Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 05 Mar 2010 22:45

btw, the only way T-90 can have acceptable levels of protection is to give it an upgrade of the tank-ex type, get rid of the firetrap turret and put in the modified arjun turret. other than better protection levels it will also have the added advantages of the highly accurate and lethal arjun's main gun which can fire HESH (which the T-90 can't) and of course anything else the T-90 does.
future upgrades will also be easier.

if we want we can renegotiate with the russians that all future T-90's will be of this type and the supply deal has to be modified accordingly.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 05 Mar 2010 22:45

Surya wrote:I think Rohit we need to repeat it every 24 hrs

else after a few months a senior officer will blabber something and all this will start over oagin

In the meantime Rohit can we zip all reports in one place.

Or may be post with all links together

that's a very good idea. may be we can put it up in a blog ?
alternatively, we were thinking of a FAQ type section for a number of projects/defence forces in general and so on. this is doable I think.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 05 Mar 2010 22:51

Thanks Gentlemen, Rahul, Joseph and everyone for confirmation and the clarification.

I was going through the archives. Manytimes i listened from people like you, how certain IA officers positioned themselves in strategic position stonewalled the Arjun project. Poor me i have to now jog my memory and search documents and internet to see myself how that was happened. In corruption cases, there were situations where investigating officer says, we know very well he is the culprit, but technically he positioned himself so well that we cant legally prove he is the one. In a similar way, going through this incident, if one is not technically able to discern, it is how easy one can be fooled. I hope let this be the case of what Joseph describes as left doesnt know what right says. But considering the overall picture, i'm not able to let go easy of this. If one is determined, he can definitely make complications in the completion of the project.

rohitvats wrote:We're told that the summer trials are to evaluate the operational role for Arjun. Well, hello, goodmorning and smell the coffee. Here is an MBT designed as per your(IA) specification, you raised heaven and hell because it did not meet the specs and GSQR, delayed its induction till it met the gold standard and now, you need to have trials to find out what role the tank can play? Can it get more stupid than this. On what basis was the GSQR drafted then?...
And for god's sake, why does it need to be compared with T-90 to find out its operational role? Who is the IA trying to bluff? An MBT is an MBT.

I like to say, Rohit hits the bull's eye. Normally, testing trend all over shows that scientific methods are created to reduce to time as well no. of tests as well cost involved in this. But, i dont know whether my reading is correct, i see, everytime Arjun was considered ready it was put on trials after trials and Arjun has run over several thousand km. If i'm not wrong, AUCRT kind of trials was conducted from 90s but it look so weird that IA still doesnt know the role of Arjun and further wanted to conduct more trials. If i'm right, even those trials are delayed, prolonged making Arjun team in waiting. Let say if this summer can be skipped under the excuse of logistics, then one has to wait for next summer to put the Arjun in trial, there by lengthening the time. And i feel more inclined to agree with what Broadsword Ajai says, the procurement of T-90s is a scandal.

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 05 Mar 2010 22:59

Rahul M wrote:btw, the only way T-90 can have acceptable levels of protection is to give it an upgrade of the tank-ex type, get rid of the firetrap turret and put in the modified arjun turret. other than better protection levels it will also have the added advantages of the highly accurate and lethal arjun's main gun which can fire HESH (which the T-90 can't) and of course anything else the T-90 does.
future upgrades will also be easier.

if we want we can renegotiate with the russians that all future T-90's will be of this type and the supply deal has to be modified accordingly.

Is it possible...
I mean its one thing integrate our avionics into an aircraft, but to change the whole turret( which i assume is the brain of tank) from theirs... and won't this entail a higher price for the T90 thus nullifying the benefit...

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 05 Mar 2010 23:00

T-90 (T-72BU) is hardly the epitome of a modern tank

Rahul, you assertion brought me to ask few questions. If it very well known upgradation of T-72B/BM with the fire control system of T-80U, its sights, 1000hp engine and added armour is T-90.

