Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

nikhil_p · Post by **nikhil_p** » 02 Aug 2012 19:21

avinashpeter wrote:I was browsing while i came across this monster.. Wish something like this comes up from our industry answering for any such requirements for the IA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marauder_(vehicle)
Wish to see it in IA desert camouflage sometime..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHZAUnQe ... re=related

We already have better vehicles. This is just another MPV. Look up Tata MPV, the OFB MPV.

And, why is this a "Monster"?

sarabpal.s · Post by **sarabpal.s** » 02 Aug 2012 19:22

Arjun tank chasis loading on truck. I hope not posted here before

And it is looklike bridgelayer arjun tank chasis

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_8jqvHFWug

KBDagha · Post by **KBDagha** » 09 Aug 2012 19:30

Some updates on Arjun Mk2 from our beloved magazine

:

http://forcenewsmagazine.blogspot.in/20 ... round.html

Regards,
Khambat Dagha

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 09 Aug 2012 19:43

Keeping this in mind, the Arjun Mk-2’s improved performance seems to have put the Army in a spot. What does one do with a tank that is fast, can shoot accurately on the move and is relatively well protected but is too heavy to be deployed in the deserts near the Pakistan border as a replacement for the T-72 or T-90? Paradoxically, while the tank itself has demonstrated high speed and mobility, its weight precludes it from being able to operate anywhere the army wants it to. The Arjun Mk-2 will weigh around 67 tonnes and this fatally limits the tank’s operational effectiveness for the Indian Army.

The tank is too heavy to be deployed across the border with Pakistan. It is unable to effectively traverse terrain filled with natural and/or artificial obstacles. Or areas criss-crossed with rivers and canals. That rules out most places in Rajasthan, Punjab and the mountainous terrain of the J&K sector.

This has forced the army to identify areas where the Arjun can safely be deployed and its operational units based. This probably means the Arjun will not fight alongside the T-90s and T-72s. It will certainly not be part of the Indian Army’s strike corps formations, as it could get bogged down in unfamiliar terrain. This runs counter to the philosophy of armoured formations, which are designed for mobile offensive operations deep inside enemy territory. Unlike the T series tanks that have been airlifted to high altitudes like Leh and even out of the country, the Arjun cannot be airlifted by the IL-76 and C-130 J transports of the Indian Air Force (IAF). The C-17 Globemaster to be inducted by the Indian Air Force (IAF) has a maximum payload of 75 tonnes — insufficient to airlift the 67 tonne Arjun Mk-2 with attendant support equipment.

It seems IA has managed to kill the program...we're witnessing the last gasp of the dying corpse here. It really fills me with immense sadness and frustration. Where nothing else worked, it is the weight issue now..when was the last time, IA raised the weight issue? IMO, all this improvement requirement and development of Mk-2 variant was nothing but to ensure that there were enough T-90 in the system to load the dice against the Arjun programme. With all the three armored divisions having converted, the epitaph can be written....sad, really sad.

Just read this -

We have also built the Arjun Bridge Laying Tank (BLT) but the Army says it may not be required. The cost per tank will certainly go down if we get more orders. This will help reduce the import content as well. The Mk-1 has nearly 60 percent imported content and even though there is a lot of value addition being done, the import content will remain the same for the Mk-2.

Since the size of the order is small, no foreign company is willing to offer Transfer of Technology (ToT). I feel that if the Mk-2 is ordered by four regiments, then the import content could go down to 43 per cent and further down to 25 per cent if orders are placed for a total of six regiments. The lifecycle costs of the Arjun will be much cheaper than other tanks. The programme has also been able to offer numerous improvements to a number of indigenous programmes and armoured vehicles in service with the army.

I mean, what the bloody fvck....that is literally begging for more orders. IA can't place order for six additional regiments? I really feel like cursing here and using choicest expletives for some tankmen.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 09 Aug 2012 20:11

all our worst fears are coming true

as some pointed out - the drip of orders was a time tested way to kill the program.

