Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Post Reply
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20844
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Karan M »

Sanku wrote: So if every one and his uncle knew this why did you claim otherwise ?
You have a problem with context perhaps? The Arjun series produced articles never included torsion bars. Ergo, claiming that there were torsion bar failures in 2007, is plain stupid - which is what Aroor did and what he was caught out on.
So decide which of the two statements you want to hold to.
Actually, I did make my points clearly - its that you are unable to admit you are wrong, and have to resort to posting Pakistani claims in order to confuse the issue.
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.
Errm we are not overtly defensive on Arjun. OTOH, you are very defensive about the T-90s faults and will cling to any straw in order to justify its procurement. First, look in the mirror at your own antics before projecting onto other folks.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9203
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by nachiket »

Sanku wrote: 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.
The Mk1 production lines are idle and will continue to remain idle till the Mk2 is tested and retested. There is still no firm commitment on ordering the Mk2 either. Even more importantly, there is nothing on the Mk2 which cannot be added to the Mk1 tanks after induction in an upgrade. It is you who said the tanks must be "constantly upgraded". :P
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20844
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Karan M »

nachiket wrote:
Sanku wrote: 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. :roll:
The T-90 needs the missiles a lot more than the Arjun does because of the inferiority of two-piece ammo.
Well said.

First, the IA is scouting around for an environmental cooling system for the T-90 even whilst the Arjun does not need one. What does that tell us about the capability of the TI coupled to the Primary Sight on the T-90.

Second, the T-90 needs a change of autoloader to even accomodate longer rounds. In other words, a massive redesign. And the only way to get about that ammunition vulnerability is to use slow, expensive gun fired ATGMs to compensate, stated as such in a deposition to the Std Committee on Defence. Even current gen APS are proof against such rounds and its a matter of economics, if PRC/Pak get access to these items.

Third, the T-90 remains inferior to both the MK1 and MK2, both of which have ammunition storage in protected containers. MK2 upgraded that containerization and is even better than MK1. Where is this on the T-90?

Bottomline, the T-90 purchase is one done in haste, and whose technical issues remain to be solved. There is no clear indication either, that the IA has yet found a solution to these problems.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sanku »

Karan M wrote: You have a problem with context perhaps? The Arjun series produced articles never included torsion bars. Ergo, claiming that there were torsion bar failures in 2007, is plain stupid - which is what Aroor did and what he was caught out on.
But Pratyush did not say that? He merely said that an earlier version of Arjun did have torsion bars. Which is correct. So if the context being missed by anyone, is you.

This is what he said.
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.
Errm we are not overtly defensive on Arjun. OTOH, you are very defensive about the T-90s faults and will cling to any straw in order to justify its procurement. First, look in the mirror at your own antics before projecting onto other folks.
Well, I am surprised. Why should anyone be defensive about a tank which is more than liked by the tank men? I am merely making sure the records stays straight and facts are put on the table.
negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by negi »

Sanku wrote: I dont think there is any need to be overtly defensive on Arjun,
Wait wait defensive ? Hum to sir offensive hi rehte hain . What is there to be defensive about the Arjun ? That as a platform it is much closer to Leos, Abrams and Challys as compared to the T-90 ? That it is sophisticated and hence is a logistical nightmare for the IA (which is a lame line of reasoning in the first place).

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.
Cha gaye guru, thoko taali ; khataik ! :mrgreen:

If this is the line of your reasoning then what is there in this debate for you ?
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sanku »

nachiket wrote:
Sanku wrote: 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.
The Mk1 production lines are idle and will continue to remain idle till the Mk2 is tested and retested. There is still no firm commitment on ordering the Mk2 either. Even more importantly, there is nothing on the Mk2 which cannot be added to the Mk1 tanks after induction in an upgrade. It is you who said the tanks must be "constantly upgraded". :P
IF the lines are idle, it is Avadi's fault. Because as per the original plans. Mk II were supposed to be manufactured within a year of Mk I complete. The year needed for retooling the lines.

Also constant upgd makes sense to those manufactured BEFORE the upgd was available. So the T 90 MS is not going to be retrofitted in the field. It will be made on a T 90 MS line.

The old T 90s may be retrofitted on field later (no plans yet) -- similarly, the plans call for Mk II to be Mk II from the factory. No one is saying that first make Mk I and then send it back immediately for II.

The inescapable fact is that CVRDE/AVADI are NOT being able to respond to the needs on time. That is the real issue.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sanku »

negi wrote:
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.
If this is the line of your reasoning then what is there in this debate for you ?
Negi ji this is not the line of reasoning. It is the conclusion of inescapable facts.
Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sagar G »

Sanku wrote:IF the lines are idle, it is Avadi's fault. Because as per the original plans. Mk II were supposed to be manufactured within a year of Mk I complete. The year needed for retooling the lines.
Post me a valid link for the confirmed order by Army given to CVRDE for the same.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20844
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Karan M »

Sanku wrote:But Pratyush did not say that? He merely said that an earlier version of Arjun did have torsion bars. Which is correct. So if the context being missed by anyone, is you.This is what he said.

