Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 12 Dec 2011 15:29

The Oct. issue of the "F" mag had a detailed report on the IA's armour reqs. and road map.The key development being the arrival of the T-90AM,which reports say overcomes the shortcomings of the earlier T-90S.We are told that the "incremental" step improvements as was done with the SU-30 acquisition was part of the overall masterplan.The new T-90s with many improvements including new thermal imaging sights,ERA armour,auto MG on the turret,self-protection suite as on Arjuns,etc.There are also two batches of 1000+ earlier T-72s awaiting upgrades,600+ of one batch completed.A new idea has been mooted that instead of upgrading the remainder of the T-72s,the IA should instead acquire another large batch of T-90AMs 600 (?) and 400+ Arjun MK-2s,while using the older hulls of the T-72s to be modified to accommodate Akash SAM launchers,anti-air artillery,ATGM launchers,SP artillery,etc.

Let's see how this idea which sounds quite interesting,develops.IT would be an acknowledgement of the maturity of Arjun too,with about 250 A-1s and 400 A2s to be inducted.We were told many moons ago that an order of 400+ Arjuns was needed to recover developmental costs,and if this plan is accepted will justify the dev. of the tank.Today's news item about a new centre for armoured vehicle/robotic vehicle development and talk of A-3 too augurs well for the future.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 12 Dec 2011 15:49

Philip wrote:<SNIP> The key development being the arrival of the T-90AM,which reportss ay overcomes the shortcomings of the erlier T-90S.We are told that the "incremental" step improvements as was done with the SU-30 acquisition was part of the overall masterplan.<SNIP>

Shortcomings in T-90????

goodness gracious!!!!! How is that possible? Didn't the Autobots themselves design this paragon of tank design and armor warfare? Blasphemy, I say

I declare Philip a kafir and wajib-ul-cutlet!!!! Down with counter-revolutionaries and agents of capitalist-zionists

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 12 Dec 2011 15:58

Philip wrote:Let's see how this idea which sounds quite interesting,develops.IT woukld be an acknowledgement of the maturity of Arjun too,with about 250 A-1s and 400 A2s to be inducted.We were told many moons ago that an order of 400+ Arjuns was needed to recover developmental costs,and if this plan is accepted will justify the dev. of the tnk.Todays news item about a new centre for armoured vehciel/robotic vehicle development and talk of A-3 too augurs well for the future.

I'm sure you can guess the general opinion on that proposal - why should we muck around with a Russian tank especially after it was 'outrun and outgunned' by an Indian one. Its a shame if Arjun orders are treated as a consolation prize for the CVRDE. The real acknowledgement of the maturity of the Arjun would be in ensuring that all future orders are of that type. You don't see the Israelis or Brits operating the M1 Abrams, yet we remain gungho about the T-90.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 12 Dec 2011 16:03

^^^Viv S, I can bet the article is by a certain gentleman called PSG - the less said about his pontificating ways the better. Someone needs to tell him that analysis is different from copying and pasting stuff from brochures.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 12 Dec 2011 18:32

The Oct. issue of the "F" mag had a detailed report on the IA's armour reqs. and road map.The key development being the arrival of the T-90AM,which reportss ay overcomes the shortcomings of the erlier T-90S.

Yes yes - now when the turret flies off, retro thrusters will fire and slow down the landing. an explosive cord will jettison the top part and the crew will then continue to fight!!

Marut · Post by **Marut** » 12 Dec 2011 18:54

^ Surya..ssshh ssshhh

We shouldn't reveal classified info in a public forum. That technology is the main reason we are buying 1000+ T90s since it will never be given under ToT similar to main gun and ERA. No wonder our Arjun can't compete with it

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 12 Dec 2011 18:55

Why even bother giving small crumbs to Arjun

, shun the desi maal and have an all T90 force - that is, after all THE super duper tank.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 12 Dec 2011 19:01

good picking srai.. either of your choice is welcome. the minimum of two regiments may be worked out depending on how much real nitpick the user has. so, lesser the number of defect points, the higher the number of regiments they could order.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 13 Dec 2011 00:14

Philip saar talking about "shortcomings in the T-90"??

Never thought I'd see the day.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Dec 2011 01:09

That is not good talking against priced and strategic possessions. You are revealing lot of secrets to enemy.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 13 Dec 2011 09:03

Zounds! Varlets and knavery abounds on this august forum,where has chivalry departed dear friends? Where have thine memories escaped to? Brave warriors,Indians, countrymen,lend me your ears!

Prithy I pray thee, was it not many,many cycles of the moon past,in fact cycles of our planet,when I had last spoken of the state of our cavalry,the huge task that awaited our blacksmiths and stables in "shoeing the horses",such a long queue in wait,of venerable Uralvagonzavod -72s to be re-shod,Siberian stallions ,the T-90s to be shod anew,and the little flaws in their breeding needing some "genetic" experiments and plastic surgery to make future mares and stallions perfect for the course.There was you may remember a little injection of French blood from a certain M'selle Catherine into the veins of our Russian beauties to improve their night-vision,was there not? Ah-ha! Memory returns I sense.Yes,thou wilst also recall that the number of horses that could be shod in a year was insufficient for all of them to be done so in our land and that the breeding would also be done from the land of their origin,the steppes of Russia.

