MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 01 Mar 2017 14:11

2 more regiments isn't that small.However,regardless of what the IA prefers,mrits and shortcomings of the Arjun vs T-90,one factor remains,production capability at Avadi. Said many a time,it is engaged in T-72 upgradation,huge numbers of T-72s a valuable resource,bringing them almost upto latest T-90 std.,T-90 production,specialist AVs, and Arjuns. I'm not sure whether a fig. of 50 MBTs/yr was earlier mentioned.At that rate,there is simply no way that we can manufacture all the IA's requirements at home. Another 124+ Mk-2s is however possible before 2020. Prod. capacity must be expanded or a better production management regime to be enforced,where more can be off-loaded to the pvt. sector. If tata,etc. can start developing ICVs and arty,then why not assemble MBTs?

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 01 Mar 2017 14:29

This is ridiculous guys. The order hasn't been placed and everyone is already complaining when the products will come. Manufacturing requires lead times to setup and get the funnel filled up with raw material. The whole industry has to move and it free flows when it is fully utilized. Complaining that Avadi doesn't have space and it will take 4/5 years to produce 250 odd Arjun is rather irresponsible. Is the gripe/complaint necessary? Has the order been given yet? Those lines are sitting empty today. How about you place the order so it never sits empty and then you complain if they more work and less orders than they can fulfill.

srai · Post by **srai** » 01 Mar 2017 15:45

Philip wrote:2 more regiments isn't that small.However,regardless of what the IA prefers,mrits and shortcomings of the Arjun vs T-90,one factor remains,production capability at Avadi. Said many a time,it is engaged in T-72 upgradation,huge numbers of T-72s a valuable resource,bringing them almost upto latest T-90 std.,T-90 production,specialist AVs, and Arjuns. I'm not sure whether a fig. of 50 MBTs/yr was earlier mentioned.At that rate,there is simply no way that we can manufacture all the IA's requirements at home. Another 124+ Mk-2s is however possible before 2020. Prod. capacity must be expanded or a better production management regime to be enforced,where more can be off-loaded to the pvt. sector. If tata,etc. can start developing ICVs and arty,then why not assemble MBTs?

Firm orders are required to justify production capacity. Good luck finding a private player who will setup a 100 units/year Arjun MBT production line when there are no firm orders from the IA (or the intent to order are for only 118 units).

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 01 Mar 2017 18:57

Guys,relax.I was merely quoting an earlier report about Avadi which said that their prod. capacity was 50 MBTs,why the last batch of 300+ T-90s would most likely be purchased directly from Russia . There was yet another earlier report about two yrs. ago which said that the Arjun line was empty with no orders. An even earlier Jane' feature in one of its mags about Avadi,etc.,My post was in that context.Some clarity is required to ascertain what Avadi can do and what it can't production-wise. If there is any new info ,one would be v.grateful.

This is the last report I've been able to find.
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/new ... 687379.ece

Avadi HVF capacity being ramped up
OUR BUREAU

CHENNAI, JUNE 3:
Capacity at the Heavy Vehicles Factory (HVF), Avadi, which manufactures heavy battlefield equipment for Indian Army, is being increased significantly even as the factory is gearing up to manufacture Main Battle Tank Arjun Mark II.

HVF is awaiting final confirmation from Army for Mark II, according to Hari Mohan, Senior General Manager. Some of the major components, chassis building, gear box and miscellaneous components will be part of the augmentation for which construction is going on and machinery is being procured, he told newspersons on the sidelines of a CII conference on Defence Manufacturing Technologies on the theme ‘Defence Indigenisation – Window of Opportunities’.

Revenue increase

Mohan said HVF is likely to report a 60 per cent increase in revenue to nearly ₹2,400 crore this year, and next year, it will be nearly ₹3,000 crore. “We have been booked by Indian Army till 2035,” he said.

HVF has nearly 300 industry partners, of which 100 are in Tamil Nadu. Mohan said there are many items that HVF is yet to indigenise. There is ample business opportunity for the private sector.

“There are also severe capacity limitations for our existing vendors,” he said.

For supplying a major component that goes under the chassis of the battle tank, HVF had only one vendor, and is now developing Lucas TVS as another source in Chennai. All the components that go into the tanks are very technology intensive. “No failure is acceptable, and this is a challenge,” he said.

