Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 29 Jun 2011 16:36

Even TFTA fonts could change the whole shiver dynamics.. after all what are aams looking for in the media?

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 30 Jun 2011 07:25

Upgradation of T-72 tanks begins in Jaisalmer

JAISALMER: The Army with the help of a team of Russian scientists are performing summer trials for the modified version of Russian tank T-72 in Jaisalmer's Lathi Field Firing Range. The summer trials will continue for one week. By the end of 12th Five Year plan, some armoured regiments will replace the T-72 with T-90 tanks. The rest of armoured regiments having T-72 tanks will undergo major modification such as introduction of an upgraded 1000 BHP engine and thermal imaging fire control system, said a defence laboratory official based at Jodhpur.

The Army recently commenced a project to upgrade its T-72M1 Main Battle Tanks. Over the past two decades, the T-72M1 has provided yeoman service to the Army. It is well liked by the Army for its ruggedness, low silhouette and weight (41.5 tons) as well as firepower. The T-72M1 is the backbone of the Indian armoured fleet with over 1700 tanks believed to be in service. Licence production of the tank was undertaken at the Heavy Vehicles Factory at Avadi, Tamil Nadu. To keep the tank fleet viable, an upgrade plan was drawn up by the Army. But during the early 1990s, the economy went through a tumultuous phase and the resulting fiscal problems forced these plans into abeyance.

Now the economy is on an upswing and the Army has hence been allocated funds to pursue this critical modernization. The tank upgrade will proceed in stages. The upgradation has begun by bringing 250 tanks to the DRDO's (Defence Research & Development Organisation) 'Combat Improved' Ajeya standard. (The T-72M1 has been renamed 'Ajeya' in India).

Defence spokesman Col S D Goswami said: "At present the main stay in terms of the number of India's armoured regiments is the T-72 tanks followed by T-55 tanks. The T-90 and Arjun provide the cutting edge. However, by the end of the 11th plan, all T-55 tanks will be replaced by T-90 tanks.

The original Russian engine in T-72 tanks had performed well in all climatic conditions.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 30 Jun 2011 08:19

chacko

it would be nice to see scans of the brochures

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 30 Jun 2011 09:28

One Image Clicky

I will try to scan. I don't have a flat bed, so, i will have to cut them up. Wait in future for the pics.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 30 Jun 2011 09:31

VinodTK wrote:Upgradation of T-72 tanks begins in Jaisalmer
The T-90 and Arjun provide the cutting edge.

From T-90 is the best to equating both tanks. Guess what will be next?

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 30 Jun 2011 09:47

CJ,

I got my weekly email from Jane's. It mentioned that Arjun MK2 was undergoing limited trials and that full trials would be next year. Any confirmation from your side?

(Me bad, I deleted that email)

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 30 Jun 2011 10:02

VinodTK wrote:[url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 045273.cms]Upgradation of T-72 tanks begins in Jaisalmer

Look like this will be the deep upgrade beyond the 600 odd CIA we saw

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 30 Jun 2011 10:02

rajanb wrote:CJ,

I got my weekly email from Jane's. It mentioned that Arjun MK2 was undergoing limited trials and that full trials would be next year. Any confirmation from your side?

(Me bad, I deleted that email)

It is partially correct.

Arjun MK 2 is under going trials and it is not limited trials. Its validatory trials. There is nothing called limited trials.

Next year, the Army will try it.

Rupak · Post by **Rupak** » 30 Jun 2011 10:10

chackojoseph wrote:
VinodTK wrote:Upgradation of T-72 tanks begins in Jaisalmer
The T-90 and Arjun provide the cutting edge.

