Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

[Surya]

cheenum
my time reference was when the the first T 90 was considered.

Now - I am for building a second production line of arjuns somewhere else if I can get the order.

At this stage - any tank requirement should be a variation of arjun -

[Shrinivasan]

Is HVF Avadi saying it cannot ramp up production of Arjuns?

Read my last post, Avadi never says no. Who is govt does? They just dont deliver on the already ordered ones for which they do not have a excuse.
You have misplaced faith in Avadi, I am afraid.

Avadi has its hands full on multiple projects, let us reduce its load (of T-90s) and make them build more Arjuns. The crib in this forum/page has been the number of Arjuns ordered/built and not the number of MBTs built. Avadi is probably working to its capacity making T-90s and thus no additional capacity. if MOD approves and IA gives an order, HVF will expand, add another line/shift for sure. in the absence of this, what will HVF build.

Else, let us start a new MBT line in the private sector, Mahindras, Tatas, L&T have been hungry to start one!!!

[Sanku]

Now - I am for building a second production line of arjuns somewhere else if I can get the order.

Yes, Sir, I really hope that both the above happen. Though given the lethargy of movement, I fear Arjun would already be long in the tooth by the time a new plant is set up.

At this stage - any tank requirement should be a variation of arjun -

I guess that will be, simply because there will not be an option, FMBT is very nice, but I dont see it in any shape before 20 year. Even a prototype.

[Shrinivasan]

cheenum
my time reference was when the the first T 90 was considered.

Now - I am for building a second production line of arjuns somewhere else if I can get the order.

At this stage - any tank requirement should be a variation of arjun -

Surya, IA thinks otherwise, for them any tanks is NOT a variation of Arjun, from publicly available info, they want a 40-45ton FMBT (with still vague requirements) and this is more a variant of the T-90 than the Arjun.

[Sanku]

Avadi has its hands full on multiple projects, let us reduce its load (of T-90s) and make them build more Arjuns.

1) No Avadi does not have its hands full. It has underperformed.

2) You can not build more Arjun's by shutting down T 90 in any case. That is not how things work, each need specific tooling et al. At most manpower can be reused but that too after much cross training, and thats not the bottleneck anyway.

The crib in this forum/page has been the number of Arjuns ordered/built and not the number of MBTs built.

Most of the crib is not really justified.

Avadi is probably working to its capacity making T-90s and thus no additional capacity.

As I mentioned it does not work like that.

if MOD approves and IA gives an order, HVF will expand, add another line/shift for sure. in the absence of this, what will HVF build.

You dont understand Avadi does not meet timelines even right now. Its a different problem.

Else, let us start a new MBT line in the private sector, Mahindras, Tatas, L&T have been hungry to start one!!!

That is fine by me but again not likely to happen in a hurry. Reforming Avadi is critical anyway.

[Surya]

cheenum - yeah one has to hope about IA

sanku -
FMBT is a wet dream in the DGMF office. Just something thrown out to keep the Arjun out.

before we get to FMBT lets develop a futuristic version of something simpler. (and no huffy and tuffy do not count)

[Sanku]

sanku -
FMBT is a wet dream in the DGMF office. Just something thrown out to keep the Arjun out.

before we get to FMBT lets develop a futuristic version of something simpler. (and no huffy and tuffy do not count)

Yes, but lets not forget that CVRDE also stays busy without having to demonstrate something specific in this scheme of things.

Both are making 20 year plans.

In any case its good, soon enough the reality of older tanks falling apart will kick in and more Arjuns will be ordered. Also IA/DRDO should also be looking for 20 year projects anyway so no harm done.

[Surya]

CVRDE also stays busy without having to demonstrate something specific in this scheme of things.

we have beaten them in the past and hopefully based on Saraswats statements - they will be more careful

If not we in BRF will pummel them again (with words:) )


but for now at least Arjun is ready to be ordered and developed in tranches and thats what a sensible Army would do.

regarding 20 yr projects - that would be OT on this thread at rate tech moves

[Karan M]

There is nothing crude about the workaround , the Russian TI system then was not something the army wanted , they opted for French system and integrated with the firecontrol system of T-90 , T-90 FCS is quite capable and retains a very high first round probability kill , its as good any thing out there.

Austin, this is absolutely wrong. The Russian solution or rather "jugaad" in this case, is crude. Putting two different sights with two different channels, is nothing short of admitting that the original sight could not incorporate the channel by itself. What do you think that does for space & design optimization. For your information, the latest Russian tanks have moved away from this ad hoc arrangement on the T-90 and are now experimenting with integrated sights which have both the day optics and thermal on one stabilized platform.
What "very high first round probability kill" and "as good as anything out there are you talking about"? The 1G46 & associated FCS are obsolescent, if not totally obsolete. The stabilization accuracy is less than that on the Arjun. It has no MRS. Its ballistic computer source codes & hardware are legacy and cannot even be reprogrammed by India, as such we are replacing it with the Arjun's. It has no autotracker. It has no predictive or heuristic learning capability as on the latest FCS as on the Merkava4's, if you bring up state of the art FCS. Just don't use generic buzzwords for the sake of it please. As things stand, the T-90 FCS ranks near the bottom of the pile when it comes to modern FCS. Its a warmed over version of the FCS developed for the legacy T-80 tanks. Its not even their latest, which are being fielded on newer IFVs and tanks.

Would you call integrating of Lightening pod with MKI a crude workaround because IAF did not opted for the Russian Sapson pod ?

You clearly don't understand what is being talked about here. This is not a case of substituting one piece of equipment for another. This is a case of adding another piece of equipment to a legacy platform in an ad hoc manner and then paying the price in terms of it conking out when the stress on the platform is severe. The MKI does not need to put in a Litening pod on the nose because the Russian OLS does not work. That would be a comparable example.

If they want an AC they can integrate it , the russians are offering one the israel are offering , and tropicalisation is a common issue with most imported system , thats taken care of during trial phase itself.

Austin, just because people "offer something" that doesn't mean it works. For your information, the trials of the Russian AC ended in failure. The Israeli option did not work either. Now the Army is running around looking for any local vendor who can tie up with anyone to solve the problem. Coming to your second line, how easily you dismiss the exact problem - namely there was no adequate examination of the Thermal channel in trials, and by the time the defect was noticed it was too late, and the T-90 does not offer adequate space for the thermal imager to vent, leading to cooling problems, you can't just tropicalize everything. Even uncooled thermal detectors need to be fitted properly!

I recollect once Shard Pawar as DM once proudly said that our tanks dont use AC as they are real army men , and he hardly spent few minutes in the tank to see what it is like inside the tank.

Irrelevant to the topic.

The issue with Catherine knocking off has been discussed a hundred times before and Sanku had even given stastics IIRC of just 2 system facing this issue , the Thelka story is just recycling old story perhaps on behalf of lobbies that tehelka is quite know to work with.

What convoluted reasoning - you are just dismissing the truth because it does not dovetail with the reality. Tehelka is well known to be pro UPA, in fact its founder sang paeans to a prominent UPA leader. Its hardly worthwhile for them to work for some mythical lobby and that too on the Thermal imager topic to attack a Govt which they in fact support! Forget Tehelka, there have been consistent reports year after year on the Thermal Imager issue, each year ending with yet another attempt to solve the issue being a failure. The latest story just proves that the Thermal imager remains a problem, and it has NOT been solved. Which is why the Army, is still struggling for a solution!