What may you ask about our very own native prancer,chafing at the bit,neighing in frustration at not having his turn on the track? That specimen of horseflesh dear knights was rather wild and unbroken ,and few could mount him satisfactorily,in fact four were needed to tame the beast while it took only three to mount the Siberian! There were problems with his weight and the accuracy of his gun..sorry,run! In fact some even called into question his stamina.Nevertheless,despite these little shortcomings,he had been long in conception and it was felt that a trial run of this native species should be made with a view to further breeding if he performed well against the Siberian stallion.Thou mayest remember too that in our land we could not breed this stallion fast enough for lack of enough mares in the stables and midwives,a shortcoming that is now being redressed by sending many of the venerable Ural-'72s to another track performing in different fashion ,jumping over obstacles,hunt fashion,instead off flat racing round the course.

One is sure that when memory returns,our gallant warriors will take back their words spoken in haste and find in me a gallant knight of a forgiving nature,but only to his fellow countrymen and men of honour ,not quislings ,knaves,scoundrels and rapscallions from the land of the impure and ungodly!

vic · Post by **vic** » 13 Dec 2011 09:17

http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... my/458240/

The army will start trials of the DRDO designed and build Arjun Mark-II battle tank from next October, said P Sivakumar, director, CVRDE. He said the army had ordered 124 units of the Mark-II and more were expected “We will be completing the supplies of the Mark-I version by March 2012. Already, 110 units are supplied, out of the 124 ordered,” he said.

The Indian tanks, he said, were far cheaper at Rs 21 crore as compared to Rs 56 crore each for an American battle tank of similar nature. CVRDE will source the battle tank engines and transmission systems from BEML. At present, these are being imported.

I think that cost of 37 crores may be for Arjun Mark-2 which may start rolling out in 2015 or thereabouts.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 13 Dec 2011 18:27

Indian Army's infantry combat vehicle engines to be upgraded

India is preparing to upgrade around 1,500 BMP-2 and BMP-2K Infantry Combat Vehicles (ICVs) with more powerful engines to enhance their cross-country mobility, floatation and gradient negotiating capability and mount more lethal weapon systems on board. All of this will make the ICVs robust killer machines.

'The Indian Army is looking for a new power pack with minimum 380 horsepower engine for the BMP-2 and BMP-2K ICVs,' a senior defence ministry official told IANS.

The BMP-2 is the main combat vehicle of the Indian Army's Mechanised Infantry regiments used for breaching enemy defences and for troops thrusting forward into enemy territory.

'Since the upgrading of the BMP-2 and BMP-2k ICVs are at an advanced stage, the army wants to get the new engine for the combat vehicles at the earliest,' the official added.

At present, the BMP-2 and BMP-2K command vehicles are running on Russian-origin UTD-20 engines, which have been indigenised by India through technology transfer.

The UTD-20 provides a 285 horsepower output that is considered inadequate as it adversely impacts the ICV's functioning.

The UTD-20 is the original engine of the BMP-1 ICV and is being used in the BMP-2 and BMP-2K even though they are more than 1,000 kg heavier.

'A more powerful engine is required to make the BMP-2 more efficient in cross-country mobility, floatation and gradient negotiating, apart from providing it the ability to take more add-on systems and weapons,' the official said.

'It is imperative that the existing UTD-20 engine is replaced with a new minimum 380 horsepower engine, thereby offering greater mobility to the BMP-2 and BMP-2K,' the official added.

The army is hopeful the new engine will enable the BMP-2 and BMP-2K ICVs to touch 50 kmph during cross-country, 70 kmph on roads and 7 kmph in forward gear during still water floatation.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 13 Dec 2011 18:31

Upgrading all the 1500 BMP-2 with new engine and with missile capability and other stuff is really a big program.

So we will see BMP-2 till 2030 in the IA after upgrade may be more ?

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 13 Dec 2011 18:43

chackojoseph wrote:(Forward looking statement)

When next lot of 500 units will be ordered (this is what DRDO is asking for), it will come nearer to my estimate of (earlier) 750 tanks : 500 + 124 + 124 = 748.

Another lot of 500 will be 748 + 500 = 1248 tanks, which is my latest estimate. Since, there is a tardy progress in FMBT SQR, I expect Arjun tank to be in production till 2030.

pandyan,

The first firing was with laser designator outside the tank. Since, then the missile and technology has been upgraded. This time, the demonstration might be with the actual loading and firing as done with any missile firing tank. IMO, these will be few difference. Also, DRDO will add some add'l request from the user.

Nice to hear the split up. Well there is nothing going to be great like Arjun becoming FMBT. We know by the story/history, Arjun defeated Bhishma. So history is on our side.