That article talks of 250 CI Ajeya to date. Whereas according to DRDO Newsletter Feb 09

“Combat Vehicles Research and Development Establishment (CVRDE), Avadi, has modernized T-72M1 tanks being rolled out from HVF, named Combat Improved Ajeya (CI Ajeya) with special features such as ERA, GPS, IFDSS and SGD. Army placed production order on HVF, Avadi, for 692 Nos of Combat Improved Ajeya tanks, out of which about 649 tanks have been rolled out from HVF till date. In addition, CVRDE has also transferred the technology to 505 Army Base Workshop, Delhi for integrating the CI Ajeya on T-72M1 tanks.”

So are these 505 Army Base Workshop upgrades under trial?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 30 Jun 2011 10:13

Rupak wrote:So are these 505 Army Base Workshop upgrades under trial?

No , the CIA upgrade lacks new engine of 1000 hp and TI Sights , where as the deep upgrade has both this is separate from CIA upgrade

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 30 Jun 2011 10:21

Not sure if this was posted

Field trials of Arjun tank begins

A spokesperson of DRDO said, "Arjun Mk I tanks have been handed over to the army, the Mark II version of Arjun tank is still under development." Initial trials for developing Mark 2 has been started in Jaisalmer's Pokharan field firing range.

Goswami said, "The trial of Arjun tank at Pokharan is just an initial trial on specific scientific & technological incorporation on specific features of Arjun tank Mk 1 in use."

DRDO source said, "The Arjun Mk2 main battle tank (MBT) — currently under development since mid-2007 will be more expensive and have a higher imported content than its predecessor, the Arjun Mk1. But in terms of mobility, protection and firepower, the Mk2 variant will come closest to what Indian Army HQ wants: an MBT with highly enhanced crew protection and maximum survivability in highintensity, fire-saturated combat environments."

Missiles can be fired from Mark II version to destroy long-range targets and bring down attack helicopters, an official said.

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 30 Jun 2011 10:33

Thanks CJ/Austin.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 30 Jun 2011 10:52

“Combat Vehicles Research and Development Establishment (CVRDE), Avadi, has modernized T-72M1 tanks being rolled out from HVF, named Combat Improved Ajeya (CI Ajeya) with special features such as ERA, GPS, IFDSS and SGD. Army placed production order on HVF, Avadi, for 692 Nos of Combat Improved Ajeya tanks, out of which about 649 tanks have been rolled out from HVF till date. In addition, CVRDE has also transferred the technology to 505 Army Base Workshop, Delhi for integrating the CI Ajeya on T-72M1 tanks.”

So are these 505 Army Base Workshop upgrades under trial?

Hi Rupak,

Things have moved beyond the 649 figure. According to DRDO:

"Seven Hundred and ten CI-Ajeya with add-on features have been delivered to the Army."

Check the June 2011 Tech Focus.

This 250 figure in that news report is for a new and much deeper upgrade which consists of the much discussed engine replacement.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 30 Jun 2011 11:33

pandyan wrote:CJji beautiful picture...pls. do post the rest of them...

This is from internet.

The brochure ones will come a lot after. Some constrains.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Jul 2011 08:42

Just to show how dangerous Anti-Tank Rockets can be for any tanks , a rare video of RPG-29 blowing up M1A2 in Iraq.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c1e_1263769845

Another shot where RPG-29 takes on Frontal Armour of Abrams where damage appears to be minimum.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fcc_1304114951

joygoswami · Post by **joygoswami** » 03 Jul 2011 09:59

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c1e_1263769845

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fcc_1304114951[/quote]

Amazing Video. Didnt the old rag-tag RPG gave Hell to the mighty Merkeva Tanks in Lebanon ? It would be interesting to know how much damage the Kanchan Armour would take in case of such hits by RPG's.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Jul 2011 10:23

joygoswami wrote:Amazing Video. Didnt the old rag-tag RPG gave Hell to the mighty Merkeva Tanks in Lebanon .

These are not the normal jehadis RPG-8 , they are Anti-Tank RPG-29 with tandem warhead designed to defeat modern armour , the merkava too had its fair share of casulty from rpg-29.

