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.
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2526
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Manish_P » 19 Dec 2020 14:16

And probably the larger 140mm rounds will be two piece... if they do go for it (getting over the NATO compatibility issues). Larger rounds will anyway require auto-loaders as they will be too heavy and unwieldy for manual loading.

France Tests Huge 140mm Tank Gun As It Pushes Ahead With Germany On A New Tank Design

(apologies for the large size image. Can it be sized down?)

The 140mm and 120mm rounds side by side

Image

durairaaj
BRFite
Posts: 111
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby durairaaj » 19 Dec 2020 16:54

ks_sachin wrote:
nachiket wrote:...

The bin itself is not protected by a blast proof door like the Abrams or the Leclerc


Then the more pertinent question would be "Does T tanks have comparable protection?"
or "is it viable to add such protection to the T-tanks?"

We were comparing Arjun only with T tanks in our armory not Abrams or Lecrec, which are not in our armory.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8427
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Pratyush » 19 Dec 2020 17:06

durairaaj wrote:
Then the more pertinent question would be "Does T tanks have comparable protection?"
or "is it viable to add such protection to the T-tanks?"

We were comparing Arjun only with T tanks in our armory not Abrams or Lecrec, which are not in our armory.



It has been added to the t 90MS. with that the weight of the tank has gone up to 50 tons.

Until then the T90 didn't have that. But it was still accepted in service.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1900
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby sudeepj » 19 Dec 2020 21:43

ks_sachin wrote:


The bin itself is not protected by a blast proof door like the Abrams or the Leclerc


This does not sound correct.. Arjun has blow off panels on the turret bustle. I remember seeing a picture of the test for these in one of the drdo tech focus. Without a blast door, the blow off panels wont work.

Such a mod to the existing T72/90s, placing the non-autoloader ammo in a bustle physically separate from the fighting compartment will make both tanks a lot safer for the crew.

----

The philosophy for the western MBTs is basically the same as the Tiger/Panther in ww2: One tank stopping hordes of T72sT34s or M4s by outranging those tanks and also being able to absorb a lot of punishment.

The philosophy for eastern tanks is the T36/M4 philosophy, to be present in huge numbers at places where the enemy does not expect you and exploit breakthroughs by cross country mobility. Greater attrition is expected and accepted.

----
In todays context:
1. Is it possible for an armored div today to be present in a place where the enemy does not see you?
2. If the enemy breaks through, it means you do not already have tank killer forces present there. So what is the best way to contain/destroy this breakthrough? this needs to happen in a matter of hours, or the enemy will have prepared defenses protecting his new line.
3. If you want to break through, and you want to achieve strategic surprise, how do you achieve concentration of forces/effort, without alerting the enemy to where your main effort is going to be?

Finally, consider in the Indo-Pak scenario what breakthroughs and deep battle concept mean and the overall political/military goals of Indian polity and I suspect we reach an answer that is roughly the same as the IA answer. I request you to keep discussions on this minimal. We may see such an outcome sooner rather than later and 'lose lips sink ships'.

Finally finally, I dont get this attachment to individual projects. This is technology development. Even in a purely private and commercial product oriented companies, only about a third of the product development actually sees light of day and mass production/customer sales. Sometimes, the strategic/political scenario, technological scenario changes. Cut your losses early. Change your design, product etc. etc.

The problem with the Arjun saga has been the army failing to communicate changing requirements to DRDO correctly and on time and instead keeping them busy in a science project instead of practical improvements to technology that they have been using. It almost feels like they are busy in defeating the arde project rather than using arde design/engineering abilities to defeat the enemy. :-D

Perhaps the problem is also at DRDO, and they only want prestigious projects. I dont know the exact answer, but its a loss to the nation.
Last edited by sudeepj on 19 Dec 2020 23:17, edited 3 times in total.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5362
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby jamwal » 19 Dec 2020 22:01

Ammunition on Arjun is stored in turret area behind gunner. I have posted pictures in this thread not too long back and on twitter

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2619
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Vivek K » 20 Dec 2020 03:08

Typical rebuttles reacting to the wasteful, large purchase of roosi depot queens is that tanks are obsolete and no longer the future doctrine. Yet IA buys the roosi junk in the 1000s and holds local production (made to its unobtainium specs) in contempt. So IA has done a huge disservice to the nation by denying it the opportunity to create an industry and actually export Indian hardware and brand image around the world.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1900
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby sudeepj » 21 Dec 2020 02:29

jamwal wrote:Ammunition on Arjun is stored in turret area behind gunner. I have posted pictures in this thread not too long back and on twitter