So why we went for the new T-90S ?

Cant the upgrade of our T-72M by adding engine, armour, with additional sights from western source could have made these as T-90? Will it not reduce the cost ? Instead of purchasing the new unit, upgrading the old one will be lesser, right ? If we consider T-90 as stop gap arrangement till Arjun comes through ?

As per this..upgradation cost will just half.

Russia had gone to their state-of-the-art tank, `Black Eagle', which is the tank of the future. T-72S, on the other hand, has many common features with 272M and the production of this tank can commence without much delay. All the add-ons of T-90 can be fitted into T-72S which has a tank fire control system, latest technology, 125 mm tank gun, 1000 horse power engine, anti-tank and anti-helicopter missile, SBIR and anti-tank guided missile protective system. With all these add-ons, T-72S has virtually become as good as T-90 and the cost is about Rs.5-6 crore, whereas T-90 is about Rs.12-13 crore.

Is there any plausible explanation ?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 05 Mar 2010 23:07

Surya wrote:I think Rohit we need to repeat it every 24 hrs

else after a few months a senior officer will blabber something and all this will start over oagin

In the meantime Rohit can we zip all reports in one place.

Or may be post with all links together

Surya, I'm actualy going one step further. I've downloaded all the Standing Committee on Defence(SCD) Reports from 1999 onwards. Each and every mention of the Arjun and Arjun programme has been captured. Next step is to compile them in one PDF document in chronological order. Chacko has done wonderful job of compiling the history of the Arjun Development programme and it should serve as a good reference material. However, in case the same is doubted(as has happened in last couple of pages), you've the official source. It is WIP but will get done sooner than later.

One thing is quite clear from my reading of the reports: Till March 2000 (when the indent for 124 tanks was placed), IA was involved even though only as a customer and not partner. Post that, from 2005 onwards when the Arjun began to be delivered (initially 5 and then 15), the tank has been subjected to one trial after another. As late as 2007, MOD told SCD tat Arjun had very minor defects...but did you see any enthusiasm from IA?

I'm also looking for the CAG Reports with details of Arjun programme.But post the 1997 Report, nothing seems to mention the Arjun programme. Will search more. If anyone has links, please help.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 05 Mar 2010 23:09

Ok to start of with which are the MOD reports which are available in full?

quotes would be next best

Kanson

That is what Col Kaul mentions

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 05 Mar 2010 23:10

Kanson wrote:

In 1999 the T-90 missile system was reported to have performed "poorly" during summer trials in the desert where it will eventually be deployed. Initially, the tank engines worked well, as the trials were being conducted at night. Problems, however, emerged once daytime trials began, with the power packs de-rating and at least one of three tank engines suffering extensive damage in high desert temperatures.

In one of the similar discussions, Igorr, another russian forum member, claimed, T-90 in its trial in India, ran successfully without any problem. And he also said, abt the youtube video available on this. But i'm not able to find one.

Can anyone confirm or contradict, through anyother source, the T-90S engines suffering extensive damage during the trial. Thanks.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 05 Mar 2010 23:10

ok

I will try and rouse JC and ask him for help

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 05 Mar 2010 23:13

bala, haven't we done it already for the T-72 ? http://www.military-today.com/tanks/tank_ex.htm

modified arjun turret on T-72M1 chasis.

the T-90(T-72BU) and T-72M1 have nearly identical chasis, shouldn't be too difficult, especially when they have already done so for one T-72 version.
_________________________________

kanson, yes we can but the turret will have to be changed. the M1 and BM's turrets are different, as are the main guns. better to go for the arjun turret than the same problematic one.

btw, there are two T-72 versions called the T-72 BM, so don't get confused.