Bottom line is

T-90 is used by more then one country , it is operated by Russia , India and Algeria and Turkmenistan has ordered it , it performed very well in trials in Saudi where a single tank ( just single ) went through couple of days of gruelling trials in deserts and cold without any failure or leakages and could fire more than 30 % of its maximum range with 60 % accuracy , speaks well of its FCS .

What is this 30% of its maximum range with 60% of accuracy business? Just marketing rubbish from the Russians as usual. Did they admit that a trials tank broke down in Indian trials and the engine conked out? No. Military Parade ran an article saying the trials were flawless and praised the engine in particular. The Krasnopol shells had repeated failures in Indian conditions, when fired at altitude. Did the Russians admit it? No - they ran a series of articles praising the Krasnopol and saying it was the best thing ever, and it took a CAG report to expose that even a decade after procurement the Krasnopol was a dud at altitude and only worked in the plains, when it had been acquired for accurate work in the mountains. Bottomline is the Army has made similar poor decisions in the past when it comes to Russian land systems. Your claims about Russia, India, Algeria and Turkmenistan (wow, what an examplel!) hardly speak of the tanks merits. Go on check out how many countries operate the BMP series. Big plus, eh? Do you know the rear doors, thanks to Russian design genius have fuel in them? And that they can easily turn the IFV into a firetrap? Bottomline - Russian engineering of land systems is not perfect. They do and have in the past, screwed up when it comes to protection. Heck, now you have Russian generals bemoaning the fact that the T-90 is overpriced compared to the Leopard 2, and the much vaunted T-95 program and Coalition SPG (wow, radical man, russia rocks!) were both cancelled after they proved to be unsuitable for the modern battlefield.

No other contender came with one tank and could fire those long shots with such accuracy .

Says who? The Russians? Take anything they say about their land systems in foreign export trials with two buckets of salt. The Russians sold us second hand Tunguskas & it took the IA's complaints for them to admit it. We procured the T-90 in part because the "cheaper" T-72S option turned out to be dressed up, second hand rubbish! They didn't even repaint the tanks properly and the evaluation crew found out they were second hand. The day the Saudis buy the much vaunted T-90s, we'll see. More likely they'll go with the better Leopard or more Abrams.

The most important thing is the IA Tankers love it and they always speak good about the tank in all the T-90 exercise video , it participates in all major IA exercises and the IA highly regards it.

IA crew even speak proudly about the 105mm IFG in all "exercise videos", doesnt change the fact that its obsolete. Beem to Army expos, where the T-55 is proudly displayed and IA tankers are proud about it. By your standards then, the T-55 is highly regarded and is hence suitable. The IA tankers upbeat talk refers more to their high morale and esprit de corps, not their equipment.

IF you still think you do not agree , please post a T-90 vs something in a less biased thread with more broad bases views on the topic ,

What less biased topic? Come back with objective replies, not rah rah the T-90 is great stuff. Its a fact of life the T-90 has severe design flaws, no amount of broadbushing will move this fact away..

post it in mp.net and find it for your self how does T-90 rates itself well among the others , there are many Russian , American , Germans , Polish citizen who would vouch for their tank but they still have high regards for any T series and T-90.

Yes, I should go to mp.net which has a disproportionate number of kids, and discuss with them about how the T-90 is "regarded", as versus using my own brains & own efforts to find out the actual pros and cons of the tank which are well known. So much so that no serious observer even considers it current and are more interested in the T-95 etc. Your statement is an appeal to authority, and that too, of the wrong kind.

Unfortunately this thread has the same repetition that were discussed many times over and just a single pov of view is encouraged and that is a IMHO a very biased view for other wise a very good tank.

Yeah, basically, you have no facts to rebut anything what I said previously including the design flaws of ammunition placement, the fact the Thermal Imager issue is yet to be solved, the ammunition length limitation for Indian T-90s, the lack of proper ergonomics and crew support measures, the list goes on & on..
All you have to say in counter, is "you are biased, this thread is biased, everyone is biased", sure that works, thats convincing. Its one thing to have a soft corner for Russian equipment, heck, most of us have it, but to overlook such overwhelming evidence and dismiss everything to the contrary as bias, well, thats just being funny.

[Karan M]

Is that elbit one or ours? there was a news that it is el-op, and there is this janes that says, it was developed at dehra dun

Elbit is not Elop. Separate companies. Elop bought the dutch company that supplied the FCS with some American input. But that Dutch company had already tied up with France to solve the problems, so that agreement continued and the current FCS is Indo-French.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORC ... iment.html

The integrated fire control system had a lot of problems. We had got it from the Dutch, but it had an American component in it. Suddenly we were throttled as the Americans said that the Dutch could not supply this to us. After some time, we were able to get France to redesign the entire fire control system. Now we have an excellent fire control system.

[Karan M]

It would be nice if Avadi could first make the tanks it has been ordered on the time frame promised.

Yes we need Israeli behavior, yet we need it to start it from the basics, without fixing Avadi, nothing is going to work. Fixing Avadi is critical. We have to repeatedly get hammered because Avadi slips on every single commitment, from upgrades of T 72 to Arjuns, to T 90s.

Heck they slip in overhauls of T 72s.

What kind of Indian made tank fleet can we think of with the main manufacturing unit in this shape?

Many of Avadis later problems go back directly to the lack of proper design data from Russia. This means assemblies are sourced from Russia and many T-72 assemblies are not available in a cost effective manner or on time. Hence, Avadi is relying on local suppliers. The local suppliers, lacking design data attempt to reverse engineer the systems and components, which is a time consuming and costly affair. The tracks for instance went through a painful curve, with several initial ones rejected.
All sorts of subsystems need to be found, or indigenized. Rubber items for instance, are a priority item for Avadi, which holds supplier conferences to get adequate private sector interest to indigenize all these. Whether the collapse of the Soviet Union, or Russian intent, design data for many systems was not transferred. As such we have to go the hard path.
Without proper availability of subsystems, production and even overhaul schedules will be affected. The Army's attempted effort to upgrade the T series tanks ran into a similar problem. Audit found projected schedules were not met. Again, traced to lack of availability of subsystems and assemblies. Now the latest idea is to involve the private sector. It will be their problem to stabilize the supply chain and source/manufacture the assemblies and add to the Army/Avadis efforts. Easier said than done, and the effort as far as I know is yet to take off.
The Arjun's solution for this was to indigenize wherever and whatever possible, today, all sorts of Arjun items, even though uneconomical, are made by OFB using DRDO/Partner TOT and in some cases designed by OFB itself. The key advantage for the Arjun is that design authority for the tank rests with DRDO and hence they can intervene in the vendor chain to replace anything that is not upto the mark. In contrast, try that with the T-90, and the Russians will hit you with the IP angle.

[putnanja]

Karan, how is the thermal imager cooled in Arjun?

[Karan M]

Both the Arjun and T-90 thermal imagers would have an integral stirling microcooler. Whats interesting in the case of the Arjun is that they have managed to make the entire package such that it manages to perform despite high internal temperatures in the tank. We own the tank design, optimal placement of electronics is possible. There is also substantial internal volume (relatively), hence growth potential. This has not been possible on the T-90, and hence they want to add extra cooling located outside the imager to lower the ambient temperature. Integrating all the fancy BMS on the T series tanks is going to be another pain. Again, heating or integration problems will crop up (IMO) & consume the already limited space. The BMS is the intended system to network all the assets at the squadron/company/battalion/regiment/brigade level. It will in turn feed into the TAC C3I system at the division/corps level.

