Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

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.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20797
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Philip » 10 Feb 2020 23:56

Finally some figures for MBTs.In a report about the improved Arjun still waiting for IA orders, the costs of T-90s (28cr. ) and Arjun (37cr.) are given.This apart from weight ( 68t) is probably why the IA keps preferring T-90s. More numbers at lesser cos,approx.25% cheaper a pop. With 480+ more T-90s on order in kit form and budget woes,emphasis on increasing the arty. numbers with desi built types,the future of A-1A/2 looks bleak.

The need for better ICVs is long pending.One can't understand why there has been little movement on this subject as some desi models too have been unveiled. The Rus are even moving from BMP-3s to the new Armata T-15. Upgrading old Sov. era ICVs is only an interim job,the IA needs a new design plus a light tank for the mountains.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3676
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby nam » 11 Feb 2020 00:10

So T90 with 1600+ in numbers is only 25% cheaper than a heavily upgraded and only 125 Arjun?

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2327
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Vivek K » 11 Feb 2020 02:59

Given that the T-90s (best of the best) sent to the Tank biathlon couldn't even complete the course, leave alone compete for top 3 positions, 25% is a small price to pay. And the more important weight parameter is ground pressure. Gross weight is used for crossing bridges - bridges don't fail the first time they are overloaded. Every civil engineering structure is designed with a factor of safety of at lease 2.0. Therefore, the gross weight would not cause problems in battle, it would be the savior for the crew inside (unlike the T-90). With its superior armor and ERA its amazing suspension and the ability to fire on the move, built in crew comfort, the Arjun would destroy a T-90 (like it did in trials).

The IAF is paying 4-6 time the price of a LCA for the Rafales, (2 times the price of a MKI) because of 0.5 gen advancement in tech. Here we have at least 1.0 gen advancement and the IA balks at 25% increase? And can we have a source for the price of the two machines please?

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3676
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby nam » 11 Feb 2020 03:10

I have mentioned it before. DRDO should pull the rug out of this "weight" argument by making a 3 crew with autoloader version of Arjun.

The whole issue is Army has not asked for it and DRDO will not do it until Army asks for it. Chicken and Egg.

Since DRDO is not a arms manufacturer, it cannot "suggest" technology.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2327
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Vivek K » 11 Feb 2020 05:50

nam wrote:I have mentioned it before. DRDO should pull the rug out of this "weight" argument by making a 3 crew with autoloader version of Arjun.

The whole issue is Army has not asked for it and DRDO will not do it until Army asks for it. Chicken and Egg.

Since DRDO is not a arms manufacturer, it cannot "suggest" technology.

DRDO - should provide the autoloader solution - just to put the IA in a pickle. This is not about weight or superiority of fighting capabilities. It stinks of what we all know very well - he who shall be unnamed. This was a good system to mass produce - flood copies in the world and generate well paying jobs. Exactly why India is a paper tiger in manufacturing.

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1984
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby srin » 11 Feb 2020 08:20

Not appropriate to compare T90 and Arjun's costs. One is an investment in another country's MIC while the other is an investment in our own MIC.

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2472
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Prem Kumar » 11 Feb 2020 09:49

Help me understand something. Why isn't Arjun primed for Exports?

Yes, I know that if our own Army doesn't buy, why would someone else. But always worth trying. Lets compete in the marketplace against Chally, Leopard, Abrams etc.

shaun
BRFite
Posts: 1156
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby shaun » 11 Feb 2020 10:48

Image

CHENNAI: It's the most lethal, sophisticated and all-weather battle tank that India has indigenously designed and conceptualised till date.

Meet Arjun 'Mk-1A' main battle tank, a 68-tonne rugged bull, waiting to join the Indian army and one of the star attractions at the 11th biennial edition of DefExpo India 2020 scheduled to be held in the Uttar Pradesh capital of Lucknow in February.

Armoured Corps has cleared the tank after successful completion of the final integration tests conducted earlier this year in the western sector of Rajasthan. Arjun Mk-1A is an improved variant of Arjun Mk-1, whose two regiments (124 tanks) are currently in service.

Scientists of Chennai-based Combat Vehicles Research and Development Establishment (CVRDE), a laboratory of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), are the architects of this improved avatar of Arjun and the Heavy Vehicles Factory (HVF) in Avadi is soon expected to commence production after receiving the order.

Top DRDO officials confirmed to Express that the new variant of Arjun had passed the rigorous army evaluation.