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 georgia war. if you want I can link the relevant images.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 05 Mar 2010 23:17

Can anyone confirm or contradict, through anyother source, the T-90S engines suffering extensive damage during the trial. Thanks.

confirmed.
posting again :
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 16#p833916

speaking of engines, the T-90's much vaunted 1000 hp engine can't generate more than 850hp {sustained I mean. a max of 900 hp is achievable temporarily} in real life, one can guess how 'agile and quick' it is. with its higher weight it is even more of a laggard than the T-72 ! was the parliament notified of it by the IA ?

did the T-90's perform to their brochure levels during trials ? or even close to the brochure claims ? did even one tank of the many tested have a trouble-free "by the books" trial ? how many had to have their engines replaced ? why did the IA gave go ahead to T-90 acquisition in large numbers even after none of the main sensors (either the TI or the commander/gunners NVD) worked to their satisfaction ?
why is the same or even comparable level of consideration conspicuously missing in the case of arjun ?

sanku ji, answers to these questions too are not given to the parliament and yet they are no less true. if you have anyone closely associated with the T-90 eval, please ask them these questions.

further, why are the sensors installed as black boxes on a "warranty void if seal broken" type of agreement and army maintenance people not allowed to access them ?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 05 Mar 2010 23:23

Surya wrote:ok

I will try and rouse JC and ask him for help

Man, how i miss? The thing is, so far i've personally relied on the reference material as on frontier.net and posts by members like JCage. If one goes though the archives on Arjun debate, the discussion is so technical and factual, that a large percentage of what has been said on the topic recently, wouldn't even pass as garbage.

It is only now that I have started collecting the material first hand and undertake primary research, if you will. But it has been a good learning. I'm yet to look up on the MOD Reports. The area of concern as of now is to document the progress of the Arjun program, production details and delivery+quantity timelines, IA feedback and DRDO response. The idea is to irrefutably prove that Arjun was and is available for large scale induction.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 05 Mar 2010 23:24

Rohit,Rahul,Chacko and Arjun followers

Someone jogged my memory on this

You want to know from where Lt Gen Shekawat is coming - read this
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2008/06/ ... -club.html

But the establishment was quick to strike back. Barely three months after that report, the commanding officer of 43 Armoured Regiment, Colonel D Thakur, was confronted by then Director General of Mechanised Forces, Lt Gen DS Shekhawat. Eyewitnesses describe how he was upbraided for “not conducting the trials properly”. But in a career-threatening display of professional integrity, Colonel Thakur’s brigade commander, Brigadier Chandra Mukesh, intervened to insist that the trials had been conducted correctly.

Anyone still care to back this horse??

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 05 Mar 2010 23:29

Kanson

That is what Col Kaul mentions

I'm sorry..not getting it and what he mentions ?

Rahul,

Thanks. What i'm trying to say/question is if we have brought the T-90S as against the T-80UD of Pakistan, by upgrading the our T-72M to "T-90" standards( by adding 1000 hp engine, ERA blocks, extra armour) cant we get the same mobility, protection? And T-90 is considered superior to T-80U.
Anyway T-90S operates western sights. We will be having the "T-90" by upgrading our T-72M at less the price than buying a new one, right ?

Have to check whether T-72 can be made to fire missiles like T-80U. Any Idea?

Edited to add more clarity.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 05 Mar 2010 23:30

Kanson

that if a officer from the Eastern tank philosophy took over - he pretty much scuttled progress on Arjun

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 05 Mar 2010 23:45

surya sahab, of course I remembered him. unfortuntely when the men at the top are not interested enough we have these problems. even one capable general can turn the IA's approach on its head, like ACM Major did for the IAF. although granted that IAF's case was never as bad as the IA.

kanson ji, that is the path we probably should have taken in stead of duping the nation that the T-90 is good enough as a next gen tank. even then, the best upgrade possible for the T-72 is the tank-ex. it is here that the duplicity of the top brass from mech forces is brought out most glaringly. for the tank-ex, even the reservations aired about the arjun doesn't apply, it marries the best of the arjun (protection/firepower/crew comfort etc) with what IA considers best of the T-72(existing logistics set-up, lower weight)

there is absolutely NO reason whatsoever why it wasn't accepted as the MLU for T-72.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 06 Mar 2010 00:16

the best upgrade possible for the T-72 is the tank-ex.