Again it is proven that Arjun defeated Bhishma in trials. Complete victory is not guaranteed until Arjun takes over as the mainstay MBT overtaking T-90 and its ilk. Anything over 1000 tanks, i can say victory is on our side.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 13 Dec 2011 18:48

rohitvats wrote:^^^Viv S, I can bet the article is by a certain gentleman called PSG - the less said about his pontificating ways the better. Someone needs to tell him that analysis is different from copying and pasting stuff from brochures.

hmm.....thanks for the tip. I just going through the blog. As I see, there are three versions mentioned apart from Arjun Mk1, Arjun Mk1A, Arjun Mk2 and Arjun Mk3. So far we heard from all sources only about Mk2, from where comes Mk1A suddenly, I don't know. Is Mk3 == FMBT?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 14 Dec 2011 10:11

Philip wrote:Arjun: It was not available when the T-90s were first introduced and it took a lot of work to get it to current level,even this has its own limitations which are being rectified with A-2.The same is happening to the T-90s.One major factor which we must also remember is that the two tanks are dissimilar in that Arjun is much larger,heavier and taller,with a 4-man crew wheras the T-90 has a 3-man crew.
Secondly,as I posted well over a year back,mostly from an IDR feature,we were swamped at Avadi with so many tasks,assembling T-90s,production of Arjun,upgrading 2000 T-72s which was a massive task resulting in much delays.From some reports,barely 600-700 T-72s have been upgraded and as posted earlier,a thought has appeared to scrap further upgrades,convert the stock of T-72 hulls into chassis for a wide range of armoured vehicles,Akash mounts,anti-air artillery,ATGM vehicles,etc.This will allow capacity to build 400+ Arjun-2s and continue to acquire/build locally T-90AMs,which have significant upgrades in eqpt.that have improved performance hugely.It would be interesting to see the two improved A-2s face off with the T-90AMs in the future.I personally feel that both are complementary,but the way for the future I feel is a 3-man crewed turretless tank,with an auto-loader,low profile,with a heavier main gun/missile firing capability with greater speed and mobility.I posted elsewhere the emergence of the attack helo and the cost-benefits/comparisons with armoured regiments, that were balancing the equation ,making the armoured corps more vulnerable.

Trouble is that even after the Arjun has matured you have people (yourself included) who're plugging for a T-90 variant to be acquired. Why do you want to see a comparative trial between the T-90AM and the Arjun Mk2? Like I said before, the Challenger II wasn't selected over the M1 Abrams and Leopard II, why the Arjun need to have a showdown with the T-90?

And how in heaven's name are they complementary? They perform the exact same function, in the exact same manner. The difference is that the Arjun has the T-90's ERA protection in addition to the Kanchan armour and it doesn't have to be Indianized (examples abound ... for instance, having a ballistic computer configured for Indian ammunition). The T-90s pros can be summed up with narrower turret, lower fuel consumption and logistical commonality with an obsolete tank in service.

I don't mean this post to be a disparaging attack, like many others mean to bash. I'm genuinely curious as to what your line of thinking is.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 14 Dec 2011 10:46

Viv S wrote:
Philip wrote:Arjun: It was not available when the T-90s were first introduced and it took a lot of work to get it to current level,even this has its own limitations which are being rectified with A-2.The same is happening to the T-90s.One major factor which we must also remember is that the two tanks are dissimilar in that Arjun is much larger,heavier and taller,with a 4-man crew wheras the T-90 has a 3-man crew.
Secondly,as I posted well over a year back,mostly from an IDR feature,we were swamped at Avadi with so many tasks,assembling T-90s,production of Arjun,upgrading 2000 T-72s which was a massive task resulting in much delays.From some reports,barely 600-700 T-72s have been upgraded and as posted earlier,a thought has appeared to scrap further upgrades,convert the stock of T-72 hulls into chassis for a wide range of armoured vehicles,Akash mounts,anti-air artillery,ATGM vehicles,etc.This will allow capacity to build 400+ Arjun-2s and continue to acquire/build locally T-90AMs,which have significant upgrades in eqpt.that have improved performance hugely.It would be interesting to see the two improved A-2s face off with the T-90AMs in the future.I personally feel that both are complementary,but the way for the future I feel is a 3-man crewed turretless tank,with an auto-loader,low profile,with a heavier main gun/missile firing capability with greater speed and mobility.I posted elsewhere the emergence of the attack helo and the cost-benefits/comparisons with armoured regiments, that were balancing the equation ,making the armoured corps more vulnerable.
Trouble is that even after the Arjun has matured you have people (yourself included) who're plugging for a T-90 variant to be acquired. Why do you want to see a comparative trial between the T-90AM and the Arjun Mk2? Like I said before, the Challenger II wasn't selected over the M1 Abrams and Leopard II, why the Arjun need to have a showdown with the T-90?

And how in heaven's name are they complementary? They perform the exact same function, in the exact same manner. The difference is that the Arjun has the T-90's ERA protection in addition to the Kanchan armour and it doesn't have to be Indianized (examples abound ... for instance, having a ballistic computer configured for Indian ammunition). The T-90s pros can be summed up with narrower turret, lower fuel consumption and logistical commonality with an obsolete tank in service.

I don't mean this post to be a disparaging attack, like many others mean to bash. I'm genuinely curious as to what your line of thinking is.

