Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

ParGha · Post by **ParGha** » 07 Feb 2010 22:16

RayC wrote:Combat movement average (not highway cruise average) for gas turbines is about three US gallons per mile.

This is so true... and what is true for the US is a hundred times truer for India. People don't understand how fuel costs limit how much training can be done. No amount of simulator time, sand-box exercises, etc can substitute for going out into the field and doing maneuvers. An acquaintance from the Black Horse (the US army's primary Red Team armored unit) used to write that most of the time they used to "win" simply because they had a lot more field time than the units that came to train against them. Simple as that. India has a much greater strategic motivation/requirement for adopting very fuel efficient - better yet, non-fossil-fuel powered - fighting vehicles. If it means going light, that is OK - one can always expand the artillery and genuinely adopt combined arms ops.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 08 Feb 2010 00:23

ParGha wrote:
RayC wrote:Combat movement average (not highway cruise average) for gas turbines is about three US gallons per mile.
This is so true... and what is true for the US is a hundred times truer for India. People don't understand how fuel costs limit how much training can be done. No amount of simulator time, sand-box exercises, etc can substitute for going out into the field and doing maneuvers. An acquaintance from the Black Horse (the US army's primary Red Team armored unit) used to write that most of the time they used to "win" simply because they had a lot more field time than the units that came to train against them. Simple as that. India has a much greater strategic motivation/requirement for adopting very fuel efficient - better yet, non-fossil-fuel powered - fighting vehicles. If it means going light, that is OK - one can always expand the artillery and genuinely adopt combined arms ops.

I didn't exactly get you. None of the tanks in the IA has gas-turbine engines including the Arjun.

India has a much greater strategic motivation/requirement for adopting very fuel efficient - better yet, non-fossil-fuel powered - fighting vehicles. If it means going light, that is OK - one can always expand the artillery and genuinely adopt combined arms ops.

What are you advocating here? That we should consider the lighter T-90 rather than the heavier Arjun because of fuel efficiency?

ArmenT · Post by **ArmenT** » 08 Feb 2010 00:30

^^^
All this has to do with answering vasu_ray's questions. He's the one questioning using gas turbines in tanks. See previous page for details.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 08 Feb 2010 00:32

ArmenT wrote:^^^
All this has to do with answering vasu_ray's questions. He's the one questioning using gas turbines in tanks. See previous page for details.

ParGha's reply specifically concerned India. That is why I got confused. We don't have turbine powered tanks nor are we planning to AFAIK.

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 08 Feb 2010 00:48

fuel efficiency doesn't mean much if the tank gives additional 20kms range and doesn't survive as good as Arjun, adapting to the ever changing operational requirements is only possible with Arjun

engine is part of the story,

there is practice:

any reason Americans prefer gas turbines over diesel engines other than they getting cheap gas?

and then there is theory:

given a small load range, variations within it probably can be absorbed/extracted from a fly wheel while the prime mover is the gas turbine

now the load range can be divided into a cruise/idle load range (APU mode) and battle load range (in harsh terrain/sudden maneuvers) each requiring a different power setting still with a single engine, the counter point is not even US is doing this

that said light tanks in mountainous terrain using gas turbines might be better?, not measuring the utility by fuel efficiency only

ArmenT · Post by **ArmenT** » 08 Feb 2010 01:15

vasu_ray wrote:any reason Americans prefer gas turbines over diesel engines other than they getting cheap gas?

and then there is theory:

given a small load range, variations within it probably can be absorbed/extracted from a fly wheel while the prime mover is the gas turbine

now the load range can be divided into a cruise/idle load range (APU mode) and battle load range (in harsh terrain/sudden maneuvers) each requiring a different power setting still with a single engine, the counter point is not even US is doing this

that said light tanks in mountainous terrain using gas turbines might be better?, not measuring the utility by fuel efficiency only

The M1 tank that the US military uses was originally designed for use in Western Europe. No dust and sand problems there

.

At the time that the US military picked a gas turbine for the M1 tank, the biggest threat was Soviet tanks racing through the Fulda gap into Western Europe and the M1 was designed to counteract that. Diesel fuel tends to gum up in freezing temperatures and therefore needs a heater to warm up the engine before it can start up. Modern improvements in diesel engine tech have reduced the startup time significantly, but the tech wasn't available in the 70s when the project was envisioned. Jet fuel doesn't gum up like diesel does and thus a tank with a gas turbine could start faster in winter. It also has the advantage of using a variety of fuels.