Can there be a second opinion, Rahul ?

that is the path we probably should have taken in stead of duping the nation that the T-90 is good enough as a next gen tank

I like to believe that T-90 purchase is a sham and CVC report confirms that.

850hp {sustained I mean. a max of 900 hp is achievable temporarily}

Any possiblity of putting a source for that ? yeah we know it is tractor engine. Any corrobarative one atleast?

Thanks Surya. Isnt Kaul was the first one to attribute the nickname "tin can" to T-72?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 06 Mar 2010 00:19

nope to your second question. feel free to disbelieve.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 06 Mar 2010 00:27

Rahul M wrote:nope to your second question. feel free to disbelieve.

Oh Rahul ji, this is not for convincing myself. The purpose is for anyone to come to his own conclusion by giving the source, particularly the failure in trails. While there were/are so many trials conducted for Arjun. There is one winter n summer trial for T-90 and if there is source for T-90 engine failure as CVC report mentiones which i linked in the earlier post, then we can very easily say T-90 purchase is a sham.

negi · Post by **negi** » 06 Mar 2010 00:35

Kanson for anything on T-72 family you can refer to Fofanov's page.

Here on tractor engine bit.

http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/EQP/v_diesels.html

Look at the 'specific power'.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 06 Mar 2010 00:41

negi sahab, specific power /= output power. I doubt we will get an open source confirmation for that figure, although the russians didn't hide this, once we had bought the tanks.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 06 Mar 2010 01:23

rohitvats wrote:
Surya wrote:ok

I will try and rouse JC and ask him for help
Man, how i miss? ........

you remind me of my time as a lurker. logging in every weekend just to check what a certain N... (later JCage) wrote on arjun.

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 06 Mar 2010 01:29

All differences aside, I would like to see a certain Brig. RayC back on this forum. His posts were always valuable, and in his time as a moderator, he was always moderate, to a fault, taking the time to patiently explain the truth to many who deserved no patience at all.

If he has been banned, I would like to know why.

negi · Post by **negi** » 06 Mar 2010 01:29

I did not imply that Rahul .

Anyways

http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/lsdeb/l ... 049924.htm

Fwiw

SHRI H.D. DEVEGOWDA : Sir, this is a serious matter. Please allow me to speak. Otherwise, it is going to be one-sided argument, which has been advanced in this booklet circulated to all the Members.

Sir, kindly see as to what plea the hon. Defence Minister had taken. In his reply, the Defence Minister had taken the plea that this was decided by the previous Government. Shri Mulayam Singh Yadav, as the Raksha Mantri, had gone to Moscow in October 1997. In November 1997, a meeting was held in the room of the Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister; so and so persons were present there. The Army Delegation evaluation performance of T-90 tanks was made in February 1998. The Technical Evaluation Report was given on the 25th of May, 1998. The visit of the Defence Secretary was made in June 1998. The Cabinet Committee on Security gave the approval in principle for the procurement of T-90 tanks on the 3rd December 1998. The date of arrival of the Russian Delegation for the Price Negotiation Committee meeting for T-90 tanks was on the 20th January 1999.

I raised this issue not because I have any interest of a particular tank. This was the issue raised by the Member of the very same House, who is also the Chairman of the Standing Committee. He wrote a letter to the Raksha Mantri on the 3rd November, 1998.

