Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

[Sanku]

And no the suspension was ONE OF MANY ISSUES. (read the parliamentary report)

sanku ji, could you please post them ? or if it has been posted before on BRF then the links ?

Yes, it is a part of the parliamentary report that I posted a while back.

DRDO accepted those issues as well. They mentioned QC issues.

[negi]

Not backed up by any remote shred of publicly available evidence.

Purely a Yellow journalist fantasy purveyed in general media

Yes one of them a ex tanker and a former Arjun critic . And the same yellow media never refrained from pulling DRDO and Arjun every time they failed.

[Sanku]

Lets do this , Sanku ji post the issues reported for Arjun and we shall do it for T-90 it is gonna be far more objective as compared to speculating as to what was the chanakian reason behind buying the T-90 .

Actually that was consolidated report for all Defence matters -- by the yearly parliamentary comittee looking at major aspects.

I only quoted Arjun because we were discussing that.

Yes one of them a ex tanker and a former Arjun critic . And the same yellow media never refrained from pulling DRDO and Arjun every time they failed.

Yellow media is yellow media, they will bash any one that they can get in print. They were not correct when bashing DRDO and they are not correct when bashing anyone else.

They are plain yellow and misinformed and dont understand the difference between the IA and MoD.

They are duffer enough to think that IA orders when it has about 20% role to play in procurements, of any kind.

Col Shukla is hardly gospel either, just because he was a Arjun baiter who switched sides does not make him Caesars wife; OTOH it probably makes him a Naya Mullah (who eats pyaz a lot) generally swung to other end of spectrum in a unbalanced manner.

JCage was probably right when he conjectured that the Col has hit his head on the tank turret when serving -- however it is unlikely that the effects went away so soon.

[Rahul M]

Finally Rahul M; YOU should know better than to use instances of IA officers to take the official stand of IA -- the official stand of IA is clearly captured in the parliamentary debate -- and the MoD shows NO mystification (Pallam Raju may be mystified because the part that he was in charge of underperformed and he must have been got hauled up by RM because of that)

oh really ? so you are implying that when the DGMF makes a statement in a press conference in the sidelines of an international future MBT seminar we are to consider that on the same level of importance as local chaiwala f*rting and has nothing to do with IA's policy on mech forces ? is that the importance YOU give to the senior officers of the IA ? wow !

Yes, it is a part of the parliamentary report that I posted a while back.

DRDO accepted those issues as well. They mentioned QC issues.

links please.
TIA.
________________________
ASPuar sahab, please, you are throwing up points that have been summarily disproved numerous times already, kindly do read the rest of the thread before coming up with gross generalisations and strawman arguments. what you are saying has NOTHING to do with the discussion that has taken place in this thread over the last few days. kindly do step back for a moment and read it. IMHO you are posting all this with a massive misconception about what this thread is discussing.

[ASPuar]

And for those of you who think it was the big, bad army GSQRs that hobbled what was really a grade A tank, think about this. The sanction for the program was accorded in 1972. In the era of 100mm tank guns, and when T-55s were still fairly state of the art. If the first five production examples only managed to come out in 2004, thats 32 years in development! And remember, that the government only bothered to give sanction to producing the tank seriously in 1996. Still, it took 8 years to get 5 working examples going. Still, of course, according to some, its all the Army's fault.

Want to know who long it took the M1 Abrams to go from concept to nuts and bolts tank? 6 years.

Yes, and now we have all those people who will bawl "No military industrial complex, no industry, no industrial base, first time we've tried etc etc"

All that is NOT the Army's concern. It is possibly the concern of the political executive. The Army's job is to keep the country safe from external aggression. Period. Defence of the realm cannot wait for boffins to keep getting their act together. This is not the middle ages where Pakistan will say "Oh, sorry chaps, your tank isnt ready? Quite alright. We'll wait till next year! Pip-pip".

GSQR to operational prototype took the French Leclerc 10 years. Mass production started two years later.

Leopard II? GSQR to prototype hulls, 3 years. Fully operational prototype? Six years.

Merkava? GSQR to prototype, 7 years.

Challenger 2: 3 years.

Even so, the 124 tanks are a step forward. It hasnt happened or not happened because of lack of army support. The government has mismanaged the program, and the army is naturally annoyed that it has had to wait 1972-2010 for its tanks to turn up. So stop blaming the army already! If sections of the army have responded coolly to this tank, its only natural, and its only the tip of the iceberg! Most of the bumbling has been government mismanagement of production resources, development resource allocation, overstatement of R&D capability, underestimation of program cost, etc etc.

[ASPuar]

I guess, even bureaucrat can claim they serviced this country for their lifetime...and politicians are already making such statements as they say, they have "sacrificed" their life for the public service..

Sorry boss, youre absolutely right. My fault. Even bureaucrats and politicians can say that they have served the country, and Army man should not feel that he is the only one. You are completely correct. And if this is the standard of thought on this "Bharat Rakshak" forum, then it is time for ASP to exit, stage left, and leave you to carry on your good work on this thread.

[Sanku]

Finally Rahul M; YOU should know better than to use instances of IA officers to take the official stand of IA -- the official stand of IA is clearly captured in the parliamentary debate -- and the MoD shows NO mystification (Pallam Raju may be mystified because the part that he was in charge of underperformed and he must have been got hauled up by RM because of that)

oh really ? so you are implying that when the DGMF makes a statement in a press conference in the sidelines of an international future MBT seminar we are to consider that on the same level of importance as local chaiwala f*rting and has nothing to do with IA's policy on mech forces ? is that the importance YOU give to the senior officers of the IA ? wow !