"The tank has fulfilled all user specifications and undergone elaborate field trials. We expect the order of intent any time soon."

Officials said 72 improvements were made to Arjun MBT Mk-1A over the existing version, of which 14 were major upgrades that were specifically requested by the army.

CVRDE Director V Balamurugan told Express the fundamental parameters of a battle tank are "fire power, protection and mobility". Arjun MBT Mk-1A has been improved on all these fronts.

Under firepower segment, four upgrades have been made. An improved Gunner's Main Sight (GMS) integrated with Automatic Target Tracking (ATT) has been fitted, which helps the crew to track moving target automatically making it easy for the gunner to fire even when the tank is on the move.

The Commander's Panoramic Sight (CPS Mk II) has been integrated with Thermal Imager that enables the commander to effectively conduct surveillance both in day and night through eye-safe Laser Range Finder with an advanced Hunter Killer Capability.

Besides, additional varieties of ammunition were incorporated to enhance the lethality of the enemy battle tank.

Other than conventional Fin Stabilised Armour Piercing Discarding Sabot (FSAPDS) and High Explosive Squash Head (HESH) ammunition, Thermo Baric (TB) and Penetration Cum Blast (PCB) ammunition have been developed.

Lastly, the vehicle was upgraded with a Remote Controlled Weapon Station that provides the loader the capability of engaging ground targets and aerial targets from the protective envelop of the tank armour. It also provides an additional capability to fight in urban area called Hatch-closed firing.

Extra protection for crew

The battle tank will have a crew of four -- commander, gunner, loader and driver. Keeping them out of harm's way is paramount. For this, Arjun Mk-1A comes with a slew of new features.

Balamurugan said Track Width Mine Plough (TWMP) is a significant addition which provides capability for the battle tank to cross minefields with ease as the plough mounted to the front of the vehicle creates a mine-free path by ploughing through mines and throwing them to the sides of the tank.

The Explosive Reactive Armour (ERA) panels are provided for effective protection against the ever-evolving anti-tank threats like shoulder-fired anti-tank grenades and missiles. These panels have been mounted along the frontal arc of the hull and the turret.

Another key feature added is a Containerised Ammunition Bin with Individual Shutter (CABIS) that gives crew enhanced protection from inadvertent burning of ammunition stored in the ready round bin.

The hot gases generated due to ammunition burning is vented out by blow-off panels from the roof of the turret, thus saving the crew.

Besides, Arjun Mk-1A has protection against chemical attacks. A special chemical sensor is mounted to detect the presence of harmful toxic chemicals in the atmosphere around the tank.

"The sensor detects the harmful chemicals, triggers an alarm and the Nuclear Chemical warfare system increases the pressure in the tank compartment to a little higher than in the atmosphere thus preventing toxic air from entering the tank. The tank crew get air through a particulate filter for their survival," CVRDE official said.

The Roof Mounted Driver's Seat protects the driver from shocks and enhances driving comfort.

Other new upgrades include Laser Warning and Counter Measure System that protects the crew by creating a smokescreen between itself and the enemy and Anti Infra-Red / Anti Thermal Imaging paints that reduce the signature of the tank when viewed using an IR/TI camera or goggles making the tank difficult to be detected by enemies.

Mobility-related improvements

Officials told Express one of the challenges in making of Arjun MBT Mk-1A was the overall weight. Every improvement comes with baggage, which the user may not like as the mobility may be compromised.

To counter added weight, an Advanced Running Gear System has been developed where the hydro-pneumatic suspension system was completely redesigned to enhance agility of the Arjun MBT Mk-1A. Tweaking the final drive also ensured the required agility of the tank.

Meanwhile, an Advanced Land Navigation System is added to provide enhanced navigation capability of the tank in desert terrains during war.

It provides accurate information of where the tanks is using either Inertial Navigation or GPS or both and where the tank needs to go in the absence of any signage in the war theatre.

An uncooled Night Vision camera for driver has also been provided.

The earlier Image Intensifier (obsolete technology) for the tank driver has been replaced with a un-cooled Thermal imager with binocular sights for the driver thus providing him with a capability to travel at reasonable speeds even in pitch-dark conditions.

https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2019/dec/08/indias-indigenously-designed-arjun-mk-1a-clears-trials-ready-to-go-into-production-2073023.html

This pic below is missing in the web edition

Image
Pic : The new crew protection headset along with the RCWS.

Image
Pic : Arjun's Thermobaric ammunition.
Last edited by shaun on 11 Feb 2020 12:58, edited 1 time in total.



Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9258
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 12 Feb 2020 05:14

Drag & Drop images into new window for larger size.

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/122 ... 72288?s=20 ---> BTW, Bharat Earth Movers Limited unveiled the company's Mobile Bullet Proof Vehicle Mk-2, called the 'Gaur', at Def Expo India. This 4x4 can seat 12, and has blast resistant seats, night vision, GPS nav, besides a radio & intercom system.

Image

Image

Nikhil T
BRFite
Posts: 1286
Joined: 09 Nov 2008 06:48
Location: RAW HQ, Lodhi Road

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Nikhil T » 12 Feb 2020 05:26

^Still based on a Tatra platform, I think. Reminds me of the cozy BEML-Tatra relationship that screwed IA through inflated prices. Hope that mess is sorted now or preferably, we can have the OEM make these tweaks and sell them directly to the IA.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20797
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Philip » 12 Feb 2020 05:35

While Arjun is thought to be desi,a large part of it is firang,why maintaining A-1 has had problems with some firang components difficult to source.Just 125 in number hasn't been enough to build up a strong desi supply chain.

25% difference in cost is huge.It also has the cost of one tanker less to look after for life. The Arjun from inception was heavily influenced by the German Leopard MBT.In fact isn't the engine same? The DRDO did have money to come out with " Tank- X".
It could've tried out a T-90 turret on an Arjun chassis too as an experiment. The IA's future req. has been stated to be a 3- crewed 50t + MBT in the style of the Armata T-14. A-2 at 68t with a 4- man crew is even heavier than A-1 and will cost even more. No wonder the IA is less than enthusiastic about it. Chief after chief has resisted pressure to buy Arjun. There must be some solid reasons for doing so.

Even if A-2 is ordered, the number will be small as the increase in arty.,is of top priority, that too entirely desi for all types barring the Korean K-9 Vajra but built at home by L&T .We are much better off than Pak in numbers and quality of MBTs,plus there is the req. for a light tank for the mountains and huge inventory of ICVs requiring both upgrades and one-for-one replacements.

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 1358
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ks_sachin » 12 Feb 2020 06:30

Philip wrote:While Arjun is thought to be desi,a large part of it is firang,why maintaining A-1 has had problems with some firang components difficult to source.Just 125 in number hasn't been enough to build up a strong desi supply chain.

25% difference in cost is huge.It also has the cost of one tanker less to look after for life. The Arjun from inception was heavily influenced by the German Leopard MBT.In fact isn't the engine same? The DRDO did have money to come out with " Tank- X".
It could've tried out a T-90 turret on an Arjun chassis too as an experiment. The IA's future req. has been stated to be a 3- crewed 50t + MBT in the style of the Armata T-14. A-2 at 68t with a 4- man crew is even heavier than A-1 and will cost even more. No wonder the IA is less than enthusiastic about it. Chief after chief has resisted pressure to buy Arjun. There must be some solid reasons for doing so.

Even if A-2 is ordered, the number will be small as the increase in arty.,is of top priority, that too entirely desi for all types barring the Korean K-9 Vajra but built at home by L&T .We are much better off than Pak in numbers and quality of MBTs,plus there is the req. for a light tank for the mountains and huge inventory of ICVs requiring both upgrades and one-for-one replacements.

So.....


Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2327
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Vivek K » 13 Feb 2020 09:49

The man has no shame and pride in India and her engineering feats. It is remarkable he is given carte blanche to rave against world-class Indian products not tin cans. Indians need to take pride in themselves and their designs.

Jay
BRFite
Posts: 249
Joined: 24 Feb 2005 18:24
Location: Gods Country
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Jay » 13 Feb 2020 21:39

Vivek K wrote:The man has no shame and pride in India and her engineering feats. It is remarkable he is given carte blanche to rave against world-class Indian products not tin cans. Indians need to take pride in themselves and their designs.


well said, Vivek.

Rony
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3248
Joined: 14 Jul 2006 23:29

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Rony » 16 Feb 2020 07:32

Is there any other army/DGMF in the world which sabotages its own superior MBT like this ?

Delay in ordering Arjun tank underlines the army's reluctance to “Make in India”

Although “Make in India” has been the central motif of the on-going Defexpo 2020 in Lucknow, the army continues to block further purchases of the Arjun main battle tank (MBT), years after it has met all the army’s ever-increasing demands.