That's just the 10-12 round ready rack. These have the blowoff panels. Rest of them are in the hull, in individual containers.

basant
BRFite
Posts: 385
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby basant » 27 Dec 2020 10:53

Army to move Defence Ministry for 118 Arjun Mk-1A tanks

It has 14 major upgrades over the Mk1 variant

After delays, the process for procurement of 118 indigenous Main Battle Tank (MBT) Arjun Mk-1A has commenced, according to an Army source. The cost as obtained from the Heavy Vehicles Factory (HVF), Avadi, is ₹8,956.59 crore.

“The file is currently with the Deputy Chief of Army Staff and will be shortly sent to Integrated Defence Staff (IDS) to put up the case. The case is planned to be fielded before the Defence Procurement Board (DPB) and the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) in January 2021,” the source said. Issues with Arjun Mk1 ammunition, spares and repairs had also been resolved and the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) had set up an Arjun hub in Jaisalmer for spares and support, the source stated.

Stating that the Arjun Mk-1A would be without missile firing capability and would be incorporated as and when the development was complete, the source said that at the Arjun hub in Jaisalmer, 248 rotables had been deposited.

On the process and timeline of the project, the official explained that once DAC approved the case, the Army would place indent with the HVF, Avadi. “That is also expected to happen before March 31, 2021. HVF will then build the first five tanks in 30 months which are called ‘First of Production Model’,” the official stated.

These five tanks will be put through General Service Quality Requirement (GSQR) evaluation by the Army and will accord Bulk Production Clearance (BPC) if found satisfactory. Once BPC was given, production would be done as per an agreed schedule, the official said.

Observing that if subsequently more numbers were ordered beyond 118, it would immensely benefit the domestic industry and the ‘Make in India’ effort, the official added that the indigenisation content could also progressively go to 70% with more numbers.

The advanced GMS of the Arjun Mk-1A had built-in laser target designator and the tank was customised for missile firing, a second official said. The missile is under development at the Armament Research and Development Establishment (ARDE), Pune, and trials are under way. Missile firing is under way at the ARDE. “A few more trials are required,” the official stated.

To incorporate this capability on the existing Arjun Mk1 tanks...

AkshaySG
BRFite
Posts: 120
Joined: 30 Jul 2020 08:51

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby AkshaySG » 27 Dec 2020 12:07

Haven't we already ordered a gazillion T-90's in the meantime??
and are looking for something lighter for Ladakh.

Don't see this being anything other than a token purchase...

This could have had as big an impact for Indian Armored industry as Tejas is for the Aviation including multiple follow up projects but IA always found some deficiency or the other

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1840
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Thakur_B » 27 Dec 2020 13:25

Let the 118 Arjun Mk1A DAC clearance->Negotiation->Approval->T90 is 50% cheaper circus begin.

basant
BRFite
Posts: 385
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby basant » 27 Dec 2020 15:26

Thakur_B wrote:Let the 118 Arjun Mk1A DAC clearance->Negotiation->Approval->T90 is 50% cheaper circus begin.

There is a brilliant Plan B.

"These five tanks will be put through General Service Quality Requirement (GSQR) evaluation by the Army and will accord Bulk Production Clearance (BPC) if found satisfactory. Once BPC was given, production would be done as per an agreed schedule, the official said."

Things we have not done with T-90s, I am sure.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5362
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby jamwal » 28 Dec 2020 11:57

Why is it taking 2.5 years to manufacture just 5 Arjun Mk1A tanks? Has HVF dismantled it's manufacturing infrastructure?
I am willing to bet that army will come up with dozens of must have "improvements" and delay induction by 4-5 years again.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8427
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Pratyush » 28 Dec 2020 13:15

jamwal wrote:Why is it taking 2.5 years to manufacture just 5 Arjun Mk1A tanks? Has HVF dismantled it's manufacturing infrastructure?
I am willing to bet that army will come up with dozens of must have "improvements" and delay induction by 4-5 years again.


At this point in time its a waste of time to further work on the Arjun.

