Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 04 Mar 2010 13:51

Rahul has said it,that the T-90S was a further development of the T-72,which was in service with the IA in large numbers and the easiest to induct (similar 3 man crew).Moreover,production in Russia ensures us that the required numebrs can be attained even if local production slips or more are needed,just as we are seeing with the SU-30MKIs.The larger Arjun with a 4 man crew is based upon western tank designs,while future T-95 FMBTs are to have still larger 152mm main guns and a 3-man crew with the auto-loader,crew supposedly in a turretless armoured capsule,making it even smaller in profile.Wanting standardisation as afr as possible,I can't see the IA wanting to induct large numbers of Arjun which as of now has no clear future roadmap unlike the Russian T-series.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 04 Mar 2010 13:51

flame deleted.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 04 Mar 2010 13:53

Just adding to the fun here (posting inline since not large)

A Merk here
http://www.independence05.com/blog/uplo ... 785731.jpg

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 04 Mar 2010 13:55

one-line flame deleted.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 04 Mar 2010 13:55

RayC wrote:Rahul M,

Saw the damaged tanks in Jamwal's post?

How did those happen?

Delete them and be happy that the USA is the best!

How is it that the over vilgilant Admins and Mods are allowing you to suppress the truth?

why don't you answer yourself how that happened ?

also ask the ex-COAS what would have happened if this was a t-series.

How is it that the over vilgilant Admins and Mods are allowing you to suppress the truth?

because I'm doing no such thing. you are however massively derailing this thread.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 04 Mar 2010 13:58

Sanku wrote:Just adding to the fun here (posting inline since not large)
.............

may I ask what is the relevance ? or are you just derailing this thread because it is fun ?

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 04 Mar 2010 14:00

We should list out the causalities in the tanks. A tank is likely to be blown up. But, did the western tanks save their occupants or the Russian tanks.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 04 Mar 2010 14:01

rohitvats wrote:
The only action the IA needed to take was to induct the tank and then go about giving feedback on incremental improvements rather wanting a super-duper tank from word go. And not trying to find faults where none existed.

That's a completely generic statement

IA did induct the tanks in 1999-2000; and did give feed back in the form of AUCRT and prior tests etc. All the Arjun feedback IS from Army, DRDOs has no tank operation or test group experience it has improved Arjun by working with IA.

Faults are clearly cataloged and jointly agreed on. They are in CAG and parliamentary reports. Even DRDO accepts them.

You will have to do better than the previous statement

Rahul M wrote:may I ask what is the relevance ? or are you just derailing this thread because it is fun ?

Trying to highlight that dramatic pictures of lost tanks can be found for western tanks too. Since this is a Armored vehicle discussion thread and we were discussing the extent of damages in a visual form

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 04 Mar 2010 14:05

Rahul , you did not mention about the other options which we had at the time of T 90 induction.

personally i feel, there were very good reasons to induct T 90's in the past.

vina.... quite agree with your analysis. that the fight is about the NEXT round of orders.

RayC... what is the latest IA's thinking / assesment of Arjun if indeed this topic came up for discussion in your private conversations with folks.. pl do share it if it is not confedential !

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 04 Mar 2010 14:07

At the risk of jumping astride a running train (to paraphrase a Delhi adage!), my two pence on why IA is so recalcitrant on the Arjun:

1. Extreme cynicism about the production rate/quality of Avadi. Whether T90 or Arjun, Avadi cant churn them out in big enough numbers, and in acceptable quality terms..But at least T90s can be imported in case Avadi doesnt deliver, but Arjuns cant..So stick with something with better "visibility" of induction...

2. Doctrinal laziness..The Arjun will require massive changes to the way IA conducts tank warfare..From operating "small" tanks with low silhouettes and nimble movement to operating large MBTs with massive armour protection - even for an armchair enthusiast like me, I can think of numerous operational changes (how far to engage the enemy from, redesigning the entire logistics train etc etc)...Given that the threat from Pak is another T72 clone, IA feels that its not worth its while to take the time, effort and money to change over to a different doctrine...Of course, it indicates a conservative, lazy approach, but then militaries are known to be conservative in their approach..

any talk of "lives being lost on account of an unproven "non-best" tank" etc is bunkum - all tech is unproven, even after decades of operation...Vina has encapsulated this quite well in a post a couple of pages back..

