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.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5577
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Rakesh » 23 Mar 2018 07:49

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/973535488710672384 ---> Fancy foreign equipment on a military order of battle, does not a strong army make. Why do you think the Chinese indigenized? They can actually buy a lot of stuff from abroad if they want to, international rhetoric notwithstanding. But they don't buy weapons, they buy companies.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1437
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Manish_P » 23 Mar 2018 12:29

Rakesh wrote:
Rakesh wrote:"medium weight (45-50 ton) platform required to operate across developed / semi desert/desert terrain and in high altitude areas across the entire spectrum of conflict...."

The above is the FRCV specifications. Can someone post a link (from an official websiste) if there is one? Below is the *WEIGHT* of just two of the tanks in consideration. Does anyone know of the other competitors?

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

K2 Black Panther: 55 tons ---> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K2_Black_Panther

Tauba, Tauba....ab kya karenge? Both are overweight! Armata by nearly 3 tons and K2 by 5 tons. They do not meet GSQR specifications on weight. I hope the specifications that were upheld to the most *STRINGENT* standards for the Arjun, is applied to the foreign FRCV platform as well by the MoD. One can only wish the Babu crosses all the Ts and dots all the Is.

So if this eliminates these two and there is just one vendor left, will that not make it a single vendor situation?


Except, Saar, it does not.

The official specs call for the FRCV to be of the weight category 50 Tons + 0r - 15% ... so between 42.5 Tons to 57.5 Tons

Source - RFI FRCV 08 Nov 2017
(Page 11)

PS: Saar, you will also need to consider that India being closer to the equator, and further away from the core of the earth, a T-14 Armata will weigh lesser here than it will in Russia... and then if you take it to the himalayan heights, it will practically be a light tank :mrgreen:

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3396
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 23 Mar 2018 12:33

^^ What GOI should have done, is what MP did in case of LCA. Cut the Gordian knot. Bring IA, DRDO and Industry on same table, tell them in no uncertain terms that anything new from now onwards had to be Indian design, no imports will be made. Let them figure out how to make it happen. Only ensure speedy proceedings and full support in terms of funds, rules and regulations et al. Cut the losses by closing Arjun and focusing completely on FMBT, if needed. Sometimes its necessary to beat the kids for their own good. But of coarse I have no hopes of this happening. :-)

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19532
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Philip » 23 Mar 2018 13:30

So do I.The problem is one,the main ingredient for all 3 services, lack of desi "engines".

Since the inception of BRF I've been asking why we haven't set up a dedicate aero-engine (at least) design and dev. centre for all types of aero-engines,both rotary and fixed wing.The GTRE has in all its years failed to produc even ONE miserable Kaveri engine! They BS'd APJAK way back in 2003 that in "3 months time" they would have it ready.It should be closed down as it is nothing more than a parasitic DRDO entity which has cost the nation thousands of crores producing a big "0". It's replacement should be a brand new entity with a greater vision and headed by a man of action with powers of "hire and fire" demanding results on time and within budget.Would any private sector entity allow such a fiasco to go on and on for decades without any results?

Second point.Much of the exotic tech that is part of the reqs. is unavailable in India.For us to develop it will take inordinate time given our track record. If I remember the prev. reqs. given to the DRDO by the IA not too long ago,the answer came back point blank."It can't be done" (in such a low weight). Well that speaks for itself.

The fastest way in which to achieve success with a programme is in my opinion,a JV for the current time.BMos the prime example.We have now in time even developed our own seeker,a laudable achievement.But had we tried to develop the engine,we would be still at the starting blocks most likely.WE have used Ru help for the ATV programme too to give it the much needed infusion of Ru N-sub tech when we failed to deliver on our won.It's running smoothly and in time we will be reducing the firang input steadily.