The Army is wasting every ones time for not coming up with the GSQR of the FMBT and its assorted supporting vehicles.

mody
BRFite
Posts: 816
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby mody » 28 Dec 2020 18:57

This is a running joke for the last 20+ years. What a shame!!!
After so much of testing, the IA still asks for LSP production of 5 tanks, which again will be tested as GSQR. That too for an upgraded model of a tank that is already in service. What further testing is required? The only thing that I look forward to is IA publishing the GSQR, based on which the testing will be done. Someone should ask IA to test the T90 also in parallel for the same GSQR. IA will end up with a bulk of its in service tank inventory being grounded, for not being able to meet its GSQR :-)

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5362
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby jamwal » 28 Dec 2020 19:13

Pity that Indian government wouldn't care for such a petition and army will simply put up "national security" clause to block any such move. :lol:

ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 966
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ParGha » 28 Dec 2020 19:13

Pratyush wrote:At this point in time its a waste of time to further work on the Arjun. The Army is wasting every ones time for not coming up with the GSQR of the FMBT and its assorted supporting vehicles.


On the contrary, the Army wants (and NEEDS) to induct Arjun Mk2s and Abhays by 2026-27 -- it is better to focus one's energy on getting them mass-production-worthy, increasing the indigenization and ironing out the issues. It is critical to have them fully ready by this time because a whole bunch of T-72s and BMP2s upgraded in early-2000s will hit their 25-year life-span (for engines and transmission). If the Arjuns and Abhays aren't ready, the Army will just order more T-90s and worse. The FMBT, like the FICV, is a pipedream. No one can even visualize where it would fall in the procurement cycles. If Arjuns can start replacing Ajeyas by 2026 successfully, I can easily see them replacing the older T-90s by 2031-32.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2619
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Vivek K » 28 Dec 2020 20:50

ParGha wrote:On the contrary, the Army wants (and NEEDS) to induct Arjun Mk2s and Abhays by 2026-27 -- it is better to focus one's energy on getting them mass-production-worthy, increasing the indigenization and ironing out the issues. It is critical to have them fully ready by this time because a whole bunch of T-72s and BMP2s upgraded in early-2000s will hit their 25-year life-span (for engines and transmission).

Hilarious if not entirely shameful! The Arjuns have been ready for a couple of decades - the IA has seen the T-90 get whupped by the Arjun, been caught sabotaging the Arjun's gear box to make it look not up to the mark.

This latest pretext to show they are interested in the Arjun is pathetic and downright disgraceful. 118 tanks that beat the tincans on the IA's terms and yet the IA has ordered 1000s of T-90s and no Arjuns.

If the Arjuns and Abhays aren't ready, the Army will just order more T-90s and worse.

I bet the army's order of the T-90s is already ready. This 5 tanks BS is cringeworthy! India will remain a poor, low tech nation, incapable of producing her needed defense hardware - not because it does not have talented scientists and engineers - but because of the imports lust of its forces.

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4322
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby nam » 28 Dec 2020 21:39

IA doesn't want Arjun in current form. Weight, logistics, OFB being the single production agency etc. All of these are against it.

Arjun in current form is a dead end. Even if DRDO creates a new FRCV, IA will not induct a kit, where OFB is the sole production agency.

So for replacing T72 in the next decade, it is going to be either T14, ToT to OFB or K2 hopefully built L&T. But I am pretty sure, OFB will muscle in for ToT for K2.

The only hope I have for an DRDO designed Indian tank, is it getting produced ONLY by a private entity.

Keeping OFB employed is a bigger objective than IA getting proper kit or loosing a war.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4819
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby srai » 29 Dec 2020 04:58

jamwal wrote:Why is it taking 2.5 years to manufacture just 5 Arjun Mk1A tanks? Has HVF dismantled it's manufacturing infrastructure?
I am willing to bet that army will come up with dozens of must have "improvements" and delay induction by 4-5 years again.

Well, Arjun production line has been sitting idle since mid-2012. That’s 8-years for you.

