Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 15 Apr 2010 20:25

d_berwal wrote:the new long rod penetrator gives equivalent performance to western latest ammo...
We may see Kaktus or Relict in future batches of T-90 .... (not confirmed yet)

Well I found some information on T-90M which perhaps will form the basis of existing T-90S (Bishma ) upgrade program T-90Mk2

Т-90М New Specs

The only thing I would like to add to the one Igor blog mentions is an Indian ERA hopefully as capable as Kaktus ERA and CI Thermal Sights , if Kaktus or India ERA adds weight by 1 or 2 tons to existing ~ 46T , then it makes sense to opt for 1200 hp engine to maintain better hp/t , rest assured this looks like a very capable upgrade program.

Plus there is an advanced variant of T-90 called 'Burlak' if the T-95 cancellation program turn out to be true.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 15 Apr 2010 21:43

some of you will love the rammstein type music backing the Leo2A6 batallion on exercise.name of the song is "bang bang" in german

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjizELNwRCg

if you notice, compare the turret tops of the Leo2 and Abrams ... the americans
have slapped on a shitload of stuff on it like remote weapons station, TUSK stuff etc that make it tall as a M60...but the germans keep it clean and simple ...just a ugly looking MGxx and thats it....

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 15 Apr 2010 22:00

Rahul M wrote:raye, how many tank varieties do we operate now ? has the IA EVER operated a single tank type ?

At one time IAF operated MiG 21, MiG 23, MiG 25, Mig 27, Mig 29, SU 30, Jaguar and Mirage. No AF has operated a circus like this in the past 20 years or so. Yes at the height of Cold War both the idiots had almost dozens of aircraft types.

Even today IN operates P 15/20 Styx, Urans, Klubs and Brahmos. Even Russians do not have this variety.

Considering the varying geography it may be almost impossible for India to operate a single system whetehr it be tank, artillery, APC, fighter/transport ac, fighter/transport helicopter etc

K

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 15 Apr 2010 22:43

Austin wrote:Does any one know at what velocity does T-90 main gun ( 125mm ) fires the APFSDS round ?
I remember reading some DRDO news letter giving a figure of ~ 1600 m/s for Arjun 120mm main gun.

http://www.drdo.org/pub/techfocus/feb02/arjun.htm
1650 m/s in 2002.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Apr 2010 22:47

Thanks SudeepJ. Looks like heck of gun.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 15 Apr 2010 22:54

Rahul M: if I may summarize:

a) We have an existing desi ERA, which will not go on the Arjun. Perhaps because it is not as good as K-5. K-5 will be used as a stop-gap
b) A new desi ERA is in the works, which should be better than K-5. Whenever it is tested & certified, it will start to go on the Arjuns (possibly even T-90s??)
c) An ERA for Arjun is needed because Kanchan can provide protection against APFSDS but not against warheads with shaped charges. This is what Ajai Shukla says but I am not too sure about this.

On point (c) above, I remember an earlier comment from you that Kanchan was tested against several AT weapons (RPG, ATGMs etc). Do you know the outcomes?

If I may speculate (based on the assumption that Kanchan is superior to the T-90 base-armor - no ERA):

a) Kornet: Kanchan + K-5 ERA will definitely defeat it. Even Kanchan alone might be sufficient
c) APFSDS: Kanchan alone is sufficient
c) RPG-29: ?? (given that it was able to penetrate K-5 protected T-90s)
d) Modern ATGMs like Spike/Javelin (and) other modern tandem HEAT projectiles: ?? (given that tandem warheads are designed to defeat ERA. Once again a grey area because technically even Kornet has a Tandem HEAT warhead. I think it is the quality of the warhead in question. RPG-29's Tandem HEAT warhead seems more powerful than Kornet's. I'd assume the same to be true of Spike/Javelin's warheads as well)

sudeepj · Post by **sudeepj** » 15 Apr 2010 23:06

ramana wrote:Thanks SudeepJ. Looks like heck of gun.

Raw power wise, this gun can compete with the best of the lot.. Theres only abt. 15% difference in KE between a projectile at 1650m/s or at 1750m/s.

The other part is the accuracy and robustness of the FCS, which is top notch for Arjun from many accounts, coming from Ajai shukla among others.

The last part is the dart and the sabot, I am willing to venture a guess that there will be better quality 120mm darts and sabots available worldwide for collaboration and adoption as compared to the 125mm.

As for the ERA part, we dont know where the ERA requirement is coming from. Is it being pushed by the Army to simply place a tick in a checkbox? Is it to protect against top attack missiles? So much is certain, that for many years, DRDO was confident enough in Kanchan to not slap ERA on Arjun. Shaped charges are not exactly new technology..

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 15 Apr 2010 23:16

Pure speculation onlee. Maybe they want to tack it on to the top & skirts of the tank?