My take on the endgame? I dont think Arjun has a future beyond the 124 (or 248, whatever the number now) ordered...the baggage of history is just too much...If I were the "tank developer" in DRDO, I would do the following things:

1. Start an immediate dialogue with IA for an FMBT project
2. Be clear on the GSQRs, and get the IA to sign up on it in blood
3. Engage a pvt sector vehicle major (Tata, Ashok Leyland, M&M, someone) at the first stage itself to act as the development/production partner....With a commitment to award the FMBT order to that partner in case it meets IA requirements..(I would have loved to have a US-style two vendor competition, but dont think we have enough money for two dev projects)..
4. Last but not least, stop whining about IA not ordering enough Arjuns...The IA has been bull headed and downright stupid on this issue (and to me the biggest issue is building a nationa MIC), but one can piss off one's sole customer only up to a point..Beyond that, it becomes counterproductive...

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 04 Mar 2010 14:09

may I ask what is the relevance ? or are you just derailing this thread because it is fun ?

Trying to highlight that dramatic pictures of lost tanks can be found for western tanks too. Since this is a Armored vehicle discussion thread and we were discussing the extent of damages in a visual form

I didn't understand we were playing a game of one upmanship here ! you yourself know very well the context of those images and yet you are posting as if the T-72BM case and this one is equivalent.

everyone is aware of the fact that large IEDs are the death knell of any tank, the abrams picture jamwal posted was a very famous one because the 60 tonne tank was literally blown away into the sky, it's not easy to do that !

how many soldiers died when the merkavas were written-off in that close urban battle ? what is the corresponding ratio for the t-series ?

and let me point out that in each of those cases the turret is still intact, unlike the T-72 where it is blown to smithereens.

niran · Post by **niran** » 04 Mar 2010 14:11

for the life of me, i do not understand the merit of posting and linking
pictures. more useful and appropriate should have been the
after action report, if it is available, to perform a postmortem
and form a opinion regarding the safety of various MBTs
Armed forces of the world uses.

if some understand this please inform me.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 04 Mar 2010 14:14

Rahul M is a goodman.

He has to prove that western tanks are the best and everything else is junk.

I am glad he had not deleted Jamwal's link as he has deleted my posts and then acting cute like a cat who has drunk the milk!

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 04 Mar 2010 14:16

The pictures of damaged Abrams are from Iraq where majority of kills were from IEDs laid like landmines. The tank took impact on their base, the weakest part and expectedly, the damage was extensive as visible in 1st 2 pics that Sanku jee posted

In Indian service, the major threats to tanks are anti-tank weapons wielded by regular army of Pakisatan or China, not ambushes by IEDs. An IED with sufficient amount of explosives can open up any tank irrespective of the protective armour it carries.

Here are pictures of an Abrmas from my previous that suffered an armour piercing round

http://data.primeportal.net/m1_iraqp/m1 ... cf0093.jpg

http://data.primeportal.net/m1_iraqp/m1 ... cf0093.jpg

Now look at the pictures of T-72 tanks destroyed by anti-tank shells or missiles for comparison

I've been unable to find pictures or information regarding effecto of a similar IED on a T series tank. But you can compare the effect of conventional weapon on two tanks by these pictures.

Edit: When i posted pictures of damaged Abrams, I assumed that most posters will realise that these are from Iraq (IED damage ) onlee. Also I took for granted the assumption of amount of damage on a lighter, less armoured T-72, T-90 by similar means. Reading the posts that were written when I was busy searching for pictures of damaged T-72s made me realise that I needed to add more info.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 04 Mar 2010 14:18

and let me point out that in each of those cases the turret is still intact, unlike the T-72 where it is blown to smithereens.

Any idea how?

That it the million dollar me!

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 04 Mar 2010 14:20

manjgu wrote:Rahul , you did not mention about the other options which we had at the time of T 90 induction.

because we won't have needed other options without IA acting stepmotherly towards the arjun. as for options, leo2, chally, leclerc were all better options than T-90.

personally i feel, there were very good reasons to induct T 90's in the past.

perhaps true for the initial batch only, consider it as T-72 upgrades but certainly not for subsequent batches.

I hate to name-drop but talking of COAS, I've had extensive discussions with an ex-COAS who also happens to be an armoured corps officer and much of my understanding comes from his views. sadly I'm out of touch with him for about a year now, after he suffered from a serious health ailment.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 04 Mar 2010 14:20

As I said before to our in house tank expert, nothing is safe!

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 04 Mar 2010 14:23

Somnath; I agree with a lot that you have said in the post above, except that, any future move will also HAVE to be based on Arjun; because it is THE platform that CVRDE has most experience with.