Abrams is apparently the gold standard in Western armour and the turret is quite well protected but as you can see from video even western heavies are not equally well protect from all sides , so it just boils down to the guy who holds the RPG and which side of the turret he is facing.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 03 Jul 2011 10:45

RPG29 has a max range of only 500m. a common problem with these LAWs. in open field warfare its nearly suicide for someone to stick around 500m infront of a charging line of MBTs with HMGs ready to rake any movement.

urban warfare against slow moving tanks / insurgency is where it can strike a blow. and this is precisely where this insurgent guy gets a shot in - firing at point blank range across the road at the tank which is unaware of his presence due to the decoys.

in GW2, 'uday fidayeen' units using Kornets mounted on 4x4 did inflict some damage on USMC units, even charging boldly from towns to fire a salvo and then retreating. many were cut down by bradleys and ah1 gunships.

I would consider these RPGs only for infantry as a last-ditch weapon, not something which can defeat tanks in open warfare unlike the Kornet which is a far deadlier weapon.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 03 Jul 2011 12:15

Austin wrote:Just to show how dangerous Anti-Tank Rockets can be for any tanks , a rare video of RPG-29 blowing up M1A2 in Iraq.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c1e_1263769845

Another shot where RPG-29 takes on Frontal Armour of Abrams where damage appears to be minimum.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fcc_1304114951

These propaganda videos dont show the real damage if any. In the first video the tank is hit and what's the damage? Is it the ERA panels? In the second video, the tank is still standing like Kumbhkaran.
It seems the heavy ones cannot be destroyed that easily.
Here is a video of the super manueverable T-72's being hit by Heavy Machine gun fire and RPG's.

Seems like duck shooting. The crew is seen running abandoning the tank.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Jul 2011 12:18

The first shot from the side clearly blew the turret off , reportedly crew where KIA.

The second shot from front did not do much damage , the Abrams have more than 1000 mm of RHA from front.

Apparently the RPG-29 is not one of the latest weapon first introduced in 1989 and widely used by terrorist , the newer model is RPG-32 with better penetration characteristics , but so far never used in combat. Jordan has recently signed a deal mass producing RPG-32 in the form of Hashim.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 03 Jul 2011 12:25

Here is a video of Merkava. The first hit just bounces off the armour.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 03 Jul 2011 12:28

Austin wrote:The first shot from the side clearly blew the turret off , reportedly crew where KIA.
.

The Turret is still there. Now whether the Turret was penetrated? It seems so. But was it the ERA Panels? Don't know. Cannot say Austin, because you still can see the yellow hot part glowing and finally diminishing in glow. So was it penetrated or it's just the outer ERA panels that went black after the hit need to be checked more clearly.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Jul 2011 12:30

Singha wrote:RPG29 has a max range of only 500m.

Yes RPG29 is an ambush unguided weapons , the normal tactics is to ambush the tanks from side or rear and it would test the skill of the crew , even the punter in the first video took his time to aim and fire even though the distance is quite close for maximum effective range of RPG29 they would really need a well trained crew if they see any chance of hitting the rough area on the turret where they want to see it hit.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Jul 2011 12:37

uddu wrote:The Turret is still there. Now whether the Turret was penetrated?

From what i could make out the side of the turret was penetrated and blown out i could see the hole there and clear a big chunk is seen flying in the air , I have not seen much of M1 using ERA in a big way , they have good faith in their armour , the KIA is something I got from another board for this video

Apparantly most of the Jihadi video as not good Discovery Channel types where they would go close to the tanks and examine the damage in details , the guy who must be shooting the video with a handy cam in what is a real war might be close by and shit scared of his own life . if things do not go well and would probably quickly run for his life after shooting it.

In iraq most of the M1A2 lost were either due to IED or Kornet/RPG-29 class weapons , the American certainly would like to keep the lid on such videos , many video i have seen have mysteriously dissapeared from youtube .

