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

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

Admiral any update on the new engine for the Arjun?
Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4215
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Prem Kumar »

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ind ... s?from=mdr

1) Army wanted all 354 light tanks to be Make-1. So here is the catch. Make-I is technically IDDM but the Indian registered entity need not be owned by Indians. So, it can be a 51:49 type of ownership. L&T wanted to screwdriver-giri Hanwha Defense's light tank. They also wanted to partner with DRDO for the light-tank. I am not sure if the Hanwha deal (like K-9 Vajra) can be pulled off under Make-I. It will be a travesty, if that happens

2) After DRDO said they will rollout 1st prototype by 2023, the MoD has arm-twisted the Army into accepting a piddly 59 tanks from DRDO

3) The remaining 295 will be through Make-1, in which DRDO can also compete. But we all know how that will end up

This doesn't seem to be a good way to go about it:

a) The DRDO tank is ready and prototype rollout is 2023. An ab-initio design by someone like L&T who has never built a tank before, will take a long while

b) The situation is hot at the LAC and we were caught navel gazing (in spite of being pioneers in the use of light tanks in Ladakh), thanks to our fantasizing about T-90s against Pakistan. We needed these tanks 2 years ago

c) If the Army wants to help build a private sector MIC (no doubt a lofty goal), then a cleaner way to do it is to opt for say the DRDO-L&T JV. Or pick Kalyani. Order can be split between HVF Avadi and L&T. The latter will get 100% ToT from DRDO instead of the 50% if they go the Hanwha route. Plus their learning curve will be much faster, because DRDO will be inclined to handhold them, while Hanwha will have zero incentive to do so

d) The next iteration of the light tank can have L&T (or Kalyani or someone else) pitching their own ideas, if the have successfully absorbed the tech and are starting to bring their own innovations

In areas like artillery where a truly private player (Kalyani) offers a plethora of products, the Army makes them beg & crawl. But when it comes to the light tank, even when a DRDO product is almost ready, they suddenly want to encourage the private industry which has no expertise.

Do they think that MAD & Jaishankar will talk the Chinese out of the current impasse & therefore they don't need to prepare for war?
RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5620
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by RoyG »

Prem Kumar wrote:https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ind ... s?from=mdr

1) Army wanted all 354 light tanks to be Make-1. So here is the catch. Make-I is technically IDDM but the Indian registered entity need not be owned by Indians. So, it can be a 51:49 type of ownership. L&T wanted to screwdriver-giri Hanwha Defense's light tank. They also wanted to partner with DRDO for the light-tank. I am not sure if the Hanwha deal (like K-9 Vajra) can be pulled off under Make-I. It will be a travesty, if that happens

2) After DRDO said they will rollout 1st prototype by 2023, the MoD has arm-twisted the Army into accepting a piddly 59 tanks from DRDO

3) The remaining 295 will be through Make-1, in which DRDO can also compete. But we all know how that will end up

This doesn't seem to be a good way to go about it:

a) The DRDO tank is ready and prototype rollout is 2023. An ab-initio design by someone like L&T who has never built a tank before, will take a long while

b) The situation is hot at the LAC and we were caught navel gazing (in spite of being pioneers in the use of light tanks in Ladakh), thanks to our fantasizing about T-90s against Pakistan. We needed these tanks 2 years ago

c) If the Army wants to help build a private sector MIC (no doubt a lofty goal), then a cleaner way to do it is to opt for say the DRDO-L&T JV. Or pick Kalyani. Order can be split between HVF Avadi and L&T. The latter will get 100% ToT from DRDO instead of the 50% if they go the Hanwha route. Plus their learning curve will be much faster, because DRDO will be inclined to handhold them, while Hanwha will have zero incentive to do so

d) The next iteration of the light tank can have L&T (or Kalyani or someone else) pitching their own ideas, if the have successfully absorbed the tech and are starting to bring their own innovations

In areas like artillery where a truly private player (Kalyani) offers a plethora of products, the Army makes them beg & crawl. But when it comes to the light tank, even when a DRDO product is almost ready, they suddenly want to encourage the private industry which has no expertise.