I also think that IA will despite the bad blood and baggage of history, give Arjun (Mk I, II, III) a chance (partially a aresult of current good status and MoD pressure), but Avadi HAS to perform or things will get bogged down again.

Rahul M -- I am not playing any games, I am only trying to show that the western design philosophy is "not invulnerable" by any long chalk either.

Also protection is as much a function of armor as it is the function of agility, being able to hide and move quickly.

There is always a trade off between crew safety and cost, there is no golden solution, people chose different points on the trade off curve, does not mean that they dont care for the soliders or that is not the right solution. It only means that the person optimizing it found that point worthwhile.

Jamwal -- The T 90 is definitely better protected than T 72 especially the older ones. I will try and find pics for the tests on T 90. I believe they are not as dramatic.

However as I said before, it is often a choice on the trade off point where many other factors get in the play. Just like in WWII the Allies went with lighter tanks even against Panthers et al and still did reasonably well for what they wanted.

vina · Post by **vina** » 04 Mar 2010 14:24

Wanting standardisation as afr as possible,I can't see the IA wanting to induct large numbers of Arjun which as of now has no clear future roadmap unlike the Russian T-series

That is easy. Between the T-Series and the Arjun, the only roadmap the 'T series' has is the grave yard. The T 90 is the last of the series. The new Russian tank will be a brand new 60Ton class tank.

Err.. That will throw the entire logistics and supply chain and leverage of existing facilities (service and manufacturing) out of the window. So the choice is are you going to sign up with a wholly unproven, brand new Russian concept or are you going to improve the Arjun to MKII standards and take it further.

Just liked what the Israeli General (was it Isreal Tal) said in the Armor conf in Delhi the Army is said to have organized. "Unfortunately, like religious fundamentalists, some people dont believe in the theory of evolution"

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 04 Mar 2010 14:32

RayC wrote:Rahul M is a goodman.

He has to prove that western tanks are the best and everything else is junk.

I am glad he had not deleted Jamwal's link as he has deleted my posts and then acting cute like a cat who has drunk the milk!

I didn't delete jamwal's posts because there was no reason to. he wasn't making banal posts, unlike some.

one example is right here.

RayC wrote:
and let me point out that in each of those cases the turret is still intact, unlike the T-72 where it is blown to smithereens.
Any idea how?

yes, for the n-th time, because ammo is stored in the turrets which blow up and consequently the tanks cook-off in case of a penetration.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 04 Mar 2010 14:48

^^^ The experience of Israel is slightly out-of-conetxt to us...Israeli armour has been traditionally heavy as they use it in built-up urban areas, and hence they have to have layers of steel to protect against short range missiles at extreme short range, IEDs etc..Our imperative has been a classical desert terrain tank warfare...

Unfortunately, cry as much as anyone here (or DRDO) does, IA isnt going to induct too many more Arjuns...The only "hope" is a new FMBT programme in-house...

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 04 Mar 2010 14:50

Rahul M -- I am not playing any games, I am only trying to show that the western design philosophy is "not invulnerable" by any long chalk either.

Also protection is as much a function of armor as it is the function of agility, being able to hide and move quickly.

granted !
and by what logic is the T-90 with a higher ground pressure and lower power/wt ratio than the arjun is more agile ? djinn magic ?

and we all saw during GW 1 and 2 how the ability to hide with low silhouette is useful in the modern battlefield when aircraft equipped with thermal senors are criss-crossing overhead. the low silhouette argument is more or less irrelevant, certainly so for the 3 inches difference between arjun and T-90.

There is always a trade off between crew safety and cost, there is no golden solution, people chose different points on the trade off curve, does not mean that they dont care for the soliders or that is not the right solution. It only means that the person optimizing it found that point worthwhile.

yes, everyone knows these things. unfortunately the T-90 is costly AND unsafe.

Jamwal -- The T 90 is definitely better protected than T 72 especially the older ones. I will try and find pics for the tests on T 90. I believe they are not as dramatic.

the modern T-72BM (there are actually two version by that name, the one T-90 is based upon is also known as model 1989 or something like that.) has better armour than the T-90, it has the relikt ERA as against the kontakt-5 on the T-90. it's fate too was the same in the gergia war. if you want I can link the relevant images.

However as I said before, it is often a choice on the trade off point where many other factors get in the play. Just like in WWII the Allies went with lighter tanks even against Panthers et al and still did reasonably well for what they wanted.

because of the industrial capacity, not because the tanks were better. western allies in particular paid a very heavy cost in terms of tanks and men against the german tank forces because of their lightly armoured tanks. the russians then had rightly, some of the most heavily armoured yet simple tanks.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 04 Mar 2010 15:04

I have this ex-tankers view.

