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
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Philip »

Look at content,don't criticise with bias towards any country.3-man crewed MBTs will co-exist with unmanned ICVs in the future.The Armata series has plans for the same in the future.
A 155mm gun can also be fitted.The UKR is planning a new MBT with such a gun.

Our blinkered vision can only think of a large lumbering beast,4 man crew,high visibility,etc. Even the new Kalyani mine-proof ICV is as tall as an elephant, will be picked up first. Look at latest western ICVs,sleek and low. Then look at deployability.What is the max. size/ weight of MBT that our C-17s and IL-76s can carry? We've already deployed T-72/T-90MBTs in Ladakh. It's a light tank that we need for certain terrain. An urgent req. to meet immediate challenges is needed.Long term, the DRDO must get cracking on an amphib LT that will be used for future amphib. warfare too.

More Arjuns deployed in the desert sectors will release more lighter T-72/90s for terrain where Arjun can't be deployed.As a former general said,bridges on enemy territory in many sectors are not Arjun capable. The future MBT must be of a different concept,crew in the chassis,unmanned turret,auto-loader,soft and hard- kill defensive systems, NCW commns., around 50t.Infact even 2 man crew tanks may appear in the future with greater automation apart from fully unmanned AVs. Armoured formations will need multi-layered mobile air defence systems capable of dealing with drone swarms. One wishes Gen.Sunderji was with us.He would've loved planning for future armoured warfare.
jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5727
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by jamwal »

First it was Indian roads and bridges are not strong enough. Now it's pakistani bridges?
No offence intended to you Philip ji, but this excuse is just bullshit on a different platter which gullible are lapping up. Since when an armoured offensive dependent on a cooperative enemy which will not blow up bridges as it retreats. Why do armies employ so many engineers and use so many types of bridging and water crossing equipment?
Sootiya banaa rahein hain, aur kuch khaas nahin.

BTW, 2 man crew for a tank was first proposed by Swedish when they were designing their famous turretless tank. They had to add 3rd crew because army felt that 2 people are not enough for driving and firing.
basant
BRFite
Posts: 894
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by basant »

jamwal wrote:First it was Indian roads and bridges are not strong enough. Now it's pakistani bridges?
I am confused. On the one hand, even if we convince/trick Pakistanis to build Arjun capable bridges, would they not blow them up if they think that we are going to cross them during war? On the other hand, the moment we started building roads at LAC, Chinese started coming. May be there is some merit in both perspectives. :wink:
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by kit »

jamwal wrote:First it was Indian roads and bridges are not strong enough. Now it's pakistani bridges?
.
maybe bakis are having their moment of inspiration., give it a few days to go viral :mrgreen:
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Philip »

Jam,I am quoting 2 respected former generals who spoke at length on the tank on Rajya Sabha TV,one former head of mechanised forces. Pros and cons of it discussed. At 68t, plus its width, there are several limitations to it operationally terrain rise on both sides of the border.
Another piece on the subject looking to the future says that even the QSRs for the FRCV haven't yet been finalised. This will delay the arrival of that tank's arrival whencwe need it.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ks_sachin »

Philip wrote:Jam,I am quoting 2 respected former generals who spoke at length on the tank on Rajya Sabha TV,one former head of mechanised forces. Pros and cons of it discussed. At 68t, plus its width, there are several limitations to it operationally terrain rise on both sides of the border.
Another piece on the subject looking to the future says that even the QSRs for the FRCV haven't yet been finalised. This will delay the arrival of that tank's arrival whencwe need it.
So according to the generals, the Pakistani's looked at the Arjun and decided to narrow the bridges and reduce its tonnage.
An according to the generals an armed thrust into Pakistan would be a stroll because the Pakistanis - if put under pressure - would welcome us with open arms to use their bridges.
Field Marshall Philip just because it is a senior general who came onto RajyaSabha TV (and the anchor is insufferable in his lack of knowledge and asking the hard questions) does not mean that it is the case. Even if I concede bridges - the questions of terrain should really beg the question why 4000 bloody tanks. After all the ditch cum bunds defence strategy of Pakistan will impede all kinds of armr!!!
We expect more from you Field Marshall....
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Philip »

