MBT Arjun - News and Discussions

ks_sachin · Post by **ks_sachin** » 13 Jan 2018 06:18

srai wrote:
tsarkar wrote:
As I mentioned earlier, the bridging and engineering suppport added to capex that now has been amortised over other systems. With that happening, the cost of Arjun induction has been brought down. So this actually will lead to more Arjun being inducted.
In the meanwhile, Arjun production line has been sitting idle for over 5-years now. They could have produced some 250 Arjun Mk.1 in that time frame (@50/year capacity that was attained). But not to be all in the name of bridging equipment being "too expensive"

More inducted in future? There is order intent only for 118 Arjun Mk.2. As we all know, Mk.2 has been given the run around so production of it still some years away. Let the hard-earned production ecosystem for an indigenous product rot away.

In comparison, T-90 (defects & all) has been enjoying a continuous license production run in India. 400 more have been ordered.

Rai sahab
We could and we should have and we might have.
Think of the future and be optimistic...

srai · Post by **srai** » 13 Jan 2018 06:47

^^^
Tired of excuses that’s all

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 13 Jan 2018 07:40

^^^^
And that is why I was disheartened , learning that the latest porki venture weighs less than 60 tons.

Maybe singha sir can write a summary (in appropriate thread ) the performance of tin cans in all it's varants against asymmetric warfare in Syria.

srai · Post by **srai** » 13 Jan 2018 08:05

Arjun Mk.1 weights 58.5 tonnes. Old MLC-60 rated bridging equipment would work for it.

shaun · Post by **shaun** » 13 Jan 2018 08:17

Yup, but the video was quite revealing , Hunter and killer mode , the regiment prepared to fight in pitch dark with 4km detection and tracking range and 85 % first hit probability. Modular design helps in maintenance. Only drawback maintenance of the engine which is not attributed to the design but our procurement policy

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 13 Jan 2018 16:57

I am sorry but am I the only one who picked up on this bit.
The father of current 43 AR's CO inducted the Arjuns into 43rd AR, as a CO.

My sweet Over Lord, that is satisfying on so many levels.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 13 Jan 2018 17:56

Mystifying to keep a prod. line closed for 5 yrs. when there is reportedly a backlog of T-72 upgrades and T-90 manufacture, necessitating 400+ extras to be bought.The line could've at least been used for specialist AVs based on the Arjun chassis until firm orders for more A-1/2s arrived.

Rishi_Tri · Post by **Rishi_Tri** » 14 Jan 2018 23:32

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QyVGydip1g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSJoP5r_jVY

Must have been posted earlier but posting again given that these two videos cover MK II features very well including DRDO personnel interview.

The gist of story from Vishnu Som - MkI is light but lacks in different areas. MKII has the features but is heavy.

Goose is ready to be cooked and Army issues request for ideas from across global industry for future tank.

I shall be surprised if even 1 more Arjun gets ordered.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 15 Jan 2018 06:37

Hopefully 3 regiments worth get shoved down their throat.
Before we roll over to Mk3 or FCRV whatever they want to call it.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Jan 2018 10:42

I hope this Army Day more Arjun get ordered.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 15 Jan 2018 11:09

Not being in the know of what intricacies in the 70+ improvements the IA wanted from Arjun, how different are these performance /eqpt.stds. from the T-90? The T-90 is generally touted as being a fine all-round MBT available at reasonable cost.Therefore if Arjun met those same stds., say protection,mobility ,gun accuracy, defensive suite, etc., .perhaps using even the very same as on the T-90 for commonality and cost-effectiveness, surely the extra weight could've been kept down and it would've been impossible to reject it.I think that the CVRDE have fallen into the trap adding a supermarket shelf of extras demanded making Arjun that extra 8-10t heavier inviting the IA's criticism.The same fate should not also afflict the LCA ,always intended to be a light fighter to replace MIG-21 interceptors with a secondary GA role, now being overloaded to be capable of doing the job of an M2K.

Some time ago when the FMBT reqs. were given to the CVRDE, I remember a quote from the head or chief Dec. adviser, that providing everything asked for would be impossible within a 45t tank.If A-2 meets T-90 stds. as the minimum, even exceeding it in certain areas while saving it a few t, the pressure upon the IA would be too much to have it rejected for another "interim" firang MBT. Here read "T-14", waiting in the wings.