With the Defence R&D Organisation (DRDO) awaiting a long-cleared order for 118 Arjun MBTs, the ministry of defence (MoD) instead asked the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) last November to build 464 Russian-origin T-90S tanks at the Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi (HVF). With each T-90 costing about Rs 28 crore, the order is worth an estimated Rs 13,000 crore.

The army continues to block the indigenous Arjun tank even though, in a comparative trial the army conducted in the Rajasthan desert in March 2010, the Arjun proved itself equal to, or better than, the Russian T-90.

In the trial, one squadron (14 tanks) of Arjuns was pitted against an equal number of T-90s. Top army generals who witnessed the trial admitted the Arjun performed superbly. Whether driving cross-country over rugged sand dunes; or accurately hitting targets with its powerful main gun; the Arjun established it was a tank to reckon with.

Yet, the army refused to order more Arjun tanks, beyond the 124 it had already inducted into service. Army insiders say there is an ingrained belief that Russian tanks are better than Indian ones.
However, it was officially stated that the 62.5-tonne Arjun was too heavy for roads and bridges along the Pakistan border, and too wide to be transported by train.

Under pressure from the MoD to order another 118 Arjuns, the army then demanded several capability enhancements in the tank to make it more effective. At a meeting of the MoD-led Arjun Steering Committee in 2010, the army demanded an improved version of the tank, which would be called the Arjun Mark 2.

The Arjun Mark 2 was required to have 83 capability enhancements, including 15 major and 68 minor changes. Incredibly, given the army’s complaint that the tank was too heavy, the new enhancements would make the tank heavier by another 6 tonnes.

These included the fitment on the tank of mine ploughs (1.6 tonnes extra), explosive reactive armour (1.5 tonnes), suspension improvements (one tonne) and another two tonnes in other areas. Having complained earlier that a 62.5 tonne Arjun tank was too heavy, the army signed off on a six-tonne weight increase to 68.5 tonnes.

In August 2011, the MoD announced it had “cleared the proposal for placement of indent for 124 MBT Arjun Mark 2”. It said each enhanced Arjun would cost Rs 37 crore and the first batch would roll out by 2015.

By June 2012, the DRDO offered the Arjun for trials with all the enhancements, except one: a cannon-launched guided missile (CLGM) the army wanted to fire through the Arjun’s main gun. The DRDO had sourced the Lahat CLGM from Israel, but that could strike targets between 2-5 kilometres (km) away. The army insisted on being able to strike targets as close as 1.2 km.

The DRDO pointed out that the Arjun’s powerful main gun had already proved its ability to destroy targets at ranges out to 2 km. But the army insisted the CLGM should be usable against targets 1.2 km away. So the DRDO began work on an indigenous CLGM to meet those specifications.

By 2015, a series of trials had validated the improvements the army demanded. Even the CLGM’s laser designator was tested and validated with Lahat missiles. The DRDO asked for production order, promising to develop and supply the missile on priority.

However, the army dilly-dallied for three years, until March 2018, when it was agreed that the next batch of Arjuns would be supplied without missile firing capability, which would follow up separately. This version would be designated Arjun Mark 1A.

After several months of delay, Arjun Mark 1A trials were held in December 2018 and the tank found fit in all respects. The army’s trial team recommended the Arjun Mark 1A be inducted into service.

Incredibly, more than a year later, the army has not yet placed an indent for 118 Arjun Mark 1A. It has raised numerous issues – including ammunition availability, non-availability of spares and low indigenous content – to successfully avoid placing an order.


Were an indent to be placed today, it would still take HVF about 36 months to start delivering completed Arjun tanks. The DRDO is confident it would develop the CLGM by then, so those 118 tanks will actually be Arjun Mark 2, with full CLGM capability.

Asked whether there was frustration over the lack of orders, DRDO chairman, Satheesh Reddy told Business Standard: “No, we cannot get frustrated. We are very positive. The user trials for the Mark 1A have been completed in December 2018 and we have even developed the ammunition now. I am sure that the Indian Army will soon be inducting the Arjun Mark 1A.”

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7730
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby nachiket » 26 Feb 2020 10:32

The MoD can fix this very easily by flatly refusing to sign off on any more T-90 purchases or just tell the IA that they can either buy the Arjun or make do without more tanks. I have said this on other threads, this govt. needs to take the right decisions to promote Make in India or shut their mouths about Make in India, at least when it comes to Defence manufacturing and let things continue as they are.