There are elements of the FRCV that we perhaps have mastered,like the Kanchan armour-no idea of its weight in comparison to what's on the Armata,hydro-pneumo suspension,a main gun-we've shown that we can make 155mm howitzer barrels,auto anti-air MG,etc.There are some sensors and tank defensive eqpt. that we need to develop or obtain apart from the main engine.But here,we've some experience with engines being made under licence by our own OEMs like Kirloskar,etc. One is sure given our logn experience in operating T-series MBTs, that a JV with UVZ say on the BMos model will be able to provide us with an FRCV not necessarily the Armata design per se,but an MBT that benefits from whatever tech is relevant for our reqs, a hybrid design perhaps,with Indian designers in at the beginning of the programme unlike what's happened with the FGFA.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6800
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 23 Mar 2018 13:39

Who will design and build 1400 hp engines for a grand total of 124 orders?

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3396
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby JayS » 23 Mar 2018 15:00

Philip wrote:So do I.The problem is one,the main ingredient for all 3 services, lack of desi "engines".

Since the inception of BRF I've been asking why we haven't set up a dedicate aero-engine (at least) design and dev. centre for all types of aero-engines,both rotary and fixed wing.The GTRE has in all its years failed to produc even ONE miserable Kaveri engine! They BS'd APJAK way back in 2003 that in "3 months time" they would have it ready.It should be closed down as it is nothing more than a parasitic DRDO entity which has cost the nation thousands of crores producing a big "0". It's replacement should be a brand new entity with a greater vision and headed by a man of action with powers of "hire and fire" demanding results on time and within budget.Would any private sector entity allow such a fiasco to go on and on for decades without any results?

Second point.Much of the exotic tech that is part of the reqs. is unavailable in India.For us to develop it will take inordinate time given our track record. If I remember the prev. reqs. given to the DRDO by the IA not too long ago,the answer came back point blank."It can't be done" (in such a low weight). Well that speaks for itself.

The fastest way in which to achieve success with a programme is in my opinion,a JV for the current time.BMos the prime example.We have now in time even developed our own seeker,a laudable achievement.But had we tried to develop the engine,we would be still at the starting blocks most likely.WE have used Ru help for the ATV programme too to give it the much needed infusion of Ru N-sub tech when we failed to deliver on our won.It's running smoothly and in time we will be reducing the firang input steadily.

There are elements of the FRCV that we perhaps have mastered,like the Kanchan armour-no idea of its weight in comparison to what's on the Armata,hydro-pneumo suspension,a main gun-we've shown that we can make 155mm howitzer barrels,auto anti-air MG,etc.There are some sensors and tank defensive eqpt. that we need to develop or obtain apart from the main engine.But here,we've some experience with engines being made under licence by our own OEMs like Kirloskar,etc. One is sure given our logn experience in operating T-series MBTs, that a JV with UVZ say on the BMos model will be able to provide us with an FRCV not necessarily the Armata design per se,but an MBT that benefits from whatever tech is relevant for our reqs, a hybrid design perhaps,with Indian designers in at the beginning of the programme unlike what's happened with the FGFA.

Ifs very difficult to take a post like that with any seriousness.

Will
BRFite
Posts: 609
Joined: 28 Apr 2011 11:27

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Will » 23 Mar 2018 18:50

Philip wrote:So do I.The problem is one,the main ingredient for all 3 services, lack of desi "engines".

Since the inception of BRF I've been asking why we haven't set up a dedicate aero-engine (at least) design and dev. centre for all types of aero-engines,both rotary and fixed wing.The GTRE has in all its years failed to produc even ONE miserable Kaveri engine! They BS'd APJAK way back in 2003 that in "3 months time" they would have it ready.It should be closed down as it is nothing more than a parasitic DRDO entity which has cost the nation thousands of crores producing a big "0". It's replacement should be a brand new entity with a greater vision and headed by a man of action with powers of "hire and fire" demanding results on time and within budget.Would any private sector entity allow such a fiasco to go on and on for decades without any results?


Having being saying this for a few years now. What we need is a national engine program on the lines of the IGMDP. It is majorly due to the IGMDP that today India is almost on the verge of being self sufficient in missile technology. It took 3 decades no doubt, but it bore results. A start has to be made somewhere. Leaving everything to GTRE with haphazard funding and no proper goals in mind , isn't going to get us anywhere.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7817
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Pratyush » 23 Mar 2018 19:46

Indranil wrote:Who will design and build 1400 hp engines for a grand total of 124 orders?