(This article was published on June 3, 2016)

Just for the record,this report about extending the T-90S prod.

https://in.rbth.com/economics/defence/2 ... dia_702053

In 2006, Russia and India signed an agreement on the supply of 1000 T-90S tanks. 470 tanks were made in Russia, while the remainder was assembled under license in India.

Indian army to equip T-90 tanks for night fighting
The T-90 battle tank was designed in the 1980s on the base of the T-72B. It was named Vladimir in honour of head designer Vladimir Potkin.
By 2020, India plans to induct 1,600 T-90 tanks, which will be deployed in the areas bordering Pakistan.

*What about the areas bordering China?

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 02 Mar 2017 00:59

Does anyone have an actual report on the number of Arjuns Mk1 in the service.
And which regiments.

Last not least .... the 118 MK2. Are they being manufactured or is that still sitting in the "funds have been cleared" basket ?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Mar 2017 01:45

Philip wrote:

*What about the areas bordering China?

Is the terrain tankable in that area?

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 02 Mar 2017 02:04

Philip wrote:
*What about the areas bordering China?

Totally, if we buy micro-light tanks, its doable!

jayasimha · Post by **jayasimha** » 09 Mar 2017 15:14

https://indianarmy.nic.in/makeinindia/i ... (FRCV).pdf

FUTURE READY COMBAT VEHICLE (FRCV)

FUTURE READY COMBAT VEHICLE (FRCV)
1. Brief Description. The Indian Army requires state of the art Main Battle
Tank namely Future Ready Combat Vehicle (FRCV) to replace the existing
tank fleet. It would be required to operate across developed / semidesert/desert
terrain and in high altitude areas across the entire spectrum of
conflict. It will be a technologically enabled futuristic tank to cater for current
and future operational requirements beyond year 2050. The Main Battle
Tank – FRCV being the fore runner will pave the way subsequently for a family
of supporting platforms, based on a modular approach and base platform
standardisation.
2. Broad Operational Requirements (ORs). Major ORs are as under : -

(Ser No )Parameters
Capability

(a) Mobility Medium weight class (45-50 Tons).
High Power to Weight Ratio.
Low NGP (Nominal Ground Pressure).
High Operating Range.

(b) Firepower Main gun capable of firing variety of
ammunition, including ATGMs. Secondary
weapon system(s) to cater for alternate
threats.
High First Round Hit Probability and High
Lethality under dynamic engagement
conditions.
Full solution Fire Control System with auto
multi target tracker system & ‘hunter-killer’
concept.
Integrated day-night vision devices for
complete crew incorporating fusion
technology and 3600 panoramic view for
Commander.

(c) Survivability Technologies to enable high survivability,
including passive, active, reactive and
ballistic protection and stealth / signature
management technologies catering for
variety of threats faced. Integrated Fire
Detection and Suppression System
(IFDSS).

(d) Miscellaneous Operability in all terrain / weather conditions
as obtaining.
In service secure Software Defined Radio
(SDR).
In service Navigation System
In service BMS (Battlefield Management
System) and enabled to fight in a network
centric environment.
Ability to operate in a Chemical Biological
Radiological Nuclear (CBRN) & Electronic
Warfare (EW) environment.
Fording capability.
Air transportability, rail transportability based
on in - service aircraft and rail infrastructure
and tactical mobility over existing bridges.
Ergonomically designed for all weather
conditions and 24 x 7 operations without crew
relief for 72 to 96 hours.
Modular design and BITE to minimise
equipment down time.

3. Route / Category. The FRCV is proposed to be developed under
Chapter III, ‘Make-I’ procedure under provisions of DPP-2016. The FRCV
development will be Service HQ driven with enabled state of art and futuristic
technology.

-----------------------------------------------------

ASSAULT TRACK WAY CL-24
1. Name of the Projects. Assault Track Way Class -24
2. Brief of the Projects. The Assault Track Way Class-24 is envisaged
as a light weight track material to be employed in Desert/Semi Desert terrain
for mobility of wheeled vehicles of the Indian Army with load class up to
Class -24. It is proposed to replace the existing Aluminium Alloy based Assault
Track Way Class-12.
3. Broad Specifications.
(a) Temp tolerance up to +500
c.
(b) The surface finish should be able to blend with the terrain without
any shiny surfaces.
(c) It should facilitate ease of laying and recovery with manual effort
as well as mechanical aids.
(d) The expected life of the track material should be 10,000 passes of
Class -24 vehicles.
(e) Weight of one roll of track material should not exceed 300kgs.
4. Tentative Quantity. The total requirement will be approximately 1000
km and the annual requirement will be 20-50 km per year.
5. Tentative Timelines for Development/Production. Two - three
years.