Here is another M1 video in Iraq , looks IED and RPG , the casulty rate for most hits were low thanks to M1 excellent protection which is best in Western heavies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8q_dnTVFIL0

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 03 Jul 2011 12:56

Yes the Jihadi's will try to exaggerate and even showcase non-M1A1. The propaganda video you posted shows Iraqi T-72's burning and some shots are taken from the M1A1 tank itself. Also the U.S did destroy many of their own damaged tanks. All can be seen in Jihadi propaganda videos. The common Abdul cannot make out what's what and what's not.
Yes agree that there were lesser casualties because of better protection of Abrams. Even though the U.S don't like the other to know about it, their free media, image release rules don't help them in hiding the damages. But surely they have run a good counter propaganda showcasing the damage done to T-72's,
Some list of how the tanks got damaged and KIA and WIA figures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_M1_Abrams

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 03 Jul 2011 13:00

while looking at above video found this one about M1 tanks offloaded in afghanistan .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQNIOVkD ... re=related

looks like it fits very comfortably inside the C17 without special procedures.

bodes well for Arjun to Leh/North Sikkim which I think is slightly narrower than abrams and a few tons lighter.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Jul 2011 13:10

uddu wrote:Yes the Jihadi's will try to exaggerate and even showcase non-M1A1. The propaganda video you posted shows Iraqi T-72's burning and some shots are taken from the M1A1 tank itself. Also the U.S did destroy many of their own damaged tanks. All can be seen in Jihadi propaganda videos. The common Abdul cannot make out what's what and what's not.

The PR war is from both sides , much like for America invading the Iraq was a just cause and any one opposing them were terrorist or bad guys , for the other side they were getting invaded and they were defending with what they had , certainly what they had was poor compared to what American can muster so casualty was much higher for the other side , since US has much wider control over its own and other PR armada , this give the impression they are always right most of the times.

BTW there is nothing like their free media , when the times comes their media is as biased as any thing coming from pentagon or whitehouse , they simply take the lead and parrot it.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 05 Jul 2011 22:47

Hi,

I had noted that Prasun is a Grade A bunkum master.

Unfortunately, many people new to this joker get taken in by his lies and attempts to spin away anything and everything he has no clue about (eg Prahar, naval systems, radar,) as some mythical TOT obtained in secret from Israel, Russia and who knows where.

His crazy flights of fancy are used to fool enthusiasts into believing they are listening to some expert. His entire effort is around attracting people to his comments - I believe he has some overwhelming need to feel appreciated as versus other journalists who get more attention. Then he makes more stuff up and says stuff like "more details emerge around blah-blah-blah"...

Below,I'll demo using just a few examples of how Prasun copy pastes stuff and also makes things up.

Take his Arjun MK2 article posted in this discussion above.
http://trishul-trident.blogspot.com/201 ... erges.html

Example 1 Copy paste and engaging in speculation.

This fellow writes:

At the same time, the DRDO’s Pune-based Composites Research Centre (CRC) and the Research and Development Establishment, Engineers [R & D E(E)], have developed multi-layered multi-functional fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP) composite hull/turret sub-structures at much lower weights in comparison with metallic counterparts. More than 40 per cent weight savings over steel hull structures have been achieved. Also developed for the Arjun Mk2 is co-cured composites integral armour (CIA), which comprises ceramic tiles and rubber sandwiched between two FRP composites layers. While the outer FRP composite layer acts as a cover and provides confinement, the ceramic layer provides primary protection against ballistic impact, and the inner FRP composite layer acts as the structural part as well as secondary energy absorbing mechanism. The rubber layer isolates stiff and brittle ceramic tiles from structural member.

Sounds impressive? Did someone tell Prasun about this in secret? But look here, guys

http://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/techfoc ... /feb10.pdf

Look at Page 5, pretty much word to word copy but no mention of the Arjun MK2. So basically Prasun copy pasted the above, and added MK2 for the extra effect.