Rahul M; that interpretation and language are both not warranted

They said that the current Arjun will not cut it and there needs to be a upgrade path.

So?

=====

Link to parliamentary report

http://164.100.24.208/ls/CommitteeR/Def ... report.pdf

[ASPuar]

And world's second largest army keeping in line with its traditions decided to order a Tank which was found to be deficient in the exact same areas despite being a upgrade of a 3 decade old design .

A 3 decade old design which had been *working* for three decades, and hadnt spent the last three decades of its life on paper, I might add.

[Rahul M]

And world's second largest army keeping in line with its traditions decided to order a Tank which was found to be deficient in the exact same areas despite being a upgrade of a 3 decade old design .

A 3 decade old design which had been *working* for three decades, and hadnt spent the last three decades of its life on paper, I might add.

and blown to smithereens in every conflict it took part in, crews included, this when it was 'supposed' to be state-of-the-art ! and we are going to send our soldiers to battle in this piece of junk for the next 20-30 years. don't we love the army !

[ASPuar]

ASPuar sahab, please, you are throwing up points that have been summarily disproved numerous times already, kindly do read the rest of the thread before coming up with gross generalisations and strawman arguments. what you are saying has NOTHING to do with the discussion that has taken place in this thread over the last few days. kindly do step back for a moment and read it. IMHO you are posting all this with a massive misconception about what this thread is discussing.

RM.

It doesnt matter WHAT the thread is discussing, frankly. I have stepped back, and seen that the thread has ended up like so many others which I have seen in almost ten years on BR, that involve indigenous production, as a venue for trashing the army. I know this isnt your intent, and it is your contention that that is not what is happening. Please reevaluate, and look at the thread impartially. "Khaan Peena" influences Air Marshals in some manner, according to Chetak. "Natashas" influence generals in some way, according to many fans here. All manner of derogatory rubbish is being palmed off as discussion, and certainly, I take exception to it.

Anyway, if my points are generalizations which have been summarily rejected, I dont want to argue any further. All I say is, that the votaries of indigenous projects (of which I constantly say, I am also one) can be more moderate in their speech. There is a difference between rudeness, and improper behaviour, and making a point correctly.

And you are operating under a misconception about my personal views, I think. Even I, who agree that we should have a powerful and efficient indigenous MBT rather than a Russian tin can of any sort, find myself offended by ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims of members here about army corruption, and personal habits of senior officers.

There are two points of view here, and I feel that they are possibly irreconcilable.
If nobody here can take this debate forward without maligning the Army, and each other, I would suggest that this thread is not worth the heartache and frustration, for all involved. Why not just lock it, and move on?

[Rahul M]

so let me get this straight, people who want armymen to go to war in a suicide mission on a deathtrap are "army supporters" and those who want them to have modern tanks in which they have a high chance of survival are "army baiters".

oh and btw, this later category includes 'uninformed' people Gen RoyC.

[Sanku]

and blown to smithereens in every conflict it took part in, crews included, this when it was 'supposed' to be state-of-the-art ! and we are going to send our soldiers to battle in this piece of junk for the next 20-30 years. don't we love the army !

Which is what happens when MoD sleeps on the wheel and does not develop the Mil-Ind complex. Which is the real problem

Meanwhile as an aside when was T 90 blown to smithereens by tank of comparable generation; ancient T 72s broken up by latest M1s in Gulf war wont fit into that!!

Meanwhile, it has been a long day after all.

Good night.

[ASPuar]

so let me get this straight, people who want armymen to go to war in a suicide mission on a deathtrap are "army supporters" and those who want them to have modern tanks in which they have a high chance of survival are "army baiters".

oh and btw, this later category includes 'uninformed' people Gen RoyC.

No, RM. Not at all.

But people who call army senior brass names, and attribute base motives to them as a manner of releasing their frustrations, are "Army Baiters", by definition almost. Would you like me to point out some of the members of such a category?

As long as everyone can desist from insulting the army, I dont care what tank is who's favourite. In my opinion, large scale maneouver warfare is quite possibly a thing of the past anyway.

[Rahul M]

I don't know about you, but none of the forces people I've met claim like you do that the forces are lily white or take it as an offence when corruption is mentioned. what they do say (and I completely agree) is that the forces are tough on corruption and corrupt people aren't allowed to stay in the force. btw, some of the people here whom you claim are anti-armed forces, themselves served in those forces.

secondly, this discussion is NOT about finding out the reason why such decisions were taken, and I do not remember any post claiming it's due to corruption. if I have missed one, report it, I'll take appropriate action.

lastly, you may disagree with my reading of this thread but there isn't much more I can do about it. if there are any more off-topic or uninformed posts (like your last one about GSQR and development time) I'll have to act accordingly.

________

No, RM. People who call army senior brass names are "Army Baiters". Would you like me to point out some of the members of such a category?

have the brass been called names or some of their obviously inane comments been called out (I remember only one actually)?

and if you do see such posts, please report those without getting into a verbal fight with the postors. that will be constructive participation.

[Bala Vignesh]

I guess, even bureaucrat can claim they serviced this country for their lifetime...and politicians are already making such statements as they say, they have "sacrificed" their life for the public service..