P:Weight and transportation (65t-49t),smaller crew,more autmation,less expensive to operate (hopefully!).A face-off is good for R&D,remember the private face-off between the M-2000 and MIG-29,which suprisingly to the IAF Mirage enthusiasts,trounced the Mirage everytime.(AM Masand in Vayu).The debate between a 3-man crew and 4-man crew exists,I'm for the latter.Perhaps some of the systems could be common to both and after evaluation an FMBT concept for the next decade can be arrived at.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 14 Dec 2011 10:57

Philip wrote:The Oct. issue of the "F" mag had a detailed report on the IA's armour reqs. and road map.The key development being the arrival of the T-90AM,which reports say overcomes the shortcomings of the earlier T-90S.We are told that the "incremental" step improvements as was done with the SU-30 acquisition was part of the overall masterplan.The new T-90s with many improvements including new thermal imaging sights,ERA armour,auto MG on the turret,self-protection suite as on Arjuns,etc.

interesting..so they're now saying that an "incremental" improvement plan was all along a part of the "Master plan"? Way to go-whoever wrote that sure knows how to put a spin on things that don't work out. so the Catherine TS malfunctioning was all along a part of the masterplan ?

Paging Karan_m - would love to see your reply to this article that Philip is referring to.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 14 Dec 2011 11:02

Philip wrote:
Arjun: It was not available when the T-90s were first introduced and it took a lot of work to get it to current level,even this has its own limitations which are being rectified with A-2.

Says who?

VinayG · Post by **VinayG** » 14 Dec 2011 11:06

anybody knows what tank is this looks like abram tank turrent on t series chasis

Upendra · Post by **Upendra** » 14 Dec 2011 11:12

VinayG wrote:

anybody knows what tank is this looks like abram tank turrent on t series chasis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_1

kmkraoind · Post by **kmkraoind** » 14 Dec 2011 11:13

The letters on the tank says "Churchill" and Google chacha tells that it is British ChallengerWiki Photo

VinayG · Post by **VinayG** » 14 Dec 2011 11:17

i was looking at challenger 2 for cross check i some how missed the challenger 1 and the name u pointed out on the tank it thank you kmkraoind and Upendra i was under the impression of a new t series saw this photo on military pictures . net yesterday and in trishul blog i missed judged the identity

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 14 Dec 2011 11:57

Philip wrote: <SNIP>P:Weight and transportation (65t-49t),smaller crew,more autmation,less expensive to operate (hopefully!).A face-off is good for R&D,remember the private face-off between the M-2000 and MIG-29,which suprisingly to the IAF Mirage enthusiasts,trounced the Mirage everytime.(AM Masand in Vayu).The debate between a 3-man crew and 4-man crew exists,I'm for the latter.Perhaps some of the systems could be common to both and after evaluation an FMBT concept for the next decade can be arrived at.

Thanks, but NO THANKS.

-The weight is not an issue. The fact that IA is moving ahead with higher weight MK2 is itself testimony to that.
-Automation - Since when has the drawback become an plus point? Let me check -limitation on the length of APFSDS round, the ammunition stored all over the place? I really think we can do away this one.

And on top of that, all the earlier problems are still to be resolved.

There is no additional benefit. If anything, lets ensure that newer T-90 have better systems which can survive on Indian conditions. And again, what ever happened to your argument of host-country-yet-to-induct-why-we-are-doing-so? Remember your rant against P-8I?

srai · Post by **srai** » 14 Dec 2011 12:29

Kanson wrote:...
I just going through the blog. As I see, there are three versions mentioned apart from Arjun Mk1, Arjun Mk1A, Arjun Mk2 and Arjun Mk3. So far we heard from all sources only about Mk2, from where comes Mk1A suddenly, I don't know. Is Mk3 == FMBT?

IMO, "Arjun Mk.1A" is really just some test beds for Mk.2. I think some articles mentioned that the 124 order is being divided into two phases with an initial set of changes (incorporating 50+ mod out of 89) as "Mk.2A" first batch and the full "Mk.2" (incorporating all 89 mod) in the second batch.

Here is CJ article mentioning that the first lot of modifications were carried out on a Mk.1 variant. There are a total of 89 improvements going into the Mk.2 variant, and from the looks of it, most of these initial changes (50+ improvements) can be fitted onto the Mk.1 platform. Only the major internal structural changes, such as the transmissions, powerpack, interior ten-ready-round carousel, etc, would require a new Mk.2 hull ... which is still essentially a Mk.1 hull with some modifications.

Missile firing capability for Arjun Mk II tank to be demonstrated by January 2012

...
“The integration of the newer electronics is being carried out in the Arjun MK I tank and the final design for the Mk II version will be available in next six months,” the official said. ...

India’s Arjun MBT Mark II Ready for a Second Trial with the Lahat Missile and Other Upgrades

...
According to the DRDO, it has incorporated 56 of the total 89 improvements recommended in Arjun Mark II after the last test in Pokhran in Rajasthan. DRDO officials confirmed that the next trials will include firing of the LAHAT missile with a 5 mile range. Once the integrated testing of the Arjun Mark II is wrapped up by June 2012, its production will start in Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadhi.
...