Even then, when the two prototypes were presented by different manufacturers, the one by GM had a diesel engine and was the one picked originally. Later down the stage, an explicit command came from the SecDef to use the Chrysler Defence systems model, which had a gas turbine. There have been several rumors as to why the switch was ordered. One version I've heard is that this was around the time when Chrysler was facing bankruptcy and their chairman Lee Iacocca had to petition Congress for a bailout loan. Part of the terms was that they had to sell off Chrysler Defence Systems to General Dynamics, but without an upcoming contract they wouldn't get much money from the sale. Apparently some senatorial types were concerned that workers in their constituency would be laid off if Chrysler didn't get the contract and ordered the switch.

Note that GM tested a version of the M1 to be sold to Turkey with a diesel engine, because the Turks didn't want a gas turbine.

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 08 Feb 2010 01:54

it would be surprising the Americans chose to live with the gas turbines with all those adverse reports when diesel engines have advanced?

ParGha · Post by **ParGha** » 08 Feb 2010 04:09

nachiket wrote:I didn't exactly get you. None of the tanks in the IA has gas-turbine engines including the Arjun.

I am saying fossil fuel is India's biggest strategic limitation since the fall of Soviet Union. No reflection on the Arjun vs. T-90 debate. If the IA did adopt this view, it would be take quite some time to expand the artillery corps significantly, arm them and train them... by that time the Arjun vs. T90 debate would be probably be irrelevant.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 08 Feb 2010 15:47

Rahul M; I believe a lot of valid posts showing how exactly will Arjun numbers ramp up to 50:50 have been put forth since you asked me that question, there have also been other posts talking about how T 90s still have a role to play.

I have only one point to make which has not been made since you posted your response to me (although before) -- the REALITY of Avadi -- when Avadi run 4 years behind schedule (which itself was around 4 years) to produce the first lot of Arjun's how do you expect anything better than the current situation to happen?

As I keep pointing out in various contexts, a weapon system is a weapon system, and not only a single functioning piece which can be judged on purely design merits.

The entire Mil-Ind complex backing the piece has to be in place and performing for the design to work.

If Avadi does not have the ability to transfer the design of Arjun into a reliable product, made at a fast enough pace, what options does IA or the nation have?

So the end result is acquisition of T 90 with all its attendants Mil-Ind tech transfer pieces (no doubt to leverage for Arjun and other manufacturing efforts)

The T 90 and Arjun debate is superfluous since they are not competing in any real sense, they both have a place and their places are chosen by N number of structural constraints and not merely because the Nation and/or IA and any true sense of "choice" in the matter.

We are just blundering along -- we really need to accept that key fact.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Feb 2010 16:07

avadi will probably underperform on T90 manufacturing too and allege all sorts of reasons other than themselves.

I say its high time a pvt co was given a chance to assemble tanks, IFVs and artillery. their workforce and supply chain will be managed more professionally. thankfully we got somewhat out of this in trucks with leylands and telco moving in, but it is BEML that assembles Tatra trucks. and the next big 4x4 to replace the nissan jonga will surely be sourced from pvt factories.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 08 Feb 2010 17:00

sanku ji, the point about avadi applies equally to T-90, it's a non-issue as far as T-90 vs arjun is considered. secondly, as for 'T-90 having its role too', does it do something that the arjun can't ?
or is it the case that it has a role simply because we bought it ?

I understand the point is moot now but the T-90 wasn't acquired in numbers to fill a particular requirement of the army. rather the army bought it first (as it was the only foreign tank they could buy) and then went about the job of inventing roles for it.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 08 Feb 2010 17:30

Rahul M; the point about Avadi DOES NOT apply EQUALLY to T 90 because of presence of availability of CBU from Russia and Knocked down kit assembly for first few tanks. T 90 can also continue getting critical spares and parts from Russia which Avadi keeps goofing up (tank barrels). Avadi also gets to learn how to make T 90 well and keep making it well, in terms of all the already established process sheets from Russia. So there is much more of a safety net for T 90 (its Avadi proof

)

For Arjun everything has to be done in Avadi; including development of manufacturing process and getting it right.

A much harder task -- and the learning from T 90 process will no doubt jump start their process in general.

We can not underestimate the simple engineering grunt work like processes in getting the final product deploy-able on any significant scale.