[UBanerjee]

Austin, this is absolutely wrong. The Russian solution or rather "jugaad" in this case, is crude.

Why always the same suspects boosting Russian equipment?

[Karan M]

My problems with the T-90 purchase or rather boondoggle or swindle, are that we acquired yesterdays design at todays prices, and which has significant flaws in our operational scenario. The Army evaluators, I daresay, went with a scripted outcome, to buy a brushed up T-72 and ended up giving it passmarks for being exactly that. The defects in this design are too many. But consider:

1. Design data with Russia. Already TOT issues. We now know that DRDO had to indigenize the armor plate and OFB had to negotiate repeatedly for the gun TOT. This when Parliamentary reports note we paid many millions of $ for complete TOT.
2. Trials were not exhaustive. Engine packed up, thermals were not tested, and today the thermal channel continues to be a problem. Please note the US Army can and does use thermal optics as default during day and night - we can use it only intermittently at best.
3. Horrible ergonomics - the tank is a jampacked design with almost minimal space for three crewmembers and which will be really tough in the hatches down condition in the desert. During any NBC issue, the tank will have to be operated in such a mode. There is no AC as well. Russian AC trials showed it to underperform. The tank as it is, has lesser HP than its Ukrainian counterpart, the T-80/84, but adding any AC will draw more HP, and raise fuel consumption. Nor does the tank have an APU for operating its systems during "watch mode".
4. Obsolete electronics - the FCS is a legacy design retained so the Russians could keep the existing missile, ammunition integration going. India did not receive source codes to even add its own ammunition to the ballistic computer. As a result of which we are trying to integrate Arjun BC onto the T-90.
5. Obsolete gun-loading system. Limits projectile length and hence effectiveness. Anti tank kinetic rounds are judged by propellant performance and length of round. Can't keep raising propellant effectiveness as barrel cannot sustain beyond a pressure, and also life goes down. Longer rounds are more effective. T-90/T-72 autoloaders are designed for only a particular length of round.
6. Horrible ammunition storage system: 22 rounds are in carousel autoloader, 23 are all over the tank, exposed. These are CCC rounds. Or Combustible Charge Case. Unlike earlier generation brass rounds, think of these as basically "cardboard rounds", which make them more dangerous (but lighter than brass rounds). Any chance hit inside the tank and that is it. Bye bye crew. The chances of the crew having time to escape, well, that is if the fire suppression system gets a chance to act. In Arjun, each round is in its own steel case.
7.No passive or active protection system. Shtora, Arena, none of these were acquired. The tank is a sitting duck against all sorts of ATGMs. Modern tandem warhead ATGMs can penetrate the flanks. Arjun MK2 comes with LWS and Passive defense system.
8.Limited upgrade potential: You cannot fit any more inside the tank. It simply has no space. Three crew are packed like sardines amongst all sorts of gizmos and heavy engineering equipment. How can you fit any battle management systems, fancy electronics in, without adding to the heat inside and taking up more space. Forget fancy vetronics and stuff. The Russians own the IP remember. So any redesign will have to be extensive, and the Russians will do it.
9. Limited effectiveness against emerging threats, without upgrades to ammunition (limited by autoloader), this tank will face challenges down the road against the next generation Chinese tanks, beyond the ZTZ99. Consider the Army has already asked for improved ammo on Arjun and DRDO said fine. Thats because we own the design. Once we reach the physical limits of the carousel autoloaders height, what then.

All in all, buying the T-90, and wasting the funds which could have been used to upgrade the T-72 by now, was a phenomenally poor decision. Upgrading the T-72, maturing the Arjun, spending the difference on artillery would have done the Army far more than buying 300-500 tanks, with such basic flaws

[putnanja]

For some reason, Deve Gowda, the former PM was against T-90 purchase and he was pitching for T72 upgrade. See this link.

...
Same year, the Indian Parliament witnesses an uproar in the twelfth Lok Sabha proceedings when the former Prime minister H.D. Deve Gowda and others raised the issue of T-90 tanks in the House. Referring to a letter addressed by the Chairman of the Standing Committee to then Defence Minister on 3rd November 1998, the former prime minister mentioned that “all the add-ons of T-90 can be fitted into T-72S which have a tank fire control system, latest technology, 125 mm tank gun, 1000 horse power engine, anti-tank and anti-helicopter missile, SBIR and anti-tank guided missile protective system. With all these add-ons, T-72S have virtually become as good as T-90 and the cost is about Rs. 5-6 crore, whereas T-90 is about Rs. 12-13 crore.” (For detail, please see Appendix-I)

* In, DEFENCE NEWS, 22 January,20001, it quoted Konstatin Makienko, the deputy head of the Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, Moscow, that-“ Ukraine’s T-84 main battle tank is roughly equivalent in quality and capability to Russia’s T-90 and at $2.2 million, is considerably cheaper than the T-90’s export price of $2.7 million.” (page no.
...

[Austin]

Austin, this is absolutely wrong. The Russian solution or rather "jugaad" in this case, is crude. Putting two different sights with two different channels, is nothing short of admitting that the original sight could not incorporate the channel by itself. What do you think that does for space & design optimization.

There is nothing right or wrong on this , it is just the way you could integrate and make it work.

If the IA a decade back needed a 3rd GEn TI sight which was not available and then you have to integrate that rn westesight with the FCS of the tank then you need to provide a way where both systems can be integrated and interoperate, since this is a western system they had to work out a way to probably integrate system that were not part or were designed for it.

The fact that FCS does work with TI shows its a workable solution and not a jugad or workaround

For your information, the latest Russian tanks have moved away from this ad hoc arrangement on the T-90 and are now experimenting with integrated sights which have both the day optics and thermal on one stabilized platform.

They are using the same Catherine TI system as Indian Bishma.

What "very high first round probability kill" and "as good as anything out there are you talking about"? The 1G46 & associated FCS are obsolescent, if not totally obsolete. The stabilization accuracy is less than that on the Arjun. It has no MRS. Its ballistic computer source codes & hardware are legacy and cannot even be reprogrammed by India, as such we are replacing it with the Arjun's.

Do you have any definative source for this claim of FCS being obsolescent or is that your personal opinion ?

The MKI does not need to put in a Litening pod on the nose because the Russian OLS does not work. That would be a comparable example.

Had the IAF asked for integration of PIRATE with MKI instead of OLS and if it would work the same way as OLS does for a pilot would would call that a jugad ?

Austin, just because people "offer something" that doesn't mean it works. For your information, the trials of the Russian AC ended in failure.

IF you check igor blog they have developed a newer cooling system , the question is does the IA wants to integrate an AC.

Coming to your second line, how easily you dismiss the exact problem - namely there was no adequate examination of the Thermal channel in trials, and by the time the defect was noticed it was too late, and the T-90 does not offer adequate space for the thermal imager to vent, leading to cooling problems, you can't just tropicalize everything. Even uncooled thermal detectors need to be fitted properly!

I am not dismissing the nature of problem , its just being exaggarated , like I said Sanku had put up a figure earlier on TI getting conked and IIRC it was just 2 TI among the 60 odd tanks that conked off , I dont have an exact figure in my head but BRF archives will have it.