Give the anchor a break please! The generals were very candid.Here's another Lt.Gen. very candid about the same.

http://www.indiandefensenews.in/2021/03 ... ahead.html
DECODING ARJUN TANK MYTH: WAY AHEAD
TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 2021 BY INDIAN DEFENCE NEWS


by Lt Gen Sanjay Verma (Retd)
Xcpts:
Arjun tank’s performance and the issue of its induction in service has been debated in detail. However, what cannot be denied is the tank is commendable in multiple areas of firepower, mobility, protection and crew comfort. Its weight remains a contentious issue. The project to manufacture Arjun throws up infirmities that need to be addressed in the interactive relationship between the user, DRDO and manufacturing agencies. The author provides a balanced view while suggesting a better model for progressing our Aatmanirbhar Bharat thrust more efficiently.

The Defence Acquisition Council approval to revalidate the much-awaited Acceptance of Necessity (AON) for procuring 118 indigenously developed Mk-1A Arjun Main Battle Tanks (MBTs) and an associated event on 14 February 2021 wherein the Prime Minister ceremoniously handed over the tank to the Chief of the Army Staff drew interesting comments from various sections of the media. These covered the entire spectrum from the very basic questioning of the wisdom to procure hinging on the operational and logistical constraints along with a huge expenditure tag to the acknowledgement, that it indeed is a potent platform but still may be the last order – a dichotomous statement though ironically not divorced from the truth!

The Indian Army quest for a state of the art MBT has had a tumultuous trajectory to the present configuration which comes with 14 major upgrades and various other improvements driven both by user aspirations and technological developments. The MBT conceived as a replacement for the Russian T-72 aligned to the Eastern bloc philosophy has manifested in a platform avidly adapted to the Western bloc philosophy leaving many operational voids for deployment in the Indian sub-context. Today, as the platform stands, it is a winner in almost all aspects be it firepower, mobility, protection, crew comfort and survivability. These are facts that have been validated and find resonance amongst many defence experts.

But in achieving the above, the critical aspect of operational and strategic mobility has been totally compromised which severely impacts its deployability and restricts the employability to specific terrain. This stems from the overall weight of the tank envisaged to be around 48 tonnes but eventually comes with an additional penalty of about 20 tonnes. So, despite the winners flagged, the MBT is nowhere in a position to be a replacement for any of the existing tank fleet be it T-72 or T-90. There are other related issues of sustenance and cost etc., which come in for severe criticism.

The question which arises is if this was a platform that was being indigenously developed why has it landed in the present form? Has the user been aspirational in almost all aspects demanding, as they say, the “moon” in terms of enhanced protection as in the Western MBTs, while simultaneously retaining equal focus on mobility and speed for higher survivability as in the Russian platforms? Or, has the DRDO incrementally added all features and requirements resulting in the present configuration. The blame has to be squarely and equally shared by both, since if the user has been aspirational and as they say reserve the right to be aspirational, the DRDO should have been candid and upfront in highlighting that the weight parameters would be severely compromised.

Whatever has been done can’t be undone now but there sure are lessons which have been amply learnt and there is an urgent need to look at the way ahead. The Indian Army’s search for the elusive Future Infantry Combat Vehicle (FICV) and the Future Ready Combat Vehicle (FRCV), despite so many years since initiation, is nowhere near even freezing of the Qualitative Requirements (QRs) nor finalisation of the procurement strategy. The recent operational imperatives have brought fore the need for a Light Tank too. So, what should be the way ahead now?

The fact that the DRDO has been able to establish abundant credibility in integrating and designing the Arjun as a potent platform is undisputed and not a myth at all. The issues of sustenance and cost are something that can be addressed with diligence and clarity in defining the scope right at the beginning. Something refreshing which DRDO has brought in as a policy is the early identification of the Design cum Development Partner or the Production Agency which is a win-win situation for all stakeholders. The industry brings its core strengths and with the handholding of the DRDO, the technology transfer and fructification of the platforms can be expedited. The DRDO, therefore, is in a formidable position to undertake any of the projects be it the Light Tank or the future MBT for the Indian Army.