When people say "Shaped charge" they mean one of two things, HEAT or EFP. I thought that the ceramic plates in composite armor was precisely to withstand high temperature of metal jets from HEAT charges from slicing through the armor metal? (ceramics are far ahead of metals vis a vis the temperatures they can withstand) The spacing is also to distort the jets. So Kanchan should do fine against heat charges.

Protection against EFPs might be harder. Even with DU/Composite armor Abrams was penetrated by roadside EFPs. IIRC the TUSK upgrade of Abrams has ERA on the skirts.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 15 Apr 2010 23:31

prem kumar sahab, that's a fine summary.

on point (c) let me elaborate, kanchan itself suffices for legacy ATGMs like the ones we have (tested against milan and konkurs) or what the PA operates, without need of ERA. for the newer ones, a modern ERA might be needed.

DRDO's ERA which is used on the T-72 CIA upg was developed for the arjun program but not used because the protection level given by kanchan was adequate for that time. of course, that changes with newer ATGMs, hence the need for newer ERA. since ERA wasn't actually used on the arjun and the project itself was in a limbo I guess new gen ERA was not a top priority until now.

c) An ERA for Arjun is needed because Kanchan can provide protection against APFSDS but not against warheads with shaped charges

is not 100% correct as it has proven itself against legacy shaped charge ATGMs in tests. upwards of 90% of ATGMs in our neighbourhood still belong to that generation.

RPG-29 is still a HEAT round and one doubts if it is more lethal than a tandem charge milan (say). while its a capable system against older MBTs and ICVs, a supposedly modern MBT like T-90's vulnerability against it speaks more about T-90's weaknesses than RPG-29's strengths. inspite of being used in large numbers it hasn't been able to have any effect against the latest merkavas, for example.

I agree that modern ATGMs and even the RPG-29 might be a grey area since we don't have any data to go upon.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 15 Apr 2010 23:37

apparently the T-90 will use the IMI 125mm round whose velocity is 1660m/s, i.e 10m/s more than the arjun's main gun. http://ofbindia.gov.in/products/data/am ... /lc/37.htm

the russian 125 mm rounds had a higher muzzle velocity but poor penetration performance. that's the reason for the shift.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 15 Apr 2010 23:46

Rahul M wrote:on point (c) let me elaborate, kanchan itself suffices for legacy ATGMs like the ones we have (tested against milan and konkurs) or what the PA operates, without need of ERA. for the newer ones, a modern ERA might be needed.

Well the PA has over 3000 TOW-2As as well as the HJ-8 in service, both I believe equipped with tandem warheads. The ATGM threat from across the borders has improved qualitatively in the last few years.

Rahul M wrote: RPG-29 is still a HEAT round and one doubts if it is more lethal than a tandem charge milan (say). while its a capable system against older MBTs and ICVs, a supposedly modern MBT like T-90's vulnerability against it speaks more about T-90's weaknesses than RPG-29's strengths. inspite of being used in large numbers it hasn't been able to have any effect against the latest merkavas, for example.

Unlike most western tanks relies as much on its ERA for protection as it does on its armor. Which is major weakness against most tandem-warhead ATGMs.

That said, the RPG-29 is indeed an excellent anti-tank weapon.

The Challenger 2 is reputed to be one of the most sophisticated tanks in the world and those used in Iraq by the British Army are built with Dorchester armour, the composition of which is top secret. The tank is also fitted with explosive reactive armour (ERA) at its front that should deflect any weapon fired at its hull.
The MoD has finally confirmed that the tank's armour was breached last August and has said that an investigation was conducted to discover why the ERA appears to have failed. However, the department refused to comment on its findings, citing security reasons.
In the August attack, which occurred during an operation to arrest a leading insurgent in the town of al-Amarah, in southern Iraq, the Challenger was damaged when a Russian-made rocket-propelled grenade, known as an RPG-29, defeated the ERA and penetrated the driver's cabin.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... quiet.html

Active and passive defence systems need to be the primary defence against ATGM especially since the advent of the top-down attack mode a la Javelin.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 15 Apr 2010 23:49

Rahul M wrote:apparently the T-90 will use the IMI 125mm round whose velocity is 1660m/s, i.e 10m/s more than the arjun's main gun. http://ofbindia.gov.in/products/data/am ... /lc/37.htm

the russian 125 mm rounds had a higher muzzle velocity but poor penetration performance. that's the reason for the shift.

While its understandable the Europeans have their qualms about operating DU penetrators, how come we're using Tungsten rounds as well, considering pound-for-pound, DU rounds have better penetration characteristics especially at extended ranges?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 16 Apr 2010 08:11

Do we have any performace specs from DRDO on Kanchan Armour and ERA ?