Meanwhile, DRDO needs to stop allocating resources to this wild goose chase that is the neverending list of "improvements" that the Army wants with the Arjun. It is pointless.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10046
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby sum » 26 Feb 2020 13:59

Incredibly, more than a year later, the army has not yet placed an indent for 118 Arjun Mark 1A. It has raised numerous issues – including ammunition availability, non-availability of spares and low indigenous content – to successfully avoid placing an order.

How does the bolded argument even work when alternative is 100% foreign? :-?

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby srai » 26 Feb 2020 14:32

sum wrote:
Incredibly, more than a year later, the army has not yet placed an indent for 118 Arjun Mark 1A. It has raised numerous issues – including ammunition availability, non-availability of spares and low indigenous content – to successfully avoid placing an order.

How does the bolded argument even work when alternative is 100% foreign? :-?

Indigenous —> viewpoint as “glass half-empty” negative spin (i.e. xxx foreign)

Imported —> viewpoint as “glass half-full” positive spin (i.e. xxx ToT/offset/indigenous) and more ...
:((

rajsunder
BRFite
Posts: 626
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 02:38
Location: MASA Land

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby rajsunder » 26 Feb 2020 21:02

nachiket wrote:The MoD can fix this very easily by flatly refusing to sign off on any more T-90 purchases or just tell the IA that they can either buy the Arjun or make do without more tanks. I have said this on other threads, this govt. needs to take the right decisions to promote Make in India or shut their mouths about Make in India, at least when it comes to Defence manufacturing and let things continue as they are.

Meanwhile, DRDO needs to stop allocating resources to this wild goose chase that is the neverending list of "improvements" that the Army wants with the Arjun. It is pointless.

When the army used different yard sticks to measure tanks during T90 and ARJUN, it became an open secret that army treats ARJUNA as a step child.
For example, they would not conduct tests in firing on move. Sometimes I feel may be paki army and Indian army have a agreement that they will not fire on each other's tanks while the tanks are moving.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1253
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby RKumar » 26 Feb 2020 22:58

rajsunder wrote:When the army used different yard sticks to measure tanks during T90 and ARJUN, it became an open secret that army treats ARJUNA as a step child.
For example, they would not conduct tests in firing on move. Sometimes I feel may be paki army and Indian army have a agreement that they will not fire on each other's tanks while the tanks are moving.


:rotfl: :rotfl: , Like any other agreements they will also not keep this promise. Only fools will suffer, if we don’t learn from history.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23993
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby SSridhar » 28 Feb 2020 20:37

sum wrote:
Incredibly, more than a year later, the army has not yet placed an indent for 118 Arjun Mark 1A. It has raised numerous issues – including ammunition availability, non-availability of spares and low indigenous content – to successfully avoid placing an order.

How does the bolded argument even work when alternative is 100% foreign? :-?

Pathetic arguments to scuttle local efforts.

Ankit Desai
BRFite
Posts: 521
Joined: 05 May 2006 21:28
Location: Gujarat

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Ankit Desai » 16 Mar 2020 09:57

Army set to place order for 118 Arjun Mark 1-As, the most potent tank in its inventory

After numerous delays and extensive trials, the Indian Army is set to finally place an order for 118 indigenously manufactured Arjun Mark 1-A ‘Hunter Killers’, which will have all-weather capability and better fire power and stability than the Arjun main battle tank (MBT).

Army sources told ThePrint that the Mark 1-A, which weighs 68 tonnes and features a 120mm main gun, has cleared all tests, and that cost negotiations with its developer, the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), are complete. The sources added that the Army has pushed the file to place the order, which will be done “soon”.

The move comes as a big boost for the Chennai-based Combat Vehicles Research and Development Establishment (CVRDE), a DRDO lab.

The major improvements

“The tank comes with 14 major improvements that the Army has sought, which will make it the most potent and self-protective tank in the Army’s inventory,” V. Balamurugan, director of the CVRDE, told ThePrint.

Balamurugan said the first tank will be rolled out from the factory within 30 months of the order of intent (the technical term used for the order) being placed.

He explained that four upgrades were made to the firepower of the tank, besides other developments, including new transmission systems.

The Mark 1-A includes an improved gunner’s main sight, integrated with automatic target tracking. This would enable the tank crew to track moving targets automatically, and engage them even when Arjun is on the move.

The Arjun Mk-1A’s gun is controlled by a computerised integrated fire control system, giving the tank has a high first round kill capability. The gun’s day-and-night stabilised sights, coupled with automatic target tracker, guarantee accurate engagement even in dynamic conditions, a senior DRDO official told ThePrint.