In that letter, he has categorically mentioned that T-90 tank is the state-of-the-art tank but it never came into production for reasons best known to the Russians. Therefore, the induction of these tanks cannot be done within the acceptable time frame in view of the absence of production line in Russia. To produce the same at Avadi will not be cost effective both in money and time taken for production to commence. Moreover, T-90 has never been trial evaluated in India in summer or winter. Russia has now gone to their state-of-the-art tank, `Black Eagle', which is the tank of the future. This was written by the Chairman of the Standing Committee who is also one of the officers who served in the Defence. Shri George Fernandes is not an expert. I am not an expert. Or Shri Mulayam Singh Yadav is not an expert. A person who has served in the Defence has written the letter to the Defence Minister on 3rd November, 1998. I would like to again, particularly, stress one point. He says, T-72S, on the other hand, has many common features with 272M and the production of this tank can commence without much delay. It is pertinent to clarify here that all the add-ons of T-90 can be fitted into T-72S which has a tank fire control system, latest technology, 125 mm tank gun, 1000 horse power engine, anti-tank and anti-helicopter missile, SBIR and anti-tank guided missile protective system. With all these add-ons, T-72S has virtually become as good as T-90 and the cost is about Rs.5-6 crore, whereas T-90 is about Rs.12-13 crore. This was the letter addressed by the Chairman of the Standing Committee.

In addition to that, there is one more letter written by Lieutenant-General Foley. What has he written? This is letter dated 6th June. The hon. Defence Minister should go through the letter which was written by a retired Army General whether we should go for T-90 or not. Yes, Shri Mulayam Singh went there somewhere in November, 1997. Yes, I have quoted the date. Subsequently, the Principal Secretary has taken the meeting. He has tried to shift the responsibility on all these things, including the initiation made by us. Who has initiated this purchase of T-90 tanks? It is the UF Government. Have they said anywhere you should not consider T-72? (Interruptions) No, Sir, this is the issue which I cannot avoid.

Jeeyo Pagla.

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 06 Mar 2010 23:05

Rahul M wrote:bala, haven't we done it already for the T-72 ? http://www.military-today.com/tanks/tank_ex.htm
the T-90(T-72BU) and T-72M1 have nearly identical chasis, shouldn't be too difficult, especially when they have already done so for one T-72 version.
_________________________________

Sir, its one thing to do it as a tech demonstrator and altogether a different thing to demand it to be serially produced by the OEM, as the post had indicated... We can go ahead with this solution for our CIA project may be...

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 06 Mar 2010 23:30

A quick question on Tank-Ex: Considering the fact the Arjun turret has been fitted to the T-72M1 hull.....does it mean that the diameter of the place where turret meets the hull (I don't know the technical name) is same for both the tanks? The reason I ask is, if they are not same, then the internal volume will be less in case of Tank-Ex and Arjun turret would have been modified for this aspect?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 06 Mar 2010 23:37

rohit, the turret was modified but I'm not aware of the specifics.

bala, please go easy on the sir. as for the production why should it be any more or less easy than the other projects ?

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 06 Mar 2010 23:42

rohitvats wrote:A quick question on Tank-Ex: Considering the fact the Arjun turret has been fitted to the T-72M1 hull.....does it mean that the diameter of the place where turret meets the hull (I don't know the technical name) is same for both the tanks? The reason I ask is, if they are not same, then the internal volume will be less in case of Tank-Ex and Arjun turret would have been modified for this aspect?

Its Arjun turret made to fit into T-72

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 06 Mar 2010 23:43

^^ btw, you were correct about the MCS in the youtube video.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 06 Mar 2010 23:45

Kakarat wrote:
rohitvats wrote:A quick question on Tank-Ex: Considering the fact the Arjun turret has been fitted to the T-72M1 hull.....does it mean that the diameter of the place where turret meets the hull (I don't know the technical name) is same for both the tanks? The reason I ask is, if they are not same, then the internal volume will be less in case of Tank-Ex and Arjun turret would have been modified for this aspect?
Its Arjun turret made to fit into T-72

errrr......I think I said the same....

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Mar 2010 23:47

I kind of doubt the arjun turret ring and T72 are of same size but stranger things have happened.