Sorry boss, youre absolutely right. My fault. Even bureaucrats and politicians can say that they have served the country, and Army man should not feel that he is the only one. You are completely correct. And if this is the standard of thought on this "Bharat Rakshak" forum, then it is time for ASP to exit, stage left, and leave you to carry on your good work on this thread.

ASPuar sir,
I can assure you that not one member of the BRF considers the Political class to be higher than the ordinary Sepoys/Airmen/sailors who risk their lives day in and day out for our safety. And its not the ENTIRE Army that we are upset with here, its the elements that toe the line for the fear of politicos...
I mean If Courage and Honor a part of the Army Officer's life, why doesn't he show this characteristics when he's confronted by the Political section that you blame... Its simple as that. The MoD cannot, alone, be held responsible for the preferential treatment of T90 over Arjun...

I am not complaining that the Army is not supporting Indegenisation as they operate a large number of indigenous equipment, latest of which is the Nag... I am just asking why the Army that can see the excellence of these products, refuses to accept the Arjun??

[Kanson]

Kanson,

I can neither confirm nor deny what Admiral Bhagwat has said.


Yet, one wonders about the procurement policies, more so when it is the government realm. Bofors is a case in point where an excellent weapon was denied to the IA because of political sleaze (if indeed) and shenanigans.


It is good that you posted the ex CNS’ interview. It was interesting and helped me to understand the situation better. That he is totally correct, is another issue!

Thanks for sharing your view point,Sir. Considering abt the wide aspects of leadership, i felt the admiral has talked abt one particular aspect more so. But my intention for posting that here in this thread is mainly for the reflection of the lack of strong leadership which gives rise for most of the ills including what the admiral shared in the interview.

Though it is not appreciated out here when I mention that it is people in uniform who are most concerned about the efficacy of equipment being inducted than the average man Jack on the street, but the fact remains that we are concerned. I am sure you will agree that our lives are not going cheap and others’ lives are expensive!

We are also saying the samething. When the Army put a standard of 90% first shot hit accuracy for the Arjun, i ask to check yourself the accuracy of the first shot for the T-90S in the Indian condition. You dont have to share with us. Just check for yourself. You can see what we are saying so long.

Though I have seen an Arjun, I daresay that those who will induct it are people who can be bought off totally and be besmirched in posterity as a failure as was Gen PN Thapar in 1962. We are instilled in the factor ‘honour’ and to lose it is as good as having committed suicide! Therefore is the Arjun better or the T 90 tanking all issues into consideration is beyond me. I am not an Armoured Corps Officer, whose life is at stake, though I am keen as to how he can support.

Therefore, to condemn those who have ridden tanks, fought wars with Pakistan, know the terrain etc to be total nincompoops and us, here, are the expert is indeed a sad commentary.

I wonder how many here commenting so authoratively, apart from seeing theoretical pamphlets, have actually seen a tank, ridden them and participated in exercises to comment.

I agree Shukla is an AC officer, but then to believe that he is the only expert is a bit too thick. He is a journalist and it is known that one has to go by what the editor and the owner has to say. I am marvelled at his change of heart. Has he mentioned why he did so?

After firing trials in summer 2006, 43 Armoured Regiment endorsed, “The accuracy and consistency of the Arjun has been proved beyond doubt.”

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.

In a series of interviews with the army, including the present Director General of Mechanised Forces, Lt Gen D Bhardwaj, and with the MoD top brass, Business Standard has learned that opposition to the Arjun remains deeply entrenched. This despite the soldiers of 43 Armoured Regiment declaring that if it came to war, they would like to be in an Arjun.

Minister of State for Defence Production, Rao Inderjeet Singh recounts, “I’ve spoken, off the record, to officers who have gone through the trials. Even the crews (from 43 Armoured Regiment)… who have been testing the tank… I forced them to choose between the Russian tanks and the Arjun. I said, you’ve driven this tank and you’ve driven that tank (the T-90). Now mark them out of ten, which tank is better? And I’ve found that the Arjun tank was given more numbers than the T-90 tank.”

For all your queries and statements, my reply is this peice from Col Ajai. Here you have many data points, and a face for the source and who's opinion on that matter can be cross checked. As you are from Army, i request, as you done in An-32 pressurization issue, you can very well check with all those officers and further the 43rd reg and can have your own opinion. Why there is a change of heart for Col. Ajai, the answer lies here. Seeing is believing. Let me ask the question back politely, have you rode the Arjun tank by 2005/6, and fired live rounds as other officers done here? If so how could you say so strongly, others are giving empty statements as you too not have first hand experience when the Arjun is completely ready. [if this came as very impolite, pls excuse me]

I have also seen things but I cannot comment what happens in the Chief’s office and the pressures he is in, since I never became a Chief.

Though I agree with Adm Bhagwat that the Chief should not be wimp.

But then experts here would know better!

I agree with you.

[Kanson]

I guess, even bureaucrat can claim they serviced this country for their lifetime...and politicians are already making such statements as they say, they have "sacrificed" their life for the public service..

Sorry boss, youre absolutely right. My fault. Even bureaucrats and politicians can say that they have served the country, and Army man should not feel that he is the only one. You are completely correct. And if this is the standard of thought on this "Bharat Rakshak" forum, then it is time for ASP to exit, stage left, and leave you to carry on your good work on this thread.

You are not getting the point here. Claim can be made by anyone. Here the discussion is abt T-90 and Arjun. Why to bring not related things in the discussion?