jayasimha · Post by **jayasimha** » 09 Mar 2017 15:26

https://indianarmy.nic.in/makeinindia/i ... eyz19dXmfK

T-90 upgrade

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 09 Mar 2017 21:47

Significant. Indian MoD flags up transportability issues in
Arjun Mk.II tank if deployed beyond desert/semi-desert zones

https://twitter.com/livefist/status/839833600560365568

kvraghav · Post by **kvraghav** » 09 Mar 2017 22:03

Reading above, looks like army chickened out of comparative mobility trails between mk2 and t90 even though raksha mantri had asks for it. Wish army could show this defiance to mod when permission for the likes of barkha dutta is given for loc reporting. We all know what to call a person who runs away from a challenge.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 10 Mar 2017 07:50

IA is vulnerable with Russkie tanks and no good MSM article on this even with so many hardcore Arjun lovers out there

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Mar 2017 08:10

Stop thinking Pakistan people. Think China. Our aircraft can take T-72s to Thoise. Even then their excess flab has to be removed to get them down to 40 tons
http://www.salute.co.in/mountain-march/

At Agra, the EME team from the Armoured Division was waiting to break up each new tank in two parts ie; the hull and the turret. After witnessing what had happened to the trial tank earlier I did not want to go up with crippled tanks. I spoke to a experienced Warrant Officer (AF) who told me that the all up weight of a IL-76 is 190 tons, to increase the payload, we can reduce the fuel and refuel at Leh. I spoke with Wing Co Bewoor (Gen Bewoor’s son) who was commanding this AF Squadron. He was very positive as he would have saved 15 sorties and I could take my new tanks up in one piece. He told me to reduce my tank weight to 40 tonnes. Since the combat weight of a T-72 M1 is 43.300 tonnes so I removed the outer fitments like wooden poles, tarpaulins, camouflage net, outer fuel barrels, deep fording equipment etc. I also reduced the fuel and kept only 400 litres to ensure we do not have an airlock. Our proposal was accepted by AHQ,S and this is how my squadron was the first to take up a full medium tank in one sortie.”

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 10 Mar 2017 10:18

Rakesh wrote:Significant. Indian MoD flags up transportability issues in
Arjun Mk.II tank if deployed beyond desert/semi-desert zones
https://twitter.com/livefist/status/839833600560365568

Well, the T-72 were moved by road from plains to Leh. During this exercise, points along the route which required modifications (of varying type) was done by army engineers. So, IA is correct in the assessment. What is also known that this exercise is not restricted to the Arjun; though, it will require a bit more effort given its dimensions and weight.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 10 Mar 2017 10:31

shiv wrote:Stop thinking Pakistan people. Think China. Our aircraft can take T-72s to Thoise. Even then their excess flab has to be removed to get them down to 40 tons
http://www.salute.co.in/mountain-march/<SNIP>

Wonderful story!

And the best part is, this completes the details of IA's first move to base large mechanized group in eastern Ladakh. The two part write-up by Lt. General Panag (retd.) posted earlier is about the same move - that gives details about the Mechanized Infantry and a professional soldier's assessment about the terrain and other operational issues.

Couldn't have come at better time.

Thank you.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Mar 2017 21:38

rohitvats wrote:
shiv wrote:Stop thinking Pakistan people. Think China. Our aircraft can take T-72s to Thoise. Even then their excess flab has to be removed to get them down to 40 tons
http://www.salute.co.in/mountain-march/<SNIP>
Wonderful story!

And the best part is, this completes the details of IA's first move to base large mechanized group in eastern Ladakh. The two part write-up by Lt. General Panag (retd.) posted earlier is about the same move - that gives details about the Mechanized Infantry and a professional soldier's assessment about the terrain and other operational issues.

Couldn't have come at better time.

Thank you.

Rohit - the Air Force side of the story..
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/histo ... -t72s.html

kancha · Post by **kancha** » 11 Mar 2017 10:40

A quick question - Can a C-17 not take an Arjun to Leh / Thoise?

jayasimha · Post by **jayasimha** » 11 Mar 2017 15:31

just for records I am posting here.
Wish this kind of road shows are are given wide publicity well before the event next time.
If some one has attended this event, I consider them lucky.