Every one seems to say kanchan is best in the game , but any one has specs ?

pralay · Post by **pralay** » 16 Apr 2010 08:23

Austin wrote:Do we have any performace specs from DRDO on Kanchan Armour and ERA ?

Every one seems to say kanchan is best in the game , but any one has specs ?

Kanchan sustained direct hit from t-72 without any problem but i dont think the data related to the type of round is available and its not known. about RPG round no data is available publicly i guess but they must have tested with at least older RPGs.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 16 Apr 2010 08:31

^^^ All of the information available on kanchan armour are just hearsay , DRDO has not released any information on any of its performance paramaters , For eg one can find lot of information on T-90 armor and western equivalent , but we do not know any performance paramater on Kanchan except that is it good.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 16 Apr 2010 08:33

Austin wrote:Do we have any performace specs from DRDO on Kanchan Armour and ERA ?

Every one seems to say kanchan is best in the game , but any one has specs ?

do you really think you will get exact specs ?

the total number of people who know that in India would be less than a couple of dozen, probably less. exact specs is always highly classified.

For eg one can find lot of information on T-90 armor and western equivalent

where ? official ones ? that would be surprising.

Viv S, those are the cutting edge of PA ATGMs but they still have a large number of older ATGMs including non-tandem charge TOW versions, do they not ?

regarding RPG-29, it is an effective weapon but it will be effective mostly against APC's and ICVs.
the chally-2 shot was a lucky one fired from above which allowed it to target the tank top where the protection is much weaker.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 16 Apr 2010 09:13

Rahul M wrote:do you really think you will get exact specs ? the total number of people who know that in India would be less than a couple of dozen, probably less. exact specs is always highly classified.

In that case it all boils down to speculation on Kanchan Armour capability.

No one will ever release exact specs of their Armour but some broad specs should be released by the manufacturer

where ? official ones ? that would be surprising.

The capability of T-90 is quite well advertised , though i agree that the exact capability will be classified or more like the exact capability of IA version of T-90 may be classified but still there are lot of information on T-90 armour , ERA , performance and stuff like that.

All we end up discussing is then info from Blog or some panwala which too are very generic and speculative in nature.

In case of Arjun all test and results are classfied by GOI/IA/DRDO leading to wide speculation about its capabilities.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 16 Apr 2010 09:32

where is the speculation Austin sir ? let's not get into the pedantic mode that unless MMS announces it on the floor of parliament it's not acceptable. poor man has enough on his plate without having to worry about tanknuts on BR.

we have enough reliable information that kanchan has been tested against AT weapons in our arsenal and it has passed. what more can you ask ? I understand some people have difficulty accepting that India can make items as good as good ol' rodina, but how reliable are specs from russia when rosbonexport has consistently fudged specs data and the discrepancies appear only after the item has been purchased ? (T-90 engine, sensors, tungushka etc)
no one is ever going to release exact penetration data, not before another 50 years.

No one will ever release exact specs of their Armour but some broad specs should be released by the manufacturer

that is broad specs. for all we know it might also have been mentioned in passing in some techfocus/newsletter article eons back and we missed it ! you can't compare russian PR with DRDO's PR, russia has to provide the specs, (more often than not inflated ones) in order to get orders from abroad. DRDO has NO such compulsion, it's intended customer is the IA and the test reports reach the offices of the DGMF and COAS directly. they do not need a press conference to reach the ears of these men.

The capability of T-90 is quite well advertised , though i agree that the exact capability will be classified or more like the exact capability of IA version of T-90 may be classified but still there are lot of information on T-90 armour , ERA , performance and stuff like that.

where ? could you post them ?

bodhi · Post by **bodhi** » 16 Apr 2010 10:23

Long ago there was some talk about India developing a very advanced version of NERA. what happened to that? I understand NERA is good for defeating tandem warheads

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 16 Apr 2010 11:34

Rahul M wrote:we have enough reliable information that kanchan has been tested against AT weapons in our arsenal and it has passed. what more can you ask ?

There is neither enough nor reliable information on Kanchans performance beyond speculation or hearsay or blogs . All reliable information is classified.

I understand some people have difficulty accepting that India can make items as good as good ol' rodina, but how reliable are specs from russia when rosbonexport has consistently fudged specs data and the discrepancies appear only after the item has been purchased ? (T-90 engine, sensors, tungushka etc)

Well if its some people it does not matter , its the IA as an institution has accepted the T-90's in the numbers that they did , so its no one else then our own Army.

no one is ever going to release exact penetration data, not before another 50 years.

We do not need exact data but we need some data , like we do know some specs of K-5 it may not be exact but we have something.