[ASPuar]

lastly, you may disagree with my reading of this thread but there isn't much more I can do about it. if there are any more off-topic or uninformed posts (like your last one about GSQR and development time) I'll have to act accordingly.

I dont think that my post was off topic, or even uninformed. Possibly only contrary to conventional wisdom on this thread. I think if this thread continues in the vein in which it is proceeding, then it will achieve little. I will point out posts which I feel are offensive, since you wish it.

As to your issuing these ultimatums to me, I can only register my severe disappointment.

I dont think that this thread is proceeding in the right direction, and I have made my views plain. That is my final word on this matter.

[Rahul M]

Meanwhile as an aside when was T 90 blown to smithereens by tank of comparable generation; ancient T 72s broken up by latest M1s in Gulf war wont fit into that!!

russia georgia conflict. I've already posted all those before. even so, here goes.

gerogia : T-72B and T-72sim1 version (many of them). sim1 has the kontakt-5 (same as T-90) and overall similar levels of protection. T-72B is slightly inferior than T-90.

russia : mostly T-72 BM's (old version) with identical level of protection to the T-90. also, a couple of the newer T-72BM with the relikt armour (better than T-90) were also lost.

[Surya]

I love this rubbishing of Shukla. but the genius manu pabby I guess is ok

Well he has put it on the line - not only his blog but as part of the newspaper he works for. If it was that wrong I am still waiting for the worthies he has mentioned directly or indirectly to challenge him publicly.

Cmon ASP -

Leopard II? GSQR to prototype hulls, 3 years. Fully operational prototype? Six years.

Even as the Leopard 1 was in service (mid 60s) the Germans had already started looking at a 120 mm equipped version. Then they got into the MBT 70 a joint development which got canned in 69\70 and then started on their own design. But note they already had progressively been involved in tank design improvments all this time and then from 70s it took the Leopard 2 1979 for first production delivery.

Now this from a highly industrialised country a leader in heavy indutries and a leader in tank design and dev.

Suddenly it looks a whole lot different than 6 years - right

[Rahul M]

I dont think that my post was off topic, or even uninformed.

for a start, check how many times IA changed GSQR's in those 32 years and at what intervals.

you are off about the development times of the other tanks as well but this should do. kindly do read the last 10 odd pages before re-hashing same old stuff.

[Surya]

Rohit, negi,Rahul


ping me at balaji underscore b4 a t garam hawa

[Vivek K]

RahulM, you know my opinion on this sort of talk. 90% of it is uninformed BS, ....

Everything else is BS. Only what IA says is correct. Please read up our angst is directed at the procurement wing only.

The Arjun tank failed to deliver, time and time again. The extraordinary delay in its development and induction cannot be blamed on GSQR's alone. The DRDO too must take its share of the blame. When development takes so long that the entire industry standard changes, then the scientists need to get with the program and change with the times. Science does not happen in isolation from reality, and that has often been DRDOs achilles heel.

Humor us, Sir. At what stage did IA join in the development of the Tank or was it only involved with GSQR writing?

War doesnt forgive those who wait for OFB to get its act together, and the DRDO to finally finish designing a tank. In the event of war, our soldiers would have been at a disadvantage! Its their lives on the line, not ours, and this is why we shouldnt second guess procurement.

So War will forgive the T-90 if it breaks down due to the heat or its engine cannot provide enough accelaration to avoid enemy shells etc or because the TI broke down or because the main gun accuracy didn't let the gunner get the enemy in time?

Im all for the Arjun if it works, and so, surprise, surprise, gentlemen, are most army men. But after 30 years in development, I think its time to shine has passed.

Herein lies the probelm that this thread has acutally been attacking. The IA keeps repeating that the Arjun's time has passed. Surprising they can accept a foreign tank that is basically even older but the Indian design will not even be given a fair chance. Hmmmmmmmm!

[Rahul M]

chetak ji, check PM.

[chetak]

chetak ji, check PM.

Roger saar.

Understood.

[RayC]

Why there is a change of heart for Col. Ajai, the answer lies here. Seeing is believing. Let me ask the question back politely, have you rode the Arjun tank by 2005/6, and fired live rounds as other officers done here? If so how could you say so strongly, others are giving empty statements as you too not have first hand experience when the Arjun is completely ready. [if this came as very impolite, pls excuse me]

No, I don't find it impolite at all.

You are entitled to your views. And so is Ajai Shukla. I am not aware if he has observed live firing. I have not. I have seen the Arjun when Brig Langer brought it. A very snazzy piece if you as me! I have heard it from Armoured Corps officers that it is quite accurate.

I will not drop names, because I don't have their permission and some of them are very high ranking officers with years of war service. All I could say that it will take time to meet all the issues involved.

I am neither against nor for the Arjun or T 90. Whatever is the best should be selected.

However, it is worth considering how many here have seen the tanks, seen their performance and their firing and tactical fitting in abilities as per the current operational doctrine?

It appears that we are experts and those who are to work with the equipment are novices or are in conspiracy.

Bofors was under cloud and many believe it was a bad buy influenced by money. Yet, it proved itself in the Kargil Ops.

So, we should await the final outcome and then climb the chair and sit as 'lifeguards' watching over the rough oceans ahead of us.

One has to comprehend the operational situation, the op doctrines, the terrain, the bridges, the cnals and not only the technical specifications to decide what is good or bad (and this is not a commentary on either the Arjun and T 90).