Do they think that MAD & Jaishankar will talk the Chinese out of the current impasse & therefore they don't need to prepare for war?
No just lack of vision and planning, structural issues with procurement, and corruption.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

Where is this DRDO light tank?
Has anyone seen a picture of this?
Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4215
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Prem Kumar »

Prototype yet to rollout. So, no one has seen it yet.

The design should be complete by now because they were talking about development going in in full swing & planning a mid-2023 rollout. L&T was even involved in the design, though its sketchy as to what actual role they played.

RFI was issued in April 2021 itself

https://www.makeinindiadefence.gov.in/a ... ebsite.pdf
KSingh
BRFite
Posts: 504
Joined: 16 Jun 2020 17:52

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by KSingh »

Prem Kumar wrote:https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ind ... s?from=mdr

1) Army wanted all 354 light tanks to be Make-1. So here is the catch. Make-I is technically IDDM but the Indian registered entity need not be owned by Indians. So, it can be a 51:49 type of ownership. L&T wanted to screwdriver-giri Hanwha Defense's light tank. They also wanted to partner with DRDO for the light-tank. I am not sure if the Hanwha deal (like K-9 Vajra) can be pulled off under Make-I. It will be a travesty, if that happens

2) After DRDO said they will rollout 1st prototype by 2023, the MoD has arm-twisted the Army into accepting a piddly 59 tanks from DRDO

3) The remaining 295 will be through Make-1, in which DRDO can also compete. But we all know how that will end up

This doesn't seem to be a good way to go about it:

a) The DRDO tank is ready and prototype rollout is 2023. An ab-initio design by someone like L&T who has never built a tank before, will take a long while

b) The situation is hot at the LAC and we were caught navel gazing (in spite of being pioneers in the use of light tanks in Ladakh), thanks to our fantasizing about T-90s against Pakistan. We needed these tanks 2 years ago

c) If the Army wants to help build a private sector MIC (no doubt a lofty goal), then a cleaner way to do it is to opt for say the DRDO-L&T JV. Or pick Kalyani. Order can be split between HVF Avadi and L&T. The latter will get 100% ToT from DRDO instead of the 50% if they go the Hanwha route. Plus their learning curve will be much faster, because DRDO will be inclined to handhold them, while Hanwha will have zero incentive to do so

d) The next iteration of the light tank can have L&T (or Kalyani or someone else) pitching their own ideas, if the have successfully absorbed the tech and are starting to bring their own innovations

In areas like artillery where a truly private player (Kalyani) offers a plethora of products, the Army makes them beg & crawl. But when it comes to the light tank, even when a DRDO product is almost ready, they suddenly want to encourage the private industry which has no expertise.

Do they think that MAD & Jaishankar will talk the Chinese out of the current impasse & therefore they don't need to prepare for war?
Nice summary.


I almost couldn’t believe my eyes when I was reading today’s report about the 60+300 unit order split. Always the most absurd and convoluted approaches are proposed by Indian MoD and rarely if ever do they actually come to be


So they say they want to encourage private sector, well who is the development partner for the DRDO light tank? What’s wrong with the WhAP/ATAGS approach? Drdo+ private sector design/test and private sector produce?


The ONLY explanation is the IA refused to budge until foreign OEMs could take part (via Make-1 process)

Who will undertake the investment and effort to create a light tank for less than 300 units? No one. So they’ll have to tie up with foreign companies and then rebadge them aka Kalyani M4

And the DRDO light tank earmarked for only 60 units will become another Arjun, declared too expensive and the worst (light) tank in the world because it stands between the IA and foreign $$.

