Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

[Sanku]

we could have done better by ordering a bunch of refurbished M1A1HA chassis from Khan's boneyards...they have some 5000 units in storage and keep overhauling and reusing as needed.

That is not even a real option. First Khan would not sell us those in 2000. Assuming they did, they would want to examine each nut and bolt of the tank in its location on IB under End use verification environment. For this, they would also ask us to compromise on Kashmir, and btw pay 1000000000000000000 $ per tank for giving them this huge favour, apart from LSA etc of course.

So the option really is T 90 or bust. Quite simply. The rest is only good for thought experiment but not in real life.

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

Also I dont really buy the doom and gloom stories around T 90. By every report, the tank men are very happy with the tank. Yes the tank is under constant upgrade, as any front line tank should be (and was not done for T 72 resulting in the mess) -- but that is hardly a "problem".

[pragnya]

Correction I did not claim it. The world claims it. Numerous references exist.

and negated by the then DRM - rao inderjit singh.

Only AS claims otherwise.

understandable from your perspective.

I will pick the world over AS -- and if the AS claim is based on Avadi heads answer, he needs to be asked some hard questions on this
(heck he needs to be asked TONS of hard questions in any case whats a few more)

why don't you do the honours for a change??

[Sanku]

Correction I did not claim it. The world claims it. Numerous references exist.

and negated by the then DRM - rao inderjit singh.

Really. Can you show me a report saying that ToT has not happened after the agreement in 2008 quoting by the then DRM.

[pragnya]

and negated by the then DRM - rao inderjit singh.

Really. Can you show me a report saying that ToT has not happened after the agreement in 2008 quoting by the then DRM.

what use are the documents pertaining to TOT passed on to you while withholding most critical technical/metallurgical data regarding the BARRELS/ARMOUR?? this is what was confirmed by the DRM in oct. 2008, the link of which i gave you already. go back and take a look.

[Sanku]

and negated by the then DRM - rao inderjit singh.

Really. Can you show me a report saying that ToT has not happened after the agreement in 2008 quoting by the then DRM.

what use are the documents pertaining to TOT passed on to you while withholding most critical technical/metallurgical data regarding the BARRELS/ARMOUR?? this is what was confirmed by the DRM in oct. 2008, the link of which i gave you already. go back and take a look.

The link you posted says that ToT is happening. That is how T 90s were made in 2009.

The Russian side agreed to deliver the specification of T-90 gun barrels by December 2008, Minister of State for Defence Production Rao Inderjit Singh told the Rajya Sabha in a written reply to question on the indigenous production of 1,000 T-90s from members.

So the DRM is actually confirming that ToT will happen in 2008.

All this is known and discussed already. The link actually supports what I said.

[pragnya]

The link you posted says that ToT is happening. That is how T 90s were made in 2009.

The Russian side agreed to deliver the specification of T-90 gun barrels by December 2008, Minister of State for Defence Production Rao Inderjit Singh told the Rajya Sabha in a written reply to question on the indigenous production of 1,000 T-90s from members.

So the DRM is actually confirming that ToT will happen in 2008.

All this is known and discussed already. The link actually supports what I said.

so you safely and deliberately ignore this -

Admitting that the non-delivery of T-90 MBT gun barrel specification was one of the major obstacles faced by India in indigenous production of 1,000 of these tanks, Singh said the issue of transfer of technology (ToT) was discussed between the two sides during the Indo-Russian Working Group on ship building, aviation and land system in August this year.

The minister said the ToT documents for most of the parts were already with India and some technical data regarding armour plates along with gun barrel manufacturing was awaited.

He said India had already developed armoured plates indigenously and the DRDO has come up with the 'Kanchan' explosive reactive armoured plates for tanks.

it was hoped that by 2008 TOT would happen but as evident from GM, HVF AVADI, as of nov 2011 - it had not happened.

PS : i am not going to bite and get into a polemical/word play debate with you which always happens inspite of facts produced. so you are free to beleive what you wish to beleive. for me it is crystal clear but i am happy to be corrected.

[Viv S]

so we have the T90 -a supposedly finished product ordered in a hurry post kargil in 2000, still working out "TOT and teething issues" in 2013!
we could have done better by ordering a bunch of refurbished M1A1HA chassis from Khan's boneyards...they have some 5000 units in storage and keep overhauling and reusing as needed.

Not to mention refurbished/upgraded, surplus Dutch and German Leopard 2A4s.