It is interesting to pundits on the Cold Start. Do we really know what is the Cold Start and the underlining circumstances of it application?

One can debate for the fun of it, but to pass off as DGMOs or COAS is taking it a way bit overboard!

[RayC]

To be fair to all, here is how the GSQR and changes evolved.

The first draft of Qualitative Requirement (QR) was prepared by Armoured Corps Directorate and discussed with Vice Chief of Army Staff (VCOAS).

The first General Staff Qualitative Requirement (GSQR) was issued in August 1972 as QR No. 326 for the design and development of MBT. The QR 326 was not exhaustive and with regard to specifications but featured only skeleton specifications.

The design and development of MBT based on GSQR No. 326 was taken up by the Combat Vehicle Research and Development Establishment (CVRDE). The initial outlay of Rs. 15.50 Crore was sanctioned vide the Government of India (GOI) letter dated 02 May, 1974. Project Development Certification (PDC) of the project was 10 years from the date of sanction.

The MBT was to be designed around imported engine as the design and development experience to create a tank engine was not available within the time frame of the project. In 1974, DRDO had to take up design and development of a tank engine as Government of India could not import a tank engine because of political and other reasons.

1975 -1980

DRDO prepared the system configuration of the tank. Indigenous engine hardware was assembled and motoring test commenced by 1979. Indigenous suspension and transmission hardware was ready for development test. The main 115mm armament was developed and trials were carried out for proof at Balasore ranges. The gun system and fire control system design was configured. One prototype hull in mild steel was fabricated to check the fitment and assembly.

In April 1978, the Indian Army called DRDO for a meeting for mutual discussions. The aim was to change the GSQR No. 326. A series of meetings between DRDO and Indian Army, chaired by VCOAS resulted in change in GSQR. The new GSQR bearing the number 431 was issued in August 1982.

The changes in the GSQR No. 431 were

a)Increase in width and weight
b)110/115mm gun was to be replaced with a 120mm gun.
c)Improved Sighting and Fire Control system.

Essentially it meant creation of entirely new design and systems. A sum of Rs. 56.55 Crores was obtained mainly to cater to cater to GSQR changes and price escalation due to inflation/ rise in import costs.

The PDC of the project was revised. The first prototype was to be built by October 1980 and subsequently 12 prototypes were to be developed, one in every 6 months.

The indigenous engine and transmission evaluation on dynamometer was carried out during 1979-81.

1980 – 1985

As already mentioned that the country had no experience in building an basic internal combustion engine. The tank engine development slipped as this engine was to be made after experimenting with basics of an internal combustion engine. Project of this scale was almost impossible for nascent Indian research laboratories. By this time, the western governments had shown willingness to supply the engines. A decision was taken to import a limited number of engines (also called “power packs”) from M/S MTU, Germany. For the fitment On Mark 1 (Mk 1) prototypes so as not to let the development schedule of the MBT slip.

Initially MTU supplied a 700hp engine for fitment trials and subsequently supplied 1100hp engine for prototypes. The MTU was also developing a 1400hp engine as per the specifications laid down by CVRDE.

The first prototype of the MBT was developed based on GSQR No. 326 of 1972 and No. 431 of 1982.

The prototype was subjected to limited technical trials by DRDO at Avadi and Jodhpur desert area.

Subsequently, few more prototypes were produced with different configuration by 1985.

In the initial development phase, suspension, running gear and other automotive systems were being evaluated with 1100 hp engine.

1985 – 1990

There had been significant enhancement in the battle tank technologies world wide and there was a possibility of these tanks being introduced in the Indian Sub Continent. This prompted Indian Army to change its GSQR and in November 1985, third GSQR No. 467 was issued. The changes in GSQR were:

a)More lethal gun of 120mm caliber.
b)Requirement of Fin Stabilized Armour Piercing Discarding Sabot (FSAPDS)
c)Development of Semi Combustible Cartridge cases and high energy propellant.
d)Integrated Fire Control System based on sight stabilized system with periscopic gunner sight.
e)Thermal Imaging system for gunner’s main sight for night fighting capabilities.
f)Provision of “Kanchan Armour” for enhanced immunity.

In addition following conditions were in the new GSQR:

•Manufacture of 23 Pre production Series (PPS) Tanks to enable full scale troop trials and after that smooth transfer technology (TOT) to a production agency.
•Setting of Armoured Fighting Vehicle (AFV) evaluation center and augmentation of infrastructure facilities.
•Realistic assessment of technical and user trial.
•Import of engines for prototypes and PPS.

The revised financial implication because of the new GSQR was Rs. 280.80 Crores which was issued in 1987. The GSQR escalated the cost of materials, stores and the import cost spiraled due to weakening Rupee.

The development of the tank was progressed with reference to the new GSQR. DRDO had to re – design the structure of chassis/ hull. The turret had to be designed again to cater to improved armour protection and a high power to weight ratio power pack. The MBT now also to feature Nuclear Biological and Chemical (NBC) warfare and protection system, Medium Fording capability, auxiliary power unit (APU), Laser Warning System (LWS) and Global Positioning System (GPS).

The period of 1985 – 1990 was significant in history of Arjun Tank for the progressive evolution of a number of systems through exhaustive field testing. A total of 12 Arjun Tank prototypes were built in order to prove the design, development and system integration of a number of systems through field testing.