Other than the conventional fin stabilised armour piercing discarding sabot and high explosive squash head ammunition, the Mark 1-A comes with thermo baric and penetration-cum-blast ammunition.

.....


-Ankit

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9815
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Yagnasri » 16 Mar 2020 16:04

Let us wait till the deal is actually signed.

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1682
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Khalsa » 16 Mar 2020 16:11

Seems like recycled news !! we must be running out of things to say.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5275
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Kartik » 20 Mar 2020 04:02

IA awaiting responses for RFI for 8X8 armoured fighting vehicles

The Indian Army (IA) is preparing to evaluate responses from indigenous and foreign vendors to its request for information (RFI) on the intended procurement of 198 8×8 armoured fighting reconnaissance and support vehicles for deployment along India’s border with Pakistan.

The RFI, which was issued in late November 2019 and ends on 1 April 2020, envisages the acquisition of the vehicles under the ‘Buy Indian (IDDM-Indigenously Designed, Developed and Manufactured)’ category of the Ministry of Defence’s (MoD’s) Defence Procurement Procedure-2016 (DPP-2016).

This classification entails shortlisting Indian companies as principal potential vendors to execute the tender by entering into collaborative agreements with select foreign original equipment manufacturers (OEMs).

ashishvikas
BRFite
Posts: 544
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ashishvikas » 20 Mar 2020 20:00

Indian MoD concludes price negotiations for 118 Arjun Mk 1A MBTs

https://www.janes.com/article/94937/ind ... ia=twitter

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5275
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Kartik » 21 Mar 2020 05:02

From that article in Janes on the 118 Arjun Mk1A order. So deliveries to begin in 30 months from now, by around September 2022. All 118 deliveries to be completed by 2026 or 2027.

India’s Ministry of Defence (MoD) has concluded negotiations with the state-owned Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) to acquire 118 units of the indigenously developed Arjun Mk1A main battle tank (MBT) for the Indian Army (IA) for an estimated INR66 billion (USD888.7 million).

Official sources told Jane’s on 18 March that an “order of intent” will be placed “imminently” by the MoD with the OFB’s Heavy Vehicles Factory (HVF) at Avadi in southern India for this upgraded variant of the Arjun, which features 72 improvements, including 14 major ones, over the Mk 1 model.

The impending order will also feature a two-year engineering and support package that will include maintenance, spares and simulator training for the tank crews.

Deliveries are expected to begin within 30 months of the contract being signed and be completed within four to five years, OFB officials told Jane's.

Once inducted, the upgraded Arjun Mk 1As, which were approved for procurement by the IA in late 2018 following validation trials, will supplement 124 Arjun Mk 1s that joined the service from 2004 onwards.

..

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby srai » 21 Mar 2020 11:31

Trickle orders ... long gaps in production!

Last Arjun Mk1 delivered in 2012 ...
First Arjun Mk1A delivery occurring in 2022 ...

A decade has gone by between orders of 124 and 118 units. Too few for the indigenous R&D and ecosystem investments.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8229
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Pratyush » 21 Mar 2020 12:52

srai wrote:Trickle orders ... long gaps in production!

Last Arjun Mk1 delivered in 2012 ...
First Arjun Mk1A delivery occurring in 2022 ...

A decade has gone by between orders of 124 and 118 units. Too few for the indigenous R&D and ecosystem investments.



At this point I am surprised that it is getting orders.

Will we be seeing follow up orders?

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby srai » 22 Mar 2020 04:11

^^^
No further commitments from the IA.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20797
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Philip » 22 Mar 2020 04:12

Why did the Russians defeat the Germans in WW2? The battle of Kursk epitomises the different concepts in the MBTs of both sides.The Germans kept on improving the panzers,tigers,etc. while on production runs leading to delays and lesser numbers in comparison with the Russians.Their T-34 was tested,certified and then produced in bulk. Consequently they had more numbers,ignored casualties ( an occupational hazard in wartime!),
and prevailed.

The IA's current philosophy appears to be somewhat similar.Outnumber your principal enemy ( where armoured warfare will be most prevalent) with an MBT superior to what he has,with the fewest types as well.It will account for easy logistic support,commonality in ammo for the 125mm gun, spares,etc. and also be very cost-effective.

We won't go into the historical reasons why we are endowed with a fleet of around 2K to 3K Ru T-series MBTs,all with only 3- man crews and an autoloader, except to say that after Pak acquired from the UKR T-80UDs,we obtained the T-90 as a counter. I've given earlier stats regarding the pricing of T-90s vs Arjun,a 25% difference. To the IA, and all chiefs in the last 20 years have followed the same line, numbers,logistics and costs matter.Incremental improvements in the T-90s have satisfied them why another 484 are being acquired/built at HVF.