In the defense manufacturing sector, 24-to-36 months from order to first lot deliveries is the norm. You have to remember that there are hundreds of Tier-1-3 manufacturers and suppliers of components and parts in the production chain. It takes time for all to get fund deposits, initiate production activities, receive parts/supplies, build, qualify and make deliveries. Only then, final assembly can take place. Scaling up production to peak capacity takes additional few years.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8427
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Pratyush » 29 Dec 2020 09:20

ParGha wrote:
On the contrary, the Army wants (and NEEDS) to induct Arjun Mk2s and Abhays by 2026-27 -- it is better to focus one's energy on getting them mass-production-worthy, increasing the indigenization and ironing out the issues. It is critical to have them fully ready by this time because a whole bunch of T-72s and BMP2s upgraded in early-2000s will hit their 25-year life-span (for engines and transmission). If the Arjuns and Abhays aren't ready, the Army will just order more T-90s and worse. The FMBT, like the FICV, is a pipedream. No one can even visualize where it would fall in the procurement cycles. If Arjuns can start replacing Ajeyas by 2026 successfully, I can easily see them replacing the older T-90s by 2031-32.


I wish I shared your confidence about Arjun when it comes to the Indian army. The next MBT for them will be the T14 as an emergency purchase, to fight the PRC in Tibet.

Predictability of it all makes it farcical

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2619
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Vivek K » 29 Dec 2020 10:11

The Arjun, LCA, Arihant and other key projects symbolize Indian exceptionalism and ingenuity! So many of us identify with these projects. I remember reading about the Arjun in Newsweek (or Time) during the early 80s and about its unbeatable Kanchan armor.

I guess the armor could not overcome corruption that today clouds India’s tryst with destiny.

VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2440
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby VinodTK » 29 Dec 2020 10:13


Ordinance Factory Medak - India's Ammunition Powerhouse | Patriot With Major Gaurav Arya (Rted)

Interesting facts:
- Designed next generation IFV
- Will have night fighting capability for gunner & comander
- Improved armor
- IP is owned by India and they can export the IFV, no Russian permission needed

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21231
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Philip » 29 Dec 2020 10:49

I agree with Jamwal and others,2.5 yrs. to manufacture just 5 pre-production tanks?! When will the 114 1As eventually arrive? Post 2030? We will be the laughibg stock of the world! Plus a whopping $1 B spent at the unit cost of arounf $10M,when the latest T-90 is arounf $4M a pop. All this for an MBT that still is only around 50% desi. It seems a meaningless exercise.The thrust should be on the future MBT since the IA has already plumped,built,ordered around 4000 T-series MBTs,T-72s being upgraded with the 484 latest T-90s in the pipeline. Why can't ,with so much wampum available just try out a prototype of a T-90 turret on an Arjun chassis saving time and money if successful?

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5362
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby jamwal » 29 Dec 2020 12:26

srai ji, thanks, makes sense.

Philip ji
Issue of cost per unit has been discussed many times. What India gets for 4 million is a tank which needs new sights, better targeting system, electronics which work in hot weather, air conditioning and a dozen other things which Arjun has already. Also most of the money stays in India. With new engine developed in India and mass orders, cost per unit for Arjun will come down too. Russians have not done ToT either.
At first Army complained about low capacity bridges and roads, but I don't think that's the case with massive new road infrastructure that has been created in last 10 years. Army was forced to accept Prithvis which they did with much reluctance. Looks like same thing has to be done for tanks too if they have to be weaned off inferior Russian tanks.

darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2750
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby darshhan » 29 Dec 2020 16:36

jamwal wrote:Why is it taking 2.5 years to manufacture just 5 Arjun Mk1A tanks? Has HVF dismantled it's manufacturing infrastructure?
I am willing to bet that army will come up with dozens of must have "improvements" and delay induction by 4-5 years again.


Bhai Saheb, Is type ke prashn puch ke sharminda na karein. Yehi to hai OFB style delivery. Forget Arjun MK1A tanks for which production is yet to start. They are unable to expedite the delivery of even Dhanush Howitzers which is their own inhouse product.

basant
BRFite
Posts: 385
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby basant » 29 Dec 2020 20:51

No adequate funds given to develop, no confidence given for bulk purchase, no effort spared to delay Indian wares with endless cycles of seasonal and regional testing, no orders, no prompt deliveries taken, no money paid for delivered products. Yet the likes of Heavy Vehicles Factory and HAL will have to go through cycles of the same even for qualified products like Arjun and LCA that likes of T-90s and Rafales won't have to. Yet we expect the private suppliers to be ready with infrastructure for prompt delivery of meagre orders. What do we call this?