-------

The T 90 was bought as incremental improvement over what we do now -- T 90 >> T 7 80 >> T 72 type of logic. The finding role given a tank had already happened when IA was moved kicking and screaming on T 72s. Having swallowed that pill, they want maximize the return from a situation which they already are in.

This may not be to the jingo's heart, but is a valid logic from IA perspective as well as nations perspective.

I will repeat the only competition Arjun has is with itself -- the real debate is not T 90 vs Arjun, but Arjun vs Arjun -- in the sense of why the F does GoI not make sure that CVRDE and Avadi get their act up running giving it what ever it needs, including private participation and use of Natasha's if needed.

-------

Actually what Arjun really needs is for the Kanchan to be renamed as Shikhandi

(that was a joke of course)

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 08 Feb 2010 18:38

Rahul M wrote:sanku ji, the point about avadi applies equally to T-90, it's a non-issue as far as T-90 vs arjun is considered. secondly, as for 'T-90 having its role too', does it do something that the arjun can't ?
or is it the case that it has a role simply because we bought it ?

I understand the point is moot now but the T-90 wasn't acquired in numbers to fill a particular requirement of the army. rather the army bought it first (as it was the only foreign tank they could buy) and then went about the job of inventing roles for it.

Could it be explained as to how the tanks were bought and then roles were invented?

It maybe clearly understood that there are no longer classification of tanks.

A tank remains a tank!

Of course, I am ready to be educated.

As I understand, Modern tank designs have favoured a "universal" design that has generally eliminated these sorts of classifications from modern terminology, which tends to refer to almost all designs as main battle tanks despite sometimes significant weight differences.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 08 Feb 2010 18:47

T 90s were procured in two batches (310 tanks and knockdown kits in 2000 and a further 347 in 2006) as per open forum reports.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 08 Feb 2010 18:54

RayC wrote:It maybe clearly understood that there are no longer classification of tanks.

actually that's my point too. one T-90 apologist ( sorry for the flaming sanku ji !

) makes it sound as if T-90 fills a role that couldn't be done by the arjun which is not true IMHO.
there is only one niche for MBT in IA and for it the army has bought the inferior (and costlier) of the two options available.

the logic of 'different role for arjun and T-90' as has been brought out by some media reports doesn't make any sense IMHO.

-----------
sanku ji, so your solution of a problem with avadi's production is to get rid of domestic production altogether and buy foreign ? that too a machine that has ridiculous record at crew protection ?

K_Rohit · Post by **K_Rohit** » 08 Feb 2010 19:42

Is Arjun transportable by C-17 or IL-76? For that matter, is the T-90? (I assume so, since T-72 has been transported by IL-76)

Given the tender for light tanks (which presumably are air-transportable)..is there a need for an MBT to be air-transportable?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 08 Feb 2010 19:45

only T-72 can be carried by IL_76 at great difficulty. neither T-90 nor arjun can be carried by it.

C-17 should be able to carry all.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 08 Feb 2010 20:02

Sanku wrote:Rahul M; the point about Avadi DOES NOT apply EQUALLY to T 90 because of presence of availability of CBU from Russia and Knocked down kit assembly for first few tanks..................<snip>

In addition to the Avadhi factor, the delay due to foreign vendors holding India to ransom also applies to the T-90 tank. You forget that 1000 T-90 are to be made in India. The reason given by IA for ordering the 2nd batch of T-90 (347) in 2007 was delay in local production of tank.What they forgot to tell was that Russia was holding up the supplementy contract and delaying in transfer of ToT.And that is the main reason that it is only after 9 years, 1st lot of 10 T-90 rolled out of Avadhi. And of course, the running after OEM for installation of "Environment Control System", caliberation of FCS & TI sights etc.

So, if the problem is Avadhi, well. then get after Avadhi and don't ditch Arjun.

PS: One thing I'm in complete agreement with is compulsion of IA to order first lot of T-90 after purchase of T-80UD by PA. Arjun was not on horizon (in terms of ready for induction).Heck, I'm even ok with IA ordering 1,647 T-90X as long as IA order Arjuns to replace older T-72. That itself will mean close to 1200 tanks.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 08 Feb 2010 23:25

Rahul M wrote:
RayC wrote:It maybe clearly understood that there are no longer classification of tanks.
actually that's my point too. one T-90 apologist ( sorry for the flaming sanku ji ! ) makes it sound as if T-90 fills a role that couldn't be done by the arjun which is not true IMHO.

