Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

[Sanku]

^^^And please add to it the deliberate attempts to paint the Arjun in bad-light. And nary a word about the issues which still plague the Tin Can-90 and IA showing all the empathy and patience which it did not to Arjun.

One one hand you guys beat on Philip when he says IA was not in the loop, and posts reams on which exact officers were involved.

OTOH, you guys blame IA for not showing patience with Arjun.

Make up your minds will you.

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

The reality is quite simple -- Indian MIC complex was shot, it took time to build up especially because of neglect from political bosses.

Everything in IA was ignored including the tank fleet, but the R&D and manufacturing was ignored even more.

So it took time.

Blaming IA is quite misleading. If not for IA's patience, Arjun would have been dead by now.

[Sanku]

7. incremental efforts which we all here would have seen as logical did not happen - (this should have speeded up the induction even earlier)

Not really, for incremental efforts to happen, a basic baseline has to be met. Arjun met that only very late. Post that incremental improvements are both possible and as we see happening.

[Surya]

One one hand you guys beat on Philip when he says IA was not in the loop, and posts reams on which exact officers were involved.

OTOH, you guys blame IA for not showing patience with Arjun.

Good god Sanku!!! what a spin

We beat philip for saying IA was not in the loop - proving that the thing started with EME, IA GQSRs.

We are blaming IA for not inducting the tank at a point where it had already become better then the T 72, and proceeding in small increments. If it understood how a painful infrastructure was being built up, and how supply chain providers need to have an assured run etc - Instead it was rejected wholesale till all faults were rectified.

[Surya]

Surya wrote:
7. incremental efforts which we all here would have seen as logical did not happen - (this should have speeded up the induction even earlier)


Not really, for incremental efforts to happen, a basic baseline has to be met. Arjun met that only very late. Post that incremental improvements are both possible and as we see happening.

My friend - if the Arjun already handily exceeds the T 72 - what is preventing you from inducting??

Kanson stated that before, Kaul stated that.

Mind you it exceeded a more stringent requirement.

baseline from a DGMF who scoffed it as a Leopard derivative and obsolete??? when the effing GQSR was cut and paster from Leo 2??

[Sanku]

One one hand you guys beat on Philip when he says IA was not in the loop, and posts reams on which exact officers were involved.

OTOH, you guys blame IA for not showing patience with Arjun.

Good god Sanku!!! what a spin

Come on Surya, you are not the only one who can dish out hypebole is it. Some things are clearly a tongue in cheek remark

We are blaming IA for not inducting the tank at a point where it had already become better then the T 72, and proceeding in small increments.

I believe and that belief is based on documented facts etc, that despite all the good things technically, as a working deploy-able product -- the Arjun unfortunately became ready only much later.

Sure it had all the nice bits and pieces working at a earlier point, for example, the Kanchan armor was probably all ready (in terms of a usable product) on Arjun and significantly better than T 72 armor, however as a product, deploy-able meeting the user requirements in critical basic areas, a few issues remained.

It appears to me to be 80:20 rule in action, with some silly little things holding out the final ready product. And for a induction -- a ready product is needed.

Even in 1998-99 time frame when the 124 tank order was given, it was given when Arjun still had to meet the user qualification tests, which it eventually did in 2006.

T 72 may have been inferior but it worked as advertised, the issues of reliability had stayed with arjun.

IA did the best they could under the circumstances.

But havent we been over this like 2000000000000 times already?

[Surya]

ok will accept it as an hyperbole

Ok so now we agree on the IA starting this process - so we can put that to bed

will come back to you on the other part - got to run to some meeting

T 72 may have been inferior but it worked as advertised, the issues of reliability had stayed with arjun.

We do not know what was advertised??? As we had mentioned earlier I would love to see the test comparisons for T 72, T 90 and Arjun

we have some info for what was done on T 90 and we know it had engine seizures etc.

Was the IA ok that the T 72 inaccurate beyond 1km?? useless radio??

I would really like to see that but it will be a miracle if T 72 procurement process details come out.

[KrishnaK]

Surya,
Thanks. Also other BRFites who spend countless hours poring through news articles etc. making issues far easier for peeps like me to understand.