Now lets get to the makes things up part. This is funnier,

Example 2:

Prasun Sengupta wrote:causes the shaped-charge warhead to explode at a relatively safe distance. For protecting the Arjun Mk2 against tandem-charge RPGs and guided anti-tank missiles, the CVRDE and IMI have co-developed a lightweight non-energetic reactive armour (NERA) package, comprising tiles in which two metal plates sandwich an inert liner, such as rubber. When struck by a shaped-charge’s metal jet, some of the impact energy is dissipated into the inert liner layer, and the resulting high-pressure causes a localised bending or bulging of the plates in the area of the impact. As the plates bulge, the point of jet impact shifts with the plate-bulging, increasing the effective thickness of the armour.

Compare to the reality, the Arjun MK2 will have ERA not NERA.
http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2805/st ... 510000.htm

P. Sivakumar, Director, CVRDE....As for Arjun Mark II, the CVRDE Director said the major upgrades would include...explosive reactive armour

And:
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article866925.ece

S. Sundaresh, Chief Controller (Armaments and Combat Engineering), DRDO...The Arjun-Mk II tank will have a number of upgrades compared with Arjun-Mk I...Another upgrade will see the introduction of an explosive reactive armour panel which will comprise explosives in metallic brick form. These bricks will be mounted not only on the front slope of Arjun-Mk-II tank, but all round it as well. When the enemy ammunition hits these bricks, they will explode and retard the energy of the projectile, which then cannot penetrate the tank's armour.

“The penalty for using these bricks is that they will add 1.5 tonnes to the tank's weight. But we can prevent top attack and side attack. We can add to the tank's protection from missiles and rocket-propelled grenades,” the DRDO Chief Controller said.

So both the DRDO Director and DRDO Chief Controller, directly contradict this silly claim by Sengupta. There is no cooperation with IMI either for ERA.

The entire article is littered with such haphazard scatterbrained, copy paste, make stuff up sort of claims. Eg the Commanders Panoramic Sight is being designed by Elbit (it is not), the Arjun TI is the Catherine (how logical, replace a TI from Sagem, one which works, with a rival TI which is having integration problems on the T-90!).

The entire article is a litany of copy brochures from company websites, liberally sprinkled with words like TOT, Arjun to make the article look impressive.

Prasun clearly does not have any sort of first hand information availability from Indian companies, beyond the freebies and brochures they hand out at airshows. He is also too clearly unable to do any sort of proper analysis. So what does he do.

He visits forums and copies what people write here, even the not so serious comments, compares pictures of Indian stuff to foreign maal - any similarity means something simple, it is "TOT" from Israel or Russia or anyone. That is his "analysis".

Latest case in point, the Indian MOD Annual Reports mention the DRDO Arudhra radar is getting developed, and will be ready for trials in a year or two's time. The IAF named their MPR acquired from Israel the Arudhra as well, causing initial confusion, thereafter clarified by a news report which noted the two projects were separate and the similar names caused the problem. The IAF & MOD have also noted their dual track sourcing strategy, acquiring 15 Israeli MPR and 8 DRDO MPR (to begin with). So Prasun, after quickly seeing the picture of the IAF MPR with the Israeli MMR brochure and some pics taken at airshows jumped to the conclusion that the Israeli MMR was being license made in India and all of them would be the same, instead of just sticking to the first bit that the initial IAF MPRs were Elta ones, as the IAF itself noted. The funniest are the self congratulatory comments he posts in his usual style, to himself as anonymous! Talk about blowing one's own trumpet.