If the domestic commercial vehicles industry is self sufficient. They the number of engines dosent matter. As the truck engine makers can manage to build the specific engine for specific application. Along with transmission. But Indian commercial vehicles industry is not yet at that level.

We are at the infancy of commercial vehicles engine transmission design.

Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6800
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Indranil » 23 Mar 2018 22:16

The largest truck engines built in India are of the order of 700 hp.

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

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby srai » 24 Mar 2018 01:54

Indranil wrote:3. The Arjun is too heavy or not? If not, why no orders yet!

Weight is just an excuse. Arjun Mk.1 weights 58t. Old MLC-60 bridging equipment can support it fine. All new DRDO bridging equipment for the last 20-years have been rated as MLC-70.

A while ago in one of those panel discussions, there were 3 ex-IA armor brigadiers debating on tanks. All three agreed that the Arjun is a great tank but had different opinions on size and weight of FMBT. There was no agreement on what a FMBT should be.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5577
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Rakesh » 24 Mar 2018 02:10

Well they have come out with FRCV now. So it is pretty clear what they want and reportedly even decided on four competing platforms —> T-84 Oplot, T-14 Armata, AMX Leclerc and K2 Black Panther.

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

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby srai » 24 Mar 2018 02:56

^^^
I would recommend viewing that panel discussion. I think it’s on YouTube somewhere.

Basically, it leaves an impression that not all IA armor people agree on the light-medium weight concept for an MBT. I think that’s why you see requirements mixed up between heavy and “medium”.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5577
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Rakesh » 24 Mar 2018 03:58

Manish_P wrote:Except, Saar, it does not.

The official specs call for the FRCV to be of the weight category 50 Tons + 0r - 15% ... so between 42.5 Tons to 57.5 Tons

Source - RFI FRCV 08 Nov 2017
(Page 11)

PS: Saar, you will also need to consider that India being closer to the equator, and further away from the core of the earth, a T-14 Armata will weigh lesser here than it will in Russia... and then if you take it to the himalayan heights, it will practically be a light tank :mrgreen:

Thank you for the link Manish Saar. Got reading to do :) But for now...

50 tons ± 15% represents 42.5 tons at the low end and 57.5 tons at the high end.

T-14 Armata: 48 tonnes (or 52.91 tons) ---> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-14_Armata
Each tank costs US $3.7 million in the wiki link

K2 Black Panther: 55 tons ---> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K2_Black_Panther
Each tank costs US $8.5 million in the wiki link

T-84 Oplot: 48 tonnes (or 50.71 tons) ---> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-84
Cost Unknown. Also being tested by the Pakistan Armoured Corps as well.

AMX Leclerc Series XXI: 57.4 tonnes (or 63.27 tons) ---> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMX_Leclerc
Each tank costs US $4+ million in the wiki link

Arjun Mk1: 64.5 tons ---> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arjun_(tank)
Arjun Mk2: 75 tons ---> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arjun_(tank)
Each tank costs US $8.6 million in the wiki link

Q. Why is the Leclerc *EVEN* being considered in the FRCV competition? Even at the high end of 57.5 tons, the Leclerc is almost 6 tons overweight. Is this not a violation of the GSQR?

Q. Why is the K2 Black Panther *EVEN* being considered in the FRCV competition? The argument put forth is that the Arjun is too expensive. How is the K2 Black Panther any cheaper?

- That leaves T-14 Armata and T-84 Oplot. The latter recently underwent field trials in Pakistan. Just sayin' :) I think we all know which tank is going to win this :) I cannot wait for ToT for the Armata to come. T-90 redux all over again.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5577
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Rakesh » 24 Mar 2018 04:01

srai wrote:^^^
I would recommend viewing that panel discussion. I think it’s on YouTube somewhere.

Basically, it leaves an impression that not all IA armor people agree on the light-medium weight concept for an MBT. I think that’s why you see requirements mixed up between heavy and “medium”.

Hmm....where have I heard this heavy-medium-light concept before? :)

Like I said in the previous page of this thread. The Army wants a medium tank. Okay, then give it to them. They do not want the Arjun Mk2? Okay, that is also fine. But let CVRDE develop a medium tank and give it to the Army for testing? Why do we need to purchase a foreign tank for this?