Tehelka is well known to be pro UPA, in fact its founder sang paeans to a prominent UPA leader.

Tehelka bloggers , sites would write any thing that gives them money or generates more eye balls , its quite easy to see how Arjun triumph and T-90 biting the dust will give more hits and probably generate revenue for sites.

In such a situation you have to rely on what the end user has to say if IA says T-90 is a good tank then it is.

What is this 30% of its maximum range with 60% of accuracy business? Just marketing rubbish from the Russians as usual.

In Saudi trials it hit at targets at 8 km with 60 % accuracy which is 30 % beyond its maximum range with 60 % accuracy , most importantly the Russian bought just a single T-90 for the trials compared to others who bought more than 1 tank and these were Abrams and Leopard , T-90 couducted all the trials sucessfully with the single tank that others could not do it.

Its not rubbish its documented fact and stated by the industry , you can google it and find the person and organisation that said it.

Did they admit that a trials tank broke down in Indian trials and the engine conked out?

IIRC didnt Sanku said that specfic trials was to see exactly when the tank breaks down.

Your claims about Russia, India, Algeria and Turkmenistan (wow, what an examplel!) hardly speak of the tanks merits. Go on check out how many countries operate the BMP series. Big plus, eh?

Yes its not my claims but fact you can check that , 4 professional army operating the same tank in different terrain and climatic conditions speaks good about the machine

BMP came much before T-90 , you can check how many countries operate T-72 by that logic.

Heck, now you have Russian generals bemoaning the fact that the T-90 is overpriced compared to the Leopard 2, and the much vaunted T-95 program and Coalition SPG (wow, radical man, russia rocks!) were both cancelled after they proved to be unsuitable for the modern battlefield.

If the russian general thinks he can buy 3 Leo 2 for one T-90 I would personally suggest he buy it.

T-90AM is the next deep modernisation that brings in many qualities lets hope we move to that production line , As far as russians goes they have Project Armata to build a new series of Tank , BMP ,BDM etc which takes systems developed for T-95 plus there are many new things like its Hybrid Tank.

The IA tankers upbeat talk refers more to their high morale and esprit de corps, not their equipment.

How would you know what they say is not what they mean , unless you can read their mind or you have spent significant time in the army with the equipment to know how good or bad it works to make a fair judgement.

What less biased topic? Come back with objective replies, not rah rah the T-90 is great stuff. Its a fact of life the T-90 has severe design flaws, no amount of broadbushing will move this fact away..

Yes its a known fact by now that posters and even admins have been biased on this topic.

Yes, I should go to mp.net which has a disproportionate number of kids, and discuss with them about how the T-90 is "regarded", as versus using my own brains & own efforts to find out the actual pros and cons of the tank which are well known. So much so that no serious observer even considers it current and are more interested in the T-95 etc. Your statement is an appeal to authority, and that too, of the wrong kind.

ITs a better informed board then BRF is , because there are lot of things an indian poster say like me would never know like for eg why would the russian design the tank in a specif way viz a viz its NATO heavy competitor, what are their industry strengths and weakness , what kind of warfare it is more suitable for , strength in tactics . strength of design house , some thing a local poster is better informed plus there are many retd defence members and good posters.

I really never found any body mauling down some ones tank because each has its own philosophy in design and each exploits its own strength or weakness ,I never found a Leo or Abrams guys every claiming that the T are really bad or vice verse, in the end the debate is quite mature.

Compared to BRF T-90 vs Arjun debate barring few posters who are well informed on T-90/Arjun , i found it quite immature , childish and some times quite rash.

Generally speaking 10 years back i found BR quality of debate and posters were quite high compared to what it is now but thats just me.

There is no harm in putting such questions on such board if it helps learning more then what you know.

[vina]

I said Sanku had put up a figure earlier on TI getting conked and IIRC it was just 2 TI among the 60 odd tanks that conked off , I dont have an exact figure in my head but BRF archives will have it.

..
IIRC didnt Sanku said that specfic trials was to see exactly when the tank breaks down.

Pardon the French, but that particular gent knows Jack Schmidt. Between Tehelka and him, I would believe Tehelka.

I remember figures like close to 20% of the Catherine TIs being conked out at one particular point in time. The TIs are the single most expensive part of the tank, with each costing upwards of 20% of the value of the tank!

T-90AM is the next deep modernisation that brings in many qualities lets hope we move to that production line , As far as russians goes they have Project Armata to build a new series of Tank , BMP ,BDM etc which takes systems developed for T-95 plus there are many new things like its Hybrid Tank.

The current junk which was purveyed as the next best thing to sliced bread doesn't work, so we need to spend another $5b and get the "modified" version of current junk and oh, also some "Project Armata" plus a "Hybrid Tank" is something we should spend on further, all the while when we have a better performing product right now and a clear development and upgrade path into the future.

Oh small matter.. The Armata/Barmata is going to be a 65 ton behemoth, which will not have "strategic mobility" and be "overweight" per the Army's cribs on Arjun. But oh wait, if the Russian tank is 65 tons on the same scale, it is indeed "light" and "fine" and have "strategic mobility", while the Arjun on the same scale will not be.. Nice.

[Austin]

Between Tehelka and him, I would believe Tehelka.

You can believe who you want to but Tehelka would write something if you pay them to do it , they simply recycled old stuff and presented in new bottle.

I remember figures like close to 20% of the Catherine TIs being conked out at one particular point in time. The TIs are the single most expensive part of the tank, with each costing upwards of 20% of the value of the tank!

Not sure if it would be the most expensive part but it is expensive ,all thermal and electronics stuff are.

Sanku had the figure and IIRC it was very low about 2 conked off , but its just off my head many be he can put that.

The current junk which was purveyed as the next best thing to sliced bread doesn't work, so we need to spend another $5b and get the "modified" version of current junk and oh, also some "Project Armata" plus a "Hybrid Tank" is something we should spend on further, all the while when we have a better performing product right now and a clear development and upgrade path into the future.

By that logic Why would you spend similar money to upgrade a Arjun Mk2 ? because it is something better then Mk1 for crew and firepower.

That would be the same reason you would upgrade the T-90 or T-72 becuase it would improve its crew safety and firepower plus the life of the tank.

Oh small matter.. The Armata/Barmata is going to be a 65 ton behemoth, which will not have "strategic mobility" and be "overweight" per the Army's cribs on Arjun. But oh wait, if the Russian tank is 65 tons on the same scale, it is indeed "light" and "fine" and have "strategic mobility", while the Arjun on the same scale will not be.. Nice

Armata Heavy tank is in 50 T class as per industry and who says IA will buy armata it would remain in 40 T class via FMBT atleast the DRDO has been very vocal on that.

BTW what might not be a logistics problem for the russian might be for the IA , you do not have the same enemy to deal with after all.

[srai]

For some reason, Deve Gowda, the former PM was against T-90 purchase and he was pitching for T72 upgrade. See this link.