No one will ever release exact specs of their Armour but some broad specs should be released by the manufacturer that is broad specs. for all we know it might also have been mentioned in passing in some techfocus/newsletter article eons back and we missed it ! you can't compare russian PR with DRDO's PR, russia has to provide the specs, (more often than not inflated ones) in order to get orders from abroad. DRDO has NO such compulsion, it's intended customer is the IA and the test reports reach the offices of the DGMF and COAS directly. they do not need a press conference to reach the ears of these men.

In that case why end up with such speculations like Kanchan is better than Russian Armour etc etc , If the IA knows it then its rightly justified in the decision they take on Arjun or T-90 based on classified data.

where ? could you post them ?

Well for one the Russian link I gave has far better information on T-90 with specs then we can ever find on Arjun , though it may not be exact or may not be what IA has.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 16 Apr 2010 11:36

could you post the link again ?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 16 Apr 2010 11:45

Check these , the big disadvantage is that its in Russian and translators do not do justice to it .

The 2nd link has a nice video of T-90 including some shots of IA desert trials

http://military.tomsk.ru/blog/topic-294.html
http://tank-t-90.ru/

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 16 Apr 2010 12:32

cough cough ! isn't that a blog ?

nirav · Post by **nirav** » 16 Apr 2010 12:57

Rahul M wrote:where is the speculation Austin sir ? let's not get into the pedantic mode that unless MMS announces it on the floor of parliament it's not acceptable. poor man has enough on his plate without having to worry about tanknuts on BR.

we have enough reliable information that kanchan has been tested against AT weapons in our arsenal and it has passed. what more can you ask ? I understand some people have difficulty accepting that India can make items as good as good ol' rodina, but how reliable are specs from russia when rosbonexport has consistently fudged specs data and the discrepancies appear only after the item has been purchased ? (T-90 engine, sensors, tungushka etc)

Well since the Arjun hasnt participated in international competitions/evaluations, we do not know how the Kanchan armor would fare against foreign rounds !
This is something people could ask ....

Rahul Saar, you ask what more, well, is there ever a limit to what people can ask ?
Its just that all this asking and prove your self stuff is maximized with desi products.

From Ajai Shukla blogs article about more Arjuns, they want to add ERA there by taking the weight to some 60 Tons.
I wonder how they are willing to go in for Arjun with 60 Tons now when they made all this hue and cry about its weight when it was lesser than 60 !

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 16 Apr 2010 15:13

Rahul M wrote:cough cough ! isn't that a blog ?

It is but the information available on T-90 is quite massive and detailed , it may not be exact to what IA has but gives one a good idea , but if information on Arjun is classified for what ever reason and what we know and hear are just crumbs from blogs and hearsay , then let the people who have such detailed classified information take the decision since they are aware of the entire facts for both the tanks and what ever they do should be acceptable to all.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 16 Apr 2010 15:50

Austin wrote:
Rahul M wrote:cough cough ! isn't that a blog ?
It is but the information available on T-90 is quite massive and detailed , it may not be exact to what IA has but gives one a good idea , but if information on Arjun is classified for what ever reason and what we know and hear are just crumbs from blogs and hearsay , then let the people who have such detailed classified information take the decision since they are aware of the entire facts for both the tanks and what ever they do should be acceptable to all.

Will wonders ever cease?

Why this desperation to construct strawman? What has public availability of information about Arjun got to do with it's abilities or otherwise? Which part of the charges leveled by IA and DGMF on Arjun need access to classified informatiom before someone can make informed decision?

And which parts of information about T-90 are so classified that one cannot arrive at conlcusion about the tank? And which makes it super-duper tank but which IA only knows about? Is any of the short-comings about T-90 heresay? The fact that TI conks off in Summers, TATA and DRDO were approached for re-caliberation of Ballistic Computer to fire Indian ammo, that IA plans to put a/c into the tank and Russian one failed in Indian conditions, that the turret will fly when the ammunition cooks off and that the engine most probably produces lesser power and this screws the existing BHP/Ton number-which will be further screwed once the a/c is put in? Which of these data points is untrue?

And since you've penchant for going by the GOI endorsed information, here is some thing to chew on (from replies of MOD):

From 14 Lok Sabha - Parliamentary Standing Committe on Defence - 16th Report

MBT Arjun is a 60 tonne class battle tank with state of the art optro-electronic power-packed control system, weapon management system and high performance suspension. It is a product unique in its class specifically configured for Indian Army requirement. Unlike T-90 tank which was primarily built for Russian Armed Forces, adapted by Indian Army for certain specific roles, this T-90 is a 50 tonne class vehicle which does not have some of the advanced features of MBT Arjun. But it is an improved system over T-72 tank.

MBT Arjun firing accuracy is far superior to other two tanks. It has a second generation thermal imager and can engage targets at 2500 meters. Its 1400 hp engine ensures excellent mobility performance.

From 14 Lok Sabha - Parliamentary Standing Committe on Defence - 14th Report

T-90 is a forty-ton class tank. It cannot be compared with MBT Arjun in terms of lethality power and protection.