Even if this plan works out (20 years later) a fleet of just 60 will be white elephants that are too costly to operate, what sensible war ready army would ever sanction something as ridiculous as this?
Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Vips »

From various news report so far:
This is going to be a Hanwha K9 with a John Cockerill 105 MM Turret. Anybody knows what engine or transmission it proposes to use?
How is it going to be indigenous if everything is just assembled?

Did i really ask that? There we go again..... :-?
RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5620
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by RoyG »

Such a stupidity...only in India does this kind of bullshit happen. Like I said, no vision, piss poor planning, and collusion between civil service, arms dealers, and IA procurement guys. Make a joke of tax payer money, national security, and GoI atmanirbhar initiative.
Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4215
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Prem Kumar »

The K9 chassis design was discarded because it will not meet the RFI requirement of being < 25 tonnes. Unless Hanwha is offering a new design which weighs less

Secondly, why would the Govt fund (via Make-I) a foreign design when it explicitly states that Make-I has to be IDDM only. This will be an interesting space to watch. If they pull this stunt, the whole "Make-I IDDM" will be a travesty, considering that they have a Make-II that allows for foreign collaboration
KSingh
BRFite
Posts: 504
Joined: 16 Jun 2020 17:52

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by KSingh »

Prem Kumar wrote:The K9 chassis design was discarded because it will not meet the RFI requirement of being < 25 tonnes. Unless Hanwha is offering a new design which weighs less

Secondly, why would the Govt fund (via Make-I) a foreign design when it explicitly states that Make-I has to be IDDM only. This will be an interesting space to watch. If they pull this stunt, the whole "Make-I IDDM" will be a travesty, considering that they have a Make-II that allows for foreign collaboration
The devil is always in the details. We may assume the intent of the rules but there are plenty of loopholes

Has the negative import list stopped talk about the ATHOS? Now they’ll ship the parts to india, assemble and declare it atmanirbharat. Look at the spectacle around the Kaylani M4.


You have yourself pointed out the obvious workarounds in the make 1 process that leaves the door open for foreign designs. And frankly who would invest the effort and capital in designing and validating a clean sheet product when they can readily tie up with any global OEM and market their designs? How much R&D do Indian private defence companies actually do? And a production run of just 300 units hardly makes such an investment justified.


This is clearly just the IA’s way of getting a foreign product otherwise they wouldn’t be splitting the requirement DNC would say they’ll get all 350 from DRDO-L&T

This has all the makings of another FICV. Fanfare and promises but going nowhere. Just like MRFA and P75I.

I’m almost certain that’s the intent, they want to dangle these mega deals to the world’s shadiest of industries. Once a deal is closed the scope to pocket $$ disappears.
KSingh
BRFite
Posts: 504
Joined: 16 Jun 2020 17:52

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by KSingh »

RoyG wrote:Such a stupidity...only in India does this kind of bullshit happen. Like I said, no vision, piss poor planning, and collusion between civil service, arms dealers, and IA procurement guys. Make a joke of tax payer money, national security, and GoI atmanirbhar initiative.
There’s a well entrenched ecosystem, did we really think it would disappear after 70 years of work? The travesty is that the PMO continues to let these spectacles play out. Since 2014 Indian defence procurement has barely changed, there’s not been a dramatic increase in capacity
RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5620
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by RoyG »

KSingh wrote:
RoyG wrote:Such a stupidity...only in India does this kind of bullshit happen. Like I said, no vision, piss poor planning, and collusion between civil service, arms dealers, and IA procurement guys. Make a joke of tax payer money, national security, and GoI atmanirbhar initiative.
There’s a well entrenched ecosystem, did we really think it would disappear after 70 years of work? The travesty is that the PMO continues to let these spectacles play out. Since 2014 Indian defence procurement has barely changed, there’s not been a dramatic increase in capacity
Yes. I've mentioned previously that loopholes are built into this like the emergency procurement. You can pretty much justify any buy. Just depends on the creativity of the persons framing the requirement.