Well thats flaming surely Rahul -- however I have never said there were two roles!! You did!! All I said was that if there were two roles its was decided during the time T 72 were aquired.

Actually two roles is not the right word, the word should be two doctrines. The western vs Russian. (surely that has been debated already)

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

sanku ji, so your solution of a problem with avadi's production is to get rid of domestic production altogether and buy foreign ? that too a machine that has ridiculous record at crew protection ?

So, if the problem is Avadhi, well. then get after Avadhi and don't ditch Arjun.

Well, well why put words in my mouth Bhai? I have always been saying that given the current situation the GOAL of 50:50 of Arjun and T 90 is imminently sensible and doable.

However even to get there Avadi needs to be straightened out --- and I am saying that this debate between T 90 and Arjun -- shifts the focus from where its should unceasingly be. To FIX THE AVADI production issues ASAP.

Why cant GoI ask Avadi to manufacture another 127 even if they are not ordered by IA and then shove down the tanks down an even unwilling IA (going for a moment here with others who claim that IA is unwilling, I do not think that) by clearly showing how Avadi has made a much better product than IAs current crop.

Thats whats needed.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 08 Feb 2010 23:53

Well, well why put words in my mouth Bhai? I have always been saying that given the current situation the GOAL of 50:50 of Arjun and T 90 is imminently sensible and doable.

is that the stated or even likely goal ? even that would a welcome compromise IF true.

the current policy seems to be 2000 T-90 + 1800 upg T-72 + 500 T-55 + 500 vijayanta + 124 arjun with the likelihood that arjuns will be sent to storage within 4-5 years citing problems with maintaining an additional pool of manpower and spares for such a small number of tanks.
of course, jump to the year 2015 "we have so few arjuns, you can't expect us to maintain a complete logistics chain for 2 regiments worth of tanks can you ? it's a waste of tax-payers money ! these arjun regiments will soon (which means another 5 years) convert to the ........"

"........next generation tank from russia the T-2000 which is the very latest in tank technology ! it is also based on the T-90 and that helps our logistics chain a lot ! so what if the crew dies everytime an RPG hits the tank or that it can't fight in the desert. the russians know what they are doing"

jump to 2020, "arjun that dabba ? even the vijayanta, T-55 and T-72 were far better than the disaster. why do you think we bought only 120 of them ?"

2030, "arjun, what arjun ? we have russian tanks man ! they are the best !"

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 09 Feb 2010 00:21

Rahul M wrote:
Well, well why put words in my mouth Bhai? I have always been saying that given the current situation the GOAL of 50:50 of Arjun and T 90 is imminently sensible and doable.
is that the stated or even likely goal ? even that would a welcome compromise IF true.

It was stated in the parliament plus a few other times from MoS for Defence (I had quoted links before)

What you say can very well happen -- but as I said before, if Avadi production run is 4 years behind schedule on a 4 year plan what can happen?

Yes, in an ideal world IA would go after Avadi and make it run to their tune, also in an ideal world the MoD would tell IA to use Arjun or perish.

We unfortunately dont live in that ideal world -- anyway given how things are, I think next tank would prob be a Pak-Fa for tanks. A Rus-Ind joint venture -- might not hurt. (this is speculation)

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 09 Feb 2010 09:20

the solution would be to either
a) tighten the screws on avadi to make sure they deliver
or
b) get a pvt co L&T or tata to take up part or all of the manufacturing process, like it has been done for the pinaka
or
c) both. utilize the respective strengths of the manufacturing units, get them to produce parts of the tank at those places and finally assemble the who tank at any one place.

narayana · Post by **narayana** » 09 Feb 2010 09:56

Arjun vs T-90

if a defence journo like ajaishukla could find out so many things about the problems in T-72 and T-90,what was the MOD and Army doing for so many years

what a pity,i think this country is cursed with corrupt babus politicos and even persons in armed forces.

there were people on BRF who were vociferous that inferior arjun tanks were shoved through army throat,where are they now.

And i am surprised how can a government so blatantly mislead the parliament by hiding actual total cost of a T-90?

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 09 Feb 2010 10:12

Ajai Shukla knows about tanks because he is an ex tanker.

He was against the Arjun as so many others (he had a huge row here on BRF). Arjun then is not in the same avatar as the Arjun now, if the media reports are to be believed.