I guess, this settles the debate then on the superiority of Arjun over T-90? Now please show me one piece of official information which says that T-90 is better than Arjun. And when I say official, apply the same standards about the 'heresay and crumbs from blogs/news items'.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 16 Apr 2010 17:02

It does not settles any thing , if it was a settled issue and IA would have purchased 1,500 Arjun and not the T-90's

Why don't the MOD/IA then say if the Arjun was that good they went ahead with T-90's purchase in such huge numbers ( 1600 + ) ?

What we need is some specs and result of trial's which conclusively throws some number , like for x trial under y condition the Arjun performed z times better then T-90's.

They have performed so many trial's and the recent ones , if the Arjun has indeed performed well then the IA will cancel the T-90's 1000 tank deal and opt for Arjun.

This is very strange that if Arjun is termed as superior to T-90 in every aspect , but neither IA nor MOD wants to buy in any significant number , nor is GOI intervening on behalf of DRDO and opt for Arjun in significant numbers.

If the IA indeed wanted Arjun in numbers ( may be after present Trial , where Ajai Shulka claims that Arjun has now reached the desired performance ) then they would get it.

rohitvats can you post the full MOD report on Arjun or have any link to it in full ?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 16 Apr 2010 17:51

It does not settles any thing , if it was a settled issue and IA would have purchased 1,500 Arjun and not the T-90's. Why don't the MOD/IA then say if the Arjun was that good they went ahead with T-90's purchase in such huge numbers ( 1600 + ) ?

It does. What it tells, to those who want to see and hear, is that IA is sticking with a comparatively inferior system simply out of organizational inertia. Inertia borne of the fact that a generations of Armored Corps officers have been trained on tin cans and can't see beyond the same. This problem of 'eastern philosophy' inspired officers casting doubt on the 'western design' inspired Arjun has cropped up as early as mid-90s. General SR Choudhary very clearly mentions this in his book.

What we need is some specs and result of trial's which conclusively throws some number , like for x trial under y condition the Arjun performed z times better then T-90's.

And until IA publishes every detail of the said tests, you want every one to shut their eyes and keep their common sense at home? By your logic, 99% of discussion on BR should cease to exist. Even if I discount the latest report by Ajai Shukla on superlative performace of Arjun, the fact remains that it is better tank for Indian conditions and designed as per Indian Army GSQR.

They have performed so many trial's and the recent ones , if the Arjun has indeed performed well then the IA will cancel the T-90's 1000 tank deal and opt for Arjun. This is very strange that if Arjun is termed as superior to T-90 in every aspect , but neither IA nor MOD wants to buy in any significant number , nor is GOI intervening on behalf of DRDO and opt for Arjun in significant numbers.

For a moment, remove your colored glasses and think straight - Will IA do this? When it has shouted from every possible roof top to denounce Arjun and push through the T-90? And as for GOI/NOD ordering more, I really wish they do shove ~500 odd Arjun tanks down IA's throat, like they did last time. Left to Army, Arjun programme would have been long dead.

rohitvats can you post the full MOD report on Arjun or have any link to it in full ?

You can down load the same from here:

http://164.100.24.208/ls/CommitteeR/Def ... rts14.html - look at the 15th and 16th report. You can even look at older ones to check on the problems with Arjun programme and it's development history.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 16 Apr 2010 18:23

Austin, do we really need to invent various unknown facts and classified secrets in order to explain away IA's decision ? why isn't the simple explanation that IA goofed up in this instance suffice ? won't be the first time either, their recent record has been horrible.

occam's razor anyone ?

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 16 Apr 2010 21:43

Found it a little ironic that the only image of a tank on the army's official website is the Arjun!

Link

Anabhaya · Post by **Anabhaya** » 16 Apr 2010 21:54

^^
Our gobarmund websites are all an embarrassment to us. That includes the IA/forces.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 16 Apr 2010 22:03

Rahul M wrote:Austin, do we really need to invent various unknown facts and classified secrets in order to explain away IA's decision ? why isn't the simple explanation that IA goofed up in this instance suffice ? won't be the first time either, their recent record has been horrible.

Army goofed up ? Well even the reputation Ajai Shukla holds here has mentioned in his blog

"I don't think it would be correct to call the army "shifty". They are actually quite straightforward.
What they certainly are is "inflexible". As they see it, they were correct in opposing the Arjun for so many years... and the DRDO was to blame for overpromising and under-delivering."

Does that sound familiar with DRDO ? Tejas ,Kaveri ,ATV ,Arjun to name a few. Does DRDO/PSU hold the reputation of delivering project on schedule and budget ?

