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.
Post Reply
fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4282
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by fanne »

bharathp wrote:my 2 cents -
…. if it was ahome grown machine, we would have the in house skills to make improvements without having to pay an arm and a leg and keep the 2000 strong force on stand by while we run around trying to get it fixed by OEM

that said, our own ammo production doesnt really inspire much confidence.
I really hope every incident like this leads to improvement in the entire cycle from manufacturing, to user training to maintenance procedures.
I hope you know that we make 96% of T-90 in house.
The fact that one retired colonel, who is Dalal of foreign maal wrote against T-90 is enough to look deeper into it to see if we got a good deal. (And disclaimer before I go ahead- I am all for Arjun and it is a far better tank than T-90)-
1. T-90 was designed by Russia for India. Just like su30mki was made for us after ussr breakup, this was made for us based on our requirement. That’s why perhaps we own 90% of T-90 ever made (including in Russia).
2. It is still better than anything tsp or Chicom can throw at us bar the latest entry (and t90 was bought before that).
3. It is 1/3 rd the price of Arjun’s and we make 96% of the part in house. For Arjun, we had to import at least 70% of it by cost. Even though Arjun design is ours.
4. It should be within our means to rectify and upgrade T-90 on our own based on experience gained from
Arjun. Both should be /are happening. Upgrade we hear about, trouble shooting I doubt we are running to mother Russia, we must be doing or should be doing on our own.
5.Russian armor has not fared great against atgm, we don’t know how Arjun would have fared, Mavreka, heavier than Arjun has not done great against atgm (though Israeli used better combined tactics where atgm shots were difficult to make).

Can we stop dishing T-90 please. Almost 99% of Russian armor in the current conflict is not t-90.
sohamn
BRFite
Posts: 461
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 12:56
Location: the Queen of the Angels of Porziuncola
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by sohamn »

Whaaat??? Fanne garu - you just wrote some inaccurate facts, or what some Trumpians call Alternate Facts

a) T-90 was never designed for India. This is absolutely in-factual. T-90 was designed in late 1980's and mass produced starting early 1990's. India started production in late 1990s and was initially producing the less sophisticated export version without night sights, counter measure systems and cast turret. The T-90S was not a indianized version like Su-30MKI where the MKI was more superior than the SU-27 that Russia had. The T-90S was in every aspect an inferior version than the domestic version. This remained true until India contracted a deal for T-90M / MS (UPA2 & Modi era)

b) T-90S is not qualitatively better than a T-80 or Type 99 which are or 1990's era

c) until 2019, all T-90's were developed using fully knocked down kits supplied from Russia a.k.a screwdriver giri. Even the armour is made in Russia and they refused to share the tech for us to manufacture locally. If Arjun was mass produced in thousands then it would be as cheap as T-90.

4) why should we rectify T-90 based on experience gained from Arjun, why not just improve Arjun? This is like saying, based on the learnings of manufacturing Tata Indica, lets rather import Lada Niva and rectify the car. Just get rid of the phoreign maal man.

5) We know that a comparative test had taken place with Arjun and T-90 - where Arjun withstood a direct impact from a T-90 round, where T-90 hull was penetrated with Arjun round. Arjun was better range, better firepower and better armor than T-90.

You should ask the question, why does Russia not field any T-90's in the current conflict even when they know T-72 are obsolete and have zero chance against modern atgms ? Maybe their export potential will be diminished?
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

They should develop an autoloader for the Arjun
YashG
BRFite
Posts: 936
Joined: 22 Apr 2017 00:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by YashG »

sohamn wrote:Whaaat??? Fanne garu - you just wrote some inaccurate facts, or what some Trumpians call Alternate Facts

a) T-90 was never designed for India. This is absolutely in-factual. ........why does Russia not field any T-90's in the current conflict even when they know T-72 are obsolete and have zero chance against modern atgms ? Maybe their export potential will be diminished?
Sohamnji fanne garu made one iportant point that 96% of T90 is today made in India. ( i would wonder what rest of 4% would be still phoren then)

So the best is since 50% of our armor is T90 - we should improve / upgrade it - which we can do desi way and keep a large existing stock in great fighting shape. Ofcourse future is desi -light , heavy -whatever desi version we build. But that armor will take 5-10 years to be a significant fraction.
We should start asap but also upgrade T90 to best extent we can. Also as we upgrade T90 - its desiness will keep on going up , not just on components but also in a functional way.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9097
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by nachiket »

ks_sachin wrote:They should develop an autoloader for the Arjun
Um they should develop nothing unless orders are guaranteed. DRDO has wasted enough time and resources on a wild goose chase so far for a tank that the IA never had any intention of ordering.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

No sirji,

They have to.