------------------
http://drdo.nic.in/drdo//whatsnew/CVRDE ... tation.pdf

INDOOR EXHIBITION
RUBY JUBILEE CELEBRATIONS
(1975 – 2015)
INVITATION
is one of the
premier establishment of , Ministry
of Defence, Government of India located at Avadi, Chennai – 600 054. This establishment which
started as a detachment of Vehicle Research & Development Establishment (VRDE),
Ahmednagar to focus on development of tracked vehicles was rechristened as Combat Vehicles
Research and Development Establishment (CVRDE) in the year 1975.
With 40 exciting years of dedicated effort in Research & Development activities,
CVRDE has laid foundation for building state of the art weapon platforms for the Indian Army.
In order to commemorate four decades of the technological contributions made to Indian
Defence, CVRDE is celebrating the of its inception.
CVRDE has developed many Armoured Fighting Vehicles (AFVs) and its variants
during the period spanning 40 years. Notable products of the recent past are
which is the flagship product of CVRDE, DRDO and our Nation. The ARJUN
MBT, the brain child of CVRDE has been designed to meet Indian Army's most stringent
requirements and provides high Mobility, superior Firepower, enhanced Protection and crew
comfort. Two regiments of ARJUN MBT Mk-I have been inducted into Army. Based on the
expertise gained, ARJUN MBT Mk-II has been developed successfully with enhanced
performance as a superior weapon platform.
The other Armoured fighting vehicles developed by CVRDE which have gone into
production are Armoured Patrol Car, Armoured Recovery Vehicle, 130 mm SP gun- Catapult on
Vijayanta, Carrier Mortar Tracked Vehicle, Carrier Command Post Tracked and Missile Carrier
Vehicle for Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme, Bridge Layer Tank (BLT-72),
Combat Improved Ajeya and Armoured Ambulance.
CVRDE has also successfully developed based on
BMP –II platform for surveillance, NBC Reconnaissance and Mine detection. For the
, CVRDE has developed Aircraft Mounted Accessory Gear Box
(AMAGB), Aircraft Bearings, PTO Shaft,
CVRDE has also enhanced its infrastructure through creation of test facilities for Engine and
Combat Vehicles Research and Development Establishment (CVRDE)
Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO)
ARJUN Main Battle
Tank (MBT)
Unmanned Ground Vehicle (UGV)
Light
Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas
Ruby Jubilee
5kW Brushless DC Generator and Hydraulic Filters.
Combat Vehicles Research & Development Establishment CVRDE)
Defence Research & Development Organization (DRDO)
Ministry of Defence, Government of India
Avadi, Chennai-600054.
Ph No : 044-26362000 / Fax No : 044-26383661
(
e- mail id : pro@cvrde.drdo.in
Contact Person for the Programme :
NAME & RANK Office LAND LINE
Schedule Of Indoor Exhibition :
MOBILE
1. Shri K.Anbazhagan, Scientist 'E' & PRO
2. Shri R. Raveendran, Scientist 'E'
3. Shri S.Mathi ,Scientist 'E'
4. Shri G.Allwinson Paul Scientist 'C'
044 – 2636 4213
044 – 2636 4211
044 – 2636 4112
044 – 2636 2696
Suspension systems of AFVs, state-of-the art EMI/EMC Test facility as per latest standards and
also developed Training Simulators for ARJUN MBT Drivers and Gunners.
Paving the way ahead, it is proposed to organize a
between 0900 hrs to 1700 hrs at CVRDE Avadi, displaying products and technologies
developed in the last 40 years. CVRDE recognises the importance of igniting young minds, as
they are the future of our mother land, India. The exhibition will give technical and general
exposure about CVRDE and its achievements towards in Defence Equipments
which will result in
First time in the history of CVRDE, it is proposed to invite school students and
engineering college students to witness the Live demonstration of ARJUN MBT and static
display of other Armoured Fighting Vehicles, display of models, followed by video show to
showcase CVRDE's technological achievements. This opportunity will certainly provide
awareness on Research & Development activities and also will kindle the minds of younger
generation.
RUBY JUBILEE Celebration at CVRDE
Three day exhibition during 20 - 22
Jan 2017
Self Reliance
'MAKE IN INDIA'.
Products on display during the Live demonstration & indoor exhibition at CVRDE, Avadi
V. BALAMURUGAN
Scientist 'G'
Additional Director (ToT)
Chairman, Indoor Exhibition Management Committee
9841468268
9940242443
9445587222
9081111108
20 Jan 2017 (Friday) Exhibition is open to school students of Chennai,
Kancheepuram & Thiruvallur districts.
21 Jan 2017 ( Saturday) Exhibition is open to Engineering Colleges &
Technological institutes in Tamilnadu.
22 Jan 2017 (Sunday) Exhibition is open to Serving & Retired Employees of
CVRDE along with Families.