Also, clearly, this is not a new habit. Sengupta has been making stuff up from beginninmg

Here is what I found by search engine,

In 2007 Sengupta writes:

However, the Su-30MKI's single biggest tactical advantage, particularly in the BVR fight, is the on-board tactical information data link system (TIDLS) that can connect up to four aircraft in a full two-way link. With a range of 500km and being highly resistant to jamming, the TIDLS' can display the position, bearing and speed of all four friendly Su-30MKIs in a formation on a tactical information system, including basic status information such as fuel availability and weapons state. When used in the ‘silent attack' mode, an adversary may be aware that he is being tracked by N-011M radar that is outside BVR-AAM range. He may not be aware that another, closer Su-30MKI is receiving that tracking data and is preparing for a BVR-AAM launch without using its own radar. The N-011M can also operate in an all-passive mode, as a sensitive receiver with high directional accuracy (due to its large antenna). In addition, two N-011Ms can exchange information by the TIDLS and locate hostile targets by triangulation. Usually, three plots (echoes) are needed to track a target in track-while-scan mode. The TIDLS also allows the N-011Ms to share plots — not just tracks — even if none of the Su-30MKIs in a formation gets enough plots on its own to track the target, they may do so collectively. Each radar plot includes pulse-Doppler velocity, which provides the individual aircraft with range-rate data. Using TIDLS, two Su-30MKIs can take simultaneous range-rate readings and thereby determine the target's track instantly, thereby minimising the need for radar transmission. In electronic warfare (EW) applications, one Su-30MKI can track and engage a target while the wingman simultaneously focuses jamming on the same target, using the N-011M. This makes it very difficult for the target to intercept or jam the N-011M that is tracking him. Another anti-jamming technique already validated by the IAF is for all four N-011M radars to illuminate the same target simultaneously at different frequencies. Come 2009, the Su-30MKI, by then being equipped with the ‘Irbis' active phased-array radar will be transformed into a dedicated information warfare platform with a redesigned rear cockpit housing a communications-cum-EW specialist. The IAF's overarching mission is to achieve information dominance and ensure that friendly assets have the best information possible while destroying or jamming the enemy's information resources.

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpo ... stcount=31

Only problems. Everything Sengupta said is BS.

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpo ... stcount=42
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpo ... stcount=43

Pit wrote:
Bravo Sierra...Bravo Sierra...Bravo Sierra

Seems like Sengputa this time plagiarize some Gripen article (I think it was by Bill Sweetman, former JED)...the TIDLS thingie is word by word copy & paste from such.

By n-hundred time, Irbis-E is NOT AN AESA SET...I think we should post a sticky on the forum with that, even NIIP have disclosed images of the thingie...is an advanced PESA design.

Furthermore Avibras (or it was Mectron) and Denel are working on A-Darter ASRAAM not on any BVRAAM missile...so this is again Sengputa's balooney.

and

Pit wrote:And there is off course some Lockheed Martin's Code One Magazine F-22 Raptor plagiarism there on that article off course

So: all those poor chaps thinking Sengupta is someone who actually has any idea of what he is talking of, whether it be the Prahaar or Arjun or Air Force or Army or anyone - guess what guys, he often has no clue and just makes stuff up

Be aware of this joker, his "it is a pointy thing, Israel/Russia/Europe makes pointy things, so any Indian rocket is an imported one with TOT" or "India is getting super secret Death Star" rubbish comments

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 05 Jul 2011 23:24

^^Karan, post it in the FAQ thread. This needs to be linked along with Rahul M's post about him, whenever anyone posts something from chorgupta.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 06 Jul 2011 03:21

Karan M wrote:Hi,

I had noted that Prasun is a Grade A bunkum master.

Latest case in point, the Indian MOD Annual Reports mention the DRDO Arudhra radar is getting developed, and will be ready for trials in a year or two's time. The IAF named their MPR acquired from Israel the Arudhra as well, causing initial confusion, thereafter clarified by a news report which noted the two projects were separate and the similar names caused the problem.

Gentlemen, MR. you know who has a good Modus Operandi... when there is no info on something, he just weaves details with high sounding terms etc... he manages to sway his audience... his posts are also long full of details, quotes and everything refers to some TOT, foreign supplier, pictures, tables etc... so sounds convincing.
MOD/DRDO/Services not giving much details compounds this, he also makes them look like bumbling idiots..
Regarding Arudra (this is how MOD has spelt the MPR). here is the MOD Annual report 2009.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/59394370
Refer Page 88 or search for "arudra"
I have shared other years too for your reference

one thing i have noticed. Any Indian Product / technology can be quickly researched if we go through DRDO Tech focus, DRDO Newsletter, MOM Annual Report and ofcourse BR Forums.