It is like the Tata Indica which when initially sold. It sounded more like a truck and its doors rattled. Today, the Indica is a runaway success since the glitches have been removed.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 09 Feb 2010 10:33

even when Col Shukla was posting here (end 2006, early 2007 ?) it was more than apparent that the basic design was robust and superior to that of the T-90 (no wonder, it was designed to kill the T-72/T-90 type of tanks). the teething problems it had were by no means project-wrecking in magnitude, in fact the T-90 had far more problems even after it was inducted by the army. did the arjun suddenly become pauper to prince within a period of 12 months ? we all know that kind of progress is impossible in a complex military project.

one wonders how much a factor BR had in opening his eyes to the reality of arjun. mind, we did have some very knowledgeable people on tanks here back then, JCage, abhisam etc to name a few.

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 09 Feb 2010 10:38

And as per reports T-90 still has some of those problems.

negi · Post by **negi** » 09 Feb 2010 10:49

It is one thing to find faults with the design and another to not extend support to the programme by not buying huge stakes in the project ; toothing problems are part of development and induction of complex weapons platforms what is expected from the services is instead of being agnostic to the process and working in what we call reactive mode they need to be part of the programme at a level to ensure its success . A more involved working model will be beneficial for the IA for it would help it in the long run in maintenance , insitu fixes in the field and MLUs.

Products like Leo2, M1 Abrams or T-90 have been possible not only due to the engineering prowess shown by these respective countries but also due to a strong support by their government and the army , it is the years of use and constant up gradation based on user's feedback that these tanks are now a benchmark for a modern MBT .

If IA needs a tank built for its needs and as per it's GSQRs then it has to endorse and support the Arjun programme there is a reason why India is not buying the same single seater version of PAKFA as the RuAF but a two seat version with as much Indian input as our MIC is capable of.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 09 Feb 2010 11:11

yes it may not be the same "arjun".

That is the whole point- its called iterative development.

and yes when the Tata vehicle came out , it was dissed like hell and mainly by insiders. They used to say " a truck maker should not make cars" and sneer.

But RT stuck to his guns , recalled vehicles, fixed the design and got it back on the road to make it the hit it is today.

This was by the way nothing new- Toyota , Mitsubishi etc do it all the time. when they do it Indians sit up and say , wow what industrial culture!. when an Indian company/ org does it - Bah ! here go those...

The point is - Indians and this case some within the establishment where only too ready to diss the tank outright.
There's no point denying this now. The commitment to indigenisation is much greater today.

There is no point talking about "emergency" either because you are still plugging on with the same T-72s and a modest improvement of that design called the T-90 which as we can see had a lot of problems when the contingency buy was made.

Today the situation is that you have not got in T-90s yet in the number that you need , but you have a superior machine called the Arjun which by the admission of even die hard army types is ready now.

so let us all come to the present and start inducting this tank.

If the Army needs a "comfort zone" ( doctrine, logistics yada yada) , keep inducting T-90s but also show your commitment to indigenisation. by ordering atleast 376 more Arjuns which is apparently the requirement for DRDO et al to break even on this project.

this country is all about the "middle path"- so there's your middle path. and the today India can actually afford to tread it.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Feb 2010 11:35

I figure if we can protect them from ATGM/gunships using appropriate terrain cover and tunguska units, even small groups of T90/Arjun if deployed to north sikkim and ladakh can make life very difficult for attacking columns of IFVs, light tanks, M113 types, golf carts and segways. they would be able to detect, id and kill a lot of targets at night at a rate of fire much faster than ATGM namica'ish vehicles. 10 seconds for the first 3 shots isnt unheard for in Abrams (1st round already in the gun).

the ammo loadout can be modified for HEAT/HE I suppose.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 09 Feb 2010 12:13

Singha wrote:.....<SNIP> even small groups of T90/Arjun if deployed to north sikkim and ladakh can make life very difficult for attacking columns of IFVs, light tanks, M113 types, golf carts and segways. they would be able to detect, id and kill a lot of targets at night .......<SNIP>...

Singha, please to read up on the war in Ladakh in 1962 and how couple of AMX-13 (there were 8 in all from 20 Lancers) and 25 Pounders (13 Field Regiment) took a heavy toll of the PLA during battle of Chusul. Of course, PLA did not have CBF but the importance of tanks cannot be under estimated. What CBF can you mount against a mobile armored force.