[nachiket]

Also I dont really buy the doom and gloom stories around T 90. By every report, the tank men are very happy with the tank. Yes the tank is under constant upgrade, as any front line tank should be

Interestingly, this does not seem to apply for the Arjun Mk1. It has to be in its absolutely perfect Mk2 form, with all requested improvements completed and tested multiple times before the Army will even consider buying more than a token amount (of which there are still no promises).

As for the men being happy, I'm sure they are happy with the T-72 as well. IAF pilots flying Mig-21s will also tell you they feel confident flying it if you ask them. That in itself means little. IA soldiers aren't going to announce to the world that they are defending the country with substandard foreign equipment that their own acquisitions department chose over a better locally manufactured alternative.

[Pratyush]

Did not realise that I would be kicking up a hornet's nest. With a simple post.

But the most ironical point is that the Army could be accepting FCS originally developed for the Arjun. In a modified form for the T 90.

[Pratyush]

^^^

Saar to paraphrase Ramana in a different context. Desi maal has to pass through an Agni pariksha for it to be accepted. While a foreign maal has to be on the drawing board for it to be accepted.

[nachiket]

Did not realise that I would be kicking up a hornet's nest. With a simple post.

Don't worry. This is regular fare for the Armored Vehicles dhaaga.

[Karan M]

Also I dont really buy the doom and gloom stories around T 90. By every report, the tank men are very happy with the tank. Yes the tank is under constant upgrade, as any front line tank should be

Interestingly, this does not seem to apply for the Arjun Mk1. It has to be in its absolutely perfect Mk2 form, with all requested improvements completed and tested multiple times before the Army will even consider buying more than a token amount (of which there are still no promises).

As for the men being happy, I'm sure they are happy with the T-72 as well. IAF pilots flying Mig-21s will also tell you they feel confident flying it if you ask them. That in itself means little. IA soldiers aren't going to announce to the world that they are defending the country with substandard foreign equipment that their own acquisitions department chose over a better locally manufactured alternative.

This line is a killer btw "Yes the tank is under constant upgrade, as any front line tank should be ".. didn't know other frontline tanks had to be "under constant upgrade" to address things like replacement of malfunctioning thermal imagers in the primary sights..

Pak Army to Indian Army -"come out and play"
Indian Army to Pak Army -"cant, our tanks are under constant upgrade as any frontline tank should be".

[Sanku]

it was hoped that by 2008 TOT would happen but as evident from GM, HVF AVADI, as of nov 2011 - it had not happened.
.

Incorrect, all the reports say that by 2008 ToT would happen, and the fact it has is shown that in 2009 Indian made T 90s were rolled out. The reports said that it happened because ToT happened.

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/00 ... 081731.htm

New Delhi (IANS): After a delay of one year, the first T-90 tank manufactured in India under licence will roll out August 24, 2009.

"The first T-90 tank will roll out Aug 24," said a defence ministry official, requesting anonymity.

The licensed production of the tanks have been kicked off only after the stalemate with Russia over transfer of technology was resolved.

The T 90s DID get made in 2009, as shown by the previously posted articles.


So when in 2009 OFB claimed that it was making T 90s entirely in India, was it lying? Or did the development of the Gun and armor happened overnight between lack of ToT in 2007 and T 90 manufactured in 2009?

Also IF the report that the barrels and turret armor is "Indian" then there are two distinct variants of T 90 in IA, one with Russian barrels and armor and one with Indian. Since the majority of T 90s are indeed made from CKBs or FBUs

How come this fairly important issue is not even reported ANYWHERE?

[Karan M]

^^^

Saar to paraphrase Ramana in a different context. Desi maal has to pass through an Agni pariksha for it to be accepted. While a foreign maal has to be on the drawing board for it to be accepted.

True that.. T90MS or whatever that upgraded version is... no trials in any Indian ops/ region announced, yet it has been cleared for purchase. Meanwhile original T-90 struggles with heat related issues for its TI.

[nachiket]

They are buying the MS now? When did that happen?

[Karan M]

They are buying the MS now? When did that happen?

New T-90s announced for new Army unit in NE..
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2012/20121105/main5.htm

Other reports in this thread..

[Pratyush]

What is the GSQR for which the MS will be acquired.

[Karan M]

This is the GSQR.. AS was the first to break the news, despite the best efforts of the sith lord on this forum who hates him..
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2012/11/a ... -push.html

[Sanku]

Also I dont really buy the doom and gloom stories around T 90. By every report, the tank men are very happy with the tank. Yes the tank is under constant upgrade, as any front line tank should be

Interestingly, this does not seem to apply for the Arjun Mk1. It has to be in its absolutely perfect Mk2 form, with all requested improvements completed and tested multiple times before the Army will even consider buying more than a token amount (of which there are still no promises).
:

1) The Mk 2 is hardly the absolutely perfect. Actually Mk 2 is mostly what Mk1 was supposed to be in 2004 already.