The integration of first prototype with a proper 1400 hp engine was accomplished in 1989. During the automotive trials of the prototypes a total of 20,000 Kilometer run in various terrain. Arjun MBT covered 11000 kilometers in dessert terrain and 1000 kilometers in river bed terrain. The weapon system was also tested by firing 540 FSAPDS and 560 HESH.

1990 – 1995

The confidence of DRDO had built up with these prototypes and many improvements were made.

The first batch of 6 PPS tanks had got manufactured through Heavy Vehicles Factory (HVF) in Avadi, Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL) and Bharat Earth Movers Limited (BEML), each two PPS tanks. Indent for manufacture of manufacture of 9 more PPS tanks by HVF was released to HVF in December 1992.

MBT Arjun was formally inducted into Indian Army in 1993 with these 6 tanks. The performance of PPS tanks were demonstrated to the Defence Minister, COAS and the members of the Parliament in February 1993.

The PPS tanks were put through grueling tests by the field formations covering several thousand kilometers of automotive runs on various terrains and firing hundreds of rounds per tank to establish the efficiency of the Arjun tank.

The status of the Arjun Tank was reviewed by the COAS in May 1994 and “bottom line requirements” were laid down. After the completion of the 1994 trials on MBT Arjun, a presentation was made to the COAS and he laid down “Imperatives” in August 1994.

All the additional 9 PPS tanks were handed over to Army progressively and the final handing over of the 9th PPS Tank to Army happened in 1996. The last PPS tank (i.e. XV) incorporating improvements as suggested by the Army and with add on features viz. APU, NBC, Medium Fording Capability was demonstrated to COAS and users at Avadi.

The PPS Tanks delivered to the Army during this period had covered 70,000 kilometers of automotive trials and fired 7000 rounds. The average kilometer run by a PPS tank was 4500 kilometers and 460 rounds fired from each tank.

DRDO addressed the bottom line requirements and imperatives as demanded by the COAS. The overall design of the Arjun Tank was cleared.

1995 – 2000

A set of dedicated trials as directed by the COAS was carried out during August – December 1995 successfully.

The Prime Minister P.V Narsimha Rao dedicated the MBT Arjun to the nation in January 1996.

The Army designated the XV PPS tank as the reference tank for production.

In the year 1997, 11 PPS tanks participated in Indian Army Exercise “AGNIR.ATI-t.” (A clarification on the name of the exercise is needed. It could be Exercise Agnirathi). 10 Arjun Tanks successfully completed the exercise. But the Army again came back with suggestions and modifications. In November 1997, the final list of suggested modifications and “joint Action Plan” for the implementation and certification was drafted. DRDO implemented the modification to the satisfaction of the Indian Army.

The Indian Amy again put the improved tanks to trials. The 43rd Armoured Regiment conducted the automotive trials. The trials were successful and Arjun tank was brought ready for full scale production.

The Arjun MBT project was successfully closed at Rupees 305 Crores. The final acceptance by the Indian Army led to placement of order for 124 Arjun Tanks in 2002.

DRDO transferred the design and other drawings to the manufacturing agency HVF in 2002.

The Authorised Holder of the Sealed Particulars is with DRDO till certain maturity level is reached in production, i.e, the first 30 tanks produced by HVF will have quality control certified by DRDO. After that Arjun Tank will be certified by DGQA.

The Future

The Arjun Tank had its detractors in form of internal rivalry of the users, the Indian arms import lobby and media seeking sensationalism. Since India did not have any Tank design experience and many defence experts expressed doubts about the viability of the Arjun Tank project when it started and questioned the capability of the CVRDE to design and develop tanks. DRDO took these challenges and ever shifting qualitative requirements, in stride. Pending a political decision, currently DRDO is gearing up for the development of Arjun Mark-2 Tanks (Arjun Mk.2).
GSQR Arjun

It has taken about 35 years to evolve a tank.

I would only like to state that can the defence forces, DRDO or the nation accept a 35 year old concept without upgrading to meet the threat perception given that the adversary is equally upgrading to better models? Must the Indian Army be moribund and take the ancient GSQR totally outdated as etched in stone that some want to suggest? The latest threat analysis and modern technologies are to be abandoned to please the media and us here? If the Govt is full of sleaze, then is the media pure as the snow of mount Etna?

We had a Electrolux refrigerator when I was a child, does it mean that we still continue with it even though it had CFC to ruin the environment?

And could we be accused of not keeping up with the environment even though that Electrolux still worked as well as the modern one?

Why are we not still with our incandescent bulbs and have graduated to tubelights and then to CFL and now LED? It cost money to change. So why money be wasted?

It does perplex me that we here are more concerned and educated to understand everything than those in uniform whose lives are at stake fail to realise our astute and well informed opinion?

Take the issue of Mig 21. The media and here out in the forum have been critical about it. Indeed, if the casualties are to be toted up, sure.

But what are the causes? How many have analysed that?

I have given the issues of delta wing and tailed delta winged aircraft in one of the thread quoting experts (I am not an expert on this issue but I remember it from one of my IAF friends and so googled and found out). Nothing on that was rubbished, instead a whole lot of hoo hah followed!

Why so? We in the media and here are the experts and those who work on the equipment and in uniform are novices and we are here to 'protect' them!

It is time we realise what is up.

I concede it is a mess. Let those who are to use it decide and then face their fate, if it was a foolish decision!

Even if it was a foolish decision, the Indian pride in the Armed Forces will salvage us as they did in Kargil, while people here lamented of body bags using US standards!