This is really the problem with the atmanirbhar initiative. By the time you indigenize all the major tech of today, it will already have been superceded by the tech of tom. There simply aren't any incentives to really conduct the r&d and the rules of the game are poorly framed. It's the product of collusion between bureaucrats, military, and arms dealers.

It becomes even worse because staggering the orders is intentionally done so the request and contract have to be reissued and the price goes up. This collusive entity simply makes more money and the preparedness goes down.
KSingh
BRFite
Posts: 504
Joined: 16 Jun 2020 17:52

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by KSingh »

RoyG wrote:
KSingh wrote: There’s a well entrenched ecosystem, did we really think it would disappear after 70 years of work? The travesty is that the PMO continues to let these spectacles play out. Since 2014 Indian defence procurement has barely changed, there’s not been a dramatic increase in capacity
Yes. I've mentioned previously that loopholes are built into this like the emergency procurement. You can pretty much justify any buy. Just depends on the creativity of the persons framing the requirement.

This is really the problem with the atmanirbhar initiative. By the time you indigenize all the major tech of today, it will already have been superceded by the tech of tom. There simply aren't any incentives to really conduct the r&d and the rules of the game are poorly framed. It's the product of collusion between bureaucrats, military, and arms dealers.

It becomes even worse because staggering the orders is intentionally done so the request and contract have to be reissued and the price goes up. This collusive entity simply makes more money and the preparedness goes down.
Yep. Break every requirement up into multiple deals= multiple revenue streams for the babus/generals in charge

Rifles, LMGs, arty, tanks etc etc when was the last time they gave the full requirement to one bid? They break them up into 2-3 separate bids now so there’s always an avenue to keep the foreign OEMs flooding them with $$$

UPA era corruption just got more subtle under NDA, utter shame on PMO
Barath
BRFite
Posts: 474
Joined: 11 Feb 2019 19:06

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Barath »

FICV and Light Tanks for the Indian Army, cleared by the DAC

https://www.financialexpress.com/india- ... s/2923809/

They cleared 22 other proposals including Naval Anti-Ship Missiles, Multi-Purpose Vessels, Next Generation Offshore Patrol Vessels (for the Indian Coast Guard) and new range of missile system, Long Range Guided Bombs.
Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4215
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Prem Kumar »

Much welcome news from the honorable RM!

But I will believe these DAC pronouncements (AONs) when we see actual orders. For reference: the DAC in 2018 cleared the ATAGS order for 150 units. Four years later, the order is yet to be placed!
YashG
BRFite
Posts: 936
Joined: 22 Apr 2017 00:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by YashG »

KSingh wrote:
Rifles, LMGs, arty, tanks etc etc when was the last time they gave the full requirement to one bid? They break them up into 2-3 separate bids now so there’s always an avenue to keep the foreign OEMs flooding them with $$$

UPA era corruption just got more subtle under NDA, utter shame on PMO
Babus are definitely dipping into gravy train. PMO consolidated a lot of decision making during other years, now that PMO is preparing for elections, there is not much shepherding happening on atma-nirbhar. Im guessing RM is also busy in elections - I cant blame him. As it is RM's political turf is fully usurped by yogi and RM is definitely on a shaky political base, so he cant afford to put much time into defense matters or else he will be upstaged when next govt comes - it would be same modi sarkar thats not in doubt.