Lastly,even if it is best suited to desert warfare where there are less riverine obstacles to be breached/crossed, how many equivalently capable MBTs would the Pakis be able to field in the huge desert border stretching from the Rann of Kutch to the Punjab? Their T-80UDs are gass guzzlers why the Sovs/ Rus preferred building more T-72/90s instead. 500 superior Arjuns to anything owned by Pak deployed here could be decisive in sundering the Sindh from the rest of Pak.

srai · Post by **srai** » 15 Jan 2018 11:25

Philip,
Arjun Mk.1 already beat T-90 in the IA’s comparative trials a while ago.

Mk.2 has a lot more superior features.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 15 Jan 2018 11:32

True ,but at a huge weight gain the main reason the IA is holding against it.If say an Arjun1A with less weight and only the most critical improvements are added.making it in no way inferior to T-90 performance, saving weight in the bargain, how can it be rejected?

Kersi · Post by **Kersi** » 15 Jan 2018 14:57

IA will keep buying T 90 for some time. Then when IA gets "convinced" that T 90 is not all that a great tank and that it (IA) needs a great tank, T 14 Armata is ready. What a farce

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Jan 2018 21:44

Philip wrote:True ,but at a huge weight gain the main reason the IA is holding against it.If say an Arjun1A with less weight and only the most critical improvements are added.making it in no way inferior to T-90 performance, saving weight in the bargain, how can it be rejected?

Philip, IA asked for many improvements and to come back and say weight gained is disingenuous at the least. They have not asked for only critical improvements in Mk1. It was all or nothing. And now say weight too much.

This could be another iteration.

To me one silly improvement asked for is the 12.7mm machine gun to shoot at aircraft.

What scenarios they expect the Arjun to fight against aircraft? Have they forgotten Longewala where the Paki tanks AA machineguns were just firing in futility at IAF Hunters?

The Strike corps will have Akash regiment, one IAF strike squadron dedicated to it.
Yet Arjun needs to be burdened with a pop gun.

How about a SAM at same time?

VKumar · Post by **VKumar** » 15 Jan 2018 22:32

ramana wrote:
Philip wrote:True ,but at a huge weight gain the main reason the IA is holding against it.If say an Arjun1A with less weight and only the most critical improvements are added.making it in no way inferior to T-90 performance, saving weight in the bargain, how can it be rejected?

Philip, IA asked for many improvements and to come back and say weight gained is disingenuous at the least. They have not asked for only critical improvements in Mk1. It was all or nothing. And now say weight too much.

This could be another iteration.

To me one silly improvement asked for is the 12.7mm machine gun to shoot at aircraft.

What scenarios they expect the Arjun to fight against aircraft? Have they forgotten Longewala where the Paki tanks AA machineguns were just firing in futility at IAF Hunters?

The Strike corps will have Akash regiment, one IAF strike squadron dedicated to it.
Yet Arjun needs to be burdened with a pop gun.

How about a SAM at same time?

Hey ! Haven't you seen Rambo 3 ?

srin · Post by **srin** » 15 Jan 2018 23:33

ramana wrote:
Philip wrote:True ,but at a huge weight gain the main reason the IA is holding against it.If say an Arjun1A with less weight and only the most critical improvements are added.making it in no way inferior to T-90 performance, saving weight in the bargain, how can it be rejected?

Philip, IA asked for many improvements and to come back and say weight gained is disingenuous at the least. They have not asked for only critical improvements in Mk1. It was all or nothing. And now say weight too much.

This could be another iteration.

To me one silly improvement asked for is the 12.7mm machine gun to shoot at aircraft.

What scenarios they expect the Arjun to fight against aircraft? Have they forgotten Longewala where the Paki tanks AA machineguns were just firing in futility at IAF Hunters?

The Strike corps will have Akash regiment, one IAF strike squadron dedicated to it.
Yet Arjun needs to be burdened with a pop gun.

How about a SAM at same time?

All tanks have a 50 calibre HMG for AA, including Arjun Mk1. The difference between Mk1 and Mk2 (IIRC) is that in Mk2, it can be operated as remote weapon station.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 15 Jan 2018 23:57

Doesn't the T-14 also have an anti-air auto cannon? I think the req. has emerged with the proliferation of UCAVs and PGMs.These slower speed UCAVs would be easier to deal with than frontline jets. One has to examine which of the additions/improvements adds most weight and whether that item can be pruned or some even replaced by lighter components or eliminated.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Jan 2018 00:28

Would you like a bread slicer to with it?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 16 Jan 2018 06:07

The RCWS helps with anti-infantry use as well, it can be used to take them out without exposing crew to danger. Its now been indigenized, so at least one less import.