If only Section 124A and court martials were to be used properly, we wouldn't be heading South as we do today.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2619
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Vivek K » 29 Dec 2020 21:04

^^^^ Well said!

niran
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5460
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 16:01

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby niran » 01 Jan 2021 20:58

nam wrote:IA doesn't want Arjun in current form. Weight, logistics, OFB being the single production agency etc. All of these are against it.

Arjun in current form is a dead end. Even if DRDO creates a new FRCV, IA will not induct a kit, where OFB is the sole production agency.

So for replacing T72 in the next decade, it is going to be either T14, ToT to OFB or K2 hopefully built L&T. But I am pretty sure, OFB will muscle in for ToT for K2.

The only hope I have for an DRDO designed Indian tank, is it getting produced ONLY by a private entity.

Keeping OFB employed is a bigger objective than IA getting proper kit or loosing a war.

what's status of T14?
ans. paperware
no production model T14 before 2025 if 25 billion USD is pumped in coming 2 years who will? there is your answer.
IA has 2 choice
1. keep T72 till
2. buy Arjun
why no more TeaNity? because Mota bhai says No have monay, you wanna TeaNity buy it yourself.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10635
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 04 Jan 2021 05:42

Click on links below to see video...

https://twitter.com/KUNALBI25146617/sta ... 99905?s=20 ---> Here's a short clip of Indian Army BMP-2 based 81mm Mortar carrier. It is amphibious, for crossing water obstacles & carries 108 mortar shells & 2,350 rounds for it's 7.62mm MG. The Army operates 200+ of such in it's mechanized forces.

https://twitter.com/KUNALBI25146617/sta ... 43520?s=20 ---> Here's an awesome clip of a flying Indian Army BMP-2 of mechanised infantry in slow motion. India operates around 2,800 BMP-2s and have also made 20 different variants so far.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21231
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Philip » 06 Jan 2021 06:44

Just 5 days ago the Ru DM announced series prod.of the Armata T-14 MBT and T- 15 ICV, but it's not a relatively cheap product like the earlier T-series 72s and 90s.It's larger,weighing 50+t. The revolutionary aspect of the design is the unmanned turret ,3-man crew in an armoured capsule in the chassis, multiple self-defence systems and is designed for even a 155mm main gun. Even if the IA wants the tank, numbers will be limited.As was said in an above post,the FMBT whatever, is still on the drawing board and unlikely to enter series production this decade.

Given the budget and Himalayan threat from the Chins,the priority of the IA currently will be the req. for a light tank. Earlier reports said that the Ru Sprut was the favoured LT,as it slso had excellent amphib. capability too,could be used by our amphib warfare units.
Upgrading the almost 2000 72s to almost T-90 std. is going on along with prod. of the latest 484 T-90s. Eventually .A few hundred Arjuns .

Let's not forget that the MBT moves,or should move not in isolation,but with its integral air defence from SP gun/missile AVs, AA guns and mechanised infantry/infantry equipped with AA arty., MANPADS,etc. In the plains of th e Punjab,Rajasthan desert,the MBT /armoured columns still rules, despite the advent of drones.

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2769
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Prem Kumar » 23 Jan 2021 23:30

Was this discussed here before?

Proposal by DRDO and L&T to make a light tank for the LAC, utilizing the K-9 assembly line which is about to go idle.

https://www.ajaishukla.com/2021/01/army-soft-pedals-drdo-l-light-tank-for.html

Santosh
BRFite
Posts: 744
Joined: 13 Apr 2005 01:55

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Santosh » 23 Jan 2021 23:46

This has to be the most depressing thread of Bharatiya MIL. It looks like nothing short of a short, intense border war with China or Pak will teach sarkari ecosystem a lesson.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21231
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Philip » 24 Jan 2021 02:40

Longewala deja vu?

AkshaySG
BRFite
Posts: 120
Joined: 30 Jul 2020 08:51

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby AkshaySG » 24 Jan 2021 02:41

Looks like Arjun is going the Marut way rather than the Tejas way , I just hope we don't have to wait 30 more years to see the next indigenous iteration.

The DRDO/L&T light tank proposal should definitely be considered strongly , It will satisfy IA's grumbles about weight and with LAC heating up there should be enough of a demand to justify production in significant numbers .In any case we rarely have a ready made production line and workforce and to miss this opportunity would be a grave injustice .