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.


Irrelevant. The torsion bar issue was reported in 2007 by Aroor as a "new event" and an example of Arjuns continuing problems. That was plain wrong as the Arjun had no torsion bars at that time. Second, where is the evidence that what is posted in the Pakistani link that you posted on Arjun is correct? You claim corroborating evidence that Arjun torsion bars failed on those tanks. Provide evidence. Pakistani links are not evidence. They have a past history - defence journal especially - of making stuff up.

Well, I am surprised. Why should anyone be defensive about a tank which is more than liked by the tank men? I am merely making sure the records stays straight and facts are put on the table.


What record stays straight? Posting disinformation is not akin to putting facts on the table. When asked for evidence, you engage in semantics. A perfect example of your negationary antics are the statements about the T-90 FCS and claims that it is akin to MKIzing the T-90.

Any and every evidence of the Russian intransigence on the T-90 is denied by you in your attempt to portray the tank acquisition in a good light. But those are not facts.

Accept the issues with the T-90 and note the program has issues. Think about what needs to be solved. Thats called dealing with facts. Not coming up with all sorts of word smithery to state all is well, when it clearly is not.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sanku »

Karan M wrote:
Sanku wrote:But Pratyush did not say that? He merely said that an earlier version of Arjun did have torsion bars. Which is correct. So if the context being missed by anyone, is you.This is what he said.

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.


Irrelevant. .


If the context of discussion is irrelevant to you, why bother discussing? When some one discusses the sweetness of Mangos you say banana is sweet. And then go on to harangue others about mango being irrelevant?

Meanwhile let us change tacks and discuss banana's -- can you please be so kind as to point to Aroor's article claiming what you say he claimed in 2007?
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sanku »

Sagar G wrote:
Sanku wrote:IF the lines are idle, it is Avadi's fault. Because as per the original plans. Mk II were supposed to be manufactured within a year of Mk I complete. The year needed for retooling the lines.
Post me a valid link for the confirmed order by Army given to CVRDE for the same.
Please search for Sanku on this thread and look at older posts. It has links. This should be some time back.

PS> In any case I will dig them out once again, tomorrow though. Its late here.
Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sagar G »

Sanku wrote:Please search for Sanku on this thread and look at older posts. It has links. This should be some time back.

PS> In any case I will dig them out once again, tomorrow though. Its late here.
I don't think I have missed any so will wait for your link.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20844
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Karan M »

Sanku wrote: If the context of discussion is irrelevant to you, why bother discussing? When some one discusses the sweetness of Mangos you say banana is sweet. And then go on to harangue others about mango being irrelevant?

Meanwhile let us change tacks and discuss banana's -- can you please be so kind as to point to Aroor's article claiming what you say he claimed in 2007?
Why should I point to Aroors article, when you have such amazing skills and can clearly engage in silly semantics about Mangos and Bananas and can clearly find out everything yourself?
After all, whenever you are asked for evidence, this is what you do.. food for thought? Or Mangos and Bananas perhaps (since you think your job on the forum is to make everyone bananas apparently..)
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20844
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Karan M »

Lets take the perfect example of "contextual" Mangos and Bananas and see why it would drive anyone who looks at facts alone, bananas.
Sanku wrote:
Ajai Shukla has been regularly pulling stuff from his musharraff and passing it off. None of his statements have ANY backing from any official source whatsoever. It is all based on "sources"
Yes indeed. So the corroborating facts that DRDO mentions that it made T-90 Armor components, exactly as mentioned by OFB, which in turn is exactly as mentioned by AS is because AS is "pulling stuff out of Musharraf".

Yet another perfect example of "I dont like the facts, because they make the Russians and ergo the T-90 look bad, so I will curse Ajai Shukla and deny any source that says the opposite".
OTOH -- even the OFB chief has accepted that the T 90 barrel tech transfer was completed by 2008. That is how T 90s are being made in India from raw materials. This is documented from official sources and has multiple corroborations.
Which is why circa 2011, the OFB is stating that it is sourcing armor components and barrels locally. Right?
As to why a T 90 FCS would aimed to be replaced by a local one ?

First of all do not that ToT does not automatically mean that OFB/DRDO also get understanding to "improve" the Tech. All it means is that "how to make the tank from blueprints" is given. ToT does not mean that 60 years of tank design experience and of its sub-components is passed over. That is NOT ToT. So ToT has happened DOEST NOT mean that DRDO/OFBs suddenly can develop T 99 based on T 90 (that is the hope, but OFBs seemed to have satisfied themselves with simply manufacturing work -- its a different question that even that minimum work is often called into question.)