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 09 Feb 2010 12:20

based on the Paki viewpoint about using the small kt nukes on the cold start formations when things on their end fail, assuming they are in a position to use nukes, consider these,

kanchan armor for conventional warfare +
heat shield withstanding 3500C temps in case of nuke burst within 1/4 km of the tank position +
the space cabin with thermal protection system that is being designed for the vyomanauts to survive those reentry temps

elements of the above can be used to create a crew survivable tank out of Arjun?

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 09 Feb 2010 12:41

Rahul M wrote:even when Col Shukla was posting here (end 2006, early 2007 ?) it was more than apparent that the basic design was robust and superior to that of the T-90 (no wonder, it was designed to kill the T-72/T-90 type of tanks). the teething problems it had were by no means project-wrecking in magnitude, in fact the T-90 had far more problems even after it was inducted by the army. did the arjun suddenly become pauper to prince within a period of 12 months ? we all know that kind of progress is impossible in a complex military project.

one wonders how much a factor BR had in opening his eyes to the reality of arjun. mind, we did have some very knowledgeable people on tanks here back then, JCage, abhisam etc to name a few.

First of all, it is presumptuous and self gloating to assume that experts in their fields are impressed and influenced by public forums! It is like expecting Montek, Pranab and MMS drawing up the future of India based on the opinions extended in the public forums. Amusing, to say the least.

That apart, yes, in 12 months much can be done if there is pressure on ones reputation and expertise. Those who have some experience of the DRDO functioning would realise how they depend on annual funding for issues that are beyond the pale of their work! The Ramarao report is enough of an oblique reference.

Notwithstanding, the main problem with T 90s was the French Catherine thermal imaging (TI) camera, which gives the T-90's Belarussian (Peling IG-46) night sight its 3 km range and higher accuracy, is not "adequately tropicalised" and hence prone to malfunctioning in the extreme heat of the Rajasthan desert region, where temperatures inside the MBT routinely average between 55ºC and 60ºC. When one buys equipment ‘off the shelf’ such problems will surely arise.

Basically, a tank’s major components that enhance power and strength are few.

The critical systems are the Fire Control system, Ammunition, a laser rangefinder, ballistic computer, thermal imaging night sight, stabilized panoramic sight for the tank commander, and a secondary telescopic sight.

Designing parameters indicates that the LRF (integral to the gunner’s sight) should have a range of more than 10 km and a thermal imager, which can with a range of more than 5.5 km, should recognize a target at 4 km and identify targets at 2.5-3.5 km.

The Fire control system must have the ability to fire on the move and must have a probability of more than 98% First Shot hit ratio. Instead of developing a FCS from scratch, the DRDO being futile and time taking effort, they developed an existing FCS system from Elbit Israel. It has better range and identification features than T-90 (a T-90 has an identification range of 1.2-1.5 km, while an Arjun FCS has 2.5 km range).

The Arjun MBT power pack was a major problem. It was the German 1400 HP MTU 838 Ka 501Diesel engine, while even Leopard 2 uses a newer version, MTU mb 873 multi-fuel, 1500 hp engine. The engine did not meet the rigorous Indian environment successfully. It is obvious that the engine suits Indian arid conditions and is able to perform under extreme environmental conditions. The new engine should have an increased cruising range from 120 miles to 250 miles. The reason is simple since it is not a linear battle matrix. The CT, CG and CC have to encompass the battlefield as per the tactical milieu. This is really important and was indicated that it should be on the top of the agenda of DRDO. This, it is believed has been addressed.

The Armour of the Arjun, though was capable for taking on Pakistani MBTs, it is believed was not quite scratch. The armour and the silhouette of a battle tank should be capable of withstanding not only the direct fire of APFSDS, HEAT, HESH & various RPG rounds, but also the ATGMs , armed helicopters, ground attack aircraft, and cruise missiles.

An MBT with a low thermal signature and angular structure makes it harder for the enemy’s radars to detect it timely and eliminate it. This was another area of ‘interest’. In the future scenario, it is not just the threat from Pakistani Al Khalids and T-80Us, but also from M1A2, Leopard 2 etc. ERA and depleted uranium armour should also be developed for Arjun. It is learnt that ERA has been developed and deployed.

Active Area Defence System is an area that is critical to an MBT. It allows it to keep its relevance in the modern battlefield. Arjun has a new AADS from Elbit, Israel. ATGMs have been so successful that MBTs too are carrying them now; Arjun has successfully mounted a LAHAT ATGM, again from Israel with an option of also including Russian Shtora ATGM. Better AADS, communications and air defence gives tank, a chance to fire back at the nagging choppers above.