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 14 Dec 2011 12:46

^^^^ All technologies will be tested in Mk 1 and final shape of MK II will be available by Jul 2012. Then the summer trials and winter trials will take place. The production by 2013 mid. I don't know why Antony told Parliament that the production will begin on 2015.

srai · Post by **srai** » 14 Dec 2011 13:50

chackojoseph wrote:^^^^ All technologies will be tested in Mk 1 and final shape of MK II will be available by Jul 2012. Then the summer trials and winter trials will take place. The production by 2013 mid. I don't know why Antony told Parliament that the production will begin on 2015.

From order placed date (mid 2013 - user acceptance) to first unit delivery (early 2015), there is usually about 2 and a half years for the production to be setup and delivery to start taking place. This includes transferring modification design/data over to manufacturer, placing orders to many vendors supplying raw materials and parts, hiring and training of skilled labor force, setting up assembly lines and final integration, and QA at all levels.

This 2.5 years setup time has cropped up before. Remember when the IA placed orders for second batch of 124 Arjun Mk.1 sometime in 2011, DRDO mentioned that they will only be able to deliver the tanks starting around 2014 because the IA placed the order too late for the existing assembly line to continue uninterrupted. By 2014, Arjun Mk.2 would be ready. Hence, the decision to switch the second 124 batch order to Mk.2 standards.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 14 Dec 2011 15:08

srai.

+1. Good reply. My impression is that the ordering already began when the DAC approved the lot. So, 2011 to 2013 is the ordering time, which is being utilised in parallel to prove the Mk II technologies. As proven, they are will be ordered. The trial of MK-II is integrating the proven technologies running together and has been already ordered. MK-II trials are only for fine tuning. Mid, 2013 or late 2013 production time can be met.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 14 Dec 2011 15:10

Chacko:Induction of T-90 as Arjun failed to deliver on time.Some other reports giving more details on the whole acquisition,problems,etc.

http://business-standard.net.in/india/n ... cag/22695/
Arjun battle tanks failed to clear trials: CAG

In extensive trials of 15 pre-production tanks, a number of deficiencies were noticed which were not corrected till 1997 when the report was prepared.

Tabled in Parliament today the CAG report said production of a prototype with an indigenous engine has been delayed over 9 years.
Originally scheduled to be ready by 1990, the prototype is not likely to be running in the near future. All tests so far have been performed with an imported engine.

The MBT project was sanctioned in may 1974 at a cost of Rs 15.5 crore with a foreign exchange content of Rs 3.7 crore.

The project cost was first revised in 1980 to Rs 56.55 crore and again in 1987 to Rs 280.8 crore.
The project was sanctioned in 1974 with a production schedule of April 1984.

However, this time frame was not adhered to and was revised from time to time.
Bulk production was to commence from 1990, but even the revised time frame could not be adhered to, the report said.

As per the original schedule, 12 mk-I prototypes based on imported propulsion units, and seven mk-II prototypes with indigenous propulsion units were to be delivered by June 1987 and June 1990 respectively.

Although targets on the mk-I prototypes had been achieved delayed, mk-II prototypes were not expected in the near future.
The CAG has pulled up the defence ministry for sanctioning two additional projects for making improvements to the tank at a cost of Rs 42 crore without the concurrence of the cabinet committee on political affairs (CCPA).

The two projects, sanctioned in September 1995 and January 1997 for "product support" at a cost of Rs 16.98 crore and Rs 25 crore respectively, were irregular and should have been done only with the approval of CCPA as the main battle tank (MBT) project was still on, the report said.

These supplementary projects sanctioned by the ministry despite reservations held by the army authorities on the design of the tank had resulted in escalating cost to the extent of Rs 41.98 crore.

As per the estimates made in 1987, the import content of Arjun was 27 per cent and expenditure in foreign exchange was 45 per cent.

The total expenditure at the time of completing the mk-I prototype in March 1995 was Rs 307.48 crore as against the revised cost of Rs 280.8 crore.

Indian Army Wants to Add Another 1,000 T-90S Tanks by 2020 (updated)

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ind ... ted-02697/

As of December 2006, the 310 T-90S tanks imported from Russia under a February 2001 Rs 3,625 crore (about $795 million) contract are divided between the first lot of 124 T-90S tanks bought off-the-shelf, and 186 imported in knocked-down condition for assembly at the Heavy Vehicles Factory at Avadi.

T-90 problems:

...the T-90 has reportedly encountered serious problems in Indian service, from issues with its Thales thermal imaging systems, to difficulties in hot weather, to low readiness rates. Meanwhile, negotiations with Russia over technology transfer issues had shelved the 1,000 tank indigenous production goal, leaving only the 2 firm production agreements. The Arjun project has continued to fade, however, with the Indian Army announcing in July 2008 that production would be capped at just 124 tanks. As the final act in the battle for the core of India’s future tank force, recent reports indicate that the Russians have removed their technology transfer roadblocks, clearing the way for fully indigenous T-90S production in India…

More overall problems:

The purchase of 330 more ready-for-assembly T-90 kits later in October 2006 would appear to be a deviation from this strategy, but as of August 2008, production of the fully localized Indian tanks has not even begun yet at the Avadi Heavy Vehicles Factory. Jane’s believed that the order for the 330 sets of T-90S components was driven by chronic delays in the production schedule of the domestic Arjun MBT, and multi-year delays in T-72 modernization due to bureaucratic vacillation. This turned out to be partly correct; as DID has reported before, those are chronic problems in India’s defense market. It seems that there was also a problem with full Russian technology transfer, however, which held up production at Avadi.