Also the standing order for IA and DRDO et al has been to as far as possible replace imports through internal substitution where ever possible.

It appears that this is a window where they could try and replace the FCS with improved local one based on Arjun. The other alternatives would be
1) Improve the Russian FCS locally.
2) Ask Russians to improve the FCS.

Here they are attempting to replace a part of T 90 locally. Make it more MKIzed so to say. This has been done on many Russian imports in the past. Russians have typically been ok with it, sometimes lukewarm, and sometimes obstructionist, but overall ok.
What a convoluted run to a simple question.

Why did India seek to - at great expense and effort of time and money - get TATA SED to make a ballistic computer locally IF it had got BC modification rights from Russia?

Because the Russians refused to hand it over.

In return we get this run-around-of-what-TOT-is-supposed-to-mean. Heck, we have such a lousy supplier that he attempts to arm twist India even over adding more ammo rounds to the tank. And that is sought to be washed away by claiming that "it appears this is a window It appears that this is a window where they could try and replace the FCS with improved local one based on Arjun.

This is totally false and it is not some good to have, so lets do this, plan being implemented.

There is NO attempt to replace the entire FCS with any improved local one based on the Arjun. Only the Ballistic Computer is being replaced BECAUSE the AMK-339 rounds (and any future ones) cannot be fired by the T-90. What this means is that we are thoroughly dependent on the increasingly obsolete BM-42 FSAPDS that is the only near modern FSAPDS the T-90 can fire!!

In effect, Russian arm twisting, forcing us to go down a certain path, is sought to be portrayed as some sort of "MKIzation"..
pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by pragnya »

IA wanted light tanks for mountainous regions in north/northeast and issued an RFI for 300 such tanks in 2009. the reasons for that (bolded below) -
The tanks are expected to weigh around 22 tonnes and be capable of operating at heights of over 3,000 metres in hilly terrain, they said.

Deployment of the light tanks is being considered as part of mechanised force in the high altitude regions as heavy tanks cannot reach there, they said.

The army wants the tanks to be able to penetrate highly protected armoured vehicles and main battle tanks of the enemy from a distance of more than 2km and also be able to fire high explosive anti-tank shells and guided missiles.

Conventionally, tanks are deployed only in plains and it is very rare to station such armoured detachments in mountainous areas.

Heavy tanks face problems in mobility as narrow and spiralling roads make their movement very slow and the bridges there are also not built to bear heavy load of above 40-45 tonnes, they said.
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-in ... er-1294892

now they are planning of T-90MS tanks which are even more heavier than T-90S!!! this is hilarious beyond beleif!!! weight, bridges, mobility issues simply vanished??
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20844
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Karan M »

Of all the darned problems with the T-90, the thermal imager issue is the most serious. There are a couple of folks on this forum who have decided facts be darned, rodina be praised and tied their ego to the T-90 full time. As such, any report critical of the T-90 is from the "Arjun lobby" or the evull Ajai Shukla etc.

For the rest of the folks who still have the desire to look at hard issues, dispassionately, these reports should show the trend. They are from multiple / different sources, including official ones, the diversity deliberately chosen, as are the different years to show that the issue persists.

Lets begin with 2008.
http://articles.economictimes.indiatime ... ks-systems
NEW DELHI: With the Army's T-90 Main Battle Tanks (MBT) facing heat due to failure of fire control systems at very high temperatures, the government has floated Request for Information (RFI) for integrating air-conditioning system along with additional power source in its entire fleet of the Russian tanks.

"A large fleet of T-90 tanks would require to be fitted with environment control system with Auxillary Power Unit (APU), following Indian Army's decision to upgrade the T-90 equipment," top Army sources said.

The failure of fire control systems and its computerised sensors and sophisticated panels were noticed during T-90 trials in Rajasthan deserts, where systems conked off while operating in temperatures over 45 degree Celsius, sources said.


................

Though Defence Ministry (MOD) was keen that the environment control system was integrated within India, it would not be averse to the idea of foreign companies participating in the upgrade programme, but would have to conform to the new off-set clause in its Defence Procurement Policy announced in 2006 aimed at energising Indian defence industry.

Through RFI, India wanted interested companies to state if they were willing to provide the equipment for trials at 'No Cost No Commitment' basis, and the level of technology they would transfer to a firm nominated by MOD for the equipment's integration into the entire fleet of T-90s.

The RFI asked private companies, interested in the upgrade programme and integration of cooling systems, to declare their Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) status or authorisation from OEMs to deal with MOD.

"It is going to be a major task to integrate the environment control system along with APU in the first lot of 310 T-90s, and later in future lots of 1,000 and 330 tanks," sources said.