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

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby srai » 24 Mar 2018 10:31

^^^
Last I heard, the IA wants a foreign company to help it come up with specs. Then design of the FRCV tank will be auctioned off (foreign) and after that they will float a tender for companies that want to build it. The approach being taken is first of its kind.

In the meanwhile, a decade+ has gone by coming up with FMBT/FRCV RFI while Arjun Mk.1/2 remain out of production. The IA somehow thinks they will get this new tank by 2025.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19532
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Philip » 24 Mar 2018 11:31

Ar..ma..ta, tan..tan..tara!
It looks like the IA had decided what it wants and we are going through the customary rigmarole before its choice is "selected".
May as well go straight for a G- to- G deal in a JV like BMos! Saves much time and energy.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7817
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Pratyush » 24 Mar 2018 13:13

Indranil wrote:The largest truck engines built in India are of the order of 700 hp.



I don't think that the maker has the IP for the engine. I am talking of having the capacity to design and build the engine. Once that is in place the number of engine's to be built is irrelevant. You will small production runs but specific applications.

Currently this ability is in infancy. Ashok Leyland has one CV engine family along with transmission. But that is not enough. We need all major players to have similar capacity and military vehicles power plant issues can be solved.

For eg a large mine excavator or a crane could need a 1500+ HP engine. The transmission system will be different but the engine can remain the same.

If you see where I am going with this.

nandakumar
BRFite
Posts: 801
Joined: 10 May 2010 13:37

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby nandakumar » 24 Mar 2018 14:08

Was looking at the specs for large Tata Hitachi excavators used in mining. Their biggest excavators use Cummins engines of 1940 hp capacity. Cummins India claims they manufacture that and higher rated engines (2,400 hp). Not sure about the level of indgenisation or whether they would be allowed by US Govt to sell engines for defence applications.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5577
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Rakesh » 24 Mar 2018 18:05

srai wrote:Last I heard, the IA wants a foreign company to help it come up with specs. Then design of the FRCV tank will be auctioned off (foreign) and after that they will float a tender for companies that want to build it. The approach being taken is first of its kind.

In the meanwhile, a decade+ has gone by coming up with FMBT/FRCV RFI while Arjun Mk.1/2 remain out of production. The IA somehow thinks they will get this new tank by 2025.

Okay the translation of that is screwdrivergiri of T-14 Armata. But my question still stands ---> Why can CVRDE not develop a medium tank and give it to the Army for testing? Why do we need to purchase a foreign tank for this?

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1212
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby nam » 24 Mar 2018 18:48

This is where I say the biggest culprit in the Arjun saga is MoD.

MoD needs to tell IA, it has decided to ask DRDO to start designing the FMBT. Ask IA to plan a program office, test and induction program. What will IA do? Say no?

Once MoD publicly declares intention and plans for funding, no bridges or torsion bar will come in the way.

Bart S
BRFite
Posts: 1259
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:03

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Bart S » 24 Mar 2018 19:07

nandakumar wrote:Was looking at the specs for large Tata Hitachi excavators used in mining. Their biggest excavators use Cummins engines of 1940 hp capacity. Cummins India claims they manufacture that and higher rated engines (2,400 hp). Not sure about the level of indgenisation or whether they would be allowed by US Govt to sell engines for defence applications.


Those engines would not fit in a tank. Different application altogether.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17279
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby chetak » 24 Mar 2018 19:17

Bart S wrote:
nandakumar wrote:Was looking at the specs for large Tata Hitachi excavators used in mining. Their biggest excavators use Cummins engines of 1940 hp capacity. Cummins India claims they manufacture that and higher rated engines (2,400 hp). Not sure about the level of indgenisation or whether they would be allowed by US Govt to sell engines for defence applications.


Those engines would not fit in a tank. Different application altogether.


Most importantly, very different size, profile, reliability and vitally, the power to weight ratios.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19532
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Philip » 24 Mar 2018 19:33

I doubt that the Armata will come in as low as just $3.7M.
In my checking on prices of T-90s ordered for the IA in batches, the last lot just a few years ago was around $4+M, but still cheaper by far than the fig. given for Arjun.I would put the Arm. at around $5+M a pop at least given its extra bells and whistles not seen on the T-90.Made in India it could even be more.

