the IA/IAF Revenue budget, let alone such grandiose capital expenditure ones? The same budget which is yet to meet IA restocking for ammunition.

An entire e-forest will disappear over RFI/RFP and then the Russians will offer the developed for India Armata.


Funds are not a challenge. Where do we think the 220,000 crores for Bank Recapitalization came from? Where did the 60,000 crore for infra came from? What about 4000 crores for building bridges and roads in Bihar? None of these were part of budgetary proposals. Mix of Financial Rethink and Political will.

Just a few comments - 10k allocated to Startup India is lying unused, more than 10k allocated to Smart Cities is floating in air, don't like him but Ajai Shukla showed that more than 10k was surrendered in Defense budget, cess collected could again be lying around. That's almost 40k at the drop of a hat. Add to that the BDL, OFB etc. dividends paid to GOI.

HAL is coming up with IPO, OFB could also be IPOed, and then something like a Defence Holding company carrying shares of BDL, Brahmos Corp, Antrix Corp etc. could be offered.

Excess cash lying with banks due to demonetization.

Last but not the least .. All the money saved in Food Subsidy, Fertilizer Subsidy, Petroleum Subsidy, through Direct Benefit Transfer, Gas Connections that People have given up, Petroleum products that have been linked to market etc.

This government is flush with money. All about where it wants to spend.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48072
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby ramana » 22 Nov 2017 04:21

Philip wrote:Where was Indian industry prepared to design and build modern fighters during the CW? We could not do so with an engine,and the generally subsonic underpowered HF-24 was outclassed by the Mach 2.0 MIG-21. The MIG-21 local manufacturing helped create a running aircraft industry and with time,we managed to improve the basic avatars finally into the Bison which performed v.well against the US's latest fighters when the first exercises began.Take tanks.The Vijayanta was the Vickers light tank. The Arjun programme,which began 30+ years ago,still uses a German engine.Why couldn't an Indian firm been asked to develop the same? We were lucky that the Soviets stepped in and supplied us with their mil. hardware,otherwise the wars of '65 and '71 would've had different endings.WE were able to acquire weapon systems both in large number at low cost. No missile boats,no raid on Karachi and the MIGs that blew away the PAF both in the east and west. Even at Kargil,the PAF's F-16s fled when IAF MIG-29s locked on to them,as they well knew of its superiority to the F-16 from NATO reports/intel after examining E.German MIGs.

It's becoming v.convenient in some quarters to try and rewrite history ,at a time when Pak was supported to the hilt by the US and West (Nixon's rantings and ravings against India),when Nixon sent the Enterprise into the Bay of Bengal,only o be warned by the Sovs. that their N-subs would have to act of the IN was attacked.We were denied western mil eqpt. esp. at a time when our industrial base was much lower than it is today. Remember that the LCA prorgamme was from the outset depending principally on western aircraft OEMs.The FBW system was our indigenous development and when sanctions were imposed,the US quarantined it as we had sent it for testing to the US at the time. Even today,the progress that we're making in building N-subs,BMos and other cutting edge programmes, are due to Russian assistance,with nothing comparable from any western country barring barak-8!



Come on now. 1965 Indian forces were equipped with Uk equipment. It was 1971 war that had the FSU equipment. In 1980s India paid for the tech transfer for the Mirage 2000 as part of the initial payment and then FSU stepped in with the Mig 29 offer and people jumped at the low price. We lost money and got crap planes with 700-hour engine life.

Also the decision makers were penny wise and pound foolish as they refused to pay (<$10M) Bristol for the new higher engine for the HF-24 and preferred to kill the program and the aircraft design expertise built up for petty foreign junkets from Jaguar and Soviets. And bribes for the politicians.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3663
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby srai » 22 Nov 2017 04:29


shaun
BRFite
Posts: 858
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby shaun » 22 Nov 2017 05:18

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
srai wrote:^^^
MiG-29s were bartered for bananas.



Picklu
BRFite
Posts: 1612
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Picklu » 22 Nov 2017 05:43

Folks, MBT thread?

In other news, it is confirmed now. IA trial team forced Arjun to run 1000s of KM in reverse gear to cause failure of the engine and used the same to reject.

and we thought it is the paki tanks that need only reverse gear.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aditya_V, chola, uskumar and 39 guests