The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) would be roped in for the project that would require some hardcore re-engineering work, as the tank was already jam-packed with equipment and had no more space for an air-conditiong unit.
The evil Ajai Shukla writes in July 2008.
http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 005_1.html
India`s future tank nowhere in sight
....

Meanwhile, the 310 T-90s, which have been delivered by Russia and introduced into service, are not battle worthy. The crucial Fire Control System (FCS), through which the tank fires at the enemy, has failed to function in Indian summers. An obliging Russian industry offered to sell India “tank air conditioners”, though no other tank in our inventory needs or uses air-conditioning.

The Russian air-conditioners were put through trials, during which the tank driver fainted from heatstroke. Now the MoD has floated a global tender for air-conditioning the T-90s.
Now we come to 2009. Has the issue been resolved?

Aug 25, 2009. Note report is from known DRDO/DPSU baiter Rajat Pandit, hardly a person to carry any reports on DPSU behalf.

You can use google to determine the date, some eight years after T-90s were ordered..

http://mobiletoi.timesofindia.com/mobil ... blabel=TOI
Dark days for army tanks

Bid To Equip Them With Night-Fighting Abilities Hangs Fire

New Delhi: The majority of army tanks continue to grope in the dark,stricken as they are with an acute case of night blindness,in yet another example of the Indian defence establishments inability to take timely decisions in tune with strategic concerns.
The armys long-standing objective to equip its mechanised forces,including the over 1,600 T-72 tanks which form the backbone of the countrys armoured might,with advanced night-fighting capabilities is still a long distance from fruition,say sources.
For instance,the armys case for acquiring 700 TISAS (thermal imaging stand alone systems) and 418 TIFACS (thermal fire control systems) for its T-72 fleet at a cost of around Rs 1,150 crore is still hanging fire at the commercial negotiations stage.
This when the acceptance of necessity for the TISAS equipment was approved in March 2001.The capability to conduct effective operations to hit the enemy after sunset is crucial, a source said.
But the TISAS case has been stuck for a long time,resulting in continued inadequacy of night-fighting capability of the armoured corps, he added.
Similarly,the infantry too continues to grapple with only second-generation thermal imaging (TI) systems when third-generation ones are required in large numbers to conduct operations after sunset.
The defence ministry,on its part,says the contracts for TISAS and TIFACS for the T-72 fleet are likely to be concluded within the 2009-2010 fiscal.One of the main reasons for the delay has been the failure of defence PSU Bharat Electronics Ltd to resolve technology transfer issues with the foreign supplier.

The army did get 300 Israeli TISAS for its T-72 tanks in 2001,which were followed by 3,860 image intensifier-based night-vision devices.But the experience with them has been uneven,with the integration of some of these thermal equipment with fire control systems running into problems.

Even the 310 T-90 S mainbattle tanks (MBTs) imported from Russia,for over Rs 3,625 crore under a February 2001 contract,have faced problems with their French Catherine TI cameras.
Not being adequately tropicalised,the Catherine TI cameras have often malfunctioned in the extreme heat of the Rajasthan deserts.

Incidentally,the armys requirement for 1,781 MBTs to replace the older T-55 and T-72 tanks is going to be met through the progressive induction of 1,657 T-90 S tanks and 124 of the indigenous Arjuns.
So now we get to 2010.

T-90s- after a lot of pressure, are finally put up against the Arjun, and are promptly outgunned. Something the T-90 support group claims is a media conspiracy, bias, made up by Ajai Shukla etc. Finally, we all know its out in the open since a variety of credible sources, from Col rtd Gulshan Luthra to VK Saraswat all mention it.

But what also happened in the trials is here..

http://archive.tehelka.com/story_main47 ... efence.asp

Again, source of the report, Tehelka, Nov 2010, hardly any DPSU shill.

Here is what it says - note that T-90s faced issues with their thermal imagers, a continuing issue, and that the Army, is unable to fix the problem itself but is trying to aircondition the tanks. Easier said than done, because ACs soak up engine HP - which means higher fuel burn, and also reduced manoeuverability. Putting limited environmental control systems is also not an easy task, because the T-72/90 have little to no space inside to fit extra gear.
Russian-built T-90 tanks’ thermal imaging system flawed

Army suffers an estimated loss of Rs 620 crore

BY Ritu Sharma
Delhi

The Indian Army has detected flaws with the thermal imaging system of the Russian-built T-90 main battle tanks (MBTs), inducted in its fleet three years ago, causing an estimated loss of Rs 620 crore.

Rechristened as ‘Bhishma,’ T-90s’ flaw came to light during its comparative trials with the indigenous MBT Arjun during peak summers in the Thar Desert of Rajasthan.