On the part of the User, there is an urgent need to freeze the Qualitative Requirements (QRs). The operational matrix is ever-evolving and so is technology. The need is to incrementally look for enhanced parameters in a defined timeline and numbers. Theatre specific parameters are a reality and shying away from these on operational pretexts needs a hard look. The experience of Swathi Weapon Locating Radar and Akash Missile Systems adequately brings out how successfully developed platforms for plains have been improved and upgraded for deployment at higher altitudes. With every successful platform the confidence amongst the User, the Scientist and the Industry keep growing resulting in enhanced parameters driven by User requirements as also enabled by technological developments. Looking for a singular platform as the only solution which fulfils all parameters, whether it is plains, deserts, mountains, high altitude or the Rann of Kutch is fraught with the risk of protracted trials, delays, not to mention the avoidable cost penalty and failure.

Hence, if the Arjun story is not to be repeated, it’s time that all stakeholders sit together and initiate both the Light Tank and the future MBT projects with clearly defined parameters, timelines and numbers with a long-term commitment to duly factoring and seeking assurance of lifetime sustenance. The distinct advantage of this model i.e., User, DRDO and the Industry together is the facilitation of the spiral development and inherent flexibility in accepting the Qualitative Parameters as they mature. The Services will benefit from expeditious induction albeit maybe Mark 1, scientists are motivated to realise Mark 2 and the Industry partner has sufficient incentive since rollout has commenced. For reasons evident, this is the best option for strategic platforms to be indigenously developed and realise the ‘Aatmanirbhar Bharat Vision’.
PS: Not just for AVs, but with other reqs.,the phrase "horses for courses" always comes to mind.A prime example of trying to find one shoe that fits all ending in fiasco is the F-35 JSF where the USAF,etc. are already looking for their "5th-gen -" or 4+++ new fighter. The operational costs of the F-35 are twice that of other 4+ gen. fighters and the % of F-35s that are actually fully combat capable is v.low.Similarly the jingos who want Arjun to fight the Chins in Ladakh despite limitations in air transportability,terrain,etc.
But what the good general said earlier on must ask the Q why it was not observed,a T-72 replacement for an eastern concept MBT,not a western larger 4-man crewed MBT.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12197
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

The big issue is that post the induction of T90 on grounds of its ability to be integrated into the existing logistics chain. The armoured corps has not been candid regarding Arjun' and the future shape of the mechanised forces.

It reflects in the mutually exclusive demands of the vehicle. That it should lose weight. But then the tank has to be fitted with ERA and mine ploughs.

All that will add weight to the vehicle.

I submit that even the serving armoured corps officers don't have clarity at the moment as to what the future armoured vehicles they need. This is reflected in the demand for tanks that are all over the place. In terms of weight. From 42.5 tonnes to 70 tonnes.

What kind of requirements are those? The forces need to figure out what they want and do it quickly. We have had this drama for over 15 years now. We can't afford to waste any more time on this issue. Especially when a war can come at any time.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Philip »

V.true.Right now the onus is squarely on the IA. My gut feeling is that they want another T-tank,the T-14 Armata!

If the IA delays,and a cut-off date lapses,the DRDO should take the initiative and concentrate in designing a futuristic MBT with a 3-man crew,autoloader,option for a 155mm gun as is being pursued by the UKR/Turkey (?)which one day may land up with the Pakis.There is enough tech. developed from the Arjun programme which could go into the FCV whatever.This will force the IA with GOI pressure to accept the desi MBT which will fit in with current AW doctrine.
rajsunder
BRFite
Posts: 855
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 02:38
Location: MASA Land