Without a autoloader say bye-bye to your crewless turret.

If the 120mm main gun is reused for the FMBT or any other gun is designed then an autoloader will be a must.

We cannot have a T-90 style autoloader.

Don't cut your nose to spite your face sir!
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

^^^

You presume that the Indian army is thinking in terms of Indian designed and developed tank.

We have not seen any indication of that.

While I have seen renders posted on the forum itself of a tank with a crew less turret supposedly from the DRDO, in IIRC, 2016-17. But have not seen any indication from the army about acceptability of same.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

I was hoping against hope that someone would not bring that up.

Anyhow here is to a AtmaNirbhar Turret!!!
sajaym
BRFite
Posts: 315
Joined: 04 Feb 2019 09:11

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by sajaym »

Pratyush wrote:^^^

You presume that the Indian army is thinking in terms of Indian designed and developed tank.

We have not seen any indication of that.

While I have seen renders posted on the forum itself of a tank with a crew less turret supposedly from the DRDO, in IIRC, 2016-17. But have not seen any indication from the army about acceptability of same.
True. After the ARJUN experience it would be really foolish of the DRDO to design another heavy tank for the army. Instead they should now focus on conversion of our old T-72s into tank drones, because that's the way tank warfare is heading. And the army jarnails should be allowed to import few numbers of whichever MBT catches their fancy. That way everybody's pockets will be satisfied.
ashishvikas
BRFite
Posts: 850
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ashishvikas »

What is the update on the light tanks that L&T was developing in collaboration with the DRDO?

The development is on at full speed... this is completely ab initio, and not taking Vajra design... except for engine and transmission, everything can be done here. Since the equipment was done here, not as TOT [transfer of technology], a lot of the equipment, running gear, suspension was built to specs. The design is joint effort (DRDO).. We are confident that the light tank will roll out on test tracks by the middle of next year.
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/co ... 000466.ece
sohamn
BRFite
Posts: 461
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 12:56
Location: the Queen of the Angels of Porziuncola
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by sohamn »

YashG wrote:
sohamn wrote:Whaaat??? Fanne garu - you just wrote some inaccurate facts, or what some Trumpians call Alternate Facts

a) T-90 was never designed for India. This is absolutely in-factual. ........why does Russia not field any T-90's in the current conflict even when they know T-72 are obsolete and have zero chance against modern atgms ? Maybe their export potential will be diminished?
Sohamnji fanne garu made one iportant point that 96% of T90 is today made in India. ( i would wonder what rest of 4% would be still phoren then)

So the best is since 50% of our armor is T90 - we should improve / upgrade it - which we can do desi way and keep a large existing stock in great fighting shape. Ofcourse future is desi -light , heavy -whatever desi version we build. But that armor will take 5-10 years to be a significant fraction.
We should start asap but also upgrade T90 to best extent we can. Also as we upgrade T90 - its desiness will keep on going up , not just on components but also in a functional way.

I don't know where you all got the 96% number, show me one place that quotes that 96% of the tank is made in India from scratch.

Now let me quote this article - this says the engine and transmission is directly supplied by Russia which constitutes 45% of the cost of the tank.
A senior OFB executive said complete localization of T-90S tanks in India is impossible, as a large number of parts must continue to be imported. The parts that will be locally produced include panoramic night sights, thermal imaging fire-control systems and explosive reactive armor, he added. However, the engines and transmission system that makes up 45 percent of the cost of a T-90S tank will come from Russia.
sivab
BRFite
Posts: 1075
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by sivab »

sohamn wrote:
Now let me quote this article - this says the engine and transmission is directly supplied by Russia which constitutes 45% of the cost of the tank.
A senior OFB executive said complete localization of T-90S tanks in India is impossible, as a large number of parts must continue to be imported. The parts that will be locally produced include panoramic night sights, thermal imaging fire-control systems and explosive reactive armor, he added. However, the engines and transmission system that makes up 45 percent of the cost of a T-90S tank will come from Russia.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... s?from=mdr
Nirmala Sitharaman hands over 'Made in India' engines to Army

PTILast Updated: Jul 28, 2018, 08:02 PM IST

The first engine of 1000 HP engine -- V92S2 engine -- powers T-90 Bhisma Tank, the second engine -- V-46-6 engine -- powers the T-72 Ajeya Tank and its variants.

The Engine Factory under the Make in India programme manufactured the two engines with 100 per cent local parts.