Can also be used for Coast Guard ships, Light Vehicles, BSF/CRPF etc.
http://www.bel-india.com/News.aspx?MId= ... lnews_4543

http://www.bel-india.com/writereaddata/ ... 927132.jpg

BEL unveiled a new Weapon Control system — Remote Controlled Weapon Station (RCWS) / Air Defence Weapon Station (ADWS) for 12.7 mm Gun of MBT Arjun Mk II battle tank, at Aero India 2017 in Bengaluru on February 14, 2017.

The RCWS is an improvised version of the manually operated air defence gun. It enables the soldier to aim and fire at aerial targets from the safe interiors of the battle tank. Presently, the 12.7 mm guns of all tanks are manually operated. RCWS integrated on MBT Mk II has successfully completed tank integration and firing trials in September 2015. RCWS has also been developed for use in Armed Repair and Recovery Vehicle (ARRV). It can also be mounted on hovercraft / fast moving boats for the Coast Guard.

The features of RCWS include: Remote Firing option; Automatic Cocking; DSP Based Brushless Drive Technology; 2 Axis Self-stabilised platform; Day Camera & Night Vision; Automated FCS & Ballistics corrections; and Automatic Target Tracking.
Salient Features

The RCWS for MBT ARJUN Mk II is intended to lay and stabilise the NSVT 12.7 mm machine gun along with the optical sensors in traverse and elevation mounted on the MBT turret. The system allows the operator to control the gun and sight from the operating console and joy stick from inside the turret. The optical sensors include a day camera, Thermal Imager and a Laser Range Finder integrated on a single housing. The system allows automatic target tracking for air and ground targets and performs necessary ballistic computations to feed the ballistic offsets to the gun / sight. The system has a provision for the operator to do automatic loading and firing of the gun.

The system can operate on power mode without stabilisation or in stabilised mode where the gun along with the optical sensors is stabilised. The system can position the turret with an angular travel of 360 deg and elevate the gun in 60 to -5 degree elevation. The sight has a freedom of +/- 17 degree in azimuth and in elevation it can move from -5 to +60 degree. It operates from the 28V DC power source available on the tank. The RCWS meets all environmental specifications and EMI specifications as per MIL STD 461 F.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 16 Jan 2018 18:12

Yes the system particularly useful aboard smaller naval vessels which may have to deal with small craft carrying terrorists, commandos and suicide boats like those which attacked US vessels.In our parts, the LTTE Sea Tigers sank numerous SLN fast attack craft using high speed kamikaze vessels, including attacks at night.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 16 Jan 2018 18:15

Yes the system is also particularly useful aboard smaller naval vessels which may have to deal with small craft carrying terrorists, commandos and suicide boats like those which attacked US vessels.In our parts, the LTTE Sea Tigers sank numerous SLN fast attack craft using high speed kamikaze vessels, including attacks at night.

Karan do you think that such a system may have reduced Israeli tank losses in the Lebanon against the Hiz when the tanks were deployed without adequate infantry .support?

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 17 Jan 2018 08:20

What happens to the RCWS when the gun invariably gets jammed?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 17 Jan 2018 09:10

The gun is fit on the RCWS. It can be manually fixed.

Philip, Merkava Mk4 also has RCWS from what I remember and is trialling a new 360 degree camera system (which we should do too, with companies like Tonbo in India) but the basic issue is that ATGMs have range of several km, while a 12.7mm gun is not optimal for such long ranges. You need high clarity, expensive optics all around the tank if you wish to do more than just fend off constant attacks via APS.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 17 Jan 2018 12:27

Flipping through the latest issue of the "F" mag.It has a feature on A-2.To get to the crux of the matter,2 regiments are ready to accept A-2,but a few trials are to be done,larger issues appeared to have been sorted out.93 improvements made,incl. wider tracks,attempts to reduce weight of certain components,etc.T-90 prod. behind schedule due to technical and TOT factors. A problem that the CVRDE is facing is that suppliers for A-1 have dried up (probably firang ones,mentioned in another report earlier),so a new supply chain for A-2has to be found.The example of building MBTs in small batches as the Israelis and others are doing,so that there is a constant supply chain at hand,is something that we may have missed says the author of the piece.It would've also kept the line active-smaller batches,instead of restarting the line,costs,etc.