IA has never been fond of these israeli style jugaad mods though...we dont have any in
our inventory while IDF has heavily modded older shermans, pattons, merkavas and even captured T-series tanks into some useful role well past their sell-by date.

but than again IDF people seem to come back and directly lead projects in defence industries there

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 06 Mar 2010 23:52

Singha wrote:I kind of doubt the arjun turret ring and T72 are of same size but stranger things have happened.

IA has never been fond of these israeli style jugaad mods though...we dont have any in
our inventory while IDF has heavily modded older shermans, pattons, merkavas and even captured T-series tanks into some useful role well past their sell-by date.

but than again IDF people seem to come back and directly lead projects in defence industries there

The fact that Tank-Ex hold lesser rounds than Arjun (32 versus 39) is an indication of lesser volume....but the good thing is IA has recently asked for two prototype vehicles(?) of Tank-Ex for the T-72 upgrade program.....Oh! for crying out loud....we need more and better tanks and we need them now.......

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 06 Mar 2010 23:59

after 8 long years ! all the non-CIA T-72 versions could have been upgraded by now.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 07 Mar 2010 00:00

Singha

When I was looking at all the Israeli modified stuff I would feel regret that we did nto do more with our Centurions

I asked Israelis whether it was cost effective to do all this and they claim - yes

and we sold them as spares

negi · Post by **negi** » 07 Mar 2010 00:33

The turret on TANK-EX is smaller than that of Arjun (at least in height and length ) the front turret plate has been beveled and appears less boxy than the Arjun , I am inclined to believe it is the turret ring whose diameter was altered to mate with with the T-72 hull as former is of Indian make and was designed around the T-72 hull .

ParGha · Post by **ParGha** » 07 Mar 2010 00:38

rohitvats wrote:The fact that Tank-Ex hold lesser rounds than Arjun (32 versus 39) is an indication of lesser volume... but the good thing is IA has recently asked for two prototype vehicles(?) of Tank-Ex for the T-72 upgrade program... Oh! for crying out loud... we need more and better tanks and we need them now...

The initial Tank-Ex prototypes had a major issue with the recoil management. I really liked this puppy more than the Arjun; of course, I admit that it has no future if Arjun has no future. By the way, does India really need more tanks that urgently? Mention "armor" today and the most urgent need is the humble body-armor replacement for the 9+kg steel-plates that leave huge parts of the wearer's flanks unprotected. That is really getting people killed, today. Even at the operational level for the maneuver corps the most urgent need is in 155mm SPA. Prioritize, prioritize, prioritize. Planning can prevent knee-jerk procurements.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 07 Mar 2010 00:43

When considering the upgrades vs purchasing T 90s, people should keep in mind what the time lines would be too; especially if the upgrade was a deep upgrade.

The other thing that needs to be considered is how much money would need to be spent on a platform which has already lived some of its life.

Will a 12 Cr purchase which has 30 years life (say) is same as a T 72 upgrade which has only 10 year residual life left with a expense of 6 Cr?

BTW please note I am not saying the above are definite numbers, but when considering the value of upgrade the same issues need to be considered as well.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 07 Mar 2010 00:48

Singha wrote:
but than again IDF people seem to come back and directly lead projects in defence industries there

Well I dont know if you meant it jokingly but thats a pretty serious and pertinent observation.

Yes along with the fact that every one in the industry there would have also served in the forces and known the reality first hand.

Here the lack of apperication of OFBs and DRDO to real world how forces work is badly broken; also I know first hand that the DRDO folks have tough time handling bosses from the forces because of the cultural differences.'

In fact even the parliamentary report states that Navy does a better job because it handles more of the design etc directly (also linked to higher number of technically qualified folks)

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 07 Mar 2010 00:53

Here is an example of how painful the proces is

http://drgjgururaja.blogspot.com/2009_0 ... chive.html

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 07 Mar 2010 00:58

the most urgent need is in 155mm SPA.

no doubt. only the people here have lost all hope with that fiasco. and given the govt that is in power has a heart murmur everytime someone utters 'bofors' I don't see what we have to be hopeful about.