1) Lot in army tanking community did not want t-90, including him. It was pushed down the throat. discipline is everything.
2) Most political class was against.
3) T-72 not satisfactory either.
4) Russians had an overwhelming superiority in the CIS wars. They operated the equipment in the climate it is meant to be and were close to their base.
5) The westerners operate in different climate after modification. They are far from home and short on the logistics that Russians enjoy in their small wars.
6) dire need for advanced technologies in the Tanks. Heat is very bad. need better operating environment.
7) Leadership in army has deteriorated. It used to be better before. The army traditions are not reflecting in "our" officer cadre.

he has not seen Arjun Tank only read about (that's how he once emailed me and we started getting in touch).
9) he feels that the controversy is unnecessary. If t-90 can be inducted, t-72 has been used for so many years, why can't Arjun be? He is yet to see a perfect tank.

jamwal · Post by **jamwal** » 04 Mar 2010 15:11

Sanku wrote:
Jamwal -- The T 90 is definitely better protected than T 72 especially the older ones. I will try and find pics for the tests on T 90. I believe they are not as dramatic.

However as I said before, it is often a choice on the trade off point where many other factors get in the play. Just like in WWII the Allies went with lighter tanks even against Panthers et al and still did reasonably well for what they wanted.

Allies used lighter tanks because they had no other option. Sherman, Vickers, T-26 etc were the only tanks that the Allies could mass produce during the war. Even then, they tried to introduce heavy tanks whenever they could, for example, Churchill.

Allied strategy was to overwhelm the qualitatively superior German forces with swarms of inferior/light tanks. Heavily armoured German Tiger tanks were a terror among Allied forces. Russians had the ingenious idea of using a sloped armour to keep the tanks light weight and still offer reasonable protection only in later stages of war. Before then, heavy German tanks were more successful than light allied tanks.
Lots of things have changed now

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 04 Mar 2010 15:11

chackojoseph wrote:I have this ex-tankers view.........<SNIP>

Can I drop you mail? Or alternately can you drop me a mail on rohitvats29.at.the.rate.google.com. Need some clarity on couple of data points.Thanx.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 04 Mar 2010 15:17

I sent a mail. If not recd, then u can mail me at frontierindia at g mail

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 04 Mar 2010 16:09

chackojoseph wrote:I sent a mail. If not recd, then u can mail me at frontierindia at g mail

Received it.Thanx. Have also replied.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 04 Mar 2010 16:34

jamwal wrote:
Sanku wrote:
Jamwal -- The T 90 is definitely better protected than T 72 especially the older ones. I will try and find pics for the tests on T 90. I believe they are not as dramatic.

However as I said before, it is often a choice on the trade off point where many other factors get in the play. Just like in WWII the Allies went with lighter tanks even against Panthers et al and still did reasonably well for what they wanted.

Allies used lighter tanks because they had no other option. .....

Granted there were tons of reasons why allies went in with lighter tanks.

Yet the point remains that they did and won the tank wars (with some help from other sources too)

The overall point is that there is no ONE and only ONE way of doing things, and ways and means are chosen based on tons of real world issues. Which at the same time does not mean that it is not the right way under the circumstances (though not textbook correct so to say)

Rahul M -- As you well know I have made a statement about general tank philosophy comparing various approaches. Specifically Arjun is a better protected tank with more features than T 90 and there is no doubt about that. In fact ALL the documents I posted also corroborate that. As such I think that the debate you are having is moot (I have always thought that and said so at every possible occasion)

In fact the ONLY niggling issues that have been talked about are
1) Quality, robustness etc, that is the final product living up to the design
2) Larger size and weight restricting the bridges it can cross and the streets it can move in yada yada -- it also has a slightly bigger baggage train as far as reports indicated.
(3) Ability to CVRDE to make continual improvements in time and have a ramp up path and also support any issues that are found by quick fixes etc, lower the cost of Arjun by further and continuous Indian content etc.

Now (2) is clearly a factor of design choice and if you want a more heavily armored tanks with multiple thingies it will be there -- so thats something the Army needs to incorporate in planning and training etc.

(1) Appears to be fixed now -- we shall see.

Finally (3) is not a topic of debate; it is something that you trust CVRDE with or you do not -- clearly there is a difference in IAs perception and DRDO/yours here, and I personally would go with IAs perception, but this is a issue that MoD has to take a command decision on.