The IA has clearly spelt out that only the FMBT/whatever the nomenclature it ends up with,will be the replacement for the T-72s,some 2000 tanks.Since this development is likely to take at least a decade,with T-90 production sluggish,the CVRDE will be kept very busy with A-2 which appears to be slated for a 10 yr. production period,I mentioned in an earlier post much the same,that even if we manufactured 50 A-02s a yr.,we would have at least 500 by the end of the next decade.When T-90 production stops,which should also be around 2025,that prod. capacity could be utilised for A-2 or whatever variants come by then. Theoretically at least 750+ A-2s could then have bene built. More powerful engines and other improvements to establish a family of AVs are in the works.

Karan,the point about the remote 12.7mm gun was the ability of the tank to defend ittself tank against infantry.The lack of accompanying infantry in the last Lebanon spat saw the Israelis lose a number of Merkavas to Hiz militiamen who attacked the tanks with RPGs.Did the Merkavas have the remote MG then?

There is an interesting titbit on the net about Turkey's latest monster,the Altay. It is supposed to be based upon the SoKo Black Panther and NATO std. eqpt.,but with a 4-man crew.Arjuns look far more elegant.There is a possibility that the Pakis might build this for their next MBT.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 17 Jan 2018 13:31

"Karan,the point about the remote 12.7mm gun was the ability of the tank to defend ittself tank against infantry.The lack of accompanying infantry in the last Lebanon spat saw the Israelis lose a number of Merkavas to Hiz militiamen who attacked the tanks with RPGs.Did the Merkavas have the remote MG then?"

Philip, how can you defend yourself against infantry whom you can't see? Hence my reference to vision/optics sights.

The Hiz militiamen didn't just use RPGs, only the RPG-29 has a chance of taking out a Merkava across a large part of its armor, but the Kornet and supposedly even the Metis ATGMs. They can be fired from several km away & hence just a RCWS with a MG will not be sufficient. For close range work, yes, a RCWS is good. Hence, the Israelis prioritized an APS (Trophy/Iron Fist) over adding extra sights. Once you have the expensive sights, you can then use your main gun to target the ATGM teams.

See:http://tonboimaging.com/tonbo/products/
For the kind of products available in India.

Arjun RWCS is BTW from Tonbo.
http://tonboimaging.com/tonbo/products/elpeos/

BEL has developed the stabilized platform and put the multi-sensor optic in it.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 17 Jan 2018 13:43

TSP cant afford any Altay, at most expect a 100 or so VT-4s or whatever in lieu of the Al Khalid craphole.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 17 Jan 2018 14:02

I reckon the Paks are using the VT4 vs the Ukaranian offering to get the Chinese to subsidize it even more.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 17 Jan 2018 14:14

I guess they will go for the VT4. Given the chaos in Ukraine product support must be absymal for the T-80UDs.

For all the talk of PRC gear, the real striking edge TSP has is all American. The TOW-2As for instance or the Harris radios.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 17 Jan 2018 18:48

So Merkavas during the Leb. spat did not have a 360 deg. vision capability.Surprising that legacy Kornets inflicted much damage.Some reports say that 90% of tank attacks were by tandem warheads while armour if Merkavas- 4 tanks were penetrated by ATGMs.The Hiz used small anti-tank camouflaged teams of 5/6 taking advantage of the terrain and any infrastructure that existed.

Khalsa · Post by **Khalsa** » 18 Jan 2018 01:54

^^^^ @ Karan M
Aye.
Have not heard any exploits of the T-80 units. They are literally the Garage tractors due to product support, as you pointed out.
Vt-4s it is.

srai · Post by **srai** » 06 Feb 2018 03:29

x-posting

uddu wrote:

Zynda · Post by **Zynda** » 28 Feb 2018 18:43

Army wages war against ‘overweight’ Arjun tank

NEW DELHI: The state-of-the-art Arjun Main Battle Tank Mk II is facing a challenging task in trying to shed weight from 68.6 tonne to less than 65 tonne. “So far, by using lighter fitments and making adjustments we have been able to lose only about 1.5 tonne which is far above the Army’s requirement of less than 65 tonne tank. Redesigning and assessments are on,” said a military source familiar with the weight loss effort who did not want to be named.

The Arjun MBT Mk II is an improved version of Mk I and has been developed with 73 tank-fittable improvements of which 15 are major tank-fittable improvements as a result of which an additional tonnage was gained over the Arjun MBT Mk I. But additional weight has resulted in problems relating to agility, mobility and operational employability.