...
Same year, the Indian Parliament witnesses an uproar in the twelfth Lok Sabha proceedings when the former Prime minister H.D. Deve Gowda and others raised the issue of T-90 tanks in the House. Referring to a letter addressed by the Chairman of the Standing Committee to then Defence Minister on 3rd November 1998, the former prime minister mentioned that “all the add-ons of T-90 can be fitted into T-72S which have a tank fire control system, latest technology, 125 mm tank gun, 1000 horse power engine, anti-tank and anti-helicopter missile, SBIR and anti-tank guided missile protective system. With all these add-ons, T-72S have virtually become as good as T-90 and the cost is about Rs. 5-6 crore, whereas T-90 is about Rs. 12-13 crore.” (For detail, please see Appendix-I)

* In, DEFENCE NEWS, 22 January,20001, it quoted Konstatin Makienko, the deputy head of the Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, Moscow, that-“ Ukraine’s T-84 main battle tank is roughly equivalent in quality and capability to Russia’s T-90 and at $2.2 million, is considerably cheaper than the T-90’s export price of $2.7 million.” (page no.
...

T-90 Development

By 1992, the Russian Ministry of Defense announced that it could no longer afford to manufacture two main battle tanks in parallel.[4] Since both the "quality" T-80U and the cheaper "quantity" T-72B were being built at different plants, and each plant was critical to the economy of its city, the government gave small orders to both. Omsk built five T-80Us and Nizhny Tagil built fifteen T-72s, and both built more in the hopes of winning large export orders. Nizhny Tagil had built a few T-72BMs, T-72Bs upgraded with a third generation add-on explosive reactive armour (ERA) called Kontakt-5, which was already in service on the T-80U.[4]

To further improve the T-72's export prospects and its chances of being selected as Russia's sole production MBT, the T-80U's more sophisticated fire control system was also added to produce a vehicle designated T-72BU. The T-90 was developed by the Kartsev-Venediktov Design Bureau at the Uralvagonzavod factory in Nizhny Tagil. The production model is based on the T-72BM, with some added features from the T-80 series.[4]
...

T-90 is T-72BM+ but renamed for better export potential.

[pragnya]

Austin, it is not only about Tehelka report, a number of reports exist from as early as 2006. also it is not just 2 TIs conking out.

some links you may like to read -

But army officers complained that the existing T-90S tanks faced "recurring" technical problems which were adversely impinging on the force's operational preparedness.

Senior armoured corps officers said the Catherine thermal imaging (TI) camera supplied by Thales of France that is the "heart" of the T-90S' fire control system (FCS) had "repeatedly malfunctioned" in the excessive summer heat of the western Rajasthan desert where the MBTs frequently exercise and will eventually be deployed.

Officers operating the tanks said temperatures in excess of 60 degrees Celsius inside the tank had rendered between 80-90 FCS "unserviceable" over the past four years. Attempts to rectify them had so far largely proven unsuccessful.

In one armoured regiment in Punjab, an alarming 30 of 40 tanks were "off-road", lamented an officer, declining to be named.

In keeping with the army's qualitative staff requirement for the T-90S MBT that stipulated a "longer range, shimmerless" sight, Peling of Belarus with its IG 46 sight entered into partnership with Thales to integrate its Catherine TI camera thereby giving the FCS a range of around three kilometres. The FCS components were "mated" by the manufacturers at the T-90S Nizhny Tagil factory in the Urals in Russia.

When problems first began to emerge in 2003 with the TI camera - priced at around Rs.20 million ($444,444) per unit, a fifth of each tanks cost of Rs.117.5 million - they were replaced as the T-90S were under warranty till March 2004.

Thereafter, with the warranty having ended, the army has grudgingly conceded that it is looking to "rectify" the FCS problem, but has not yet come up with a viable solution.

Army chief Gen J.J. Singh recently declared that the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) was considering proposals to "partially" air-condition the T-90S to overcome the overheating problem. But he did not elaborate as to how a cooling plant could be successfully engineered into the tank without undertaking major structural changes.

This was due partly to engineering problems encountered in locally assembling the MBTs, but principally because of integrating the Catherine TI camera with the 1G 46 sight.

The first locally assembled T-90S tanks began rolling out of the HVF in January 2004, but within a short period they too faced FCS problems in hot temperatures.

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/india-to-buy ... 7-3-1.html

i have not seen any report of the resolution to those problems till date!!

take a look at the bolded in BLUE. does it ring something or is it a coincidence that the Arjuns are being inducted 'only' for the dessert!!

another report (there are many more) -

According to Jane's Defence Weekly, the tank's continuing technical flaws are "adversely impinging on the Indian Army's operational preparedness."

Confirming the Jane's report, senior Army officers told this newspaper that the French Catherine thermal imaging (TI) camera, which gives the T-90's Belarussian (Peling IG-46) night sight its 3 km range and higher accuracy, is not "adequately tropicalised" and hence prone to malfunctioning in the extreme heat of the Rajasthan desert region, where temperatures inside the MBT routinely average between 55ºC and 60ºC.

During repeated manoeuvres in the Thar Desert, where the T-90s will ultimately be deployed in the event of an outbreak in hostilities, prolonged use under high temperatures had already "knocked out" between 80 and 90 of the Catherine TI cameras, rendering the FCS "unserviceable." The officers said that repeated efforts to correct the problem had been without success.

The TI cameras are the crucial "eyes" of the tank's systems. At Rs 2 crores each, the Catherine TI system comprises almost one-sixth of each T-90's total cost of Rs 11.75 crores.

One of the options currently being explored to rectify the FCS is to locally develop an airconditioning plant for the TI camera. For this, a former director-general of mechanised forces is understood to have already held discussions with some French manufacturers, including Thales (which makes the Catherine TI cameras). However, neither this nor the local vendors called in by the DRDO have had any success in this matter.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1658209/posts

now one solution was to put AC but space as everyone knows is a premium in T-90s and what about power requirement for the same when the main engine does not output the advertised 1000hp?? won't mobility be compromised?? and what about the additional cost??

New Delhi, May 20

Army proposes air-conditioners

Ajay Banerjee
Tribune News Service

India’s main battle tank, the Russian-built T-90, is facing problems with its sophisticated computerised systems as they are not working properly in high temperatures which is a routine during the summer in Rajasthan and parts of Gujarat.

The Army has now requested the ministry of defence to install air-conditioners in the tanks as the electronics have been failing when temperatures rise above the 45° Celsius. Sources said the project to install air-conditioners would be handled in India only. It will be a big task as about 300 T-90 tanks are required to be re-fitted and equipped with a cooling system.

The heat is hampering the working of the sophisticated system on board and also slows down the firing capability. Modern tanks, like modern aircraft, have a very sensitive sensor and computer-based firing and navigation system. The source added that the Defence Research and Development Organisation would be roped in for the project that would require some hardcore engineering work.

However, it will not be an easy job. The tank does not have space within its exterior armour that can take an AC unit. Moreover, an externally mounted AC unit will be a liability in case of a conflict. Also an auxillary power unit will be required to power the AC. Again fitting this power unit will be task in itself, said a top official.

The existing power system drawn from a 1000 horse power engine may not be enough to run the 46-tonne tank and also power the AC. And this is not some normal air conditioning it will require a powerful AC as the temperatures in the desert areas like Barmer, located smack on the border with Pakistan, go up to the 50° C mark. And the inside of the tank can be even more heat generating. The temperature inside the chamber will be required to be brought down to a comfortable 30 degrees as the hood will be required to be closed to make the AC effective.

Even if the auxiliary power system is fitted it will need fuel to run and this will mean drawing fuel from the tank’s existing supplies.