jayasimha · Post by **jayasimha** » 11 Mar 2017 15:37

http://drdo.nic.in/drdo//whatsnew/CVRDE ... Cvrde.html

ABOUT CVRDE with some video links

CVRDE is the Centre for Design, Development, Prototype manufacture, Trial & Evaluation and Technology Transfer of the State-of-the art Armoured Fighting vehicles and specialized Vehicles for Armed Services.

ARJUN Main Battle Tank, the flagship product of CVRDE, has been designed to meet Army's stringent requirements and provides High Mobility, Superior Firepower, Enhanced Protection and Crew Comfort. The other Armoured vehicles developed by CVRDE which have gone into production are Armoured Patrol Car, Armoured Recovery Vehicle, 130 mm SP gun on Vijayanta, Carrier Mortar Tracked Vehicle and Missile Carrier Vehicle for IGMDP, Bridge Layer Tank(BLT-72), Combat Improved Ajeya and Armoured Ambulance. CVRDE has successfully developed Aircraft Mounted Accessory Gear Box (AMAGB), Aircraft Bearings, PTO Shaft, 5kW Brushless DC Generator and Hydraulic Filters for LCA Tejas. CVRDE has also enhanced its infrastructure through Creation of Test Facilities for Engine and Suspension systems of AFVs, state-of-the art EMI/EMC Test facility, testing for Aircraft sub systems and developed Training Simulators for ARJUN MBT Drivers and Gunners.

Based on the expertise gained, ARJUN Mk-II has been developed successfully with enhanced performance which includes Missile firing capability, Improved Commander's Panoramic Sight, Track Width Mine Plough, Automatic Target Tracking, Advanced Land Navigation System, Power Driven Air Defense Gun, Advanced Running Gear System, Containerization of Ammunition Bin with Individual Shutters, Explosive Reactive Armour.

CVRDE has also developed the Arjun Catapult by integrating the 130 mm M-46 gun with Arjun MBT Chassis as self-propelled artillery system for the Indian Army and as well as Carrier Command Post Tracked (CCPT) vehicle for accomplishing all tactical/technical fire control functions to achieve effective deployment of Self-Propelled (SP) Artillery guns.

On the Technological front, CVRDE has excelled in a gamut of technologies related to Combat Systems which include In-Vehicle Networking with Multi-Bus Architecture, Digital Management of Powerpack, Battlefield Management System, Inter VehicleInformation System.

Electronic Fuel Injection System, Advanced Fire Control Stereo Vision, Image Fusion & Map display, Indigenous Fiber Gyros and ATE for Compact Electronics Unit, All Electric Drive,400hp Electronically Controlled Power pack for BMP-II and currently working on projects such as indigenous development of Arjun Armoured Recovery and Repair Vehicle (ARJUN ARRV) with higher capacity subsystems to facilitate recovery and repair functions of Arjun MBT in service with Indian Army and ICV-Command Vehicle. CVRDE is spearheading the National Mission Project for Development of 1500 hp Engine and Transmission. CVRDE has ventured into the development of Unmanned Ground Armoured Combat System by conversion of BMP-II into tele-operated /autonomous vehicle (MUNTRA), Nano technology and Landing Gear system for Rustom II. CVRDE has an Advanced Centre for Engineering Analysis & Design Validation through FEA, CFD, Dynamic analysis and Virtual Reality.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 11 Mar 2017 16:04

CAG criticises Army for slack maintenance of weapons systems

Read more at:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/art ... 579295.cms

negi · Post by **negi** » 11 Mar 2017 17:04

CAG is use less institution ; some joker from CAG recently was claiming that they can even audit de-demonetization drive . The institution has been taking it a bit too far with stupid navel gazing exercise. I would in fact pay more to likes of BCG to publish a report how much time and money CAG has wasted and if their findings have ever translated into anything fruitful for the country .