Indian Army has operated Russian equipment, and has neglected crew protection levels. This was due to buying Soviet Tanks off the shelf, which later cannot be redesigned to enhance crew protection arrangements.

In Arjun, the crew is protected from ammunition by the armour so in case of ammunition being hit doesn’t causes crew to meet death in a burning hell. It gives them precious time to escape and live to fight another day with a brand new tank.

Electronics on Arjun comprises of a 32-bit computer, integrated with a GPS and Battlefield Management System, FCS-TIF, and AADS. It has been developed by BEL, and the communications suite is from Marconi Communications and radar equipments from Thales SA. All these raise foreign components to about 70%, and so does the cost to about $ 4 million. When compared to others, like Pakistan, Al Khalid is nothing but Type 90 of China; they are just producing it in assembly line like we are doing with T-90S. T-80Us were bought off the shelf. European and US MBTs cost either same or more than an Arjun, but here we should look with an economist’s perspective. They have been in production for more than two decades and the present versions are based on the experience of those years. Therefore their cost has stabilized more or less, and has weathered the effect of inflation. Once Arjun enters production, and more upgrades come along with gained experience from the army and DRDO, its unit cost will stabilize or even reduce. A computer costs same as it used to 5 years ago, but now is faster, more powerful, and effective. Same phenomenon will happen with Arjun MBT in a lesser degree, unless we do not stop with constructive criticism, army is allowed to dictate changes and enhancements and more components are indigenously designed and produced.

Future plan, steadily localize the foreign components, starting from licensed production to reverse engineering (yes, Chinese are smart when they do this.), and ultimately develop own capability to design, build and implement our own major MBT components. Invest heavily in the Avadi Ordnance Factory so to increase it production capacity, better labor production management, and quality control. Above all, lay down export stipulations, for ex. For every two MBT army buys, one must be exported, this will put pressure on DRDO to make it products from second rate to the globally competitive. The end gainer will be the Indian Armed Forces.

Arjun has bloated dimensions, six cm more than officially laid stipulations. This means Arjun will be bulging 3 cms more on both sides of an Indian flat rail car. It might need broader rail cars and tank trailers. The bigger rail cars and trailers can carry T-72s and T-90s also. This is required because we are developing an MBT on the line of NATO strategy and not the Russian lineage. To achieve a paradigm shift, the complete chain of allied equipments for MBT has to be changed, and this change will not be exclusive catering to the armoured equipments of either the Russian or the western family, but to both. It will streamline the supporting elements of the armoured corps and reduce the problem of too many types of equipment of many origins. It creates huge material management problems in the event of a war. For the time being we can be inspired from milkmen who attach their milk cans on the windows Indian rail compartment windows, those cans sure do extend beyond 3 cms on each side. Be practical, where possible improvise.
In the end, after 7-8 years Indian Armored Corps should have more than 1000 Arjun Mk1 and Mk2 (preferably, 70% indigenous), 500 T-90S, and more than 2000 T-72 upgraded to the T-90 and Arjun standards. The Arjun MBT program and T-90 serial production will have numerous offshoots for the T-72 up gradation. I sincerely hope, we Indians cast cynicism aside and start thinking strategically. Just because Arjun has flaws and employs somewhat obsolete technology when compared to western tanks, it must not be terminated. An aspiring regional power must make its own big battle platforms like tanks, artillery guns, APCs etc. Merkava MBT of Israel had four versions, Mk 4 being the latest, and it still is not 100% indigenous, it has General Dynamic’s engine. No MBT with an exception of perhaps M1A2 can be said to be a fully homemade tank. Battle winning tanks are not made with egos; they are a clever mix of innovation and inspiration.

(comments are also based on inputs)

Therefore, the original is not the same as what is being fielded.

Only the blind will be dogmatic or conjure conspiracy theories.

It is also the uninitiated who do not understand field trails and the issues that crop up by extensive use.

How come the INSAS magazine was changed even after years of introduction?

Was the INSAS a useless weapon when the trials were held and was the magazines fault detected later in HAA?

There is no doubt it is great fun to be armchair critics and debunk the Forces, the Govt, the DRDO!

One has to be in their seat to realise the reality!

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 09 Feb 2010 13:24

BFAT (Be Fat

) is already in service.

Passion of the Arjun tank

Venu · Post by **Venu** » 09 Feb 2010 14:35

RayC Sir and Uddu,

My heart has become lite after reading your posts. Thanks!