In the past it has been observed that the systems of the tanks gets heated so much that ice packs were needed to cool them.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2008/20080521/nation.htm#4

besides even the commander's sights have problems needing replacement!!!

Army For New Commanders Sight On T-90s

The Indian Army has decided to replace the main commander's sight on all current and future T-90S main battle tanks, and has issued a request for information for this. The T-90's PNK-4S commanders sight, manufactured by Russia's JSC Rostov Optical-Mechanical Plant (ROMZ), has been found to be far below what the Army wants, and it has therefore put out an RFI for an advanced thermal-imager based panoramic night sight.

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2009/08/in ... -main.html

oh yes...good going.

[Singha]

perhaps only israel among advanced militaries operates tanks as routine in searing deserts. we ought to touch base with them and figure out if anything is possible given the form factor of t90. IDF has a history of putting captured russian tanks to use too.

[rohitvats]

<SNIP>

IIRC didnt Sanku said that specfic trials was to see exactly when the tank breaks down.

<SNIP>

Oh yes! he did and was proved wrong. Because he mixed up AUCRT and User trials (which is a polite way of saying that he did not know what AUCRT is and had be 'educated'). T-90 engine went kaput during user-trials - please repeat slowly after me - "during user trials".

So, it doesn't matter jack-s*hit if T-90 was flying in Saudi trials.....what matters is it screwed up in Indian trials. Oh! and another not-pick - the engine suffers from downgraded performace in summers in India - and considering that true usable engine power is itself certain percentage lower that advertized power, it screws your T/W Ratio.

[UBanerjee]

ITs a better informed board then BRF is , because there are lot of things an indian poster say like me would never know like for eg why would the russian design the tank in a specif way viz a viz its NATO heavy competitor, what are their industry strengths and weakness , what kind of warfare it is more suitable for , strength in tactics . strength of design house , some thing a local poster is better informed plus there are many retd defence members and good posters.

Mil Photos is well known for being overrun with various nationalist contingents, particularly chicom drones and the "Russia Strong" brigade, who will post whatever nonsense necessary on the appropriate topics.

There is useful info but the signal to noise ratio is quite low.

[Rahul M]

next we know, some will be claiming that CDM is a dodgy unofficial source too and milphotos has a much higher standard and we have to believe T-90's performances in burundi's army(reported only by russi media) over 'unreliable' sources like statements on the floor of Indian parliament.

[d_berwal]

Austin, it is not only about Tehelka report, a number of reports exist from as early as 2006. also it is not just 2 TIs conking out.

some links you may like to read -
another report (there are many more) -

Its the same story every 3 months the same articles are re-posted and the game of "my understanding and facts and believes are truer than yours starts again".

pragnya: if we want to show the power of google and one would find 10 times more reports on Arjun failures on net lease look at them also, would would find all of them in the BR archives over last 10 years.

all your links are years old and recycled and come form unnamed, unofficial sources.

The debate over Arjun vs T-90 is flawed in my opinion:
- T-90 was contract was done in 2000-01. Today there are over 700 T-90 in IA arpprox.
- All the new contracts after the initial contact are the follow on of the 1st contract.
- The signing date of contracts are different as negotiation and contacts for manufacturing took time to do.
- (i believe the second 330 CKD contract after the 1000 to be manufactured in Avdhi is part of 1000 to accelerate the induction as avdhi took time to absorb the technology and 99% is not separate)
- Arjun production came back on track only around 2008 and order for 124 is still not complete.
- Arjun as a programme is back on track and MK2 is already in road-map.
- Now what more?

[Singha]

[a] imo we should build a large troop carrier to supplement the 4x4 trucks in RAPIDS. cannot be done in arjun chassis or t90 chassis due to rear engine. the IDF was lucky to have merkava with right-front engine so made the Namer out of it. but certainly arjun/t90 techs can be reused in terms of sensors, suspension, some weapons...

Namer stands quite tall and seems to have a remote operated HMG
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2741/414 ... 0967dd.jpg
http://waronline.org/pictures/Namer/P3090099.jpg
http://btvt.narod.ru/4/nemer/z1.jpg

an alternative is a desi derivative of the Stryker type vehicles now proliferating - advantage being just some customization and tropicalization needed, mount our choice of weapons and sensors and good to go...far cheaper than a Namer type heavy armour tortoise too.

a smaller IFV in the Abhay mould with the usual IFV turrent of 20/30mm cannon but topped with a remote weapons station for a HMG and optronics. this to replace the BMPs eventually ( a 20 yr process for sure given the BMP huge nos). if we want something in 2020 we need to start work now, its not a kids game to make a new IFV.

[Austin]

Mil Photos is well known for being overrun with various nationalist contingents, particularly chicom drones and the "Russia Strong" brigade, who will post whatever nonsense necessary on the appropriate topics. There is useful info but the signal to noise ratio is quite low.

One can argue the same for BR that its over run by nationalist but by and large from my experience its always mature debate over fan boy types , again you might have a different experience.

[Sanku]

Oh yes! he did and was proved wrong. Because he mixed up AUCRT and User trials (which is a polite way of saying that he did not know what AUCRT is and had be 'educated'). T-90 engine went kaput during user-trials - please repeat slowly after me - "during user trials".

I am sorry you are incorrect and if you it slowly you are still incorrect.

[Austin]

- Now what more?

What more , well the same thing that T-90 is a bad tank

[Sanku]

Many of Avadis later problems go back directly to the lack of proper design data from Russia. .

Avadi has underperformed on every small thing it was ever asked to do. Sure they can always come up with "reasons" of how X Y Z or the rest of the world is to blame for it, but that does not change it.

As long as they are allowed to get away with this, IAs reliance on others would not go away.

[rohitvats]

Oh yes! he did and was proved wrong. Because he mixed up AUCRT and User trials (which is a polite way of saying that he did not know what AUCRT is and had be 'educated'). T-90 engine went kaput during user-trials - please repeat slowly after me - "during user trials".

I am sorry you are incorrect and if you it slowly you are still incorrect.

Incorrect? Want me to dig out the post and jog your memory?

[Sanku]

Blaming T 90 is not going to make Arjun's come in sooner, since they are not related, what ever people think or want to think. So folks should kindly let go of the pointless exercise and focus on understand new developments and trends.

[Sanku]

Incorrect? Want me to dig out the post and jog your memory?

I remember the post, I was only politely telling you that you were wrong, I think you confused the politeness with acceptance of being wrong, since BRF does have a bunch of folks who are polite only when wrong of course there are some who never polite but we will leave them aside.

In any case, if you want to discuss, dig out the original report, lets discuss that once more since clearly there is nothing better to discuss in light of marked lack of developments anyway.

[Karan M]

There is nothing right or wrong on this , it is just the way you could integrate and make it work.

If the IA a decade back needed a 3rd GEn TI sight which was not available and then you have to integrate that rn westesight with the FCS of the tank then you need to provide a way where both systems can be integrated and interoperate, since this is a western system they had to work out a way to probably integrate system that were not part or were designed for it.

There is everything wrong with it, because you basically jury rig a new sight into a tank not designed for it, and then integrate it in such a manner that the onboard microcooler cannot sustain the sight in operational temperatures. What you are still not understanding is that the 1G46 sight was not designed as an integrated sight. The Arjun IGMS is an integrated sight. Both sight heads are on the same stabilized platform, leading to better stabilization, and more accurate alignment overall. This is the same approach as followed on most modern tanks today, check out the Leopard, Abrams or Leclerc!
You are just arguing for the sake of arguing! If the Russian jugaad had worked that was one thing, but the reality is it does not work. The Peleng ESSA just conks out when used in an extensive manner.