As far as the MBT goes then its looking increasingly likely that we ride out the near future with the T-72's and T-90's and jump on the T-14 ship whenever Army manages to scrounge up the funds for it .

darshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3498
Joined: 28 Jan 2008 04:16

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby darshan » 24 Jan 2021 09:23

AkshaySG wrote:Looks like Arjun is going the Marut way rather than the Tejas way , I just hope we don't have to wait 30 more years to see the next indigenous iteration.

Only time will tell. Arjun is step ahead. Ordered and delivered. Tejas has just been ordered. Long road ahead.

AkshaySG
BRFite
Posts: 120
Joined: 30 Jul 2020 08:51

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby AkshaySG » 24 Jan 2021 11:28

darshan wrote:
AkshaySG wrote:Looks like Arjun is going the Marut way rather than the Tejas way , I just hope we don't have to wait 30 more years to see the next indigenous iteration.

Only time will tell. Arjun is step ahead. Ordered and delivered. Tejas has just been ordered. Long road ahead.


Not really ... The quantities it has been ordered for , the money set aside for it and the delivery schedule as compared to the "T's" has ensured that there is little hope for any future where it forms a significant chunk of the Armored Corps , The attitude of IA leadership towards it has also been by and large lethargic . The recent issues at LAC and a more pronounced emphasis on lighter tanks won't help its future prospects much either

It will take a significant shift in focus , leadership and thought for the IA to truly welcome the new variant in higher quantities ,utilize it on the front lines then and back DRDO to develop India's future MBT based on their feedback and experience

Tejas on the other hand has been shown more trust by IAF , Its future role and position is better mapped out and the knowledge learned in the program has already given rise to several future variants and is paying dividends . (It took a long time to get to this stage but at least they've reached it ) .

One can only hope that IA is extremely impressed by the new variant and gives a follow up order

ManuJ
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 374
Joined: 20 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ManuJ » 24 Jan 2021 11:59

The problem imho is that IA and India's strategic community doesn't have clarity of thought around the role of armor in the future of warfare. IA cannot decide whether it wants heavy well-protected tanks or light & mobile tanks or unmanned automated tanks or whether it wants to do away with tanks altogether and buy more helicopter gunships instead.
No less than our NSA has cast doubt on the utility of tanks in future wars.
I haven't seen any articles that clearly lay down IA's roadmap for armor in the coming decades.
And in the absence of this clarity of thought and purpose, the easiest thing to do is to maintain status quo and keep buying the tin-cans.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21231
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby Philip » 24 Jan 2021 16:09

Tanks are going to be with us for a v.long time to come, you have to hold ground with infantry who follow the prnetrationof armour through enemy defences.However, future MBTs may look v.different and many will be unmanned too. I've been asking for well over a decade why we haven't tried out a T-90 turret (bigger gun,lighter,only a 3-man crew) on an Arjun chassis.Turkey has done just that.A new Altay turret with a 120mm main gun mated toa a Leopard 2A4 chassis.
Such a proposed hybrid MBT would at least result in the Arjun chassis mass produced with the T-90 turret also in service in huge number. It would be v.difficult for the IA rejecting it as it would attempt to incorporate the best of bothtypes.

ragupta
BRFite
Posts: 365
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby ragupta » 24 Jan 2021 21:02

To hold ground have a mix of light and heavy tank in 80/20 configuration, lighter tank would be lot cheaper, heavier tanks can have more power and protection. There is strength in numbers. Use ariel assets LCH/Apache/fighters/bombers, artillery and Pinaka. what can a 1000lb not do, that will require 140mm cannon?

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4322
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Postby nam » 24 Jan 2021 21:51

Of all the units, I am so very disappointed with Armor Corps, when it comes to modernization.

Artillery is making massive strides with local capabilities and modern system. The slowest of all arms, the infantry is also getting modern gears.

Armor is still stuck in 20th century, with Russian kit love affair refusing to go away. Induct the same old T90, with zero upgrades. Mass induction of T90 has eaten their budget. Now we have large number of T90, whose gun and sabot rounds are on the verge of becoming obsolete.

No development projects are been pushed hard. FICV has been left to MoD's bharose.. Atleast latest induction of T90 could have been upgraded with better gun, rounds and overall protection with CVRDE. But no..

Just waiting and hoping to convince MoD to get T14.. :roll:


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], rajsunder, Rakesh and 44 guests