The problem that the IA and other two services is facing, is cost-effective replacement of block obsolescence of weapon systems like MIG-21s, T-72s,minesweepers,etc. Here the IN is the least affected thanks to judicious desi design and construction despite the sub crisis, when compared with the IAF. We were very lucky to be able to field licence built MIGs in their hundreds, giving us a large numerical superiority over Pak. especially in '71.Today the replacement of these legacy types one-for-one is costing us tens of billions each!

1500 new MBTs at say $5B a pop with support systems et al to replace our T-72s in the future should be between $7.5 to $10B.The IA's goal is of fielding 4500 MBTs.Then there's the huge arty req., basic infantry weapon, new infantry combat kit,ATGMs, other AVs, SR SAMs, attack helos, the list goes on.With the steadily shrinking defence budget this is going to be an impossibility.

vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2910
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby vera_k » 24 Mar 2018 21:33

When self driving cars are around the corner, shouldn't a future tank also be able to operate by itself? Maybe have 1 operator at most. This spec for a human crewed tank seems outdated at the outset :!:

nandakumar
BRFite
Posts: 801
Joined: 10 May 2010 13:37

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby nandakumar » 24 Mar 2018 21:55

I am an absolute newbie in matters of defence technology. So please bear with me. I understand that engine has to high power to weight ratio. That it also implies a certain degree of miniaturization, is granted. But it seems to me that that an armoured vehicle's performance characteristics and the engine required to delivered it are a two way street. It can't be that one set of engineers say we have figured how the tank should look like with all the protective armour and so on, and tell engine designers, 'Now you go and design an engine of required horse power that would fit into a cubbyhole'. Cummins India is a listed company with long years of operations in India. So Indian technical expertise with extra large capacity engines does exist. So the notion that we Indians are incapable of designing large horse pwer rated engines seems a little incongrous to me. Forty years ago when India was still in the sub 100 hp engines for 7.5 tonnes trucks Tata Motors introduced 160 hp turbo charged engines with local know how.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19532
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Philip » 24 Mar 2018 22:14

Vera, you are on the upward curve! The Armata's designers talk of an unmanned tank, but given the flaws in the driverless cars right now, a very long way from perfection.However I forsee a two-man MBT with heavy automation arriving as the next improvement.

Why can't the desi FRCV be a 2- man/woman MBT? If a sophisticated 5th-gen aircraft can be controlled by just one pilot using glass cockpits, so too can the same tech be used for an MBT.In fact either crewman could be the driver just like a twin-pilot trainer version of a fighter.This could reduce driver fatigue on the battlefield.There could be an extra seat for a crewman with some limited duties , but not essential.It could be used for evacuating a soldier, whatever.Alternatively, the extra space , or even clever designing could incorporate a built-in mini-fridge/ food cabinet/ coffee-chai maker/ mini micro-oven etc. in a single vertical fitted cabinet to make the crew capsule more habitable and comfortable.Reclining seats with massage facilities (optional) like biz-class flatbeds for the crew to sleep in ergonomic comfort and peacefully.I wouldn't go so far as to suggest a loo too, that would be excessive.Two good old bedpans will suffice!

Gents, these are serious suggestions.A 2- crew MBT could knock off a few more tons allowing additional eqpt. plus crew comforts making fighting on the battlefield in a superior environment.Imagine KO'ing a Paki "Chin-can" by voice command in-between sipping an exquisitely chilled "rooh afza" in the desert!

PS: I know that many Rakshaks would prefer a rum and coke instead, but coke is a harmful substance not XXX Hercules rum! I suggest a Havana Zombie cocktail instead (rums and lime juice in brief) which would necessitate a bar shelf to the mini- fridge containing a cocktail shaker! Like Bond, our tankers could have their martinis "shaken not stirred"!

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2199
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Katare » 25 Mar 2018 02:22

Philip wrote:I doubt that the Armata will come in as low as just $3.7M.
In my checking on prices of T-90s ordered for the IA in batches, the last lot just a few years ago was around $4+M, but still cheaper by far than the fig. given for Arjun.I would put the Arm. at around $5+M a pop at least given its extra bells and whistles not seen on the T-90.Made in India it could even be more.