According to the report submitted by the Indian Army, the French Catherine thermal imaging (TI) camera giving T-90s its night vision capability and higher precision is not “adequately tropicalised.” It simply cannot function in the extreme condition for which it was supposed to function. Because of this the thermal imaging camera is prone to malfunction in extreme temperature conditions of Rajasthan, where it is deployed.

“During the trials it was observed that the temperatures inside the tank goes up to 55-60 degree Celsius resulting in the blurring of images taken by the camera,” a senior Indian Army officer told Financial World on condition of anonymity as he was not authorised to speak to media.

Following the repeated delay in the MBT Arjun project, the Indian Army had opted for Russian-made T-90 tanks to counter-balance Pakistan’s acquisition of Ukraine-built T-80 tanks. Majority of T-90s would be deployed in the western sector bordering Pakistan, where mercury soars to intolerable levels during summers.


The report describes the thermal imaging cameras as the ‘eyes’ of the tank. While the tank costs around Rs 12 crore, each of these systems cost (including) Rs 2 crore. Prolonged use of the tank in extreme weather conditions has already rendered 80-90 of such systems “unserviceable.”

The Indian Army is deliberating to get a locally effective air conditioning system for the thermal imaging camera. However, nothing concrete has happened on this front.


French defence major Thales Land and Joint Systems had signed a contract with Russian Rosoboronexport to supply Catherine thermal imaging cameras for T-90s in 2007. The camera operates in the 8-12 micrometre infrared frequency band and is designed to be retrofitted into existing main battle tank fire control system. Russia started licensed production of the cameras earlier this year.

This is not the first time the T-90 project has run into problems. In 2001 India had contracted for 310 T-90 tanks for Rs 3,625 crore. Out these 310 tanks, 124 were purchased off the shelf, while the rest 184 were bought in semi-knocked down conditions and were to be assembled at Heavy Vehicles Factory (HVF) at Avadi in Tamil Nadu. There was a follow-on contract for 330 T-90s.

Under the contract, Russia was to complete transfer of technology to India for indigenous manufacturing of 1,000 T-90s at HVF by 2006. However, following chronic delay in technology transfer the first indigenous T-90 tank rolled out of the factory only in 2010.

Earlier, lack of cooling systems inside the tank led to uninhabitable temperatures of 60 degree Celsius. This made the Indian Army scout for an air conditioning system for the tank. The fire control systems of T-90s also suffered malfunctions on various occasion.

Posted on November 17, 2010
Oh, but these are from journos, TOI/Tehelka etc etc.. not Army guys who like the Army etc.

Wait.

March 2012.
http://www.spslandforces.net/story.asp?id=163

Indian Army Modernisation – An Introspection
By Lt General (Retd) P.C. Katoch


Yes, the same general Katoch who appears on TV etc and is willing to speak his mind on Pak perfidy etc. In short, not a fence sitter.

Here is what he writes.
Earlier 310 x T-90 tanks had been ordered from Russia, of which 124 fully assembled tanks were directly imported from Russia and 186 kits were imported for assembly in India. The first indigenously assembled T-90S rolled out from the Heavy Vehicles Factory (HVF) in Avadi in January 2004. Additional 347 x T-90S tanks have been inducted into service which brings the total to 647 x T-90S tanks. Defects in fire control systems of T-90S tanks due to excessive heating of turrets during summer is being remedied through air conditioning.
Oh Katoch is now not official. He is retired, yada yada yada.

Here again. 2012.

http://indianarmy.nic.in/writereaddata/ ... 310512.pdf

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON AIR CONDITIONER WITH
AUXILLARY POWER UNIT (APU) IN TANK T-90S/SK

Now - we are in 2013. End. Has the Indian Army procured any Air Conditioning for the T-90s? Something which they would have noted, publicized?

No.

Have they managed to get limited Environmental Cooling Systems to rectify this issue?

No.

The usual one poster who denies everything "bad" related to the T-90 will promptly declare merely because a RFI is posted, all is well and problem is solved. For the rest of the folks - here are things to consider.

T-90s ordered in 2001. Twelve years later, problem with its most crucial and basic sensor for fire control persists. In contrast, Arjun was put through umpteen trials till a ruggedized TI/GCS combo was proven. Yet former has 1600+ orders. Second, has to literally beg for 124+. Compare and contrast.

As of 2013, the T-90 AC option is still hanging fire - as it has over the past several years - Arjun has no AC and needs no AC.

The above one case, speaks volumes about how the T-90 was procured and how it was rushed through and further orders placed, even though it was clearly not proven.
The problem remains.

We keep buying exta TIs, and are attempting on our own to solve Russian design flaws. The Russians - laughing all the way to the bank. And this was a good deal and apparently helped us.. meanwhile Arjun, with a FCS that works is going through trial after trial. In no other country, would such a farce have gone on so long ..
PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by PratikDas »

The above post should be a sticky for this thread.
putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4728
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by putnanja »

Karan M wrote: Arjun has no AC and needs no AC.