2) Yes, when ordering a NEW tank it is important it is sync with the requirements then. T 90s were ready in 2000 and upgrd NOW. Arjuns Mk I got delieverd in 2011. BIG difference.

[Karan M]

T-90s ready in 2000 with sights that didn't work.
MK2>MK1>T-90 in trials..so why was the T-90 purchased.

[Pratyush]

^^^

Makes no sense to me what so ever. Any way, nothing about the IA's attitude WRT, the Arjun does to me. Nor am I able to understand where the T 90 can be considered as superior to the Arjun and in what respect.

Consider, that the Arjun is routinely criticized for being too heavy for Indian terrain. But its ability to move in soft ground is a function of the ground pressure that it exerts. Whereas, the ground pressure of the Tin can is higher than that of the Arjun. That being the case, it is the tin can, that is, unsuitable for the terrain rather than the Arjun.

The other thing, the T 90 has faced difficulty in the Indian summer, while the Arjun has reportedly performed well. Yet the IA persists with the T 90. While the Arjun must go through endless trials and improvements before it can be accepted in service.

[nachiket]

1) The Mk 2 is hardly the absolutely perfect. Actually Mk 2 is mostly what Mk1 was supposed to be in 2004 already.

2) Yes, when ordering a NEW tank it is important it is sync with the requirements then. T 90s were ready in 2000 and upgrd NOW. Arjuns Mk I got delieverd in 2011. BIG difference.

What? The Mk1 was made as per the original GSQR. Mk2 is being built to incorporate the changes requested after the Mk1 was delivered. And your amusing attempt at defending the indefensible still does not explain the difference in numbers ordered. There is still no confirmation of any orders beyond the original 124.

[Sanku]

T-90s ready in 2000 with sights that didn't work.
MK2>MK1>T-90 in trials..so why was the T-90 purchased.

T 90 was purchased in 2000. Mk1 trials happened in 2007. Mk 1 were produced in 2011.

If we are talking about "new" T 90 purchases. They appear to be for mountain brigades. I suppose the weight would play a role in the choice there.

[Sanku]

1) The Mk 2 is hardly the absolutely perfect. Actually Mk 2 is mostly what Mk1 was supposed to be in 2004 already.

2) Yes, when ordering a NEW tank it is important it is sync with the requirements then. T 90s were ready in 2000 and upgrd NOW. Arjuns Mk I got delieverd in 2011. BIG difference.

What? The Mk1 was made as per the original GSQR. Mk2 is being built to incorporate the changes requested after the Mk1 was delivered. And your amusing attempt at defending the indefensible still does not explain the difference in numbers ordered. There is still no confirmation of any orders beyond the original 124.

Actually no. At the very least the missile firing capability was supposed to be productised (not demonstrated) in Mk 1. This is one example.

[Pratyush]

Can any one make GSQR to GSQR comparison between the T90 and Arjun and state with absolute authority that the Arjun failed where the 90 was a success.

Cause, from what I know about the history of the Arjun, It is a case of a designer designing the Tank to be what the IA wanted and then the IA walked away.

Consider, when the project was first sanctioned, it was to be a 40 ton vehicle with a 105 gun. By 1980, it evolved into a 115 MM vehicle @ 40 tons. By mid 80s again it evolves into a 120 mm vehicle @ nearly 40 tons.

Coming to the present some time in the late 80s the IA asks for Arjun to be developed into what it is today. And then walks away from it.

So from what I can see, for the present vehicle to emerge, It had to undergo 4 separate iterations. Each iteration a result of the IA changing the specs for the tank. Now we are looking at the 5th iteration of the tank. In its Mk 2 version. But in terms of production the numbers will not be committed.

PS: I think that the torsion bar failure issue was reported correctly. Except it took place for one of the earlier earlier iteration of the vehicle and not for the one that exists at present.

[Karan M]

T-90s ready in 2000 with sights that didn't work.
MK2>MK1>T-90 in trials..so why was the T-90 purchased.

T 90 was purchased in 2000. Mk1 trials happened in 2007.

Your spin about dates apart, still does not address how flawed T-90s were purchased in 2000 and remain with flaws.

Mk 1 were produced in 2011.