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by rajsunder »

ks_sachin wrote:
Philip wrote:Jam,I am quoting 2 respected former generals who spoke at length on the tank on Rajya Sabha TV,one former head of mechanised forces. Pros and cons of it discussed. At 68t, plus its width, there are several limitations to it operationally terrain rise on both sides of the border.
Another piece on the subject looking to the future says that even the QSRs for the FRCV haven't yet been finalised. This will delay the arrival of that tank's arrival whencwe need it.
So according to the generals, the Pakistani's looked at the Arjun and decided to narrow the bridges and reduce its tonnage.
An according to the generals an armed thrust into Pakistan would be a stroll because the Pakistanis - if put under pressure - would welcome us with open arms to use their bridges.
Field Marshall Philip just because it is a senior general who came onto RajyaSabha TV (and the anchor is insufferable in his lack of knowledge and asking the hard questions) does not mean that it is the case. Even if I concede bridges - the questions of terrain should really beg the question why 4000 bloody tanks. After all the ditch cum bunds defence strategy of Pakistan will impede all kinds of armr!!!
We expect more from you Field Marshall....
most probably these are the same generals who want Cold Start strategy(in which the Army is supposed to move fast in to enemy territory) but do not want to test the capability of tanks on the move. And if any tank in any competition shoots another tank on the movie, the tank that shot while on move is granted -ve marks.
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5249
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by srai »

^^^
And to compensate for lack of main gun firepower, gun missile firing gets awarded 3x bonus points ...
Cyrano
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5481
Joined: 28 Mar 2020 01:07

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Cyrano »

Is a modular tank design possible? A platform that can be mated with different power plants, turrets, guns, armour, ERA, sensors, add ins, APU etc for different theatre needs?
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Philip »

That's what has been told to us for years by various DRDO chiefs!
I simply can't understand why thete are no cut-off dates,red flags for decision-making. I was watching the Army Chief this morning on telly, at an Eco Forum conclave trying to convince the gathering that security and defence made eco sense, the " guns vs butter" argument, boosting the manufacturing capabiity of the nation,employing lakhs. Boris Johnson,soon to visit has astonishingly announced another 80 N-warheads for the UK's strat. defence. It would be better spent on the RN and conv. weaponry,drones,etc., but his willingness to secure his nation's security by spending money is something to emulate.

Here, our leadership should use the stick,demand results fromthe tome-waster babus and any in the services too, integrate further the services in the MOD, use the whip,kick ass, send the troublesome ones to Siachen like Uncle George. Every day is precious especially in defence procurement.
We don't need another knee-jerk twitch going on now for the IAF with the MMRCA 2.0, for the IA as well with its AVs.
SRajesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2071
Joined: 04 Aug 2019 22:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by SRajesh »

Philip wrote:That's what has been told to us for years by various DRDO chiefs!
Every day is precious especially in defence procurement.
We don't need another knee-jerk twitch going on now for the IAF with the MMRCA 2.0, for the IA as well with its AVs.
Phillipsirji
If there is no Knee-jerk reactions : then Babulog/Khandaan ko Malai/Rabadi kahan se milege :D
Like the MMRCA the tank will take many avatars!!
Natasha will keep smiling and winking!!!
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12197
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

Cyrano wrote:Is a modular tank design possible? A platform that can be mated with different power plants, turrets, guns, armour, ERA, sensors, add ins, APU etc for different theatre needs?
Short answer no.

Long answer, other than armour package you can't get any other items to be modular.

A better option would be to implement the French approach during the cold war regarding the armoured vehicles. Starting from wheeled armoured vehicles to tracked vehicles.

Will this work for the unique Indian circumstances. I don't know.
rajsunder
BRFite
Posts: 855
Joined: 01 Jul 2006 02:38
Location: MASA Land

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by rajsunder »

I was looking at koenigsegg camless engine and how these small sized engines can make high HP. Moreover this engine directly provides electrical power instead of mechanical power.
I believe that the next gen of TANKS will have to be powered by these sort of engines providing electrical power. These engines combined with energy capture from gun recoil and brakes will be stealthy in both sound and IR(as they release less heat compared to the normal engines used in tanks).
Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4218
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Prem Kumar »

Philip wrote: http://www.indiandefensenews.in/2021/03 ... ahead.html
DECODING ARJUN TANK MYTH: WAY AHEAD
TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 2021 BY INDIAN DEFENCE NEWS by Lt Gen Sanjay Verma (Retd)
Frankly, I am surprised that the good Lt Gen is surprised by Arjun's weight. If the DGMF read their own GSQR with ERA, mine-plough & 90 other requirements & had actually seen the weights of Merkava, Abrams etc, what weight did they expect?