[Philip]

1. Past history.

One problem that has bedevilled the debate is semantics."In the loop",to X means A,to Y-B,to Z-C.Let me illustrate.From the reams of info supplied, the IA/IAF have looked at the DRDO as a "vendor",the equiv. of a foreign supplier.As was mentioned,if the IAF could order a "MIG-21" from abroad,the attitude was that it should be able to order the same/equivalent from the DRDO.In such a situ,the GQSRs are little else than specs,basic requirements and performance parameters.Nowhere did I say that the tank was the "wet dream" alone of the DRDO.It was given a set of requirements/capabilities and asked to deliver.Appointing individuals to the project to monitor progress vastly differs from being part of the entire D&D process as is with the IN ,who have their "Corps of Naval Constructors" and naval design in house,with the design and engineering skills to intimately assist the dockyard building the vessel from start to finish.This is my meaning of being "in the loop from the start".Such a situ did/does not exist with the IA/IAF.The IA/IAF have to rely upon HAL or the CVRDE to deliver.They pass on their requirements and watch and wait for success.Which is why the various reports/papers recommended closer cooperation between the two.This indicates that despite the presence of IA "monitors" shall we say in the case of Arjun,it was not a success-the tank did not appear in the expected timeframe,taking 30+ years to deliver.In the case of HAL,normally,an ex-air marshal is appointed to head the organisation to help steer it into meeting the IAF's requirements/orders.Was similar leadership opportunities given to the IA reg.Arjun ? I have in the LCA thread given details of how the senior IAF officer (AM) who was selecteded to head the project with total "hire and fire" powers,chosen repeatedly by several committees year after year,right upto the cabinet,was resisted by the DRDO, and the babus even allegedly had his appointment signed by the PM delayed until he retired!

This turf-protection attitude is seen in India both in govt. and the private sector-to a lesser extent in the private,as results are expected and "hire and fire" attitude prevails.To further illustrate the Indian situ,here is a report of the recent statements from Mr.VK Saraswat,the DM's Sc.Advisor,plus Sec.DRDO,DG-DRDO.

The Combat Vehicles Research and Development Establishment (CVRDE) should design and develop landing gear for aircraft, V.K. Saraswat, Scientific Advisor to Defence Minister, said on Sunday.

He lamented that India, despite several technological developments, had no major centre for designing and developing landing gear, which would help not only aircraft but also unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). “This would be immensely helpful when we build our own commercial aircraft,” he added.

He was inaugurating three new facilities at the CVRDE, Avadi, – the combat vetronics technology centre, suspension test facility and CVRDE-Bharat Earth Mover Ltd (BEML) Technology Centre.

Terming it his dream, Mr. Saraswat wanted the CVRDE scientists to design the “lightest future main battle tank” (which is a project undertaken by the organisation). Besides, he counselled them to go in for designing a transmission system for battle tanks and hoped the BEML would be able to accelerate CVRDE's efforts in this regard. He also urged the BEML to help in developing the engine for the Arjun Main Battle Tank.

Mr. Saraswat, who is also the Secretary, Department of Defence Research and Development and also the Director General, Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), recalled how he recommended BEML as early as 1984 for development of a product designed by the DRDO. But it did not fructify. He was happy to note that it was happening after more than two decades.

Calling for greater collaboration between the DRDO and public sector undertakings, he said, “We (DRDO) make prototypes but do not convert them into products. With the collaboration of BEML there would be no such gaps. We need to graduate to design engineering and development. It would be a fantastic effort and add to our strength.”

While emphasising the need for “very strong electronic control system” for combat vehicles, he described “unmanned vehicles” as the “soldiers of the future”.

R. Sivakumar, Director, CVRDE, said the new combat vetronics technology centre would usher in state-of-the-art technology in armoured fighting vehicles. Besides, it would cater to developing vehicle electronic gun control system, fire control system and navigation system for the battle tanks to be developed by CVRDE. “No company in the world has a facility for testing the suspension systems of combat vehicles and hence it is a unique facility that is now available with the CVRDE.”

V.R.S. Natarajan, chairman-cum-managing director of BEML, said his organisation had decided to go after business like tanks and aerospace as they had immense potential.