Blaming IA and Defence service is the easy way out , its IA responsibility to shoulder on country security and if DRDO under delivers and does not keep to its schedule , then IA has the right to look else where and order in the numbers they feel its necessary to do the job and GOI being fully aware of this fact has always supported the Defence Service.

Misraji · Post by **Misraji** » 16 Apr 2010 22:14

Austin,

I have lots of respect for you for your posts on Naval technology in BR and Keypubs.
But frankly you are behaving like a newbie when it comes to armored vehicles.

It does not settles any thing , if it was a settled issue and IA would have purchased 1,500 Arjun and not the T-90's

You start from the position that the Army is right and then see everything in that light.
Army is right.
They did not purchase Arjun in sufficient numbers.
Therefore something must be wrong with Arjun .....

This thing is that these comparative trials have been hanging fire for last 2-3 years.
This was being demanded by DRDO and Army was postponing the trials under one pretext
or the other.

Yes, pretext. For we heard arguments like "BMW vs Maruti", FMBT and went ahead with
another purchase of 350 Tincans and signed the deal for "TOT" and another 1000.

They did not take delivery of Arjuns and then complained about not sufficient numbers
of Arjuns being available for comparative trials.

Wish you would read up on History before taking the view that the Army's record is
spotless in this case.

Regards,
Ashish

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 16 Apr 2010 22:44

Misraji wrote:You start from the position that the Army is right and then see everything in that light.
Army is right.
They did not purchase Arjun in sufficient numbers.
Therefore something must be wrong with Arjun .....

Misraji , in this country it doesnt work like the way you put it , the IA like any defence service recommends certain weapon system to MOD , the MOD weighs the pro and cons of the recommendation and takes DRDO view on the matter

( it does not matter if DRDO has a similar product ready or not , if DRDO does not have the MOD takes their view if indiginous system can be developed in required times etc depending on the criticality of weapons in question , so DRDO does hold a good veto power remember Trishul SAM deal where DRDO vetoed IN attempt initially to purchase Barak-1 on grounds that Trishul will be ready , but then had to agree to IN chief after immediate operational requirement was put across by IN and that how MOF objected to A-330 Refueller deal on cost grounds )

After MOD weighs in the options after taking advise from DRDO , it put forwards it to MOF ( finance ) and then it goes to GOI which deliberates the matter in detail and agrees to sign the deal ( or for that matter any other defence deal , the same will happen with MMRCA deal as well )

IA/Defense Service ( trials etc ) ------> MOD/DRDO -------> MOF --------> GOI

So its essentially a multistage process and not like IA wants T-90 and it gets it and in any amount it needs. ( the over all security environment is also taken into account , so of PA is inducting T-80 at a very quick rate and IA does not have a matching response in the shortest possible time then its very critical from security pov that a matching response is provided to IA )

So if T-90 has to get into IA in the numbers that has been signed and the different period when the deal was signed , the GOI was well aware of Arjun development and the state of affair it was in , so all ( repeat all ) the ministries of GOI gave the go ahead for T-90 deal.

Which makes me wonder why ? If GOI was fully aware of the development of Arjun and DRDO having the veto power it has and MOF having the same veto power , would not have approved the 1600 plus T-90's deal which is very huge by any standards for any tank purchase

Hence Ajai statement has some credibility when he say that the DRDO was to blame for overpromising and under-delivering and its only very recently that Arjun has come good on its promise.

So if the recent trials where Arjun has come good as mentioned by Ajai is true then it may change the fortune for Arjun and perception of IA . The IA could opt to order Arjun in huge numbers and GOI too will not have any objection for the same.

Misraji · Post by **Misraji** » 16 Apr 2010 23:07

Good explanation of how things should work and how they usually do, Sir.
And stuff that most of us are aware of. A330 affair painfully made it clear
to all of us.

But then with the DRDO's veto power in place, please explain why DRDO
was clamoring for comparative trials and DGMF keep postponing it with
flimsy excuses while signing up to buy more Tincans.

Pakistan Army has grand total of 320 T-80s in service last of which
was delivered in 2002. The latest Tincan deal was signed in December 2007,
while the question of comparative trials was still hanging fire

With TOT in limbo, catherine problems, more deals are being signed,
this still does not tell you something fishy was going on??
Come, come, sir.

Regards,
Ashish.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 16 Apr 2010 23:12

First, you're grossly under-informed on the subject. Second, you've already taken a stand and are using strawman tactics to back up your position - which is frankly indefensible and untenable.

So, you question the veracity of sources when they go against your POV and suddenly they become kosher when there is supporting argument for your POV?

So, only DRDO is to blame and IA is the doe-eyed beauty in this case? You forget a simple fact, which has been repeated ad nauseum, that Arjun is the product of IA GSQR? And if the Arjun did not fit the bill, why did IA order T-90 - which is anything but what Arjun is supposed to be - a 'western philosophy' influenced tank?