FrontierIndia, Livefist or Taramak are more reliable sources than "you know who" or the "bearded colonel". sometime even Chindits gives reliable news...

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 06 Jul 2011 05:02

Army set to place order for 248 more arjun main battle tanks

BANGALORE: The much-maligned Arjun Main Battle Tank is poised to get a fresh lease of life, with the Indian Army set to order 248 more of India's first indigenously-built tanks, a decision that will also give a much-needed shot in the arm to the country's beleaguered tank fleet.

"We are definitely expecting more orders, at least a minimum of 248 tanks of the Mark-II version. The Ordnance Factory Board has been instructed by the ministry of defence to initiate action for the procurement of the Mark-II version," P. Sivakumar, director, Combat Vehicles Research and Development Establishment, told the Economic Times.

The order, which could be placed in late-2011 itself, will come as a huge boost to the Arjun production line at the Heavy Vehicles Factory at Avadhi, on the outskirts of Chennai, as the same was expected to be terminated due to a lack of interest shown by the Indian Army.

So far, the Army has placed an order for 248 tanks of the Mark-I and Mark-II versions.

The Mark-II version of the Arjun MBT is currently undergoing its critical summer trials in Pokhran, Rajasthan, conducted by the country's nodal defence lab, DRDO, while the winter trials are expected to take place later in the year. The defence research establishment expects to get the new orders from the end user - the Army - once the current trials conclude.

"If the trials go well, particularly relating to missile firing, there is no doubt that further orders will be placed. There is a commitment given by the deputy chief of Army staff, if the new improvements are incorporated successfully" Sivakumar said.

The June trials have already seen the Arjun MBT Mark-II tested with a number of technical improvements, including command panoramic sight and uncooled thermal image. According to Sivakumar, a further 40 technological improvements are to be tested, including a new transmission control system and new fuel tanks.

'We are planning the first phase of the end user trials by October or November for the missile and other design improvements," he said.

The Army's decision to induct greater numbers of the Arjun MBT is a significant turnaround from its earlier reluctance to do so. However, with the military's 4,000-strong tank arsenal consisting largely of more than 2,400 obsolete T-72 tanks and transfer of technology issues with Russia relating to the T-90, has forced it to take a re-look at the Arjun.

The tank has had its fair share of detractors within the country's military establishment.

After being in development hell for more than 30 years and at a substantial cost of Rs 300-crore, the Arjun MBT programme had come under severe flak for cost overruns and its failure to meet the Indian Army's combat requirements, leading to speculation that it could never be the mainstay of the Indian Army's Armoured Corps.

But ever since comprehensively outgunning and outrunning the T-90, India's current flagship battle tank in 2010, the DRDO has been positioning the Arjun MBT as the backbone of the country's armoured fighting units.

Defended the programme, the defence establishment also laid part of the blame for the project delays on the Indian military , stating that they had to be "realistic" in their demands.

"'But while we welcome all inputs and guidelines, we also feel the need for the Services to firm up realistic requirements at the earliest, so we may properly plan our project requirements," Dr VK Saraswat, scientific advisor to the defence minister said last month.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 06 Jul 2011 05:21

VinodTK wrote:Army set to place order for 248 more arjun main battle tanks

Is this 248# order exclusively for the MarkII? Does it mean the second order of 124 is for the MarkI itself (the design which was accepted by IA after comparative trials).
I thought the current trials is DRDO trials and not user trials? Gurus?

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 06 Jul 2011 05:27

VinodTK wrote:The Army's decision to induct greater numbers of the Arjun MBT is a significant turnaround from its earlier reluctance to do so. However, with the military's 4,000-strong tank arsenal consisting largely of more than 2,400 obsolete T-72 tanks and transfer of technology issues with Russia relating to the T-90, has forced it to take a re-look at the Arjun.