The ugly side of political democracies is this, national security matters will take a backstage to internal politics. Appointment of someone like Jaishankar would have been very good in this case. Jaishankar has no political base to save and he is a fulltime FM. We need a fulltime RM too. I would resolutely pray that Modi does a Jaishankar for defence too. That will set right the whole MoD for years to come. Our indigenous efforts are on a vital cusp. A fulltime RM is desperately needed. While Government goes in election mode, someone can take care of defense affairs.
MeshaVishwas
BRFite
Posts: 868
Joined: 16 Feb 2019 17:20

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by MeshaVishwas »

Kalyani/Paramount Mbombe 4 in Africa.Very heavy beasts + wheeled may mean such circumstances.(Trade off between excellent protection/ weight)
This is ideal Sarath country.
Image
Image
Images shared by Viet Nam Twitter user: @AnnQuann
Ff to around 15min mark to know the terrain and the challenge

Also some good images of the Sarath in the element, from the internet:
Image
Image
Kersi
BRFite
Posts: 467
Joined: 31 May 2017 12:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Kersi »

RoyG wrote:Such a stupidity...only in India does this kind of bullshit happen. Like I said, no vision, piss poor planning, and collusion between civil service, arms dealers, and IA procurement guys. Make a joke of tax payer money, national security, and GoI atmanirbhar initiative.
I disagree

This is no stupidity.

This is a perfect plan to show that we are encouraging local design and manufacture. In reality the powers-that-be will put up such excellent hurdles that it is will be impossible to meet the deadlines.

Finally. Emergency Purchase !!!!!
Kersi
BRFite
Posts: 467
Joined: 31 May 2017 12:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Kersi »

Are there any ready made products available off-the-shelf ?
Russian Sprut ?
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

Sprut was disqualified by the Indian Army a few years ago.

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/k21_105.htm

This procurement project seems customer designed for the Hanwa K21-105. The only thing it needs is a 100 hp power plant.

Cockrill 105 turret.
1000 HP engine.
Under 25 tons.

I am surprised by the lack or originality from the Indian army.

How do they know that this tank will be able to defeat the type 99 tanks on the battlefield?

Or the Indian Army is expecting that the PRC will issue a challenge on megaphone asking Indian army to send a T 90. If they are deploying Type 99.

http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product3625.html

RUAG, has a 120 mm compact tank gun for armoured vehicles in the 25 ton class. Capable of firing all modern 120 mm rounds.

The army didn't ask for a vehicle fitted with this gun.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

Pratyush,
Are you privy perhaps to the offensive / defensive planning that has been put into place for Ladakh / Tibetean plateau?
If yes great and all the differs in Armr Directorate should be sacked.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

Where the option exists to accomplish something within the weight specified.

Explicitly ruling it out is not the smartest thing to do.
Kersi
BRFite
Posts: 467
Joined: 31 May 2017 12:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Kersi »

Do we necessarily need a tank to counter Chini tanks
What about a smallish truck with a dozen ATGMs ?
Something like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Horn ... g_2363.jpg
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

Pratyush wrote:Where the option exists to accomplish something within the weight specified.

Explicitly ruling it out is not the smartest thing to do.
Not sure I understand.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

Kersi wrote:Do we necessarily need a tank to counter Chini tanks
What about a smallish truck with a dozen ATGMs ?
Something like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Horn ... g_2363.jpg

No and we have been building our defences for a long time. Surely if IA appreciates the role or armr in the AoR then it understands the risks Chinese armr poses and has plans in place to counter?
mody
BRFite
Posts: 1362
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by mody »

Pratyush wrote:Sprut was disqualified by the Indian Army a few years ago.

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/k21_105.htm

This procurement project seems customer designed for the Hanwa K21-105. The only thing it needs is a 100 hp power plant.

Cockrill 105 turret.
1000 HP engine.
Under 25 tons.

I am surprised by the lack or originality from the Indian army.

How do they know that this tank will be able to defeat the type 99 tanks on the battlefield?

Or the Indian Army is expecting that the PRC will issue a challenge on megaphone asking Indian army to send a T 90. If they are deploying Type 99.

http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product3625.html

RUAG, has a 120 mm compact tank gun for armoured vehicles in the 25 ton class. Capable of firing all modern 120 mm rounds.