The problem that the IA and other two services is facing, is cost-effective replacement of block obsolescence of weapon systems like MIG-21s, T-72s,minesweepers,etc. Here the IN is the least affected thanks to judicious desi design and construction despite the sub crisis, when compared with the IAF. We were very lucky to be able to field licence built MIGs in their hundreds, giving us a large numerical superiority over Pak. especially in '71.Today the replacement of these legacy types one-for-one is costing us tens of billions each!

1500 new MBTs at say $5B a pop with support systems et al to replace our T-72s in the future should be between $7.5 to $10B.The IA's goal is of fielding 4500 MBTs.Then there's the huge arty req., basic infantry weapon, new infantry combat kit,ATGMs, other AVs, SR SAMs, attack helos, the list goes on.With the steadily shrinking defence budget this is going to be an impossibility.


Smaller T-90 - $3.7 M/tank for order of 1000+ tanks
Larger Arjun - $5 M/tank for an order of 118 tanks

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50205
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby ramana » 25 Mar 2018 03:55

Katare, Going by how services are clearing up pending decisions, I think the Arjun Mk2 will get two orders of 118 each.
Its affordable and supports Make in India.

Eric Leiderman
BRFite
Posts: 356
Joined: 26 Nov 2010 08:56

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Eric Leiderman » 25 Mar 2018 04:19

There are lots of engines with overhead cams, this configuration reduces the overhead height of the engine and with a medium speed or high speed engine . With a high pressure turbo system the footprint is also low I am quite sure we can get the power density required using desi manpower
(if the quantity is 500 , i.e. 300 units plus 200 spare engines)
This configuration of power pack is being made by multiple OEM's CAT being one that I have worked on.

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1558
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby srin » 25 Mar 2018 08:14

Does this T-90 cost include the price of the barrel made in India, the price of the AC, and the price of thermal imagers ? I'd posted a list of components (that wasn't part of the deal or TOT'ed so we had to improvize) on this same thread a while ago, let me dig it up.

Oh and that was just the acquisition cost. As for the ammo, how much of the T-90 ammo was imported and how much is MII by OFB ? I remember that we ordered Mango rounds, and I need to lookup if BDL makes Reflecks missile or do we import it too.

Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 399
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Trikaal » 25 Mar 2018 12:42

Rakesh wrote:
Rakesh wrote:"medium weight (45-50 ton) platform required to operate across developed / semi desert/desert terrain and in high altitude areas across the entire spectrum of conflict...."

The above is the FRCV specifications. Can someone post a link (from an official websiste) if there is one? Below is the *WEIGHT* of just two of the tanks in consideration. Does anyone know of the other competitors?

You make the hypocrisy being practiced stand out naked with your comments. I have a noob question though, what are the bracket weight figures and why are they more than the tank weight?

sas
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 34
Joined: 08 Dec 2016 11:53

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby sas » 25 Mar 2018 14:01

Trikaal wrote:You make the hypocrisy being practiced stand out naked with your comments. I have a noob question though, what are the bracket weight figures and why are they more than the tank weight?


^^^^
Metric Tonne (Non-SI) vs Short Ton (US)

Ankit Desai
BRFite
Posts: 464
Joined: 05 May 2006 21:28
Location: Gujarat

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Ankit Desai » 26 Mar 2018 03:22

Arjun Mark-2 tank set to see light of day

In an important move, the ‘Made in India’ Arjun Mark-2 tank project is set to see the light of the day.
Chairman of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) Dr S Christopher in an interview to The Tribune said, “We have had a meeting with the Vice-Chief of the Indian Army where it was agreed on accepting Mark-2. Modalities are being worked out”. Once done, the acceptance of necessity (AON) for 118 will be revived, he added.

The AON is decided by the Defence Acquisition Council headed by the Defence Minister. A total of 93 modifications have been done on the first version of Arjun — 124 were inducted — in 2010-2011.