So what about Arjun? You have to go back to its origins. We were making under licence the Vickers light tank,the Vijayanta,which had a traditional 4 man crew. At that time the best western MBT was the German Leopard.Pics of early Arjuns clearly show it to resemble a desi Leopard,especally the non-sloping glacis in the turret.It also had the same engine.
Unfortunately,most of the innards was firang,especially the engine. The main gun differed from the T series being 120mm calibre and was rifled,not smooth unlike the T series with their smooth- bore 125mm guns.

By the time Arjun arrived,proven itself superior in trials with the T-series,much time had elapsed. Supporting the 124 or so Mk-1s is becoming a problem say reports from the field because the components and spares for firang content are becoming more difficult to source.
How can indigenous vendors also be roped in for such a small number too? Their cost of development and limited production and orders would be unattractive. The IA then asked for some 70+ improvements of the MBT which reportedly have been accomplished (it looks quite different from its " Leopard" period, closer to an ERA T-series with its turret armour)
,but one key requirement has bogged down orders in large numbers,its weight. The improved Arjun is supposedly heavier than its predecessor ,around 67/68t in comparison with only 48t for the latest T-90 MS. With our logistic chain
( transporters,bridges,etc.) geared to support an MBT of around 50t, a behemoth 68t Arjun Mk-1A/2 whatever the nomenclature, can according to informed sources be operational only in certain sectors. These sectors remain classified not to give the enemy an insight into our order of battle ,but generally known that sectors with heavy river/ canal fording may not see it in action. Hence the considerable tilt towards the T-90s vs Arjun in orders.

Another batch of 124 Arjuns is not going to enthuse local vendors too much.It's too little. Many moons ago the DRDO said
that a min. of 500 Arjuns was required to recover developmental costs.The small number of the second batch of Arjuns may be also due to another factor ( apart from size/ weight,crew,cost), lurking in the rings is he Ru Armata,comprising a family of AVs ,with the 55t T-14 MBT with an unmanned turret and other novel features,a revolution in MBT design. The IA has given the DRDO/ HVF another set of requirements for its own future MBT/ Combat Vehicle, wanting a 3-man crew,around 55t below 60t,125mm gun,etc. The beleagured DRDO first said it was " impossible", but are now reportedly working on concepts hoping to have a prototype ready this decade.

With this expected order for 120+ improved Arjuns, plus the 480+ T-90s, the IA will get 600 brand new MBTs,plus the upgraded T-72s of which we have a huge number.Thus the IA's AV fleet appears quite healthy except for the ICV fleet which is in great need of a new ICV to replace legacy Sov. era BMPs. Pvt. industry has sported prototypes,but the DRDO is being given a chance too for something in the future....Poor pvt. Indian industry.After all their hard work appear to be shafted.A light tank is another req.for the mountains especially against China which has fielded its own LT with a 105mm main gun.We have nothing in the garages for a v.long time as replacements for the legendary PT-76 which helped us win the '71 war. An off the shelf solution is the Ru Sprut with a 125mm gun,but requires better armour. That is a need which the IA with a new CDS former IA chief would like to redress asap.

One would like the MOD to option at least 250 of the new Arjuns,in 2 tranches of 120+, which would then generate enthu amongst local vendors and strengthen the indigenisation of the tank and the support chain. That would also encourage the DRDO/ HVF to come out with a desi futuristic MBT/AV family .

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1984
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby srin » 22 Mar 2020 18:06

Make in India: OFB, DRDO to develop fully indigenous Futuristic Infantry Combat Vehicle in 3-5 years
A fully indigenous Futuristic Infantry Combat Vehicle (FICV) is being developed by Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) and Defence Research Development Oranisation (DRDO) for the use of the Indian Army. Tentatively named Mark I, the vehicle will help modernise Indian Army’s infantry frontier which currently relies on BMP II, an infantry personnel carrier with a 30 mm gun. The joint collaboration between the Ordnance Factory Board and the DRDO will yield results in a period of three to five years, PTI reported.