Tanks are DGMF's bread & butter. If they act surprised, you got to ask whether they understand their own area of specialization.
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Vivek K »

Just goes to show the level of corruption.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12197
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

Vivek K wrote:Just goes to show the level of corruption.

Not necessarily. This could be sheer bloody mindedness as well.

Frankly, I can understand the rationale for not induction of Arjun in the economic environment of the early 90s.

I can also understand the rationale behind the induction of T90 in the late 90s as well.

But I can't understand the rationale for asking for mk2.

If the DGMF was serious. Then they could have asked for the development of a different tank under a different project. While closing the Arjun tank development project.

But they have been dragging on with a product that was designed to specific requirements of the Indian army. And they are acting surprised.
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Vivek K »

I'm sorry to burst bubble - but corruption is the answer. Will not elaborate.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Philip »

The point the good general made was that in the light of the IA's extra reqs.,the DRDO/ CVRDE should've told the IA that weight penalties would make it impossible to achieve the original intention,a T-72 replacement,the constraints,etc. They should've got the IA to sign on for the same making it then impossible to refuse to buy it. The DRDO too right from the start was obsessed with developing a desi clone of the Leopard and adopted a blinkered attitude.

Where do we go too from here is the Q? With the orders of T-90s placed,T-72 upgrades in large numbers,plus the few hundred Arjuns, the IA will have between 3500 to 4000 MBTs. A new modular MBT design is needed, smaller,lighter,3-man crew with all current bells and whistles,active/ passive defences,5km+ ATGMs and provision for a heavier 155mm gun for limited batches. A deadline for the IA's reqs. must be set by the MOD so that at least Mk-1 of the FMBT can arrive within the decade.
shaun
BRFite
Posts: 1385
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by shaun »

Philip wrote:The point the good general made was that in the light of the IA's extra reqs.,the DRDO/ CVRDE should've told the IA that weight penalties would make it impossible to achieve the original intention,a T-72 replacement,the constraints,etc. ....
I really doubt such assetions from thin air that they never discussed the weight penality . Arjun was not an exact replacement of t70 , could have seen service in numbers if we had the likes of Late parrikar overseaing its induction. The rest are all assumptions .
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12197
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Pratyush »

If one rules out the impossible then whatever else remains however impossible must be the truth.

We have over the last several years observed in various comments from DGMF surprise that Arjun was designed to take this form.

This at minimum shows ignorance of the man making the statement. As to why the tank turned out the way it did.

Secondly, we have also observed statement at a different time that the Arjun lacking sloped armour. While T90 being having it. ( The gentleman had called kontact5 as slopped armour).

If this was an innocent comments then it reflects a deep ignorance of what different types of armour are and supposed properties.

Also as a civilian if I don't understand the difference between composite armour, ERA or RHA. It is not a problem for any one. But if the professional doesn't have a clear understanding of the same. It's a huge issue.

I guess the above was just a long winded way of saying that the DGMF and it's different bosses over the last 15 years have not quite said and done things that fill one with confidence.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Philip »

Shaun, as many forget which I repeatedly point out is the cost factor too. Around $3 to $4M for a T-90 compared with $9.7M for Arjun in the latest order! In addition,most of Arjun has imported content,esp.A-1,for which spares from abroad have become problematic. The support for hhe first tranche has been an issue.A-1A will have a better local supply chain, but the cost still is much above a desi- manufactured T-90/ T-72s ,in service in the thousands for which a strong supply chain has been established for years.

The IA like its two other services is seeing a shrinking budget as % of the GDP and has to cut its coat according to its ( affordable) cloth.
RKumar

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by RKumar »

Philip wrote:Shaun, as many forget which I repeatedly point out is the cost factor too. Around $3 to $4M for a T-90 compared with $9.7M for Arjun in the latest order! In addition,most of Arjun has imported content,esp.A-1,for which spares from abroad have become problematic. The support for hhe first tranche has been an issue.A-1A will have a better local supply chain, but the cost still is much above a desi- manufactured T-90/ T-72s ,in service in the thousands for which a strong supply chain has been established for years.