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 11 Mar 2017 18:38

If you have any other body they will be aligned to either political or institutional interest which they are auditing , they will for all practical purpose loose their independence and will get into political blaming gaming depending who is in power at that point in time , we have seen that getting played again and again.

CAG is constitutional body and is apolitical , their reports are far from being perfect but that's better then any other report we can get where every thing gets politicised

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 13 Mar 2017 20:36

https://www.livefistdefence.com/2017/03 ... -tank.html
EXCLUSIVE: Big New Hurdle For India’s Arjun Battle Tank

The Indian Army wants the DRDO to fully redesign the Arjun Mk.II’s hull and turret structures and use newer materials to replace the conventional structure, in an effort to ‘achieve a reasonable reduction in weight, without removing any of the major improvements’. The Arjun Mk.II currently weighs 68.6 tons — a full six tons over the MK.I, owning entirely to the 73 improvements the Army demanded on the newer tank. The Army has stated, in no uncertain terms, that the 68.6 ton weight of the Arjun Mk.II is too much for ‘seamless application in semi-developed and developed sectors of the Western Front’. In other words, the Arjun Mk.II, the Army says, can’t be forward deployed beyond the deserts, in the event of active hostilities with Pakistan. But more on that a little later.

Livefist can confirm that on September 27 last year, the DRDO was left with no choice but to initiate an exercise to redesign the hull/turret structures on the Arjun Mk.II. At at meeting that included DRDO chief S. Christopher, the Army’s Deputy Chief for Policy & Systems and the Director General Mechanised Forces, the DRDO fought the recommendation, stating that ‘redesign of hull/turret including use of advanced armour material is not recommended considering the long development and validation cycle’. It was a painful blow — while the DRDO was hoping to accelerate trials in an effort to nudge the Indian Army into doubling its order for 118 Arjun Mk.II tanks had just been told even the existing ones weren’t really good enough for full operational use. The DRDO’s Combat Vehicles laboratory near Chennai has begun the weight reduction/redesign exercise, with an ambitious target of March 2018 to demonstrate a weight reduction of 3 tons. The DRDO will need to demonstrate each module separately to the Indian Army.

The story doesn’t really end there. In fact it gets more perplexing. While the DRDO gets busy trying to redesign the Arjun Mk.II’s hull/turret structures and use new materials, the Army has already written off the exercise. In fact, at the very same September 2016 meeting where the DRDO committed to a 3 ton weight reduction, the Army stated, ‘There are no major advantages from tactical and operational point of view with 65 t weight reduction also. It is felt that even weight reduction to 62 tons (equal to that of Arjun MBT Mk-I) may not provide any significant tactical/ operational advantages.’ chutiyapanti ki bhi hadd hoti hai

In other words, the Army believes the weight reduction exercise is fundamentally useless. Worse, the Army projects that the ‘cycle time for 65 ton weight reductions of Arjun MBT Mk-II and validation will take about four to six years for successful acceptance by user after trials/procedures.’ The Army clearly has a real problem here — and this could be indicative of government pressure to press on with the programme.

So Indian Army first asks for a HEAVY tank when Pakistan was rumoured to buy heavy American tanks .

Throws a tantrum about weight when it was built according to what they demanded originally.

Demanded more features in Mark II which increased the weight further.

Refuses comparative trials between Arnjun Mk II and T90 mostly because T-90 has been trounced by Arjun Mark I not too long back.

Now is incompetent/shameless/confused enough to ask for weight reduction in Mark II while at the same time claiming that it'll be useless too ?

Just for comparison, following are weights of some contemporary tanks :
Challenger 2 : 62 t
Leopard 2 : 68 t
Merkava : 65 t +
M1 Abrams - 72 t

Funny to see that all of modern battle tanks except for T-90 weigh almost same as Arjun, have been deployed in almost every terrain and offer much better armour, crew protection, mobility and fire power than T-90s which can't even work in hot weather and in dark.

What kind of moronic brown sahibs of Indian army are in charge of this fiasco ?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Mar 2017 22:05

Who is the in-charge of tank selection and procurement?
And have they combat experience?

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 13 Mar 2017 22:25

^^^" What kind of moronic brown sahibs of Indian army are in charge of this fiasco ?"

The ones that want the Armata. You know the tank that has 3D thrust vectoring to enable figure 8s at 50 MPH to do a Pugachev Cobra around the T-80s.