That rules out most places in Rajasthan, Punjab and the mountainous terrain of the J&K sector.

they even managed to insert parts of Rajasthan as ruled out to make it look even more bad

amazing gall - to ask for more features - know its going to increase in weight and then complain about weight

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 09 Aug 2012 20:15

I don't see how the people who took these decisions are any better than the adarsh filth.

nelson · Post by **nelson** » 09 Aug 2012 20:19

Can anyone, who has been contributing or following this thread, point to any source ie, article, blogpost, report, statement, press release, etc which states that the gross weight of the tanks developed for IA, as contained in the GSQR of any revision, can be greater than 50 metric tonnes?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 09 Aug 2012 20:27

Can anyone, who has been contributing or following this thread, point to any source ie, article, blogpost, report, statement, press release, etc provide the example of a *single* extant tank that satisfies IA's GSQR and weighs less than 55 tonnes, let alone 50 ?

for that matter, has an official GSQR at all been created ?

most importantly, what, if anything says that arjun has to satisfy the GSQR for FMBT ?

nelson · Post by **nelson** » 09 Aug 2012 20:32

Too much of boxing?

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 09 Aug 2012 20:33

No, you just got owned.

nelson · Post by **nelson** » 09 Aug 2012 20:48

Yeah, thanks for pointing it out. That doesn't still answer the question I asked.

nelson · Post by **nelson** » 09 Aug 2012 20:56

@Rahul M
Why did DRDO not baulk at Army's GSQR as unattainable at the beginning or mid way through or even now? What is the success rate of bridging systems that were planned to be developed alongside Arjun? These are pertinent questions to be answered before asking IA to accept something, at a scale, which it can not use.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 09 Aug 2012 21:04

When user complains about operational aspects, we have to be clear on the modalities.
If for any reason that at two tanks can be transported in one shot, then it is possible to transport one Arjun Mk-2 as well.

In the sense, in between 50 Ton and 65 Tons, is the 15 ton weight that is the operational head ache for the user. BTW, two 50 tonner makes 100 tons, and that may be easy so, looking ahead, we have to either reduce the size of the tank or increase the operational parameters.

Which is easier and adds more industrial contribution. I would say, increase the capability of handling 70Ton tanks, so that IA is prepared say even in the future, it should blindly accept FMS forced M1Abrahms. Well, the argument is funny, but yeah.. I am just trying to understand the needs first [If our babooze nod, I am dead sure this will happen].

The M-777 is light weight.. but not the indigenous bofors.. we still accept the bofors and took M777 for certain other ops and strategies. WE have to evolve strategies, and not keep disposing to look at things in a narrow channel of the mil. game plan. We have no idea, like in the oil industries, how things get lobbied.

Protection is never realized concept. If Arjun is more protective, means it provides more security. Only when it is used, one can realize the effectiveness.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 09 Aug 2012 21:10

nelson saab, please tell me
a) which GSQR you are speaking of, arjun or FMBT
b) which parameters of said GSQR has not been fulfilled by arjun mk1/mk2.

thank you.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 09 Aug 2012 21:25

@ RahulM

file a RTI

Gurneesh · Post by **Gurneesh** » 09 Aug 2012 21:34

Really sad as far as Arjun is concerned...

But anyways a Pic side-front pic of Arjun with ERA (taken from forceindia.net)

nelson · Post by **nelson** » 09 Aug 2012 21:35

I am talking about GSQR on the basis of which Arjun has been designed and built. There have been three major revisions since the first one about 30 years ago.

This is not a slanging match between DRDO and the IA. With due respect to capabilities and achievements of the organisations, the fault can be laid on both of them (with due share for their overlord in South Block), for not letting India have an MBT that can be produced at mass scale to achieve economy.

But one can not obviate the ground realities. A maximum gross weight of 50T is sacrosanct, or nearly. The article written by the person after taking inputs from CVRDE points to that truth. When this point of discussion (50T) came up earlier on these pages, the reasons were also indicated then.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 09 Aug 2012 21:48

nelson wrote: But one can not obviate the ground realities. A maximum gross weight of 50T is sacrosanct, or nearly. The article written by the person after taking inputs from CVRDE points to that truth. When this point of discussion (50T) came up earlier on these pages, the reasons were also indicated then.