Earlier localisation level was about 73 per cent, officials said.

The indigenisation efforts by the Engine Factory would save Rs 80 crore of the exchequer every year.
bharathp
BRFite
Posts: 453
Joined: 24 Jul 2017 03:44

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by bharathp »

is localisation and indigenisation same? or is this new dadagiri of screwdrivergiri?
nandakumar
BRFite
Posts: 1638
Joined: 10 May 2010 13:37

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by nandakumar »

Is the engine in a tank different from those used in earth moving equipments or other commercial applications? I ask because India does manufacture higher horse power rated engines. Cummins India had claimed, if I recall correctly, that it can deliver 1500 hp rated engines.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by NRao »

nandakumar wrote:Is the engine in a tank different from those used in earth moving equipments or other commercial applications? I ask because India does manufacture higher horse power rated engines. Cummins India had claimed, if I recall correctly, that it can deliver 1500 hp rated engines.
Cummins is one of the largest providers of a variety
of engines to militaries across the globe. They have dealt with militaries for donkey years.
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5383
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Manish_P »

nandakumar wrote:Is the engine in a tank different from those used in earth moving equipments or other commercial applications?...
From my (very) limited reading & understanding of the subject -

1) Tank diesel engines are more “fast diesels” with higher RPM/Power ratio than “slower” tractor/mover engines. Consequently they have a worse MPG ratio

2) The tank engines have to have their power made available over a wider band as compared to tractors/movers which typically need it in a lower and narrower range

3) Tank engines tend to be lower displacement coupled with very high power density. The high power density also means a shorter service life compared to tractor/commercial heavy vehicle engines.

Not very comparable, but think about commercial airliner engines vs fighter jet engines.. or race car engines vs family sedan engines
nandakumar
BRFite
Posts: 1638
Joined: 10 May 2010 13:37

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by nandakumar »

Thanks Manish_P and NRao for the answers. Shifting from a focus on fuel efficiency and reduced wear and tear (understandable from a commercial standpoint) to one where different performance parameters of performance that armoured vehicles need, is not an insurmountable challenge for the likes of Tata Motors and Ashok Leyland or for that matter Kirloskars, isn't it? I do not have an engineering background. So the questions if they seem absurd may be forgiven.
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by kit »

nandakumar wrote:Thanks Manish_P and NRao for the answers. Shifting from a focus on fuel efficiency and reduced wear and tear (understandable from a commercial standpoint) to one where different performance parameters of performance that armoured vehicles need, is not an insurmountable challenge for the likes of Tata Motors and Ashok Leyland or for that matter Kirloskars, isn't it? I do not have an engineering background. So the questions if they seem absurd may be forgiven.
i would say an engine manufacturer per se should be able to make both kind of engines., USSRs biggest tank manufacturer also made tractors :mrgreen:
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

But can a tractor manufacturer do tanks with all that entails?

Anyhow as a weapon system the tank is a complex beast and we have not mastered it entirely.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

I have seen a documentary on you tube which showed that the agricultural tractors and other machines were using high capacity Tatra truck engine's. But were mated to transmission system that would be unique to tractors and harvesters etc.

Similarly the German marder upgrade is going to use a 750 hp engine manufactured by Leibherr for it's construction equipment business.

Having said so, it's important to have the ability to manufacture not just engine's. But also the transmission systems for different applications.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

ks_sachin wrote:But can a tractor manufacturer do tanks with all that entails?

Anyhow as a weapon system the tank is a complex beast and we have not mastered it entirely.
Pre WW2 USSR tractor plants were designed to be switched from tractors to tank manufacturing.

Tractor plants in both Leningrad and Stalingrad manufactured tanks in the WW2.

In modern era, it's an academic discussion.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

Mahindra tractors with a 120 mm main gun!!

A light tank if there was one
YashG
BRFite
Posts: 936
Joined: 22 Apr 2017 00:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by YashG »

Pratyush wrote:
ks_sachin wrote:But can a tractor manufacturer do tanks with all that entails?

Anyhow as a weapon system the tank is a complex beast and we have not mastered it entirely.
Pre WW2 USSR tractor plants were designed to be switched from tractors to tank manufacturing.

Tractor plants in both Leningrad and Stalingrad manufactured tanks in the WW2.

In modern era, it's an academic discussion.

During the siege of stalingrad, tanks from the tractor plant in stalingrad were directly rolling from assembly line into battlefield.
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by kit »

ks_sachin wrote:Mahindra tractors with a 120 mm main gun!!