The army didn't ask for a vehicle fitted with this gun.
The light tanks are not meant to take on heavy PLA tanks. They may be used for offensive action of our own into PLA territory. Being light, would allow them to be deployed in possibly an easier manner, as compared to MBTs. Also, the requirement of the high powered engine and high weight to torque ratio is for high mobility and to negate the effect of engine derating at high altitudes.

Personally, I am not much for the light tank concept. But IA probably thinks, it can capture some areas and use them as a bargaining chip.
The light tanks would be easy targets for ATGMs and also for drones.
mody
BRFite
Posts: 1362
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by mody »

There was recently some news about AVNL (erst while OFB), experimenting with putting a T90 turret on a T72 chassis. What is the purpose of this kind of an exercise?
Is there a major difference between the T72 and T90 chassis? I thought most of the changes are in the turret between the two tanks.

There was also talk of replacing the T72 engine with the T90 engine, now that we are producing bot the engines indigenously. If the engine and the turret is replaced, the T72 essentially becomes the T90. Maybe this could be an attempt to upgrade the T72s to the T90 standard, while being cheaper than new build T90 tanks.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

In war, the enemy always has a vote. It will always have the ability to surprise us.

Because, he has sustained the deployment of his MBT on the Tibetan plateau against the Indian T90s post galwan for nearly one year.

In this context, if the army still thinks that the light tank will never ever face the Type 99. Then it makes sense to go for 105 mm main gun.

But, if there is even a 10 % chance that the Indian light tank can run into the PLA MBT. Even by accident, then the light tank must have the 120 mm main gun.
MeshaVishwas
BRFite
Posts: 868
Joined: 16 Feb 2019 17:20

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by MeshaVishwas »

Has the Army tried deploying Arjun in that terrain? Publically at least they haven't.
They bought the Vajra for "a" specific kind of terrain, Chinis showed some aankh, Army "experimented" with the Vajra deployment there, loved it and now are ordering 100 more with cold weather kits.
What keeps them from trying the same with the Arjun?
It is the best tank in this part of the world by far.It may even force the Chinis to do an emergency procurement.
8)
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

That is an interesting view. The MTU 838 powering the Arjun is a turbo diesel.

It should be able to maintain power rating at those altitudes.
niran
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5535
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 16:01

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by niran »

Pratyush wrote:That is an interesting view. The MTU 838 powering the Arjun is a turbo diesel.

It should be able to maintain power rating at those altitudes.
few private firms collaborating and currently testing 800 HP, 1500HP, 2200HP MTU all three are DOHC(double overhead cam) 4 valve per cylinder CRDI (common rail direct injection) stifle that yawn 4 stage variable timing turbo+super charger(yeah ain't a typo it is 4 stage variable timing turbo) displacement in CC is 1.8cc for 800HP, 2.2cc for 1500HP and 2200HP basically normal passenger car engine size MTUs. engine wise we are good another good news they plan to upgrade replace and install 2200HP ones in all Arjun's MBT. personally speaking am absolutely against Light Tanks but i ain't the end user IA is they must have proper reason
fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4282
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by fanne »

I think by now we would have roads that can transport Arjun to the frontline? Do we?
It will be game changer in few plane area (tank territory)- Depsang, Demchok. Some area maybe tough given terrain and connectivity - all roads and bridges will have to be 70-ton qualified (and tunnels broad enough), maybe more if the tanks are transported atop a vehicle. That may be tough. It may not be airlifted (while 20 tons less weight T-90- can).
KSingh
BRFite
Posts: 504
Joined: 16 Jun 2020 17:52

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by KSingh »

MeshaVishwas wrote:Has the Army tried deploying Arjun in that terrain? Publically at least they haven't.
They bought the Vajra for "a" specific kind of terrain, Chinis showed some aankh, Army "experimented" with the Vajra deployment there, loved it and now are ordering 100 more with cold weather kits.
What keeps them from trying the same with the Arjun?
It is the best tank in this part of the world by far.It may even force the Chinis to do an emergency procurement.
8)
It’s pretty clear why they are moving expeditiously for more K9s but had to be forced to take even 1 tranche of MK1A

the utter disdain that the Arjun program is treated with by the IA says it all.