MoD also has to ensure any fears that IA has on (1) and (3) are suitably addressed by its sister arms.

Finally I am a big time supporter of Indian products as you well know.

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

PS> As of 2007 Parliamentary report Arjun is more expensive than T 90 and also because of the imported content does not mean that a lot of that money is spent in house. Please check that report.

sunilUpa · Post by **sunilUpa** » 04 Mar 2010 16:45

somnath ji,

What you wrote makes lot of sense and I agree that Arjun will not be inducted in significant numbers (>500).

The achilles heel of all defence projects is turning out to be the production part! May for FMBT DRDO should tie up with some Russian agency.

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 04 Mar 2010 17:10

sunilUpa wrote:The achilles heel of all defence projects is turning out to be the production part! May for FMBT DRDO should tie up with some Russian agency.

< scram>we should out source our defence to Russians or western countries that ways we will not have any issues</scram>

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 04 Mar 2010 17:13

Sanku wrote: PS> As of 2007 Parliamentary report Arjun is more expensive than T 90 and also because of the imported content does not mean that a lot of that money is spent in house. Please check that report.

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2010/02/ ... ur-of.html

No reasons were given for that delay. Nor did the Ministry of Defence (MoD) reveal the T-90’s ballooning cost, now a whopping Rs 17.5 crore. On November 30, 2006, the MoD told the Lok Sabha that the T-90 tank cost Rs 12 crore apiece. Parliament does not yet know about the 50 per cent rise in cost.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 04 Mar 2010 17:22

Rahul M
I will wait for the parliament to know, Col Shukla is not the final source in these matters.

I will also wait for the final price of Arjun when the new price of T 90 is explained.

I will also compare their specs, then.

Right now the comparison points are all over the place -- and as I said, Col Shukla is an interesting source, but he has been wrong before

so no need to take him as definitely correct now.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 04 Mar 2010 17:28

Famous Russian joke,now applicable to western armies in Iraq too.

Grandfather ,who fought in the Great War,asks grandson what he learnt from Chechenya.Grandson,"I learnt that tanks can fly"!

In modern warfare,tank losses have been due to the foll. factors mainly.The LTTE were the pioneers of the land mine or IED tactic.During the IPKF's sojourn there,massive mines were laid using oil drums,jerricans and finally the boles of coconut trees which were undetectable by metal detectors.In such situs,only flail tanks and robots can sanitise properly an area which is mined.The use of dogs to detect mines is another method of detection.In battle though,there are several methods by which they can be neutralised,one where chains with explosives are launched into a minefield to cut a path through it.Though much improved armour has been applied to tanks,they are still immune to newer RPGs with tandem warheads,used extensively in Iraq,Lebanon,etc.We have not seen much destruction from the air (aircraft and helos)apart from the two Gulf Wars in very one-sided operations,as the Iraqis were routed from the skies.Therefore,even in the future,ground forces using anti-tank RPGs,missiles and mines wil be the main assymetric methods of dealing with armoured columns.Large, heavy,lumbering species fom the past will be in "harm's way".In tank battles,the ability to get off the first shot at greater range and possess hard and soft kill sensors and systems will be vital.Therefore the designers seem to be looking towards even larger tank guns.If the DRDO does not come up with an Arjun Mk-2 version fairly soon,the window of opportunity,which is already tiny, will close indefinitely as new FMBT designs start rolling out from Russia and the west.

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 04 Mar 2010 17:58

Rohitvats - The figure of 1500 is the total of MBT as taken by WIKI. I have been proved wrong.. Thanks to you and Rahul... However of 3500 tanks, what is the proportion of MBT.. Wiki gives around 1500. Rest all are magach based on M 60 Patton

Guys - Let us not get personalize while discussing any thing.

The question is not T 90 versus western tanks. The question is T 90 versus Arjun...

T 90 is good enough to taken on anything that TSP will throw at us. But how is arjun? can't it take on TSP? If no, reject it, but if yes why not induct it in good numbers

Arjun passed thru hardest form of assessment right.. It is claimed that arjun took a direct hit from T 72 from point blank and still survived. Was such test also done for T 90? I hope so..
Arjun electronics were tested in the scorching heat of Rajasthan and on failing was asked to get hardened electronics? Why aircon would not have suffice for arjun like it is for t 90? Was such test conducted for T 90? I dont think so else we would not have raised the issue RPF for aircon now after 9 years

with all the defects still unsolved, successive order of all t 90 were placed to the extent it will end up over 1600 tanks. why the same policy of progressive correction not followed in case of Arjun

With all the issues now ironed out in case of arjun (most of the post even of sanku and Ray C agrees to this point), What is the problem in inducting them now in good numbers? It is this question that has raised most agitation which is seen in last couple of pages. History of discrimination would have been given deep burial in the trashcan if now IA inducts Arjun in good number. The fact that arjun will not be top notch after in next 10 years is equally applicable for T 90 as well.