...
How does Arjun solve similar issues? It too would see temperatures go up to 50-60 deg inside the tank. How are they solving the problem of cooling electronic components inside the tank?
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20844
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Karan M »

Three things here..

It has a better designed Gunners Main Sight with an integrated TI, net it was not a TI added to a GMS after the fact as the T-90S one is. In that, the ESSA sight with the TI, was added to the original 1G46 GMS.

More space - the Arjun interior was designed with growth potential. Hence electronics wont be as closely packed.

Finally, most importantly, items in Arjun were designed for and ruggedized with heat in mind. This includes the Gun control system. The TI is likewise, different and sourced from Sagem and trialled on the tank extensively before being cleared. The T-90s have Catherine FC from Thales.
chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by chackojoseph »

They also tried SAAB Barracuda solution

SAAB’s approach to Armour in Indian desert
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20844
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Karan M »

Barracuda was trialled but AFAIK, firm orders are yet to be placed or if they have, its not been deployed extensively on trials tanks. In turn, the Arjuns also had this:http://www.army-technology.com/contract ... /intermat/

So, point 1
Thing is that Arjuns w/o any fancy AC/ECS were expected to, and did succeed in gruelling fire control trials at peak summer times. When earlier Arjuns had FCS issues with the earlier analog fire control system, Sagem was roped in and a complete redesign was done to improve the FCS to world class standards. Also, post 1998, the original US thermal imager procured via Delft (original FCS partner for the program) was unavailable. All this added time to the Arjun program as the IA refused to relax any standards.

That by itself is fine. What is equally baffling though, is that those very standards were clearly not adhered to for the T-90, which entered into service after clearly limited trials. Hence the issue of the FCS overheating in extended desert conditions, was not picked up. And further, if the IA had treated the T-90 the same as the Arjun, further orders would not be placed till this issue was resolved. Instead, the IA drove an order for 1300 more tanks (again, there are a couple of folks who will flood the forum with replies claiming the evil MOD did all this on its own and IA was not involved) but the facts speak for themselves. And the problem continues to persist

Point 2
Another thing. The Arjun in its MK1 itself has its ammo in canisters. That is to buy the crew a crucial few extra seconds to escape in case there is an ammo penetration and they need to exit the tank. In MK2, the IA has asked for increased protection. Now, even if an entire round cooks off, the neighbouring round should not explode.
That has been developed, but is yet another example of high IA standards.

Only one issue. In the T-90 - all 1657 of them ordered till date - there is no protection whatsoever of around 20 of the 45 odd rounds that they carry. They are haphazardly scattered all around the fighting compartment. Similar standards?

Point 3. Arjun, per IA requirement had to incorporate an APU in its MK1 variant itself for silent watch. Its systems can be operated without turning on the engine. MK2 has an upgraded APU for further growth. T-90 does not have an APU.

Point 4: Arjun FSAPDS ammo developed in the mid 90s, production since early 2000 is now being upgraded, since orders are finally placed for the tank. Zero fuss, no big hue and cry. T-90 FSAPDS, so we are told, can be upgraded only if autoloader in tank is redesigned. And btw, even existing ammo in IA inventory cant be used since Russia did not share Ballistic Computer codes. So we now have to use BC tech from Arjun to supplant. Meanwhile, we are forced to use INVAR rounds - expensive missiles- to compensate for the lag in FSAPDS. Possibly the only country in the world to be acquiring gun launched missiles en masse to make up for lack of FSAPDS, whose supply was anyways messed up, but even if restored would still run against the autoloader cannot handle long rods argument.

Point 5: T-90 was procured because "Arjun was not ready". Never mind, that the Arjun was not ready because it was held to a far higher standard than the T-90 ever was. Be as it may, for quick induction, we needed tech transfer quickly. So what do we see in reality? Documentation delivered in Russian - after delay (they could not even do the documentation for the customer in English), tech transfer for armor and gun barrel (not just the ballistic computer) denied so DRDO/OFB have to come up with these.. where exactly is the quick induction? And then IA rewards the Russians by ordering several hundred more T-90s to be given in CKD/SKD fashion.

These are merely 5 points. If one goes line by line against features in both MK1 and MK2, it becomes obvious that the T-90 does not have many of these features and nor will it. Yet, it was procured post haste.

By now, enough evidence exists to suggest that the IA procurement needs to be seriously revamped.
member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by member_22539 »

^+1 million. Also, people (from the Army) responsible for this should be dragged on to the streets and tarred and feathered (metaphorically) for what they have done. Either they are imbeciles or they are traitors (of course, I mean the individuals and not the Army service).