That is why it is important to reduce the weight of the tank. The weight reduction effort is now being undertaken by the Defence Research and Development Organisation and Combat Vehicles Research and Development Establishment mainly by “redesigning the hull and turret structure by using innovative material to replace the conventional structure”. The Army had ruled out an agility and mobility test of Arjun tank that was to be pitted against the Russian-made T-90 saying that the Arjun MBT Mk II and T-90 are of different class and weight classifications and their deployment is as per assigned operational roles. {Another way of saying even with all the defects & reneged ToT from Russians, we will go for Tin Cans onlee}

I was under the impression that Arjun Mk.2 wt including mine plougher was 63t but it seems like its more towards 68 tons. That's up by 10 tons when compared to Arjun Mk.1

I guess addition of ERA tiles would have added easily 2-3 tons. The plougher itself weights around 1.5-2 tons.

Unless NM does a Tejas for Army, the future of Arjun is not bright. What is the status of FMBT?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Mar 2018 00:49

Zynda, or anyone do we know what are the 73 improvements that Army suggested and DRDO agreed to incorporate?

Does every tank have to have that mine plough? Do they want bull dozer or a tank?
Does T-90 come with the mine plough on every tank?

Have they manufactured the local design engine?

I think Nirmala Sitaraman has to tackle the Arjun issue on priority basis.

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 02 Mar 2018 15:46

No every tank does not need a mine plough but some do. In a regt of 45 tanks I think 4-5 are enough.

Large scale mine sweeping will be given by Armd and assault ENGR regts of the Armd Div (remember there is 1 ENGR regt in every Div). So there will be a troop of that regt with each armd regt. I think the problem is because there are no Armd/Assault Engr Regts equipped with arjun mine plows. Two solutions - equip some tanks with a mine plow or look at raising 1 sqdn of a new Amrd / Assault ENGR Regt to support the Arjun Brigade. We do have a precedence of a bde level force - the para brigade. Start with a Arjun bde and then raise one more if that works well.

Anshuman.Kumar · Post by **Anshuman.Kumar** » 02 Mar 2018 16:10

Take some older T72s use them essentially as Mine Clearing tanks with each regiment of Arjun MK2 and rid Arjun of those mine ploughs.solve little of the weight reduction problem this way.
We need workarounds..

Akshay Kapoor · Post by **Akshay Kapoor** » 02 Mar 2018 16:15

That wont work because the logistics chain has to be the same in case of break downs tread sheding etc. No harm in having a few Arjuns tanks with mine plows. In the solution I suggested the tank regt will have no mine plows but the Armd Engr Sqdn will.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Mar 2018 22:07

Akshay Kapoor wrote:No every tank does not need a mine plough but some do. In a regt of 45 tanks I think 4-5 are enough.

Large scale mine sweeping will be given by Armd and assault ENGR regts of the Armd Div (remember there is 1 ENGR regt in every Div). So there will be a troop of that regt with each armd regt. I think the problem is because there are no Armd/Assault Engr Regts equipped with arjun mine plows. Two solutions - equip some tanks with a mine plow or look at raising 1 sqdn of a new Amrd / Assault ENGR Regt to support the Arjun Brigade. We do have a precedence of a bde level force - the para brigade. Start with a Arjun bde and then raise one more if that works well.

I think the idea of a special mine clearing squadron per Division would be an effective thing and attach to the ENGR regt.

Squadron is 15 tanks? If so that would be 45 tanks for 3 armored divisions.

Need to break the log jam just like it was done with the Tejas Mk2.

Can some one dig up the changes between Arjun Mk1 and Mk2? and the weight contributions due to the changes?

Anshuman.Kumar · Post by **Anshuman.Kumar** » 02 Mar 2018 22:22

Akshay Kapoor wrote:That wont work because the logistics chain has to be the same in case of break downs tread sheding etc. No harm in having a few Arjuns tanks with mine plows. In the solution I suggested the tank regt will have no mine plows but the Armd Engr Sqdn will.

Idea is to have workarounds so as to not let a very fine tank lose production orders when it was specifically made to meet every single demand of Army..in lieu of which it suffered compromises on weight gain.

Arjun MK2 has perhaps everything that army ever wanted except for its weight.Now it's for army to find a workaround to induct the MK 2 in numbers..it can't forever change goal posts.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Mar 2018 22:26

Inducting a squadron of mine plow equipped Arjuns is also a work around.
And this is already developed.
An Arjun brigade will be homogenous unit and thus will not strain the logistics train.