This is why war is too important to be left to the generals.

nam · Post by **nam** » 13 Mar 2017 22:32

Wrote this in another thread. At the risk of getting brickbats, IA is right. Reducing weight from 68 to 65t is a pointless exercise.

IA wants a T90 weight class tank. Whatever be the reason, that is what they want.

So either DRDO redesign Arjun turret & hull in to a 50 tonne machine or take a empty(with armour & engine) T-90 and integrate Arjun components.

Either ways, since IA is insisting on it, I would say to DRDO, this is your signal for FMBT which you have been waiting for.

Time for to DRDO to bring out options for IA (breakthrough armour tech, APS, 130 mm/125mm smoothbore, long rod penetrator, auto loader etc) within a 50 tonne class. It is time they stop waiting for IA's GSQR.

Arjun has given us the knowledge of making tanks. It is time to build on it.

Srutayus · Post by **Srutayus** » 13 Mar 2017 23:57

Either ways, since IA is insisting on it, I would say to DRDO, this is your signal for FMBT which you have been waiting for.

Interestingly, this is exactly what the DRDO did with the Arjun. Designed it to the IA's requirments. Of course the goalposts were shifted after the project achieved success.

This kind of thing seems endemic to indigenous projects.

Set an overly ambitious requirement.
Shift the goal posts after the product comes close to meet the requirement.
Import a foreign product that does not meet the original or new requirements.
Kill the indigenous project.

Cybaru · Post by **Cybaru** » 14 Mar 2017 00:12

What if those options aren't possible at that weight?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 14 Mar 2017 00:31

nam wrote:Wrote this in another thread. At the risk of getting brickbats, IA is right. Reducing weight from 68 to 65t is a pointless exercise.

IA wants a T90 weight class tank. Whatever be the reason, that is what they want.

So either DRDO redesign Arjun turret & hull in to a 50 tonne machine or take a empty(with armour & engine) T-90 and integrate Arjun components.

Either ways, since IA is insisting on it, I would say to DRDO, this is your signal for FMBT which you have been waiting for.

Time for to DRDO to bring out options for IA (breakthrough armour tech, APS, 130 mm/125mm smoothbore, long rod penetrator, auto loader etc) within a 50 tonne class. It is time they stop waiting for IA's GSQR.

Arjun has given us the knowledge of making tanks. It is time to build on it.

IA strategy can be upended by someone transferring any of these tanks.

Just for comparison, following are weights of some contemporary tanks :
Challenger 2 : 62 t
Leopard 2 : 68 t
Merkava : 65 t +
M1 Abrams - 72 t

Or an unknown Chinese version.

IA needs to negotiate in good faith. Cant ask for 73 improvements and then turn around and say without any responsibility its too heavy.

Why not station it on the borders? DRDO chief already said can reduce by 4 tonnes.
And per the London Conf., DRDO is working on follow on to T72.

I think the generation of officers haven't fought a real tank war and don't know how Centurion made mincemeat of the Pattons.
Also tanks are not chariots of Mahabharata or early years of Afrika Corps.

its not Ben Hur like chariot races but bloody war.

Marten · Post by **Marten** » 14 Mar 2017 00:40

FWIW, the ethos is represented by folks like Ajai Shukla. This, coupled with easily the most incompetent sets of DGMFs (And I KNOW someone will have a few words for me about this), has lead to a situation where the war room is run based on how to appropriate budget rather than strategy. The less said the better about DGQA.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 14 Mar 2017 01:01

Ramanaji: What is even worse is that they want the weight reduction without removing any of the 73 improvements. Import Mafia/Lobby at it again!

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 14 Mar 2017 01:16

Exactly Rakesh! Keep adding features without allowing additional weight. And, IA seems to not want to overwhelm its enemy - just equal it. That is the rationale for the T-90 vs T-80.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 14 Mar 2017 02:39

I think now that the 73 improvements have been made they are now worried they will have to induct the Arjun.

Dr. Christopher has already agreed that weight can be pared by 4 tonnes makes it similar to Merkava.

Anyway a tank is supposed to be off the road vehicle.
So what bridges and roads they think they will be using to drive over!
Some thing is wrong here.
But then Parrikar is off to Goa.

nam · Post by **nam** » 14 Mar 2017 02:49

Srutayus wrote: Interestingly, this is exactly what the DRDO did with the Arjun. Designed it to the IA's requirments. Of course the goalposts were shifted after the project achieved success.

Of course it was created on random requirement of Pakis are buying M1A1, nothing else.