On being asked if the Army was okay with the weight of the tank, the DRDO boss said: “The weight (the tank is almost 58 tonnes) has been accepted; that is a major change”. Most modern European tanks are of the same weight, and tank-transporters (specialised trucks) for Arjun are available.
The DRDO has promised to set up a system to maintain the Arjun Mark-2 within India. It will be an annual maintenance contract with the Bharat Earth Movers Limited (BEML) as a possible agency, Dr Christopher said. On the trials, he said, “These have done 4,000 kms of run, the upgrades will be tested.”

On artillery guns, Dr Christopher said the Advanced Towed Artillery Gun Systems (ATAGS), of which the Army has agreed to accept 40 pieces to start with, will get a more powerful engine to enable rapid movement. The guns designed by DRDO have been made by two private companies under the transfer of technology.

The DRDO is keen to get a slice of the 1,580 towed guns the Army is looking to buy. “Both companies (Tata Power SED and Bharat Forge) are gearing up produce more. We need an order for 200-300 guns to tie up logistics,” he said.
Talking about the next version of the Tejas, called ‘Mark1-A’, Dr Christopher said: “The design other than the AESA radar and the jammer pod is complete.”

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited is looking to import the AESA radar even as DRDO made a radar that will be tested next month. The IAF is looking at 83 ‘Mark1-A’, with 59 improvements over the existing Tejas.

The Indian Air Force has projected a need for 324 fighter jets over 15 years and has officially indicated that it needs the ‘Tejas Mark 2’ (medium combat aircraft). It will carry a more powerful engine and weigh almost 20 per cent heavier than Tejas.


Courtesy: The Tribune India

-Ankit

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

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby srai » 26 Mar 2018 04:15

nam wrote:This is where I say the biggest culprit in the Arjun saga is MoD.

MoD needs to tell IA, it has decided to ask DRDO to start designing the FMBT. Ask IA to plan a program office, test and induction program. What will IA do? Say no?

Once MoD publicly declares intention and plans for funding, no bridges or torsion bar will come in the way.

Blame game keeps being shifted to the next. You are giving MoD too much “power” ;)

The main thing to point out is that all parties (GoI, MoF, MoD, IA/IAF/IN, DRDO, public/private industries, and various other committees) must work together with good intentions to make indigenous products successful. Every entity needs to pull its weight. A product must be looked at its entirety—not just R&D but also ROI and 30-year lifecycle support.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1301
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Khalsa » 26 Mar 2018 04:52

Ankit Desai wrote:Arjun Mark-2 tank set to see light of day

Courtesy: The Tribune India

-Ankit

YESSSSSSSSS !!!!!

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35822
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby SaiK » 26 Mar 2018 06:16

Tranches of 100 tanks per year for a decade deal is now mandatory

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5577
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby Rakesh » 26 Mar 2018 06:33

Not so fast SaiK. Don't open the bubbly yet. This is for an acceptance of necessity (AON) for just 118 tanks.

Q. Does anyone know if they will be ordering another 118 on top of the first 118 batch of Mk2s?

Q. Is it possible to convert the Mk1s to Mk2s? How Mk1s are there now? Wiki Chacha says 248 Mk1s were built. Is that true?

Q. How many tanks in an armoured regiment?

Assuming one can convert the Mk1s to Mk2s, that could translate to 366 tanks. If they can order another 134 tanks, they can get a nice round figure of 500 Arjun Mk2s and have CVRDE move on to developing a 50 ton, three man crew, medium tank.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50205
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby ramana » 26 Mar 2018 06:50

Armored regiment is 45 tanks.

It's good practice to.number questions!

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50205
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby ramana » 26 Mar 2018 06:54

I thought Mk1 is about 250 tanks.
Mk2 is about same. 118 plus118 later.

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

Re: MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Postby srai » 26 Mar 2018 08:24

ramana wrote:I thought Mk1 is about 250 tanks.
Mk2 is about same. 118 plus118 later.


Mk1 -> 124 (production completed in mid-2012)
Mk2 -> 118 (production yet to be green lighted)

Second Mk1 order was switched to Mk2 due to delays in the IA placing an order. So the total is still around 250 Mk.1 + Mk.2. That hasn’t changed.

Production line has been sitting idle since the middle of 2012 ... 6-years and counting.
Last edited by srai on 26 Mar 2018 08:45, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 44 guests