Oh really? Then why didn't the Army reject the tank outright when its first prototype rolled out? That weighed 59 tonnes and it was obvious there was no way that was going to come down to 50. Why did they let the taxpayers money be wasted on further development of a tank they were never going to buy because (in their minds) it was overweight?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 09 Aug 2012 21:50

in that case I am really sorry to say that you are not at all aware of the arjun GSQR's evolution. it may have begun as t-series-esque light/medium tank in the 70's but the GSQR of late 80's and the subsequent change in the 90's made it a MBT in the western mould in no uncertain terms (if you know anyone of gen rank involved in the project formulation in the 90's, please do ask). 50 t far from being sacrosanct is not even close to what those machines weigh, all of which weigh in excess of 60t.

moreover, why on earth did IA ask for 7 and a half dozen improvements in Mk2 (which would invariably increase weight) if it was so concerned with weight ?

nelson · Post by **nelson** » 09 Aug 2012 21:56

Rahul M wrote:in that case I am really sorry to say that you are not at all aware of the arjun GSQR's evolution. it may have begun as t-series-esque light/medium tank in the 70's but the GSQR of late 80's and the subsequent change in the 90's made it a MBT in the western mould in no uncertain terms (if you know anyone of gen rank involved in the project formulation in the 90's, please do ask). 50 t far from being sacrosanct is not even close to what those machines weigh, all of which weigh in excess of 60t.

moreover, why on earth did IA ask for 7 and a half dozen improvements in Mk2 (which would invariably increase weight) if it was so concerned with weight ?

That brings us to the other question- What is the success rate of bridging systems that were planned to be developed alongside Arjun?

If you want me to believe that officers over thirty years have colluded to keep GSQR out of Arjun's reach, sorry.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 09 Aug 2012 22:13

whoever said anything about GSQR being outside arjun's reach ? except you of course.
all you have convinced me is that whatever this GSQR you are talking of may be, it is nothing like what IA prepared for arjun.

>> What is the success rate of bridging systems that were planned to be developed alongside Arjun?
do enlighten us, with appropriate details. which systems and what are the shortcomings you keep hinting at ?

p.s. I note that you did not answer the very specific questions I asked in my last but one post.

sarabpal.s · Post by **sarabpal.s** » 09 Aug 2012 22:35

sarabpal.s wrote:Arjun tank chasis loading on truck. I hope not posted here before

And it is looklike bridgelayer arjun tank chasis

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_8jqvHFWug

Ever body just miss what i posted here about Arjun
watch video carefully and notice Arjun chasis is being loaded on to normal truck trolly which it proved that Arjun can be transported easily without having special transport trolly

( bridges can withstand too as indian truck is always overload)

2nd is that it is BLT configration on Arjun Chasis so it is already production IMHO

Gurneesh · Post by **Gurneesh** » 09 Aug 2012 22:46

^^^ Well it is Arjun Chassis, so no turret, extra armor etc. It also does not seem to have the bridge on it. All this should make it a lot lighter than MBT variant of Arjun.

nelson · Post by **nelson** » 09 Aug 2012 22:50

@Rahul M
I think I have answered your questions.
a) The GSQRs after which Arjun was designed and built.
b) Gross Weight.

sarabpal.s · Post by **sarabpal.s** » 09 Aug 2012 22:53

Gurneesh wrote:^^^ Well it is Arjun Chassis, so no turret, extra armor etc. It also does not seem to have the bridge on it. All this should make it a lot lighter than MBT variant of Arjun.

How much weight turret carry?

there is other load on chassis to hold bridge.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 09 Aug 2012 22:56

nelson wrote:@Rahul M
I think I have answered your questions.
a) The GSQRs after which Arjun was designed and built.
b) Gross Weight.