And the requirement of MK2 having ERA, at the same time complaining about weight. Ofcourse it is a wild goose chase.

This is not a question of morality. If IA wants a 50 tonne machine, so be it.
So time to move on and start working on it. The difference this time, we have already up the curve. T90 could have been bought because Arjun as a system was not in production.

Now IA will not have any such excuse. We already know how to design & produce a tank. Our production ecosystem is in place. Our armour & barrel goes in to T90. The engine will be there in couple of years.

So can DRDO create a prototype Indian Armata? of course yes. Creating a 50 tonne will kill the core of IA argument for years. Weight.

Let DRDO call IA's bluff and bring out a prototype in 2-3 years. Either take empty T90 or make a smaller Arjun with autoloader.

nam · Post by **nam** » 14 Mar 2017 02:52

Regarding the weight, there is a genuine requirement for the Tibetan front to have a T90 weight class tank. This might be the "non-desert" terrain that is been talked about..

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 14 Mar 2017 03:02

True and they have T90s already with them. So why demand unobtanium tank which can work in both regions?

And no not going to work on it.
First accept the Arjun MkII made to their requirements.
How does anyone know if they will accept the 50 tonne tank when it comes after precious time and resources are spent?
No guarantee for a new guy will be in charge and claim he doesn't know what was agreed.

nam · Post by **nam** » 14 Mar 2017 03:11

ramana wrote: How does anyone know if they will accept the 50 tonne tank when it comes after precious time and resources are spent?

If it does not accept a 50 tonne tank, that the idiot in the fight is GOI.

IA has no problems with Arjun's capabilities. It has problem with weight. It has always been the core argument and Pakis left a great legacy in 65 by sinking their tanks in Punjab fields.

Fine, you make a 50 tonner Arjun, what other excuses are left? MK2 has already been tested, it is ready. DRDO needs to quickly put together a 50 tonne prototype and get into trials.

Then IA can choose if they want heavier tank .. MK2 or lighter 50 tonner.

Srutayus · Post by **Srutayus** » 14 Mar 2017 03:41

Regarding the Paki M-48s sinking in the Punjab fields, interestingly they were lighter than the Indian Centurions. The Indian Centurions did not have the same issues as their ground pressure was less in-spite of their heavier weight due to wider and longer tracks. The Arjun has a lower ground pressure than the T72/T-90 for the same reasons.

what other excuses are left?

You can come up with any number of excuses if the system allows you to do so after the requirements are initially set and the product developed. Of course if the MoD or a Minister push back, you just have to come up with enough new excuses to outlast them.

Hence the 50 tonne requirement came after the Arjun was developed with KMW consultancy, similar to the Leo 2, to the original requirements from the 1980s. And we can find similar stories for every program from the Nag to MCIWS.

After the 73 requirements were addressed, which included many unrealistic ones like for the minimum range for a tube-launched atgm, in the Mk2 the weight issue was flagged.
Of course the tube launched missile requirement is interesting in itself; only the Russians had one since the Soviets did not possess the ability to defeat 60 Tonne Western MBTs at longer ranges, resulting in that expensive and cumbersome compromise for special situations. But even that special situation was only justified for limited scenarios involving long range engagement of heavy armour. So to ask for a tank gun launched ATGM, and then to ask for it to have a minimum range of a few hundred meters, something that no one in the world currently possesses is quite interesting. That the IA delayed the entire MK2 program for the past 2 years for a illogical requirement built on another illogical one is unexplainable.
Now that that is on the verge of being addressed (CLGM) comes the weight.

Once the weight is addressed, what next...not difficult...you can pick from a thousand different things if you have made your mind up as an institution to stall.

By the way does anyone have any good explanation as to why the Abhay IFV program was cancelled? It looked very promising, all electric 40mm gun, co-axial AGL, ATGMs, composite armour...

nam · Post by **nam** » 14 Mar 2017 05:08

It is quite simple, IA will not be allowed to import amrata or Leo 2a15 or something becoz our tank building ecosystem is in place. They could get away with t90, that ecosystem was not present.

If IA asks for amrata GOI will ask army to go to DRDO. Leo 2A100/200/300 .. Go to DRDO.

Future Combat rfp was tried by IA. What happened? GOi told DRDO to get involved.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 14 Mar 2017 05:14

or so you believe Saar. Armata onlee will come. That is what the import mafia has decided. What a joke this is.