After trials T-90s didnt go through.

If we are talking about "new" T 90 purchases. They appear to be for mountain brigades. I suppose the weight would play a role in the choice there.

Where are the trials for these tanks?

[Karan M]

Actually no. At the very least the missile firing capability was supposed to be productised (not demonstrated) in Mk 1. This is one example.

Why does Mk1 require missile firing capability? As matter of fact, why does even T-90 require missile firing capability? Did you think about that?

[Karan M]

PS: I think that the torsion bar failure issue was reported correctly. Except it took place for one of the earlier earlier iteration of the vehicle and not for the one that exists at present.

Shiv Aroor reported the Arjun had a torsion bar failure in recent trials. When the Arjun has had Hydropneumatic propulsion for 2 decades now..

[Pratyush]

^^^

Oh......

I got my Arjuns & torsion bars mixed up.

[Sanku]

Your spin about dates apart,?

Dates are spin? No wonder we have this situation of barely delivering a tank meant for mainstream production in 2004 (if not before) in 2011 and then wondering as to why their stakeholders are not falling over themselves with excitement.

flawed T-90s were purchased in 2000 and remain with flaws.

With their so called flaws (not really flaws, some limitations), T 90s up to 2007 were the only possible option for IA. Most of those minor limitations are fixed and indeed many upgrds then.

T 90 continue to be excellent MBTs, despite all the MoD/OFB mess up with production and ammunition/tank manufacture.

Why does Mk1 require missile firing capability? As matter of fact, why does even T-90 require missile firing capability? Did you think about that?

It seems DRDO did not get your note. They seem to hold missile firing an important component for Mk II and are working to get it in. If they knew they were wasting their time, maybe they could spend more time elsewhere.

That apart it is needed because it is a powerful multiuse weapon adding a dramatically enhanced ability. This was known as far as back as 2000 BEFORE the fact that OFB did a poor job of creating the main ammo means that T 90's main shell is not the latest one available in large quantities.

It is a important weapon system. Trying to pooh pah it, because Avadi failed to productize it in time is not going to cut it.

Pratyush wrote:
PS: I think that the torsion bar failure issue was reported correctly. Except it took place for one of the earlier earlier iteration of the vehicle and not for the one that exists at present.


Shiv Aroor reported the Arjun had a torsion bar failure in recent trials. When the Arjun has had Hydropneumatic propulsion for 2 decades now..

Apparently Pratyush is correct.

http://www.defencejournal.com/2001/september/tank.htm

When upto the late 90s, the hydropnuematic suspension continued to fail badly, as a alternative, torsion bar was tried. That also failed miserably.

The Arjun tank uses a hydro-pneumatic suspension system, which has been giving problems. This system required recharging every 300 km in desert and semi-desert conditions. On soft ground it required recharging every 250 km. In the desert heat and dust sealing of fluids and gas malfunctioned causing leakage and requiring more frequent maintenance. Inherent design flaws in the hydro-pneumatic suspension were aggravated by the increase in the tank’s weight, which was above the maximum specified by the Army. Owing to these problems two prototype tanks were equipped with torsion bars as an alternative.

BTW I have posted this before, so its not that the "right" information is not present in public domain.

[pragnya]

Apparently Pratyush is correct.

http://www.defencejournal.com/2001/september/tank.htm

BTW I have posted this before, so its not that the "right" information is not present in public domain.

for a person who 'only' beleives in 'official' sources, let alone media - how come PAK army mouthpiece became a 'source' written by a pak lt.gen??

[Sanku]

for a person who 'only' beleives in 'official' sources, let alone media - how come PAK army mouthpiece became a 'source' written by a pak lt.gen??

There are multiple corroborating sources. Its just that material from 99 is not easily available on the web.

[pragnya]

for a person who 'only' beleives in 'official' sources, let alone media - how come PAK army mouthpiece became a 'source' written by a pak lt.gen??

There are multiple corroborating sources. Its just that material from 99 is not easily available on the web.

so of all 'multiple' sources that you can corraborate from, you deemed it fit to post a pak army source written by a pak lt. gen?? what do you expect him to write?? sing praises for Arjun?? this when you outrightly rubbish Ajai Shukla's articles without even a thought ignoring the fact that he was a tanker and served the country as part of IA!!

great indeed!!!

[Karan M]

Apparently Pratyush is correct.

http://www.defencejournal.com/2001/september/tank.htm

BTW I have posted this before, so its not that the "right" information is not present in public domain.

for a person who 'only' beleives in 'official' sources, let alone media - how come PAK army mouthpiece became a 'source' written by a pak lt.gen??