The Arjun's GSQR had a 50T weight limit? Source? And I ask again, if this was the case why didn't the Army reject the tank outright when the 59T first prototype rolled out?

nelson · Post by **nelson** » 09 Aug 2012 22:57

When we talk of mobility, it is in relation to the ground obtained in terrain the tank is supposed to operate. Strategic mobility and limitations therein can be overcome and would not pose stringent conditions as part of GSQR. However tactical and individual mobility can not be compromised.

@Rahul M
Sorry, I can not go into specifics. You are entitled to your opinion. Thank you.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 09 Aug 2012 23:03

sorry, there was no 50t cut-off in arjun's GSQR. period. if any source said it to you he is making it up.

nelson · Post by **nelson** » 09 Aug 2012 23:06

Exactly, that is what I asked. It would be complete if you point towards the source of emphatic reply.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 09 Aug 2012 23:08

a certain senior officer who was in charge when arjun was being put together.

I haven't heard of your source btw. and what GSQR other than weight it didn't satisfy.

nelson · Post by **nelson** » 09 Aug 2012 23:09

Thanks again.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 09 Aug 2012 23:10

check PM please.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 09 Aug 2012 23:10

I think there is no question about mobility from IA.. they just purely loved Arjun-Mk1 from that point of quality attribute. Transportability is what the question is all about reading that force news mag.

nelson · Post by **nelson** » 09 Aug 2012 23:23

From the article in Force magazine

...The Arjun Mk-2 will weigh around 67 tonnes and this fatally limits the tank’s operational effectiveness for the Indian Army.

The tank is too heavy to be deployed across the border with Pakistan. It is unable to effectively traverse terrain filled with natural and/or artificial obstacles. Or areas criss-crossed with rivers and canals. That rules out most places in Rajasthan, Punjab and the mountainous terrain of the J&K sector.

Please note the term 'operational effectiveness'. For an MBT to be operationally effective there are three principles that must be adhered to- Mobility, Firepower and Armoured Protection. The foremost can be further classified as Strategic and Tactical mobility. Whereas the former refers to move forces across theatres, it would be of lesser concern.

Tactical mobility depends on individual, team and force agility in the given area of operations. If one evaluates the terrain on either side of LC and IB from Chhamb to Fort Abbas one can get a glimpse of obstacles that tanks on their tracks, individually and as part of a team/force have to cross to reach their targets, while protecting themselves from enemy. The corps of engineers are tasked to provide this mobility at times of need. It is at this point, IMO, that 59 tonnes or 67 tonnes would be unacceptable.

The counter question would be - if we are developing and producing 1500 tanks of 65 tonne weight, what is the problem in developing bridges of requisite load classification. Good question.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 09 Aug 2012 23:39

well of course, if army wants more protection than Mk1 then wt will go up. even a kindergarten kid would understand that. that can't be the excuse now.

nelson · Post by **nelson** » 09 Aug 2012 23:48

It is not more protection necessarily in terms of mass, it is in terms of metallurgy. That is where actual R&D should pitch in.

If they don't ask and accept what they get, it is their life at peril.

Gurneesh · Post by **Gurneesh** » 09 Aug 2012 23:56

sarabpal.s wrote: How much weight turret carry?

there is other load on chassis to hold bridge.

If you see closely, then there is no bridge on the tank and I found these specs...

So, without the bridge it is T90 class as far as weight is concerned...

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 09 Aug 2012 23:57

The Arjun combat weight for MK1 is 58.5 T. Combat weight means fuelled up, with ammo etc.

That 62 T weight is with an added mine plow, which is only to be provided to a handful of tanks which face minefields when attacking prepared positions. In reality though, the Arjun is mostly designed as a tank killer, in which case the mine plow will not be used.

Next, this is the reality of the 58.5T weight as versus what Nelson claims using Force as a source.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORC ... iment.html
Thursday, 12 October 2006 10:00 Lt Gen Niranjan S Malik, PVSM

Lt. Gen. Niranjan S. Malik, a former Deputy Chief of Army Staff.