And as for the role of Indian Army, let me quote excerpts from biography of COAS General S.R. Choudhary -

The new MBT Arjun, was akey weapon system in our future operational concepts. But the many snags, hiccoughs and delays in its development made it a reference point whose full history could take up an entire book by itself. Suffice to say that over a period of time, Project Arjun had become a classic case study of unsatisfactory project management. In my view, this was at the root of adversarial relationship between the Army and DRDO.

The design and layout of the MBT was based on a four man crew of the western school of tank design which had developed the Abrams, Challengers and Leopard tanks. Arjunwas intended to provide the Indian Army with tank on par with anything in the west, but the original sin lay partly with the overmabitious performance parameters framed by us, the users, and partly with DRDO who agreed to accept these without knowing the limit of their own competence and capabilites.

They initially promised the moon to secure the funding, but as reality hit home, the DRDO had to go back to the users to try and amend some of the standards earlier agreed on. This created the crisis of confidence in their ability and fuelled the long drawn Army versus DRDO controversy that has dogged the project ever since.

With the passage of time, other issues also emerged regarding the relevance of the selection of a western tank design as future MBT, for an army whose strategic linkages and economic compulsions had irreversibly oriented bulk of its tank fleet towards eastern bloc equipment. There were also issues regarding their logistics support and licensed production that had been raised periodically by some sceptics to belabour the project. Howeverm all that was water under the bridge now.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 16 Apr 2010 23:53

Misraji , in this country it doesnt work like the way you put it , the IA like any defence service recommends certain weapon system to MOD , the MOD weighs the pro and cons of the recommendation and takes DRDO view on the matter

How do you know that view of DRDO was taken in the matter? The reason given for purchase for T-90 was the induction of T-80UD by PA, falling ratio of armor between IA and PA and delays in the modernization of T-72 tanks. This reason was valid in late 90 and early 2000 when Arjun production was thrown out of gear due to sanctions. But do you know that PA ordered grand total of 320 T-80UD and that because their Al-Khalid program was not on schedule? They capped the numbers of T-80UD at that and started inducting the Al-Khalid? And how many T-90 did we order - 310 and ToT for 1,000. We further ordered another 347 when Russians played hardball on ToT and IA sited lack of domestic production.

Forget the pampering received by T-90 in IA service with all their problems, even with 1,647 T-90 IA will not have sufficient number of modern MBT in it's arsenal.

So if T-90 has to get into IA in the numbers that has been signed and the different period when the deal was signed , the GOI was well aware of Arjun development and the state of affair it was in , so all ( repeat all ) the ministries of GOI gave the go ahead for T-90 deal.

Which makes me wonder why ? If GOI was fully aware of the development of Arjun and DRDO having the veto power it has and MOF having the same veto power , would not have approved the 1600 plus T-90's deal which is very huge by any standards for any tank purchase

It seems that some one else also did not agree with GOI on induction of foreign tank. From 14 Lok Sabha - PSD on Defence - 2nd Report (2004-05):

The Committee are of the opinion that there needs to be a more focused thrust on development, production of indigenous equipment into the Army, with particular reference to the Arjun Main Battle Tank. It is understood that though a limited order for 124 number of these tanks have been placed, the first production models are being further subjected to additional performance trials by the Army. This is primarily due to the unstated concern over quality control at the Ordnance Factory, Avadi at time of issue, which must be ensured by the Ordnance Factory Board to the satisfaction of the user. The Committee are surprised to note that instead of giving firm order for sufficient number of Arjun Tanks by indigenous production, only a very small order has been placed and the Government has decided to acquire tanks from a foreign country to meet its requirement.

Having incurred an expenditure of approximately Rs. 3,300 crores on the development and productionisation of the MBT Arjun, the Committee are of the firm opinion that the Arjun must be inducted into the Army in large numbers, for which an initial production order for 50 tanks must be placed on Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi. This does not absolve DRDO (AHSP for Arjun Tank) and the Ordnance Factory Board of their prime responsibility to ensure that the production model of the tank meets the user requirement in every respect. The procurement plan of the Army must be structured (or re-structured if necessary) to provide for induction of increased numbers of Ajrun Tanks by the 11th, 12th Army Plans, as a replacement for T-72 Tanks.

And as for the state of Arjun, it was ready even as per the gold plated standard of Indian Army in 2005 for further induction into the Army. It was then that the farce of AUCR was played on the programme. It was and is the IA which has been playing musical chairs with the project.

Hence Ajai statement has some credibility when he say that the DRDO was to blame for overpromising and under-delivering and its only very recently that Arjun has come good on its promise.