Body bags for Indians are chickenfeed. We are Indians, our lives are not material when it comes to the safety, integrity and honour of our Nation! That is us Indian, foolish as we may be. Forgive us that we are not Americans and we are a little unconcerned. However, note, because of that we had no Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan!

Yet, I enjoy the astute and educated note that some 'experts' trot out here on the issue since they know best how to fight a war!

The opinions here does not quite gel with what senior AC personnel have to say. But then we here must be right and the AC personnel, irrespective of rank, are quite babes in the wood!

[negi]

^ I don't see why we keep bringing the 35 year old figure for as of today neither is the GSQR 35 year old nor is the Arjun both have been changed umpteen times to cater to IA's requirements , if that 35 year figure indicates any thing it is the sorry state of affairs as far as India's maiden MBT programme is concerned .

Even when MBT-70 programme did not work out for Unkil they did not opt for an easy way out and buy the Chieftain in late 60's infact they persevered with their domestic programme until the first M1 Abrams was rolled out in 1980 (with 105mm gun) until then they managed with the upgraded M-60's infact the upgraded M60A3 was introduced in as late as 1978 .

And even then when US military decided to do a comparative trial of XM1 (M1 A Abrams prototype) and the German Leo2 with 120mm Rhinemetall gun the Leo emerged as the one with better fire power it did not stop the Americans from inducting the XM1 with a rifled and a lower caliber gun in 1980 . The first block of M1A1' with 120mm Rhinemetall gun was inducted only in the year 1986 .

So 1960-1986 almost 26 years for a Superpower to develop a modern MBT of the class of M1 A Abrams and all this during the peak of Cold war when UUSR rolled out thousands of T-62s and even the arguably one of the best tanks of that time i.e. the T-72 and then of course every American was told bed time stories about Soviets launching an attack on USA .

And here we are being sold the stories about threat of Baki army and its 300 T-80Us moreover we end up paying for souped up T-72 .

[RayC]

^ I don't see why we keep bringing the 35 year old figure for as of today neither is the GSQR 35 year old nor is the Arjun both have been changed umpteen times to cater to IA's requirements , if that 35 year figure indicates any thing it is the sorry state of affairs as far as India's maiden MBT programme is concerned .

Even when MBT-70 programme did not work out for Unkil they did not opt for an easy way out and buy the Chieftain in late 60's infact they persevered with their domestic programme until the first M1 Abrams was rolled out in 1980 (with 105mm gun) until then they managed with the upgraded M-60's infact the upgraded M60A3 was introduced in as late as 1978 .

And even then when US military decided to do a comparative trial of XM1 (M1 A Abrams prototype) and the German Leo2 with 120mm Rhinemetall gun the Leo emerged as the one with better fire power it did not stop the Americans from inducting the XM1 with a rifled and a lower caliber gun in 1980 . The first block of M1A1' with 120mm Rhinemetall gun was inducted only in the year 1986 .

So 1960-1986 almost 26 years for a Superpower to develop a modern MBT of the class of M1 A Abrams and all this during the peak of Cold war when UUSR rolled out thousands of T-62s and even the arguably one of the best tanks of that time i.e. the T-72 and then of course every American was told bed time stories about Soviets launching an attack on USA .

And here we are being sold the stories about threat of Baki army and its 300 T-80Us moreover we end up paying for souped up T-72 .

Umpteenth of times?

Please prove so.

I am not going to give you the figures.

You search.

Also give links to your authoritative statements.

Be good enough to refute the link on the GSQR I have given.

So, are you suggesting that there should be no change to the original GSQR if the threat perception changes?

How about having old tubs in the IN and not keep apace with the changing environment?

Thank you.

[RayC]

What's wrong then having INS Delhi (HMNZS Achilles) which did a marvellous job in the Battle of the River Plate?

It is a great ship and I have been on it.

I agree it is not a Naval thread, but since your father was in the Navy and since many of my relative were too, I thought a naval example would let you understand that the world changes to new threats and we cannot just stand still!

[negi]

^ Who is complaining about change in GSQR , the point is the timeline of 35 years needs to be taken into consideration keeping in mind the changes to GSQR which were being made in as late as 1987 (Jai Ho indeed ).

I have tried to draw an analogy with USA's M1 Abrams programme keeping in mind the fact that Unkil was a world superpower in 1960's , its MIC complex was far more superior and its Army... well I need not say more. The result is before everyone and it took more than 20 years 1963-1985 for the first M1A Abrams with 120mm gun to be rolled out and all this from a superpower with a prior experience in building MBTs and with a military top brass who KNEW what they wanted and more importantly ran the XM1 project that culminated into M1 A Abrams.

The reason why I am stating these facts here is to at least ensure that tommorrow no IA wallah or uninformed fanboys as to why India could not produce even a MBT of its own in all these years citing M1A Abrams or Leo2 family as examples of engineering marvel (btw Leo2 development path is even longer ).

[negi]

Sir Ray I wont quote my father for he is still serving , moreover he won't be too pleased if he comes to know I post here .

[RayC]

^ Who is complaining about change in GSQR , the point is the timeline of 35 years needs to be taken into consideration keeping in mind the changes to GSQR which were being made in as late as 1987 (Jai Ho indeed ).