With respect to AVADHI not able to churn out tanks in big numbers

If this is the problem, how t 90 is shielded against it? MOD and IA should have disbanded Avadhi and change the production agency... The argument that in T 90 there is option to get off the shelf is not done. Who will pay for TOT cost of producing tanks if we are to get it off the shelf only? Why didn't MOD and IA proactively engaged or tried to engage some other production agency?

with respect to lot of foreign components in Arjun
Even with all foreign components it is more indigenous than t90. we can upgrade it as we want. t 72 are not updated as on date.... Reasons may be anything but if it was arjun it would not have been the case

Unproven machine
When LCA will be inducted, will it be proven? How will FGFA / MCA be proven when inducted? Arihant or IAC?

Arjun is Suicidal as it is not proven
When even M1 are blown up, how are we sure that T 90 or Arjun will not be suicidal against anti tank warfare. Moreover, How arjun compares with T 72? is it better than t 72 or here too it is inferior? If over 1500 T 72 can remain in service and still we don't worry about safety of the crew riding it, why such comments when it is Arjun in spite of it equipped with TI, Night fighting, different ammunition compartment etc?

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 04 Mar 2010 18:32

If you want to see an IED effect on the the T series

Look at BRs IPKF section

Thats the diff we have been talking about - generally the M1. Merk crews survive. The T series almost never do

RKumar · Post by **RKumar** » 04 Mar 2010 18:41

^^ nrshah, very good post. It hits where pains the most

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 04 Mar 2010 18:48

Comparign T90 and Arjun endlessly is getting a bit boring now...Quite frankly, the equipment is a result of doctrinal choices (though in the Indian military, its often the other way round)..T90 is the result of a mix of doctrinal choices made...

A more interesting discussion can be w.r.t the type of armour capability we would need in the future, keeping in mind the doctrinal necessicities..For example, what sort of armour capability best suits uor Cold start doctrine..What is the likely upgrade path of Pak armour?

As for Arjun, as I said before, I think it is a "dead" project beyond whats been ordered....But if DRDO plays it smart, key tech from Arjun will be invaluable in designing the FMBT which can be fully indigeneous..

Asit P · Post by **Asit P** » 04 Mar 2010 18:51

nrshah wrote:
with respect to lot of foreign components in Arjun
Even with all foreign components it is more indigenous than t90. we can upgrade it as we want. t 72 are not updated as on date.... Reasons may be anything but if it was arjun it would not have been the case

Exactly. We also needs to understand that 100% of the money used for purchasing T 90 goes outside the country, thereby reducing our economic size. But in case of Arjun, not 100% of Indian money goes outside India.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 04 Mar 2010 18:55

As for Arjun, as I said before, I think it is a "dead" project beyond whats been ordered....But if DRDO plays it smart, key tech from Arjun will be invaluable in designing the FMBT which can be fully indigeneous..

sorry but fat chance of that happening, never mind what DRDO-walas come up with ! in fact they have a better chance of selling to the russian army than they have of selling to the IA.

I agree with your assessment that arjun is more or less dead and few if any further orders are going to materialise.

in the meantime IA has successfully funded the next gen MBT for russia at the expense of its own soldiers. grand success indeed !

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Mar 2010 18:57

>> key tech from Arjun will be invaluable in designing the FMBT which can be fully indigeneous..

I can 3000% guarantee if India doesnt deploy a sizeable number of Arjun, and continue to
improve it in tranches like the western/israel did, India will NEVER again design and build a indigenous tank. at best we would be able to supply a few add-ons to a foreign tank like we did for MKI or our IN ships. and I am not even talking about the 1500hp engine which I know we cannot do in foreseeable future unless Telco buys out MTU.

the key people and knowledge will be lost in short order and there will be nobody to groom
and train the next generation of designers and nothing for them to work on.

finding people to design these beasts is harder than placing an ad in TOI "Ascent". people
in india involved in core automotive design is not much....and civilian sector pays better....perhaps tata/mahindra can be utilized for FMBT but they need arjun work NOW to ramp up.