There is a more civil way to criticize the Services for their acts of commission and omission. Using foul language and name calling is not one of them. It was made clear earlier as well. I will let this one pass. ANY such post next time will attract a summary warning. - rohitvats.
Last edited by rohitvats on 24 Oct 2013 12:58, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Foul language against Services unbecoming of forum rules and guidelines.
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14779
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Aditya_V »

Arun Menon wrote:^+1 million. Also, people (from the Army) responsible for this should be dragged on to the streets and tarred and feathered (metaphorically) for what they have done. Either they are imbeciles or they are traitors (of course, I mean the individuals and not the Army service).
And MOD Babus, Delhi Arms agents and Saint like Politicos of India are allowed scot free. Its amazing how Indians blame DRDO, Army etc. but the key people and arms gent lobby who probably get the decision's done go scot free.

Govt promotes Officers who toe their party line , people like VK Singh will be thrown under the Bus, hence many Army officers have to follow the Politician driven MOD, Media, Arms agent nexus. The primary responsibility lies with those in power who have promoted such a policy. Unless we force this to be political issue where political parties need to answer for Indigenous defense production and cut down on imports nothing will happen.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66589
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Singha »

one telling point is how many T90 has Rus army inducted and at what std of electronics and ammo?
they have probably taken all our $$ and investing in the next generation of "armada" or whatever it is called now.
in IFVs they have acknowledged the BTR80 / BMP3 is end of line and seem to be buying a french wheeled vehicle now.
http://www.janes.com/article/27466/rae- ... future-ifv
seems a variant of the VBCI IFV http://tanknutdave.com/the-french-8x8-vbci-ifv/

the countries with the best combat vehicles are those that have a world class domestic vehicle industry sector. russia does not have much of a domestic car industry and it shows. just Mil sales alone cannot subsidize the high cost of r&d.
pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by pragnya »

putnanja wrote:How does Arjun solve similar issues? It too would see temperatures go up to 50-60 deg inside the tank. How are they solving the problem of cooling electronic components inside the tank?
the 'larger space' allows for better heat dissipation. this is apart from the points noted by Karan M. besides IIRC Arjun's heat exhaust system too plays its part. however i need confirmation of this. Karan M/RV??
member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by member_22539 »

Aditya_V wrote:And MOD Babus, Delhi Arms agents and Saint like Politicos of India are allowed scot free. Its amazing how Indians blame DRDO, Army etc. but the key people and arms gent lobby who probably get the decision's done go scot free.

Govt promotes Officers who toe their party line , people like VK Singh will be thrown under the Bus, hence many Army officers have to follow the Politician driven MOD, Media, Arms agent nexus. The primary responsibility lies with those in power who have promoted such a policy. Unless we force this to be political issue where political parties need to answer for Indigenous defense production and cut down on imports nothing will happen.
That MOD and politicos need to be punished is a given, but at the end of the day we expect better from our Army and the betrayal of indigenous efforts and loyal officers is just unacceptable.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12686
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Pratyush »

Karan M wrote:Irrelevant. The torsion bar issue was reported in 2007 by Aroor as a "new event" and an example of Arjuns continuing problems. That was plain wrong as the Arjun had no torsion bars at that time. Second, where is the evidence that what is posted in the Pakistani link that you posted on Arjun is correct? You claim corroborating evidence that Arjun torsion bars failed on those tanks. Provide evidence. Pakistani links are not evidence. They have a past history - defence journal especially - of making stuff up.

Karan is correct, the fact that an older version of the TBar failed has not bearing on the non inclusion of the current version of the tank. A tank which as per DRDO, has been working as designed since to the late 90s and early 2000s.

Hell, in the last head to head with the T90 the Arjun was disqualified, for a rule breach. What was the breach? That, it killed a target while on the move, where the rule stipulated that it had to be killed after coming to a stop.

Since then, no head to head has taken place. Now the IA wants the top speed of the Arjun to be reduced and its weight to be increased. In Mk 2 version.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12686
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Pratyush »

While some are ranting about the Arjuns TBar Failure. We have an interesting report on the T90. Around the same time the TBar failure of the Arjun was supposed to have taken place.

T-90S torsion bar problems persist

Now, did the IA just punish the Arjun for an issue relating to T 90.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by rohitvats »

pragnya wrote:<SNIP> now they are planning of T-90MS tanks which are even more heavier than T-90S!!! this is hilarious beyond beleif!!! weight, bridges, mobility issues simply vanished??
Don't go by everything you read in the press. Need to apply own analysis and thought process as well.

Secondly, counter to a MBT is another MBT - not a light tank. That is why the proposed armored brigade for Ladakh will be equipped with T-90 and no some fancy light tank.