If above quote from Ajai has credibility, what about the other articles written by him which blow the T-90 acquisition saga to smithereens? Are they too uncomfortable to accept?

a_kumar · Post by **a_kumar** » 17 Apr 2010 01:47

Austin wrote:Army goofed up ? Well even the reputation Ajai Shukla holds here has mentioned in his blog

"I don't think it would be correct to call the army "shifty". They are actually quite straightforward.
What they certainly are is "inflexible". As they see it, they were correct in opposing the Arjun for so many years... and the DRDO was to blame for overpromising and under-delivering."

That is selective quoting. Here is the complete quote highlighting the part you left out.

I don't think it would be correct to call the army "shifty". They are actually quite straightforward.

What they certainly are is "inflexible". As they see it, they were correct in opposing the Arjun for so many years... and the DRDO was to blame for overpromising and under-delivering. Now, with the tank ready for operational use, why should they rush to accept it. That sums up the way the army thinks.

It seems like you are in complete agreement with the highlighted part while most of others are not. That is possibly the root of all this heartburn.

Austin wrote: Does that sound familiar with DRDO ? Tejas ,Kaveri ,ATV ,Arjun to name a few. Does DRDO/PSU hold the reputation of delivering project on schedule and budget ?

Ok.. DRDO is late.. And then when it becomes available, IAF did not follow IA (and your line of though), but instead it embraced Tejas. Same with IN.

IAF/IN seem to understand that it is more of research than engineering, meaning, when you are venturing into unknowns and non-existant product lines, there are fewer certainities. When a product goes through all this and is now a domestic product that is as good as any, then it is criminal negligence to sideline it with childish tantrums and spite like..

Now, with the tank ready for operational use, why should they rush to accept it

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 17 Apr 2010 07:22

Well I just pointed to you the fact that it is impossible for the IA ( for that matter any defence service chief ) to rush their favorite imported toys without approval of GOI.

Had that been the case we could have got the urgent MMRCA 10 years back , AJT would not have taken 16 years and the urgent requirement for tracked 155mm arty would not be hanging fire.

It is always , I repeat *always* the case that DRDO view is taken on any imported purchase , unless there is urgent operational needs as deemed by GOI or DRDO cannot produce the equipment in desired time the GOI does not overrule DRDO advise.

So for me the bottom line is GOI was fully aware ( plus and minuses ) when the IA went ahead with thousand of T-90 tank , by GOI I mean MOD/MOD/GOI ( of that day ) , the fact that DRDO chief did not oppose the deal ( like we know how they opposed the Barak-1 viz a viz Trishul ) makes it ample clear that they did not have the tank with the desired performance IA demanded , that is what Ajai Shukla said in as many words.

The final word on any purchase rest with the GOI of the day and the fact that GOI approved such a massive deal in the numbers they are , its certain that Arjun was not ready to meet IA requirement and Govt of the Day had the same opinion on the matter.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 17 Apr 2010 08:29

Misraji wrote:But then with the DRDO's veto power in place, please explain why DRDO
was clamoring for comparative trials and DGMF keep postponing it with
flimsy excuses while signing up to buy more Tincans.

So why did DGMF postpone the trials can you explain to me ? Why didnt the DRDO go to the GOI and complain that DGFM was involving in malpractice ?

Why dint DRDO chief complained in writing to the GOI and informed about such malpractice, Did they do that ?

Did DRDO chief at that time agreed with his own team on Arjun's perfomance assesment ? if so was the DRDO chief too weak , was bribed by the Army/GOI or was told by GOI to keep quite while the IA with the approval and hoodwinking of GOI kept on purchasing useless T-90's when a far superior option in Arjun was available and squandered public money ?

Did the Russian bribed the IA , GOI , DRDO chief in to accepting T-90 in the numbers they did , while killing the very superior home grown project ?

Pakistan Army has grand total of 320 T-80s in service last of which
was delivered in 2002. The latest Tincan deal was signed in December 2007,
while the question of comparative trials was still hanging fire

So if the latest deal was signed in 2007 , Did the DRDO chief put in writing its extreme displeasure to the GOI ?

Was the GOI lead by MMS was hand in glove with IA and received sufficient bribe to pursue such a big order ?

With TOT in limbo, catherine problems, more deals are being signed,
this still does not tell you something fishy was going on??
Come, come, sir.

Come on answer my question , why did the GOI and DRDO ever agreed to buy T-90's beyond the bare minumum needed , when most agree here that T-90 is obsolete purchase ?

Or is this the case of IA being forced to buy T-90 in huge numbers , so that GOI lead by MMS and hand in hand with DRDO , MOD babus is getting a good bribe from this deal ?

And now that they ( GOI/DRDO/IA/MOD babus ) made good money from 1600 T-90 deal , they want to go back to what was right and hence the trials are conducted , its been sufficiently proven in the trials that Arjun is far superior in every parameter to T-90 and now we can expect the GOI with IA and DRDO approval to approve the project in big numbers ?