I have tried to draw an analogy with USA's M1 Abrams programme keeping in mind the fact that Unkil was a world superpower in 1960's , its MIC complex was far more superior and its Army... well I need not say more. The result is before everyone and it took more than 20 years 1963-1985 for the first M1A Abrams with 120mm gun to be rolled out and all this from a superpower with a prior experience in building MBTs and with a military top brass who KNEW what they wanted and more importantly ran the XM1 project that culminated into M1 A Abrams.

The reason why I am stating these facts here is to at least ensure that tommorrow no IA wallah or uninformed fanboys as to why India could not produce even a MBT of its own in all these years citing M1A Abrams or Leo2 family as examples of engineering marvel (btw Leo2 development path is even longer ).

To be frank, I am not concerned what is the changes in the world.

Indeed, if our technologies and expertise does not meet the world standard and the threat, then it would be better to import what is good. Is that what we want and what you suggest?

You have been asked by a self acclaimed 'knowledgeable' Mod 'not
why even bother' ? So, why bother? He knows all!

Sad commentary from such a self assume knowledgeable person.

The issue is I am not talking through my hat. I have quoted the history of the GSQR and it is not my fertile imagine. It is that with facts from experts. Let it be refuted and rubbished and am all for it. It is those who are 'experts' or feel they are who are prone to use statements as 'why even bother ?'

I bother. I am not any side of the fence. Let the best tank me inducted. My comrades in arms lives are stake and I am not an armchair theoretician assuming to be the expert and last word!

It is wonderful to be here to learn what the 'experts' here have to say and what is the reality. They are also 'experts' on the Cold Start, which in still in the processing, retuning and refining! And yet, our 'experts' here know it all. I wonder why these 'experts' have not been co opted in the DGMO and Dtes that formulate issues. Rather sad such ''expertise'' is being lost to the country's safety!

[RayC]

Sir Ray I wont quote my father for he is still serving , moreover he won't be too pleased if he comes to know I post here .

Don't worry.

We in the services are liberal.

Even if you post, he could not care less.

[manjgu]

I plead with all of you to cool down ... this thread is going nowhere.

All of you have been contributing big time and its time to discuss something else. IA has proved its bonafides by giving a green signal to Nag ( that its second to non in inducting an indian system if it is good)... and DRDO its expertise. Request all the warriors here to forgive/forget what happened in the past. All institutions are learning and we are indeed moving in the right direction.

[Rahul M]

rayc, for the last time, if you have a problem with my moderation get in touch with the webmasters by email. I've been extremely patient with this daily thread derailment ritual. there's a limit to that, eventually. if it had been you in my place I would have been banned thrice over. kindly do cease and desist.

[Sanku]

Negi you have inverted the cause and effect relationship between GSQR changes and delay.

Delay DID NOT happen because of GSQR changes.

The original product was much delayed and whenever brought to Army as "finished please test" a set of issues were found -- which pushed the product back to design board -- also when the product was pushed back to design board for improvements; enough time had elapsed already that the old GSQR did not make sense. So a new one HAD to be drawn up as well.

[arnab]

Negi you have inverted the cause and effect relationship between GSQR changes and delay.

Delay DID NOT happen because of GSQR changes.

The original product was much delayed and whenever brought to Army as "finished please test" a set of issues were found -- which pushed the product back to design board -- also when the product was pushed back to design board for improvements; enough time had elapsed already that the old GSQR did not make sense. So a new one HAD to be drawn up as well.

This is not borne out by what RayC has posted (on how the GSQR evolved) in the first post of this page. Each time the Army seems to have called the meeting with the 'objective' to change the GSQRs. DRDO commenced work in 1974 (after funds were sanctioned in 1972) and army changed its GSQR in 1978. Surely you can't claim that 4-5 years to develop a tank for the first time is a 'delay' !!

[Sanku]

Negi you have inverted the cause and effect relationship between GSQR changes and delay.

Delay DID NOT happen because of GSQR changes.

The original product was much delayed and whenever brought to Army as "finished please test" a set of issues were found -- which pushed the product back to design board -- also when the product was pushed back to design board for improvements; enough time had elapsed already that the old GSQR did not make sense. So a new one HAD to be drawn up as well.

This is not borne out by what RayC has posted (on how the GSQR evolved) in the first post of this page. Each time the Army seems to have called the meeting with the 'objective' to change the GSQRs. DRDO commenced work in 1974 (after funds were sanctioned in 1972) and army changed its GSQR in 1978. Surely you can't claim that 4-5 years to develop a tank for the first time is a 'delay' !!

You can make that claim for at best first GSQR revision in 78, even then it can be argued that it should not mean that the clock is reset from 74 to 78. The time taken was not only for design of the system but also for building up the knowledge, once knowledge is built up changes can and should not take disproportionate time -- which they did.

The issues which came in the way of CVRDE in building up knowledge is well documented too, so I am not complaining per se. But the fact is that the issues of competence did delay the project and wishing that away is avoiding the real problem.

[alexis]

ASPuar, whatever i have read in the forum and other news articles had given me the impression that it was army that decided not to induct Arjun in sufficient numbers. If u say that it was MOD who decided to do that, then please provide me with a source. I will refrain from any further comments on this issue.

Sanku, i agree with your point that bad state of mil-ind complex is the main issue; but nobody - MOD or army could absolve responsibility for that. They are both responsible.

The main issue i feel (as also voiced by many others) is why the order for T-90 in such large numbers when it has suffered almost all the issues faced by Arjun? As of now Arjun is better than T-90. The why no large orders for Arjun? Whoever is responsible (MOD or army or both) for this decision should be accountable.