This is an interesting statement? I am hearing TOT problems for the first time? didn't we start building T90s couple of years back and the SUCCESS of this endevour was touted as the reason to order couple of thousand of T90s. Is this a valid statement of another case of DDMites
One thing positive is, we are seeing criticism against a Ruski tank for the first time, slowly the din against Ruski maal is starting... first Goshkov, then spares, recently delay in Frigates and now Tin Cans... what next?
I hope IA and MOD move quickly and order couple of hundred MarkI ASAP and 1000 MarkIIs in the next year or two.

Gurneesh · Post by **Gurneesh** » 06 Jul 2011 05:54

That is good news. But it is interesting that there is no mention of a new engine.

There is no point in ordering more Mk1 as the lead time to start production is such that Mk2 will be ready by then. IIRC, this is the reason that the second batch of 124 Mk1 was converted to Mk2 (I think that was a DRDO offer). Chako had posted an article on FrontierIndia some time ago.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 06 Jul 2011 07:29

Let's get the MK-2 with the engine readily available until the more powerful one is available and retrofit them on later.If we delay production o Arjun,we will lose an opportunity of seeing it in ervcie and giving us valuable inputs for the FMBT for the next decade.

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 06 Jul 2011 08:23

A question for the gurus, please.

With the Arjun being a heavyweight, would the T72's be our mainstay in the mountains facing China?

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 06 Jul 2011 08:25

rajanb wrote:A question for the gurus, please.

With the Arjun being a heavyweight, would the T72's be our mainstay in the mountains facing China?

They are already there.

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 06 Jul 2011 08:31

Thanks Shaurya.
Is the army still pursuing the tactics, which they did in the paki wars of having jeeps with recoiless rifles, of having SUV's fitted with the latest RPGs?

In that terrain, small quick nimble and agile vehicles could indulge in hit and relocate tactics?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Jul 2011 08:55

reading the wiki page of korean K2 panther MBT, they started dev in 1996 and expected IOC this year but has been postponed by 2 more yrs because the locally made engine and transmission has suffered problem vs the interim MTU+renk combo they used for prototypes. they have set a deadline for Oct 2011, to fix these issues or take a relook at what engine will go for the tranche-1 production run.

so its not easy to come up with a greenfield design (not sure if the korean co had foreign collab) and make it work.
fortunately in our case we have Cummins engine as the proven base and they are working on it - it can be made to work, but being the 1st application in a tank, may not be free of issues - the operating env of a MBT is subject to more harsh vibration and movement than a mining truck or harvester where these engines were priorly used. tanks also tend to slow down and speed up sharply. ...... a topic that affects military jet engines vs civilian engines too.

but I will take 248 mk2 with any engine.

248+248 = 496 will be larger than the tank forces of the big nato countries most of which are being cost cut down to bare bones 150 (1 armor div) levels

the dutch have eliminated all tanks.

p.s. T90 is like pakistan - had the high level support to cover up the s***, but eventually s*** starts seeping out of the cracks and the smell spreads in the forest

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Jul 2011 09:00

the k2 does have some interesting tech like a laser from the tip of barrel to the base. if the tank is shaking due to uneven terrain it blocks the firing until the beam is aligned again...thus lessening chances of a miss due to moving on rough terrain.
they are also looking a ground mapping soln to "look" ahead 50m and adjust the suspension of the wheels actively for terrain. maybe if a rock is coming below the right track, it will soften the suspension that side to soak up better.

it also has a MMW radar to detect incoming missiles/RPGs and launch countermeasures.

all in all, a interesting tank for study. turkey has licensed its tech for use on its own project.

extent to which Soko is supporting domestic industry can be seen in the unit cost of $8.5 mil which is most expensive in world. they can get abrams or leopard with all toys for $4 mil easily.