In fact, IA moved a T-90 Regiment BY ROAD to Leh - and it did strengthen the bridges en-route to ensure they could handle the weight. Further, if you recollect, IA had begin the exercise of widening the NH-1A in much advance to ensure T-90 laden Tank Trawlers could move up the road from plain of Srinagar Valley through Zoji La to Leh.
pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by pragnya »

^^^

RV,

i take your point but can you enlighten me as to what has changed in 4 years - from the time RFI for light tank was released (2009) - that the IA changes it's requirement from 22ton light tank to 48+ton T-90MS?? what chinese/pak plans are there where these tanks are supposed to face off??

i gave a DNA link where army officials speak of mobility, weight and transport issues due to which they want light 22ton tank in the mountains. i am glad to know from you that infra has been taken care for the induction of heavy tanks but why does the IA make an issue of the same - weight, mobility and transport - to deny Arjun atleast in the plains?? if they can strengthen the infra for T-90 can't they do the same for Arjun - which they agree is superior to T-90??
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12686
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Pratyush »

While the finer points of the utility of tanks on Leh plateau elude me. I have the following questions regarding the employment of Tanks on that ground.

1) What effect will the rarefied air have on the shell performance. I presume that he missiles will be uneffected by the air pressure.
2) A tank battle is essentially driven by logistical ability of an army. Does the IA have the logistical backbone needed to support such a fight.
3) How soon can the forces in theater be replenished. Assuming, that the existing forces take major damage, in the opening moments of a fight. In the event of a first strike from the PLA. (leave aside the merits of such an act, for a moment). It is again a function of logistics.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sanku »

Karan M wrote:
Why should I point to Aroors article
ok wake me up when you do.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sanku »

Karan M wrote:
Because the Russians refused to hand it over.
As I said flies in the face of available evidence. Viz that the T 90s are being made in India after ToT since 2009. Its quite as simple as that.

If some one claims to the contrary, then they have to answer questions and not attack the questioner with statements like
What a convoluted run to a simple question
If some one claims in 2013, that ToT has not happened, when news exists since 2009 that post ToT T 90s are being made locally. Questions need to be asked.

One can not believe everything one hears, esp if it comes from AS. Heck he says he is better than Katoch and Pakis should be trusted for SIachen, and MRCA should be cancelled and ......

His Arjun stories are in the same framework.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sanku »

Sagar G wrote:
Sanku wrote:Please search for Sanku on this thread and look at older posts. It has links. This should be some time back.

PS> In any case I will dig them out once again, tomorrow though. Its late here.
I don't think I have missed any so will wait for your link.
Here you go

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 3#p1435173
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sanku »

Pratyush wrote:
Karan is correct, the fact that an older version of the TBar failed has not bearing on the non inclusion of the current version of the tank. A tank which as per DRDO, has been working as designed since to the late 90s and early 2000s.
Actually Karan is wrong, I have provided references that as late as 1998-2000, Arjun's had design issues, multiple design iterations were being tried including torsion bar.

The Arjun which finally worked in 2007 took its form only in 2003-4 time frame.
vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by vic »

Re Karan

Stop wasting time with Sanku. You should write a blog and cut and paste portions from there, because the import lobby will repeatedly raise the same old tired arguments. To add to your arguments it seems that OFB has been allotted around Rs 2500 crores for the production line of T-90s while the cost of Production line of Arjun is added to its cost. Further to increase the cost of Arjun Mark-2, Army has specified 3 thermal imagers while T-90s has one.

Army wanted a light tank for mountainous regions. When DRDO came out with 105mm + BMP combination, this requirement has been changed to T-90s. I ask why not Namica? which perform excellently in cold environs. What about Tank-X or Karan?
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20844
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Karan M »

vic wrote:Re Karan

Stop wasting time with Sanku....will repeatedly raise the same old tired arguments.
Wise words indeed. Wish I had realized this earlier.
pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by pragnya »

Sanku wrote:If some one claims to the contrary, then they have to answer questions and not attack the questioner with statements like
:rotfl:

that is exactly you have been doing for ages against Ajai Shukla!!! you did not even spare the GM, HVF where T-90s are produced. know what - they claimed the contrary!!!
chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by chackojoseph »

Tor bar was an additional option asked by the army. So One additional tank was made with the option. Finally it was decided to go with original option. Tor bar was not a falure.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sanku »

pragnya wrote:
Sanku wrote:If some one claims to the contrary, then they have to answer questions and not attack the questioner with statements like
:rotfl:

that is exactly you have been doing for ages against Ajai Shukla!!! you did not even spare the GM, HVF where T-90s are produced. know what - they claimed the contrary!!!
Not at all, in fact AS is not questioning, he is passing judgements, based on his own investigation based on his own charges. He is judge jury and executioner all rolled into one.

And yes, his track record is important in judging the value system on which is judgements are based.

If AS has questions, he can come here and I will answer him :)
Post Reply