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 09 Feb 2010 15:00

First of all, it is presumptuous and self gloating to assume that experts in their fields are impressed and influenced by public forums! It is like expecting Montek, Pranab and MMS drawing up the future of India based on the opinions extended in the public forums. Amusing, to say the least.

come to think of it, it's not that presumptuous after all. when I wrote BR I meant the knowledgeable folk I mentioned by name and those I didn't, the credit goes to them alone and not automatically to everyone who posts on BR.
some of these gentlemen are "experts in their field" and the mere fact that they post on a public forum doesn't make their viewpoints any less authoritative.
you yourself are a fine example of that. does the mere fact of your posting on a public forum negate the weight and credibility of your statements as a retd army Officer ? I don't think so.

as for the arjun, it certainly didn't change overnight into something else. it's current iteration is along expected lines. arjun arrived at its current state according to the roadmap envisaged in late 90's and executed subsequently. there was no "stroke of genius" that suddenly transformed the arjun one fine morning in december 2007.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 09 Feb 2010 16:07

Rahul M; the idea about a public private partnership in tank making is certainly a good idea, if pushed Mahindra (say) can source tech from outside as well.

But we see too little of those moves, and that is what is certainly worrying and not a good portent -- that is what I mean about where the real debate should be -- and I would maintain that those moves are well outside the ambit of IA (as they should be)

----

added later

And to reiterate the following plan looks very good.

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2010/02/ ... arjun.html

Can the DRDO + Avadi do it? It calls for a lot from them too? IA just has to accept here.

This is where we should see MoD push! Do we see it? No? What do we see? Bickering over T 90 and Arjun even in the establishment. Fratricide.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 09 Feb 2010 17:13

Even as the industry is looking for opportunities in the defence sector in view of the policy reforms, the Indian Army has shown preference for indigenous technology for its battlefield manage¬ment system, the Vice Chief of Army Lt. Gen. M.L. Naidu said on April 8.

“The battlefield depends on the information systems as much as on the weapon systems. It is important that the Army procures cut¬ting edge technology available indigenously to create a win-win situation for both the armed forces and the Indian industry,” Naidu said at a seminar on Battlefield Management System (BMS) in New Delhi.
BMS

Ajai Shukla's blog posted by Sanku should be read by all those who are interested in knowing the situation.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 09 Feb 2010 23:50

"70% of Arjun tank has Foreign components." ~ here's a bright

If the Germans provide us with a piece of shit (for the lack of better word) MTU, why not tie up with TATA?? I mean afterall they OWN Jaguar/Land Rover and we all know LR has built many military vehicles/trucks. Their current Range Rover HSE model (USA) has 500 or 550 ponies, I'm sure with a year or two of DEDICATED R&D and FUNDS TATA can build a MTU with ATLEAST 1500 HP if not more replicating INDIAN enviorment, road and weather conditions. That will help the ARJUN's with A)Indegenious MTU thereby reducing the costs of importing the German MTU, B ) Better RANGE, increasing Fuel Efficieny keeping the Enviorment in mind and C) better HP/WEIGHT ratio, suspensions and Ride quality.

I wish someone seriously consulted BRFites as consultants for Defence related Products

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 10 Feb 2010 00:16

Craig Alpert wrote:"70% of Arjun tank has Foreign components." ~ here's a bright

If the Germans provide us with a piece of shit (for the lack of better word) MTU, why not tie up with TATA??

IIRC there was news that Kirloskar is already making an engine. Apparently prototypes were made and tested on a test bench

Sagar G · Post by **Sagar G** » 10 Feb 2010 00:31

Craig Alpert wrote: If the Germans provide us with a piece of shit (for the lack of better word) MTU, why not tie up with TATA?? I mean afterall they OWN Jaguar/Land Rover and we all know LR has built many military vehicles/trucks. Their current Range Rover HSE model (USA) has 500 or 550 ponies, I'm sure with a year or two of DEDICATED R&D and FUNDS TATA can build a MTU with ATLEAST 1500 HP if not more replicating INDIAN enviorment, road and weather conditions. That will help the ARJUN's with A)Indegenious MTU thereby reducing the costs of importing the German MTU, B ) Better RANGE, increasing Fuel Efficieny keeping the Enviorment in mind and C) better HP/WEIGHT ratio, suspensions and Ride quality.

IIRC DRDO is? working on a 1500HP diesel engine for Arjun and also a gas turbine variant.