THis a new report,which I've just seen.Thelink is temp suspended.Can anyone post this in detail if not as yet?

Arjun, Main Battle Tanked | Corruption In DRDOcorruptionindrdo.com/2011/11/11/arjun-main-battle-tanked/Cached
11 Nov 2011 – Express Investigation: Delayed Research; Delayed Organisation – Part – Three ...

This was posted on the link:

Corruption In DRDO
CorruptioninDRDO.com has been voluntarily closed by us for a temporary period of time to respect the ongoing inquiry carried out by the Comittee led by Dr. Gulshan Rai, Director General, I-CERT and GC (Cyber Laws Group Formulation & Enforcement Division) Department of Information Technology, Ministry of Communications & Information Technology, Government of India.

The Committee has discussed about the website at a meeting held on 9th December 2011 at 3 PM at the Ministry with Mr. Prabhu Dandriyal, the webmaster/owner of the website, Dr. Rajeev Chauhan, Advocate, Mr. Santosh Joshi and Dr. W. Silvamurthy, DRDO.

We are working hard to bring back this website online soon to continue with our mission of removing the massive scale of corruption existing in the DRDO.

You can read about the media coverage of this website at India Today.

You can contact Mr. Prabhu Dandriyal at: Mobile no - 09411114879 and Email - [email protected]

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 14 Dec 2011 15:40

Philip wrote:P:Weight and transportation (65t-49t),smaller crew,more autmation,less expensive to operate (hopefully!).

1. Transportation can be handled by inducting BLTs that have already been developed.
2. How does a smaller crew improve the T-90's combat effectiveness and/or cost effectiveness? Given a tank's acquisition and operating cost, savings on one man's salary and pension are likely to be scarce.
3. The T-90AM has greater automation? How come? Aside from the autoloader.
4. Less expensive to operate. Granted. On the pros and cons board, that's one solitary notch on the board.

A face-off is good for R&D,remember the private face-off between the M-2000 and MIG-29,which suprisingly to the IAF Mirage enthusiasts,trounced the Mirage everytime.(AM Masand in Vayu).

I've re-read this statement six or seven times now, I still don't know what to make of it.

The Arjun is not a failing project like many in the west where the government needs to threaten it with cancellation or alternative imports to get results. Its one where it had to campaign for several years just to be invited to a competition.

Allow me to repeat my point about the Americans, Brits, Chinese, French, Germans, Israelis, Italians, Japanese, Koreans, Russians, and now the Turkish, developing and operating their own tanks. So one wonders why is it that you want to even consider importing one.

Because it might be better? (Unlikely but lets say its so.) Wouldn't the ideal solution be to identify any shortcomings in the product and then rectify them on production models and while incorporating it into the design for future variants? Technically hurdlesome? Well the US managed to retrofit its M1A1 units with depleted uranium armor, I think we'll manage, don't you? Its certainly worth the savings in foreign exchange and boost to domestic employment.

The debate between a 3-man crew and 4-man crew exists,I'm for the latter.

That's a debate relevant to the design of a new tank (like the FMBT), not the selection of an existing one. As far as the T-90 and Arjun, lets just say.. there don't seem to be any outright deficiencies in Arjun Mk2's crew model vis a vis the T-90AM, at this time. Worst case scenario - fourth crew member takes up a little more volume and works only in lieu of a autoloader. Agreed?

Perhaps some of the systems could be common to both and after evaluation an FMBT concept for the next decade can be arrived at.

But if the object is to motivate DRDO and gain design inputs from the trials, why restrict it to just the T-90? After all, the army never really chose the T-series tanks (it was originally looking at the Leopard 2), they were 'bestowed' on it thanks to Soviet friendship terms and prices. Lets include the Leopard 2, ~~M1A2~~ M1A3, Merkava 4, Challenger 2 and AMX-56 participate.

'Let the right one in'

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 14 Dec 2011 16:05

From order placed date (mid 2013 - user acceptance) to first unit delivery (early 2015), there is usually about 2 and a half years for the production to be setup and delivery to start taking place. This includes transferring modification design/data over to manufacturer, placing orders to many vendors supplying raw materials and parts, hiring and training of skilled labor force, setting up assembly lines and final integration, and QA at all levels.

This 2.5 years setup time has cropped up before. Remember when the IA placed orders for second batch of 124 Arjun Mk.1 sometime in 2011, DRDO mentioned that they will only be able to deliver the tanks starting around 2014 because the IA placed the order too late for the existing assembly line to continue uninterrupted. By 2014, Arjun Mk.2 would be ready. Hence, the decision to switch the second 124 batch order to Mk.2 standards.

That means IA should have committed to a certain number Mk2 this year, to take delivery from 2015. Have they?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 14 Dec 2011 16:20

Viv,I agree.The "bees and the birds all do itm,o should we!".The ultimate aim is self-reliance,but this requires committment and perseverance with all stakeholders aboard.With both A-2 on order ,400+ from hints/reports,and T-90AMs too,the next step should be a desi design FMBT after a full evaluation of both T-series/A-series,and after completing a few years in service.Ramping up local production of tanks and armoured vehicles of ll types should be the task ow,since development seems to have crossed the hump.