The IA like its two other services is seeing a shrinking budget as % of the GDP and has to cut its coat according to its ( affordable) cloth.
It’s getting tired of your repetitive post and I can see blocking you don’t help me.
John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by John »

Philip wrote:Shaun, as many forget which I repeatedly point out is the cost factor too. Around $3 to $4M for a T-90 compared with $9.7M for Arjun in the latest order!
That’s not true T-90 latest order costs around 20,000 crores per OFB for 464 T-90s which makes it around 6 mill each. And we don’t know if that figure includes any other add-ons I.e mine ploughs so likely it will be more than 6 mill.

https://m.timesofindia.com/india/rs-200 ... 963553.cms
Lisa
BRFite
Posts: 1718
Joined: 04 May 2008 11:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Lisa »

Philip wrote:Shaun, as many forget which I repeatedly point out is the cost factor too. Around $3 to $4M for a T-90 compared with $9.7M for Arjun in the latest order! In addition,most of Arjun has imported content,esp.A-1,for which spares from abroad have become problematic. The support for hhe first tranche has been an issue.A-1A will have a better local supply chain, but the cost still is much above a desi- manufactured T-90/ T-72s ,in service in the thousands for which a strong supply chain has been established for years.

The IA like its two other services is seeing a shrinking budget as % of the GDP and has to cut its coat according to its ( affordable) cloth.
Do or do you not understand that a Dollar spent in India COSTS a lot less than a Dollar spent overseas? Kindly advise so we can dissect your understanding in detail.
darshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4018
Joined: 28 Jan 2008 04:16

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by darshan »

He left a cushion there by noting that there's a high import content so dollar still costs dollar. And the importation would continue forever. Not worth going back and forth when it's a child that is orphan. Arjun is Karna. All debates are only for argument purpose.
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Vivek K »

Philip is the Indian troll - start a flame war and fan it. He doesn't care about India's economy or industry or the impact of "make in India". All he cares about is Russia and has tons of liberty from BRADMINs to espouse Russia's perspective. He has repeated this falsehood several times on this forum. The muted response this time around shows to him that he is gaining ground.
Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Vips »

John wrote:
Philip wrote:Shaun, as many forget which I repeatedly point out is the cost factor too. Around $3 to $4M for a T-90 compared with $9.7M for Arjun in the latest order!
That’s not true T-90 latest order costs around 20,000 crores per OFB for 464 T-90s which makes it around 6 mill each. And we don’t know if that figure includes any other add-ons I.e mine ploughs so likely it will be more than 6 mill.

https://m.timesofindia.com/india/rs-200 ... 963553.cms
In the end you get what you pay for. There is a reason why something is more expensive compared to the alternative. Cheap always means chinese (junk) quality.
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Vivek K »

And cheap means that the weapon compromises on safety of the men that operate it - treating them as dispensable. While in the Arjun, the trained crew which are priceless compared to the tank itself, are protected.
Nikhil_Naya
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 61
Joined: 06 Nov 2018 16:44

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Nikhil_Naya »

I was enjoying Paan today with one of my close friends when the Paanwala told me that there is some good news around the corner for Wheeled Armoured Platforms. I did try buying more
Paan, but paanwala gave only this info.
ashishvikas
BRFite
Posts: 856
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by ashishvikas »

After Mahindra, now TATA set to bag contract for armoured vehicles as Army upgrades mobility

https://theprint.in/defence/after-mahin ... ssion=true

I wish it's Kestrel.
John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by John »

ashishvikas wrote:After Mahindra, now TATA set to bag contract for armoured vehicles as Army upgrades mobility

https://theprint.in/defence/after-mahin ... ssion=true

I wish it's Kestrel.
I believe they are referring to Kestrel ?
Atmavik
BRFite
Posts: 1987
Joined: 24 Aug 2016 04:43

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Atmavik »