A light tank if there was one
A modern tank is a complete system on its own, engine is just one part ! Even
Armour , mobility, electronics and self-protection systems are not enough in the modern battlefield. It becomes just a part of a very complex system of weapons ranging from a myriad of sensors, missile batteries, drones and satellites to name just a few. To make it short , the tank has a role but vastly different from ww2 era.
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5383
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Manish_P »

ks_sachin wrote:But can a tractor manufacturer do tanks with all that entails?

Anyhow as a weapon system the tank is a complex beast and we have not mastered it entirely.
An engine is just one complex component of a complex system which is the modern battle tank. Then often times there is a difference between tractor/vehicle manufacturer and a manufacturer which makes engines for vehicles..

Broadly speaking a good engine manufacturing company (experienced, R&D invested) should be able to make the different types of engines required for Tanks and for Commercial vehicles.

I think (i could be wrong) that most vehicle manufacturers in India build modified licensed versions of engines from Cummins, FIAT, Bosch etc.
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5383
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Manish_P »

ks_sachin wrote:Mahindra tractors with a 120 mm main gun!!

A light tank if there was one
:D They just might do it.

Still remember the ultra light ...

Image
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

kit wrote:
A modern tank is a complete system on its own, engine is just one part ! Even
Armour , mobility, electronics and self-protection systems are not enough in the modern battlefield. It becomes just a part of a very complex system of weapons ranging from a myriad of sensors, missile batteries, drones and satellites to name just a few. To make it short , the tank has a role but vastly different from ww2 era.
The role of the tank is to provide mobile, protected and direct fire power on the battlefield. In order to achieve and exploit break-through. In that respect, role of tanks has not changed since the invention of the tank during WW1.

The biggest challenge with modern tanks manufacturing is not the engine or even the armour. It's the modern sights along with the digital fire control system for accurate engagements. If this can be done on scale, during times of conflict. Then it's worth discussing which tractor plants can produce Tanks, or APC.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

We need solar powered engines for the desert!!
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

I was thinking about nuclear powered tanks. The Russians have designed a nuclear powered cruise missile. I think that we can design a nuclear powered tank. No hydrocarbon fuel required. The destroyed tank in enemy territory is a Chernobyl causing depopulation of the territory.

Win win
Thakur_B
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2404
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Thakur_B »

ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

What pop gun is that?
SRajesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2061
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 22:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by SRajesh »

A noob pooch
What is this Japanese offer of tanks for free to India
Something on the indian defence updates
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

The Japanese government is considering removal of restrictions on export of second hand equipment for free to countries such as Vietnam, Phillipines and India.

The papers to the effect are to be submitted to the national parliament early next year.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

https://twitter.com/75Sukhoi/status/159 ... Ole5vuc13A ---> Avadi's Heavy Vehicles Factory to upgrade the T-90 Bhishma tanks soon.

Upgrades include:
- Auto Target Tracker (ATT)
- New Digital Ballistic Computer
- Auxiliary Power Unit (APU)
- See through Armour
- Commander's Panoramic Sight
- Driver's Night Sight

Image
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

No APS for the upgraded vehicles?
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5383
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Manish_P »

Is a major percentage of the T90 still night blind?
mody
BRFite
Posts: 1362
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by mody »

Some Youtube channels reporting that Nexter has offered to manufacture the latest variant of LeClerc tank in India in partnership, along with some co-development.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

The Indian army is reluctant to order additional Arjun and is talking about the FRCV.

In this situation it will be comical if the army agrees to the French MBT that has been in service for over 30 years.
RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5620
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by RoyG »

Pratyush wrote:The Indian army is reluctant to order additional Arjun and is talking about the FRCV.

In this situation it will be comical if the army agrees to the French MBT that has been in service for over 30 years.
it's not that they don't understand what the requirement is or the capability of indigenous systems. It's that their primary focus is to make $. It's a structural problem due to collusion of civil services like IAS, senior defense, and arms dealers. They intentionally built loopholes and enjoy state protection which enable corrupt procurement practices. No amount of political sloganeering like Make in India is going to change it. They will simply adapt to it and figure out a work around.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

Video in link below...

https://twitter.com/justtweettz/status/ ... Udb9J4aV5g ---> Heavy Vehicles Factory in Chennai to commence production of Arjun Mk1A Main Battle Tank after DRDO asks Indian Army to consider ordering 250 more Arjun MK1A tanks, while it still works on General Staff Qualitative Requirement(GSQRs) for the Future Main Battle Tank (FMBT).
Post Reply