PS:What is the temp suspended DRDO report about? Does anyone have a clue/seen it before it went on the blink?

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 14 Dec 2011 16:44

Philip wrote:Chacko:Induction of T-90 as Arjun failed to deliver on time.Some other reports giving more details on the whole acquisition,problems,etc.

:Doh: Old articles strike again.

Philip,

I clearly remember that in 1996, the tank had passed all parameters. The PPS issues were not responsible for delay. There is an entire history that was brought out by me on how the tanks were delayed.

Then the Army decided that T-90 can be produced faster because Arjun cannot be produced in numbers.

Your assertion

Arjun: It was not available when the T-90s were first introduced and it took a lot of work to get it to current level,even this has its own limitations which are being rectified with A-2.

I had anticipated what you were going to bring in, hence I posted the old proton river forum posts on FI Forums.

LinkT-90 was ordered in 1999 contract.

By 1999, we had "Pre production Series." So, the tank was available. If you say that Army did not deem it fit to be inducted, then it is a fact. If Army was right or wrong, then I have arguments. If you look at

Posted by: Boy Dec 16 2003, 02:45 PM
Brute You forgot to paste last vital sentence

Defence Minister George Fernandes had recently blamed the Army top brass for dragging their feet on ordering the Arjun tanks.

I think you are mixing facts here.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 14 Dec 2011 16:52

Philip wrote:The ultimate aim is self-reliance,but this requires committment and perseverance with all stakeholders aboard.With both A-2 on order ,400+ from hints/reports,and T-90AMs too,the next step should be a desi design FMBT after a full evaluation of both T-series/A-series,and after completing a few years in service.

You've simply sidestepped the question.

To repeat - how does ordering the T-90AM, when a valid option in the Arjun Mk2 is available, contribute to the ultimate aim of self reliance?

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 14 Dec 2011 18:50

sigh Philip and his FMBt

srai · Post by **srai** » 14 Dec 2011 22:23

Kailash wrote:
From order placed date (mid 2013 - user acceptance) to first unit delivery (early 2015), there is usually about 2 and a half years for the production to be setup and delivery to start taking place. This includes transferring modification design/data over to manufacturer, placing orders to many vendors supplying raw materials and parts, hiring and training of skilled labor force, setting up assembly lines and final integration, and QA at all levels.

This 2.5 years setup time has cropped up before. Remember when the IA placed orders for second batch of 124 Arjun Mk.1 sometime in 2011, DRDO mentioned that they will only be able to deliver the tanks starting around 2014 because the IA placed the order too late for the existing assembly line to continue uninterrupted. By 2014, Arjun Mk.2 would be ready. Hence, the decision to switch the second 124 batch order to Mk.2 standards.
That means IA should have committed to a certain number Mk2 this year, to take delivery from 2015. Have they?

Well, the IA placed orders for 124 more Arjuns this year. This has been converted to Mk.2 version instead of Mk.1 as Mk.2 will be ready in that timeframe. There is a little longer delivery time for this batch because Mk.2 is still being developed. Since Mk.2 mostly inherits from the Mk.1, orders could be initiated for lot of the parts for the 124 units while waiting on those parts that have changed. Full integration and assembly line will not start until the IA accepts the Mk.2 version sometime in 2013.

There may be a plan to start production on first lot (50-60 units out of 124 units) with only partial changes (i.e. 50+ mods out of 89 total mods). And then the second lot incorporating all the changes following that.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 15 Dec 2011 10:28

Surya,that's the idea of our very own desiwallahs,to design an FMBT to succeed the A-series!

Viv,the number of T-90AMs wanted by the IA is supposed to be their figure,not mine! Secondly,from the many posts,etc.,(old IDR artoicle) Arjun production alone cannot deliver the numbers that the IA wants.It therefore has to acquire more from outside.I can only conjecture that that the IA had already set its mind on the T-90 series ,to be acquired in improved blocks,while Arjun proied itself and also acquired with incremental improvements.

Here is a link with PKS's take on the history from T-72 days.The doctrine behind the T-72s well-known flaws is given,as the Soviets pallned for their initial thrusts by theT-80s/64s,with the smaller,lighter,T-72s followig on to outflank the enemy.If it has been pseted earlier,my apologies.The veracity of the article has to be checked with offical statements as they come.

http://trishul-trident.blogspot.com/201 ... 0-mbt.html

XCpts:

Both the MoD and the Indian Army learnt valuable lessons from Project Bison, and almost a decade later, when it came to the planned procurement of 1,657 T-90s (to replace the 1,781 T-55 and T-72M MBTs in a phased manner), it was decided to adopt a product block developmental approach similar to what by then was being planned for the Indian Air Force’s Su-30MKI procurement exercise. Consequently, in February 2001, India bought its first batch of 310 47.5-tonne 47.5-tonne T-90S MBTs worth US$795 million, of which 124 were delivered off-the-shelf, 86 in semi-knocked down kits (for licenced-assembly by the MoD-owned HVF in Avadi), and 100 in completely-knocked down kits (all these MBTs were retrofitted with Saab’s IDAS radar/laser warning system and LEDS-150 active protection system, or APS, worth Rs25 billion between 2009 and 2011). This was followed by a follow-on contract, worth $800 million (or Rs175 million per unit), being inked on October 26, 2006, for another 330 T-90M MBTs that were to be built with locally-sourced raw materials and also come fitted with LEDS-150 APS. The third contract, worth $1.23 billion (which was inclusive of the R & D funds required for designing a customised version of the T-90—the 50-tonne T-90AM), was inked in December 2007 for 347 upgraded T-90Ms, which are now being licence-built by HVF. These T-90Ms each come with a THALES-built Catherine-FC thermal imager (operating in the 8-12 micron bandwidth and housed within the Peleng-built 1G-46 gunner’s sight), the commander’s panoramic sight (which houses the Matis-STD thermal imager that operates in the 3-5 micron bandwidth and which has also been selected for the Arjun Mk1 MBT’s panoramic sight), an automatic gearbox, an electro-hydraulic turret-drive-cum stabilisation system, and most importantly, has a 2A46M-5 Rapira smoothbore main gun barrel that also comes fitted with a muzzle reference system.

While all the enhancements featured on the T-90M will also be found on the T-90AM, the latter will, among other things, incorporate a totally new redesigned turret that will now house a remote-controlled weapon station, an independent commander’s panoramic sight and gunner’s sight, a rear-mounted ammunition reserve stowage bustle and its autoloader (thereby doing away with the much-criticised earlier location alongside the carousel autoloader on the turret’s floor and enabling the stowage of single-unit FSAPDS rounds containing long-rod kinetic energy penetrators which the T-90S and T-90M cannot fire at the moment), and redesigned modular armour tiles. The hull-section, housing the driver’s and gunner’s compartments, will be equipped with a battlespace management terminal, fibre-optic gyro-based land navigation system, software-defined radio suite, health-and-usage management systems for on-board diagnosis of the MBT’s vectronics and automotive elements—all these being selected and furnished by the customer (in India’s case) to Uralvagonzavod for on-board fitment-cum-integration. Also to be furnished by India for integration is the active protection suite (APS), for which the LEDS-150 is competing with the Iron First APS (already installed on board the Arjun Mk2 MBT) from Israel Military Industries. Powerplant for the T-90AM will comprise a Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant-built 1,130hp V-92S2 diesel engine, while a 1kW AB-1-P28 auxiliary power unit will provide back-up electric power when the engine is idling. By today calculations, 670 T-99AMs could well be delivered to the Indian Army between 2013 and 2019.

This finally brings us to the issue of whether or not to upgrade the remaining 1,664 T-72s in successive tranches. Already, 692 T-72Ms have been upgraded thus far into the T-72 ‘Combat-Improved Ajeya’ standards, while a follow-on tranche of 700 T-72M1s (whose per unit procurement cost is Rs90 million) is due to be upgraded at a cost of Rs50 million per unit, for which there is an on-going competition between Russia’s Rosoboronexport State Corp, ELBIT Systems of Israel, and the Raytheon/Larsen & Toubro combine, with work scheduled for completion by 2018). One interesting view prevailing within the Army HQ’s Directorate of Mechanised Forces calls for scrapping the planned T-72 upgrades altogether and instead procuring up to 900 T-90AMs and up to 400 Arjun Mk2s (each costing Rs380 million or $8.2 million) before 2020. This view also calls for re-engineering the hulls of the existing 1,100 T-72Ms and 1,318 T-72M-1982s to accommodate a family of turrets housing not only missile-launchers of the Akash E-SHORADS and their Rajendra L-band PESA target engagement radars and battery command-and-control centres (62 T-72M hulls have already been re-engineered for this purpose), but also air-defence artillery guns and their fire-control systems like the Skyranger from Rheinmetall Defence, a turret containing anti-armour guided-missiles like up to eight Kornet-EM in ready-to-fire configuration along with a 30mm rapid-fire cannon and 30mm automatic grenade launchers—all remotely-operated, MLC-70 bridge layers (like the BLT-72), equipment required by armoured recovery vehicles for the T-90 family of MBTs, and counter-mine flails.—Prasun K. Sengupta

P Chitkara · Post by **P Chitkara** » 15 Dec 2011 12:42

On this very thread, there was a report couple of months back that the current assembly line for Arjun has scope for further utilization (read adding another shift). If the IA orders in numbers, would there be any hesitation on part of the PSU to add another assembly line? Saying that because the Arjun production alone cannot cater to the required numbers to justify import of the T90 somehow doesn’t sound very convincing.

Nothing can beat having a large number of a single home grown type in service – we will have complete control over what we want to do with it in addition to simplifying logistics.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 15 Dec 2011 13:14

What about the Medak plant which was making ICVs? Can't BEML also be roped in in the future? Becos,if one looks,there's an awful lot of mobile armoured vehcles,towed amd SP artillery,etc.,ATGW vehicles,anti-air "Schilka" style systems,etc. also being modernised or of new designs required.