The light tank boondoggle is going to consume the next 10+ years whilst the PLA bring all their toys to the front.

Even after all the billions poured into infrastructure development at the frontiers the IA will still proclaim the Arjun isn’t suitable for their mobility requirements.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

The Arjun is dead. It makes no economic sence to have a couple of Armd Regts with this.

Or change the main gun to 125mm. Put in a bustle mounted autoloader like Leclerc etc.

Rifled 120mm was a mistake IMHO.
Reduce it to 3 man crew.

Get the indian powerpack in. Where is that by the way.

Otherwise the tank is useless and being posted to those 4 or 5 Armd Regts will be seen as career limiting.
mody
BRFite
Posts: 1362
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by mody »

niran wrote:
Pratyush wrote:That is an interesting view. The MTU 838 powering the Arjun is a turbo diesel.

It should be able to maintain power rating at those altitudes.
few private firms collaborating and currently testing 800 HP, 1500HP, 2200HP MTU all three are DOHC(double overhead cam) 4 valve per cylinder CRDI (common rail direct injection) stifle that yawn 4 stage variable timing turbo+super charger(yeah ain't a typo it is 4 stage variable timing turbo) displacement in CC is 1.8cc for 800HP, 2.2cc for 1500HP and 2200HP basically normal passenger car engine size MTUs. engine wise we are good another good news they plan to upgrade replace and install 2200HP ones in all Arjun's MBT. personally speaking am absolutely against Light Tanks but i ain't the end user IA is they must have proper reason
Have never heard of a 2,200HP engine under development or a plan to replace the MTU 838 engine with a 2,200 HP engine on the Arjun. The 1,500 HP Bharat Powerpack engine has been developed and is under testing. Once the tests are over, this will be the engine used to power the 118 Arjun MK1A. Subsequently may replace the MTU 838 1,400 HP engine on the 124 Arjun MK1s. The old Arjuns will most likely also be upgraded to the MK1A standard.

Any official or otherwise source for this 2,200 HP engine?
VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2976
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by VinodTK »



The Defender : Tanks Vs Light Tanks | 07 January, 2023
MeshaVishwas
BRFite
Posts: 868
Joined: 16 Feb 2019 17:20

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by MeshaVishwas »

Hope this is not another wild goose chase:
Autoloader for MBT Arjun
:roll:
I hope the Army is not dreamy eyed about the LeClerc and now want a desi LeClerc at 40% off or whatever.
Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7806
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Anujan »

https://twitter.com/SJha1618/status/1612092520862978048
Saurav Jha
@SJha1618
Anyway, the Nag anti-tank guided missile along with the NAMICA (together NAMIS) has finally been inducted into the Indian Army. These are file pics of the NAMICA. The production variant has a few new accoutrements.
williams
BRFite
Posts: 874
Joined: 21 Jun 2006 20:55

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by williams »

Kersi wrote:Do we necessarily need a tank to counter Chini tanks
What about a smallish truck with a dozen ATGMs ?
Something like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Horn ... g_2363.jpg
You do need them If you go on the offensive and the best way to counter them is to go on the offensive.
mody
BRFite
Posts: 1362
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by mody »

MeshaVishwas wrote:Hope this is not another wild goose chase:
Autoloader for MBT Arjun
:roll:
I hope the Army is not dreamy eyed about the LeClerc and now want a desi LeClerc at 40% off or whatever.
Reportedly they are developing the autoloader for an unmanned version of the Arjun tank. Don't know if IA has given such a requirement or DRDO is just taken it up to develop and showcase an unmanned armoured vehicle.
An unmanned Arjun in the current form makes no sense. If it to be unmanned with an autoloader, the size and weight can be reduced substantially.
Post Reply