Nikhil_Naya wrote:I was enjoying Paan today with one of my close friends when the Paanwala told me that there is some good news around the corner for Wheeled Armoured Platforms. I did try buying more
Paan, but paanwala gave only this info.
paanwala info is correct. looks like 100 wHap/krestel. 100 is a fraction of our wheeled requirement.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9102
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by nachiket »

ashishvikas wrote:After Mahindra, now TATA set to bag contract for armoured vehicles as Army upgrades mobility

https://theprint.in/defence/after-mahin ... ssion=true

I wish it's Kestrel.
The Indian capability was seen wanting in Ladakh where the Chinese displayed greater mobility, inducting and de-inducting troops from frontline areas faster as they used different kinds of vehicles for the infantry.

“The vehicles not only provide protection to the soldiers but also help in faster induction and de-induction,” a source said.

The Indian Army has now sped up the process for its own acquisition process.
Did it really take a serious situation on the border which came perilously close to a conflict for us to realize that our "capability was wanting" with regard to mobility? No wheeled armored vehicles have been inducted in decades. The level of mechanization of infantry is agonizingly low. Surely this has been obvious for a long time.

This sounds too similar to us suddenly realizing that we lack a suitable counter to Chinese light tanks after they were deployed in theater.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Philip »

I am sorry if I quote / post views by Lts.General who have been v.specific on the subject,which still are unacceptable to some
,there is little point in debating the issue if minds are made up without understanding both sides of the issue. We can agree to disagree. But I am v.sorry and strongly object to the word "corrupt" being bandied about so freely against the decision- makers of the IA . The decision to buy T-series and Arjun (in limited qtys.) has involved several army chiefs and heads of the armoured corps over the last 3 decades. To insinuate that they were " corrupt" just because they did not plump for Arjun is highly improper and derogatory.They deserve far more respect and for their decisions which were also approved by the govts. of the day.

On the issue of the light tank, I said several years ago when the Chinx started calling Ar.Pradesh as Southern Tibet that a spat was in the offing and a light tank was needed for the mountains. We never replaced the PT-76 which was so effective in the '71 war. Our history of using tanks in the mountains in the various post-Independence spats was also forgotten with the obsession on Pak ignoring the greater danger of the PRC.For this the political bosses of the past must also take the blame.When Gen.Rodrigues said that Pak was an irritation but that the PRC was our greatest threat,he was soundly ticked off for the same by the govt. of the day. But here again we've moved our 2 T-series MBTs uphill,so why the need for an LT? Because terrain dictates so,some terrain where we cannot operate larger,heavier MBTs and where the PLA have their LTs on the ground. That's the same argument the generals are using for the limitations of a 68t Arjun!

Having now realised the need for an LT, the Q is what are we going to do about it? A knee-jerk acquisition from abroad or a long- gestation new AV programme. Time is of the essence. A time-bound programme must be initiated. If we could design Arjun the LT should give us little problem. We earlier had the Vijayantas built at home in large number.That was originally the Vickers light tank.It had a 105mm gun similar to that of the Chin LT. Perhaps taking a look back at the Vij. could be a starting point.The withdrawal has not been completed.Only an uneasy truce is in place. Doklam was followed by Galwan. What is inevitable is that given the PRC intransigence, the next spat will take definitely place and that it might be far more deadly.
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Vivek K »

If you post quotes, then please do so correctly. You cannot use that as an afterthought, lame, defense. Have the courage to stand up to your views.
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5415
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Post by Manish_P »

nachiket wrote:...
Did it really take a serious situation on the border which came perilously close to a conflict for us to realize that our "capability was wanting" with regard to mobility? No wheeled armored vehicles have been inducted in decades. The level of mechanization of infantry is agonizingly low. Surely this has been obvious for a long time.

This sounds too similar to us suddenly realizing that we lack a suitable counter to Chinese light tanks after they were deployed in theater.
Nachiket ji, please check the post by Akshay Kapoor sir in the small arms thread. He states there is or very soon will be a severe shortage even in such a basic (as compared to ICVs and tanks) product as troop transport trucks!
Post Reply