The fact that FCS does work with TI shows its a workable solution and not a jugad or workaround

If the jugaad worked that is. In the Su-27 upgrade done for their local Flankers, they just put some extra processors on a bypass channel for additional A2A modes, and A2G modes, to bypass the legacy software and obsolete processing on their original radar. The difference between that case and this one is that the Flanker had enough space to make it work, and the original designers supplied the new equipment, and the overall package works, in this case it does not. When India bought its new frontline MBT, it deserved more than jugaad, it deserved something which was state of the art, and more importantly, one which worked! Not something the Russians have put up their hands on, blaming the French.

They are using the same Catherine TI system as Indian Bishma.

Please look up the latest Russian designs. They all come with a new integrated FCS, with the thermal sight & GDS all on one common stabilized platform. More compact, designed in from day one. Second, they can use Catherine FC and get away with it. They are in Russia, where the tank needs a heater for crew survival, not India where temperatures within the tank reach 55 degrees centigrade plus. Typical case of equipment designed for Russian conditions flopping in India.

What "very high first round probability kill" and "as good as anything out there are you talking about"? The 1G46 & associated FCS are obsolescent, if not totally obsolete. The stabilization accuracy is less than that on the Arjun. It has no MRS. Its ballistic computer source codes & hardware are legacy and cannot even be reprogrammed by India, as such we are replacing it with the Arjun's.

Do you have any definative source for this claim of FCS being obsolescent or is that your personal opinion ?

So I mention the exact ways in which the T-90 FCS is obsolescent so that you can check up on it yourself, and you reply is "it your personal opinion" and of course if I go to the effort of showing you all the links and doing your work for you, you will promptly dismiss the sources as biased. Do you seriously think a FCS, and GPS designed during the Cold War (1G46 derived from the T-80U sight/FCS) is still current today? You cannot be serious. The Arjun FCS was redesigned with French assistance to include the best French technology, the SAGEM FCS on the Leclerc was widely acknowledged to be state of the art, and derivatives chosen for many tank upgrade projects. The Arjun FCS is being improved further with autotracking, which involves post signal acquisition, digital processing of the image and automating the FCS controls! This is not even attempted for the current T-90. And yet you defend it, for what exactly?

Had the IAF asked for integration of PIRATE with MKI instead of OLS and if it would work the same way as OLS does for a pilot would would call that a jugad ?

If the Pirate had been integrated instead of a Litening, and ended up showing subpar performance in operational conditions, because it was never designed to be fitted as a Litening style placement, and ended up being a flop in operational conditions, then it would be a like to like comparison, and yes, then it would be called a jugaad. And a flop one at that.

IF you check igor blog they have developed a newer cooling system , the question is does the IA wants to integrate an AC.

Igorr's blog and many blogs claim many things. When these things are brought for trials, they turn out to be flops. Bottomline, the AC was brought to India, and it flopped. The trial, was a miserable failure. Second, ACs are not a panacea. They consume valuable HP and raise fuel consumption, which is why the Army has not been a fan of them, and many tanks like the Abrams dont have them either. Either be a sitting duck in combat, or end up reducing your operational range. For microcooling, the T-90 is the worst tank, read the links below. It will require structural changes. Where is the space to put in dedicated channels for cooling the actual components that fail, namely the sensitive IR detector in the sight head? That is the whole problem with the T-90, it was never designed with upgrades of internal systems in mind. There is no space within the tank for most items without severe structural redesign.

I am not dismissing the nature of problem , its just being exaggarated , like I said Sanku had put up a figure earlier on TI getting conked and IIRC it was just 2 TI among the 60 odd tanks that conked off , I dont have an exact figure in my head but BRF archives will have it.

Try 80-90 Thermal Imagers conking out, rather than two. And the problem is still not resolved. The warranty period is over, and Russia is no longer responsible, nor are the subsystem suppliers.

Tehelka bloggers , sites would write any thing that gives them money or generates more eye balls , its quite easy to see how Arjun triumph and T-90 biting the dust will give more hits and probably generate revenue for sites.

Sure, so Tehelka is making money of the T-90 flop and is the first source of info, for Arjun trials, right? Whenever people want information on Arjun, they run to Tehelka right? Can you even understand how unreeasonable your argument is, in order to dismiss sources when they offer information contrary to your own bias on the topic, which just cannot admit the T-90 has severe flaws. Indiastrategic is biased. Ajai Shukla, same argument. This is just going to ridiculous lengths to fit a square peg in a round hole. Just realize the T-90 was beaten, it has severe design limitations, admit it and move on..

In such a situation you have to rely on what the end user has to say if IA says T-90 is a good tank then it is.

The end user also says the 105MM IFG is a good gun, and is searching for replacements. It also says the Army is ready to handle all challenges & then bemoans the fact that much of its equipment is obsolescent..
And the end user while saying the T-90 is a good tank, is scouting for any, any cooling system that can solve the Thermal issue. It has also realized (so much for trials) that the PNK-4S Commanders Sight is not good enough for its requirements either. Try looking beyond feel good morale is up commentary, please.

In Saudi trials it hit at targets at 8 km with 60 % accuracy which is 30 % beyond its maximum range with 60 % accuracy , most importantly the Russian bought just a single T-90 for the trials compared to others who bought more than 1 tank and these were Abrams and Leopard , T-90 couducted all the trials sucessfully with the single tank that others could not do it.

And who says this? The Russians? Take their marketing claims with a pinch of salt. Like I said, when it comes to land systems, the Russians and Ukrainians are the biggest BS'ers around in the world. When they can claim the engine was a remarkable success (as versus a trials tank breaking down), their shell was proved to the satisfaction of the users (when Krasnopol issues were not solved a decade after purchase), when they tout their Refleks missile (which didn't work in India and required handholding), you want to take them at their word regarding some Saudi trials, and that too claims about 60% accuracy and the like! Do you even realize that these 2-3 day jamborees are meaningless? The Arjun scored over 90% in trials repeatedly. Even then the Army was not satisfied till it showed that in operational conditions, it showed the weapons system over a period of months could withstand extreme climatic conditions & was not erratic.
Bottomline - the Abrams and Leopard are combat proven systems, in Iraq and now Afghanistan. The Arjun is proven over amongst the most, if not the most, demanding trials regimen ever undergone by a tank platform. The T-90 is not even properly trials proven and still defective in operational service in India.

Its not rubbish its documented fact and stated by the industry , you can google it and find the person and organisation that said it.

Yes, because a Russian PR guy said it, its documented, and automatically true, and becomes cent per cent accurate.

IIRC didnt Sanku said that specfic trials was to see exactly when the tank breaks down.

See Rohitvats reply.