Advanced features which were at the drawing board stage will now be included in the FICV, OFB chairman Hari Mohan was quoted as saying. He also said that DRDO and OFB, which were earlier working separately on the project, decided to join forces to develop the project. Mohan further said that the specifications and features of the project will keep advancing as it is an evolving project. When the project attains a satisfactory stage in tune with the feedback of Indian Army officials, the factory will begin production of the infantry vehicle, he said.
[...]

mody
BRFite
Posts: 704
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby mody » 23 Mar 2020 13:48

No private sector involvement in the FICV project? Such a shame.
But, just get the damn project moving and plan to produce a minimum of 4,500 nos. Upgrade the 2,500 nos. of BMP-IIs and plan for 1,500 wheeled APCs based on the Kestrel.
8,500 APCs will make the pakis shit in their pants. It would give the Indian Army the level of mobility, mechanisation and firepower, like it has never had upto now. A big mismatch for the PA. Would fit in perfectly with the IBG plans.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20797
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Philip » 05 May 2020 19:13

A few minths ago before lockdown,I spoke to a v.sr.exec of a pvt. co.with a defence division,asking him about a certain product which they had developed ,displayed,etc. He said that the govt. was v.happy for them to spend their own money on developing such badly needed weapon sysyems but could not guarantee any orders! Whatever orders eventually come ,go....almost all to the DPSUs,the only recent exceptions being in the arty with Kalyani,Tatas,and L&T.V.laudable.
ICVs of various types can easily be made with our existing auto majors who've developed prototypes.While modernising and upgrading existing legacy Sov.- era BMPs,etc., can remain with their original desi DPSU manufacturers,other requirements must go to thf pvt. sector to strengthen our defence tech. foundation,especially if we want to bdcome exporters of def. eqpt. as the PM often says.Pandering to babudom and lacklustre DPSUs won't achieve the desired results and 120+ A-2s are mere crumbs from the cake. At least the Arjun chassis could be used for a variety of specialised AVs,SPs,SP SAM systems, etc.The tech andddxperienced gained must be put to good use.

One urgent req. is a light tank,amphib. too,for the mountains to counter the light tank China has introduced into Tibet. The Ru Sprut light tank with a superior 125mm guncould be the basis for a desi light tank,of which we would need several hundreds fot the mountains as well as amphib ops.Remember the great success of the PT-76 in '71?
Last edited by Philip on 05 May 2020 19:19, edited 1 time in total.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3967
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby kit » 05 May 2020 19:18

nam wrote:I have mentioned it before. DRDO should pull the rug out of this "weight" argument by making a 3 crew with autoloader version of Arjun.

The whole issue is Army has not asked for it and DRDO will not do it until Army asks for it. Chicken and Egg.

Since DRDO is not a arms manufacturer, it cannot "suggest" technology.


And this is where the CDS comes in , I think he can make decisions as regarding tech roadmap tied to acquisitions

ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3506
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ArjunPandit » 05 May 2020 23:49

Philip wrote:Why did the Russians defeat the Germans in WW2? The battle of Kursk epitomises the different concepts in the MBTs of both sides.The Germans kept on improving the panzers,tigers,etc. while on production runs leading to delays and lesser numbers in comparison with the Russians.Their T-34 was tested,certified and then produced in bulk. Consequently they had more numbers,ignored casualties ( an occupational hazard in wartime!),
and prevailed.
...

phillipji all these points have been point by point discussed and debated. There are few poitns that i would like to add
1. Are we planning to run a severe war of attrition with pakis? If yes that perhaps what you say may make sense. From an academic perspective, there may be a point in your argument. please see point 3.
2. Are we joined at hip with russians? Russians & germany came up with that philosophy partially because sustained bombing of their production centers was not possible or possible. I am sure germans would not have minded producing panzers in more no. or even tigers. I am not sure what the focus was. In any case they could not have produced either. Even if they could supplying to in such winters under russian resilience would have been of limited use
3. I would say even if we have to play a battle of attrition, I would prefer that with our own tank. The reason costs are high or there are maintenance nightmares, or logistical challenges they are there because we did not have our own tank in past. We should order arjun to replace t72 and have the infrastructure to support that. TO me its a horse cart problem. Beyond a point Russia would not design for our requirements, but for their.
4. T72/90 has shown its worth to IA in tank biathlons. One may say IA doesnt maintain or know how to use tanks, but I think long term interest of IA is in having domestic tanks. If we dont start we would be importing from Russia forever. After T90 and T14, a new item in the wishlist of IA has been in the form of sprut.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2327
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Vivek K » 06 May 2020 19:23

"4. T72/90 has shown its worth to IA in tank biathlons"
Were you being sarcastic?


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ambar, arijitdas and 45 guests