The Arjun's mobility with its 1400 horsepower engine is very good.

Arjun is a fine weapons system, though it looks big and very heavy, its tactical silhouette is very low. The T-72 and the Arjun in a hull down position are not very different. In a hull down position, the tank gives you the same silhouette as any other small tank. Also, its speed provides security in the battlefield. Its firepower is tremendous. Particularly on the move, its firepower is very accurate and good. Some people say that the Arjun is not strategically feasible due to its size and weight. However the Arjun has been running all over the railway systems of India and has been running all over the western deserts as well, on or without tank transporters.

Next, the 67T weight is similarly facile. The Arjun MK2 weight, with the added mine plough removed, is hence 63.5T.

Most of that weight increase is due to the ERA - not an essential addition to the Arjun, since several sources have in the past pointed out that the Arjun MK1 itself was more heavily armored over its frontal arc than the T-90. The Arjun in practical terms can resist a 125mm FSAPDS round, point blank in its MK1 version itself.

The Army just asked for gilding the lily.

And now with extra ERA and all sorts of gizmos added, they are apparently going slow on confirming orders.

Its pretty clear now that if this continues, almost all the so called "problems" with the Arjun as they stand today are being inflicted by the deliberate go slow on Arjun orders.

Small production numbers mean production continuance issues, spares supply issues (as suppliers find it hard to produce in small batches), limitation in terms of TOT, artificially inflating cost ..

If this continues, it would be valid to state that some sections in the Army are sabotaging a critical national program for no darn reason.

They need to be held accountable.

This business of spinning wheels making the developers jump through imaginary hoops with no end in sight also needs to be stopped. Thermobaric rounds, blast cum penetration rounds etc etc....where are these for the T-90? Its TI doesn't work yet its held as the MBT for the Army?

Ridiculous.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 10 Aug 2012 00:01

nelson wrote:It is not more protection necessarily in terms of mass, it is in terms of metallurgy. That is where actual R&D should pitch in.

If they don't ask and accept what they get, it is their life at peril.

correct.. and that should come in phases.. perhaps FMBT is what the users must put their foot down and not on the enabling technology platform Arjun. I would say, just like LCA, Arjun should get his/her due share in terms of usage.

Let us take a vote on which needs more priority now:
Firepower [must]
Protection
Mobility
Transportability

I think I have listed in the order of priority, from an operational stand point.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 10 Aug 2012 00:05

nelson wrote:It is not more protection necessarily in terms of mass, it is in terms of metallurgy. That is where actual R&D should pitch in.

Pure rubbish.

As it stands, the Arjun composite armour approach provides protection capable of resisting a T-72 FSAPDS round at point blank range, let alone at combat ranges of 2km! The metallurgy used for the Arjun is now being used for the T-90 as the Russians refused to transfer critical tech for armour panels! So its good enough for the T-90s to use, but is not good enough for the Arjun itself!

Now some magical metallurgy has to be found to reduce the weight further?
All tanks of the Arjun class, 4 crew, frontline western MBTs, all weight in at 60T+! Looks like even they need metallurgy lessons!

If they don't ask and accept what they get, it is their life at peril.

To begin with, they should at least understand what they want. Clearly they don't. Jumping around chasing brochures, coming up with inflated specifications is good to keep the developer chasing a stick & fooling the public, hoping that the program dies a death....but then they go and purchase a T-90 with few of these magical "life-peril-avoidance" solutions.

Arjun MK2- completely separated and containerized ammo box, above & beyond current ammo boxes. T-90 does not even have MK-1 level.

Arjun MK2- panoramic commanders sight w/TI given as essential. T-90, with over 600 purchased/delivered, and orders for another 1000 odd given....does not even have this as standard.

Arjun MK2- vetronics for tank crew. T-90? No.

Arjun MK2 - advanced rounds for anti fortifications. T-90? No.

The joke just keeps getting bigger and bigger.

What next? Arjun MK3 required, with hovercraft assembly bolted on? And only then, will Army consider orders?