Yes its not my claims but fact you can check that , 4 professional army operating the same tank in different terrain and climatic conditions speaks good about the machine

Leave Russia out. They really had no choice once the T-80 line went to Ukraine (Kharkiv Morozov) and besides operating in Siberia is hardly same as in India. Next, Algeria and Turkmenistan. Latter is a professional army? By what standards - google for Turkmenbashi & what the Army was used for. Now, Algeria. When was the last time, Algeria engaged in mass armored warfare? Seriously, all you have are four nations, of which is a tinpot procurer, one is the home state (without any other options), and one is hardly at India's level of operational requirement and doctrine. India by all accounts, is the joker in the bunch, going for the T-90 based on assuming that it would work fine (it didn't) paying a huge sum of money (for limited TOT) and is now shooting its own homegrown tank in the foot to justify its organizational mistake

BMP came much before T-90 , you can check how many countries operate T-72 by that logic.

So? The T-90 is nothing but a dressed up T-72. And the T-72s design flaws all came over to the T-90. Besides, the point remains, about design flaws in Russian land systems.

If the russian general thinks he can buy 3 Leo 2 for one T-90 I would personally suggest he buy it.

Politics will never allow it to happen.

T-90AM is the next deep modernisation that brings in many qualities lets hope we move to that production line , As far as russians goes they have Project Armata to build a new series of Tank , BMP ,BDM etc which takes systems developed for T-95 plus there are many new things like its Hybrid Tank.

If the T-90 is that good, why do they have this "deep modernization" business, instead of minor iterative upgrade? Clearly, the tank needed redesign to be improved to even partially modern standards. Second, what relevance does this Russian vaporware have to us? We only have the warmed over T-90M version!

How would you know what they say is not what they mean , unless you can read their mind or you have spent significant time in the army with the equipment to know how good or bad it works to make a fair judgement.

Perhaps because I use my common sense, and know that for PR they even pose with items like the Sterling SMG, which privately most will tell you is worth throwing at the enemy.

Yes its a known fact by now that posters and even admins have been biased on this topic.

So no objective replies to the design flaws I listed, and only all posters and admins are biased. Very logical.

ITs a better informed board then BRF is , because there are lot of things an indian poster say like me would never know like for eg why would the russian design the tank in a specif way viz a viz its NATO heavy competitor, what are their industry strengths and weakness , what kind of warfare it is more suitable for , strength in tactics . strength of design house , some thing a local poster is better informed plus there are many retd defence members and good posters.

If you want better informed boards, please go to specialist ones. Not picture sites like Mp.net, which is fanboy central. Most serious posters there pick up their info from other boards as well. Spend time at serious places instead of parsing through junk, anyways, thats just my suggestion, your patience may vary.

I really never found any body mauling down some ones tank because each has its own philosophy in design and each exploits its own strength or weakness ,I never found a Leo or Abrams guys every claiming that the T are really bad or vice verse, in the end the debate is quite mature.

Thats not a mature debate, its just a bunch of folks trying to play nice because they don't know better and because the admin will ban them otherwise. Professionals don't necessarily agree with you. Try asking some Abrams tankers what they make of the T-72 after having examined it, and they will give you their unbiased opinion. which will maul the tank. Its a fact that per standards achieved in the Abrams, the T series has design elements which are very shoddy even if it has some pluses. Problem is those pluses are not significant enough to overcome the minuses

Compared to BRF T-90 vs Arjun debate barring few posters who are well informed on T-90/Arjun , i found it quite immature , childish and some times quite rash.

Generally speaking 10 years back i found BR quality of debate and posters were quite high compared to what it is now but thats just me.

There is no harm in putting such questions on such board if it helps learning more then what you know.

Bottomline, fact remains that there is no answer to the design flaws in the T-90.
Now, you may dislike the posters for pointing them out but its like the Emperor getting angry at the child who said he (the T-90) had no clothes.

[Austin]

Unless you can prove and substantiate that statement, one would request you to edit it and avoid making such statements to either protect your position or H&D.

I dont mind taking it back because i cannot prove it , either ways by that standard in this debate there are lot of stuff people say that they cannot prove it

[Sanku]

There are many reports of T 90s performing very well in all the IA exercises and tests over last many years, officially IA has no problems with T 90 none documented in any formal official or quasi-official report.

Many direct praises in the media.

Yeah, so lets believe one thelkha, but not entire Armored core whose own life is on line. Fantastique.

[Karan M]

Avadi has underperformed on every small thing it was ever asked to do. Sure they can always come up with "reasons" of how X Y Z or the rest of the world is to blame for it, but that does not change it.

They underperformed to the same extent the Army BRD underperformed on Project Gulmohar (T-55 upgrade) and the T-72 Overhaul (which was taken up because Avadi was not able to deliver sufficient overhauls). Audit found the reasons for the Army's "underperformance" was the same as Avadis reasons. Lack of adequate quality subassemblies, in a timely, cost effective manner. Capacity remained underutilized, number of vehicles overhauled/upgraded remained below projections. This fundamental problem remains when it comes to so called TOT from Russia which can be called license assembly for platforms like the T-90 when they renege on prior TOT agreements. Case in point, the MiG-21-93 upgrade, which is now called the Bison by the IAF. Original deal called for TOT of key systems and components. After agreeing to the deal, and the deal being signed, Russia backed away from TOT. To this data, some systems are still not reliable. The IAF has given up on the OEM and its partners, and instead hired a private Indian firm to redesign and reengineer several systems for greater reliability (which never met original Russian claims).

As long as they are allowed to get away with this, IAs reliance on others would not go away.

Read above. The Russians will not work with OFB to set up a detailed production line for timely availability of key assemblies and systems. They'd rather we be dependent on them for these items. Its simple commercial sense.

[Karan M]

There are many reports of T 90s performing very well in all the IA exercises and tests over last many years, officially IA has no problems with T 90 none documented in any formal official or quasi-official report.

Many direct praises in the media.

Officially the Army had no problems with the Vickers MBT, aka the Vijayanta either. It too was used in all the IA exercises and tests over many years. Unofficially, it was accepted to be a piece of junk, automotive reliability considered with thin armor, forced on the Army by senior decision makers.

Yeah, so lets believe one thelkha, but not entire Armored core whose own life is on line. Fantastique.

Many more reports apart from Tehelka on the failure of the T-90 thermal imaging..

[Karan M]

pragnya: if we want to show the power of google and one would find 10 times more reports on Arjun failures on net lease look at them also, would would find all of them in the BR archives over last 10 years.

The difference is that each of these failures were overcome by hard work and persistence and these efforts are well documented, and none were related to fundamental design issues within the tank. The T-90s flaws cannot be overcome in such a manner.

all your links are years old and recycled and come form unnamed, unofficial sources.

Enough official links exist to show the Arjun is a superior platform to the T-90. Its humorous to see the stalling tactics at play here. When an official source notes the Arjun is ahead of the T-90 in most criteria, dismiss it, but on the other hand any criticism of the T-90 is "unofficial". Yes, as if serving officers are going to come out and whistleblow on the organization for this issue. Instead of doing what they have always done, soldier on with whatever they have.

- Now what more?

What more - solve the T-90 design flaws, stop the production until they are fixed and dont reward the Russians for a flawed product and bad faith negotiation tactics (stalling TOT, not solving the thermal imaging issue and passing the buck to the customer).

In the meanwhile order more than 124 Arjun MK1s, triple the darn order to replace an equal number of the obsolescent T-72s ASAP, and get cracking on the T-72 Upgrade front for the newer ones, in particular fitting them with new FCS and engines, and crew support measures, instead of ad hoc importing ice vests at wartime because tank crews cannot manage the unbearable heat. The answer is not the Pakis have it worse as Army brass seem to dismiss the problem as whenever such topics come up.