LOL, seriously.

That defence journal article is the usual paki agit prop, recycling a lot of claims from media while doing a puff piece on the Al Khalid (repackaged Nornco MBT-2000)

As to torsion bars and Arjun.
Everybody and his aunt knows that a torsion bar system was evaluated for Arjun on the insistence of an Army Gen who claimed that since the Abrams had it, it was better. It was then dropped when it proved to worse than the hydropneumatic system chosen as standard.

None of which is the answer to the (in)famous torsion bar broke joke committed by Aroor in 2007.
He initially reported it as a torsion bar failure - when caught out (check the comments), he quickly edited the post and claimed a suspension issue.

[Pratyush]

Sanku I am aware of the hydrop gas suspension issues. This was caused by the heat of the desert causing the metal to expand. And loosened the seal, which in turn caused the leakage. Resulting in the failure.

But truble shooting fixed it.

The fact is that the Arjun had to go through fire. But the t90 was accepted as is. Its flaws areas glaring as the sun. Yet it is accepted. But the arjun has to be perfect. One bolt fails and sky falls.

[Sanku]

so of all 'multiple' sources that you can corraborate from, you deemed it fit to post a pak army source written by a pak lt. gen?? what do you expect him to write?? sing praises for Arjun?? this when you outrightly rubbish Ajai Shukla's articles without even a thought ignoring the fact that he was a tanker and served the country as part of IA!!

great indeed!!!

You really should not do this to yourself. Anyway

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORC ... Arjun.html

Everybody and his aunt knows that a torsion bar system was evaluated for Arjun on the insistence of an Army Gen who claimed that since the Abrams had it, it was better. It was then dropped when it proved to worse than the hydropneumatic system chosen as standard.

So if every one and his uncle knew this why did you claim otherwise ?

Shiv Aroor reported the Arjun had a torsion bar failure in recent trials. When the Arjun has had Hydropneumatic propulsion for 2 decades now..

So decide which of the two statements you want to hold to.

I dont think there is any need to be overtly defensive on Arjun, if the tank works and can be produced, IA will induct it. If IA does not induct it, it means the product did not work. Blame game is pointless.

[Sanku]

The fact is that the Arjun had to go through fire. But the t90 was accepted as is. Its flaws areas glaring as the sun. Yet it is accepted. But the arjun has to be perfect. One bolt fails and sky falls.

Hardly, the kind of issues that are reported in T 90 are what the Arjun has barely began to see after 2007. T 90 has been pushed through gruelling main stream operationalisation by 2002. That is happening with Arjun Mk I's now.

Till 2007-8 Arjun experimental models were being baby sat by IA which devoted a whole regiment to it.

There is about 10 year or more of difference between the operationaliztion of the two tanks.

[NRao]

The IA should be just fine with the Arjun if we were to rename it T-91.


And, buy a boat load of T-72 gun barrels. And grease too.

[nachiket]

Actually no. At the very least the missile firing capability was supposed to be productised (not demonstrated) in Mk 1. This is one example.

So the lack of a missile firing capability (ignoring the Arjun's obvious advantage of single-piece ammo which is superior to that used by the T-90) can completely halt the Mk1's purchase. But the failure of the TI system and other electronics in the heat (they are now adding an environmental-cooling system to the TinCan putting futher pressure on its already underpowered engine) cannot halt the T-90's purchase.

Awesome.

BTW, regarding the T-90's missile firing capability, this is what Antony said to the Parliament in 2006

“The Invar missile on T-90 tank is not a failure. However, the completely knocked down kits received for assembly have been found to be defective. ”

The T-90 needs the missiles a lot more than the Arjun does because of the inferiority of two-piece ammo.

[Sanku]

So the lack of a missile firing capability (ignoring the Arjun's obvious advantage of single-piece ammo which is superior to that used by the T-90) can completely halt the Mk1's purchase. .

Actually, no I did not say that. You asked in what ways does Mk I spec delivery is being met by Mk II. I gave *one* example. I can do the painful exercise of going through the changes between Mk II and Mk I specs and listing what was originally planned for Mk I of those, but that is tedious and I do not see value in it.

Why is T 90 acquired is a simple statement of *it is there* vs Arjun of *it got there in 2007-9*. I believe we have been over this ground. I know that there is a view that Arjun could be acquired if IA wished, but the fact is, as much of Arjun as can be made, is being acquired. IA's wish are only that no Arjun should not mean that they have no tanks.