I'd like to touch on a few points.From his statements,despite 30+ years on,we still do not have an indigenous engine for Arjun,this was earlier lamented by the PAC when the project was "26 years" old.He "counselled" BEML to help develop tank tansmissions,etc.,I'm quoting this to educate those who are of the impression that the Arjun is mainly indigenous and that there is an anti-Indian product conspiracy .The figure officially given of foreign content was "60%".Just like the T-90s,we are therefore also beholden to the firang suppliers of engines,transmission,thermal imaging sights,etc! VKS's words here are illuminating and a devastating indictment:

...(he) recalled how he recommended BEML as early as 1984 for development of a product designed by the DRDO. But it did not fructify. He was happy to note that it was happening after more than two decades....

Calling for greater collaboration between the DRDO and public sector undertakings, he said, “We (DRDO) make prototypes but do not convert them into products.We (DRDO) need to graduate to design engineering and development. It would be a fantastic effort and add to our strength.”

DRDO needs to "Graduate to design engineering and development" ? Coming 30+ years on,one must surely ask what was happening all this time at the DRDO and CVRDE in particular,despite the efforts of the valiant "embedded" IA officers whose names have been mentioned,associated with the project ? The PAC reports have it in meticulous detail,bean counting too.

Thus,coming from the head of the DRDO,we can now see what ailed/ails the behemoth.

2. Back to the Future?

In the report from the CVRDE Col.AS has obtained some info about the FMBT from the horse's mouth.This link has been seen before,so I'm posting just a few excerpts.

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2012/01/ ... attle.html

A year ago, on 6th Dec 2010, Defence Minister AK Antony told the Lok Sabha that the army had formulated the FMBT’s specifications and the Defence R&D Organisation (DRDO) was carrying out feasibility studies. Antony, it now emerges, misled parliament. MoD sources say the army remains undecided about the basic features of the FMBT, including whether it should have three crew members or four. Consequently the army has not finalised the FMBT’s Preliminary Staff Qualitative Requirements (PSQR), essential for sanctioning the project and allocating funding.

But the DRDO has begun work, anxious to shield the FMBT from the delays that plagued the Arjun programme. The FMBT must roll out by 2020, when the army’s oldest T-72 tanks, which entered service in 1979, complete their 32-year service lives. Business Standard was granted exclusive permission to visit the Combat Vehicles R&D Establishment (CVRDE), the DRDO facility outside Chennai where the Arjun Mark II is nearing completion; and the FMBT will be developed.

Dr P Sivakumar, CVRDE’s livewire director, revealed that work has begun on crucial FMBT systems, even without a PSQR. Based on the army’s weight limit of 50 tonnes for the FMBT, the DRDO has launched a “mission mode” project to develop an 1800 Horse Power indigenous engine. Sivakumar says that 1500 HP is sufficient for a 50-tonne tank, but the endemic danger of weight over-runs in a new tank makes a 300 HP margin prudent.

Indian pvt. industry is being roped in to assist.

“India has never designed engines; engine technology has always been imported. But we will develop the FMBT engine as a national project. Our approach is not engine-specific; we are looking at developing the complete range of technologies needed for building engines. Not only design… but also manufacturing, testing, evaluation,” says Sivakumar.

This ambitious plan is cushioned with pragmatism. The DRDO has brought in international consultants to design the engine and build Indian manufacturing capability in engine-related fields. Sivakumar says that German companies MTU and Renk, which supply engines and transmissions for the Arjun tank, refused to provide consultancy, realising that building Indian capability would end their market here. DRDO is now evaluating consultancy proposals from Ricardo of Britain and AVL of Austria.....“Simultaneously, we have floated an Expression of Interest (EoI) to identify an Indian manufacturing partner.

"MTU and Renk refused to provide consultancy".So much for western willingness ,sounds familiar with critics of Russian reluctance on some components like gun barrels! Looking for an Indian partner,very welcome.

The CVRDE director says that the consultants will finalise the engine design within 12 months, and take 18 months more to build the first prototype. “Within 30 months, or three years maximum, the first engine would be ready for testing,” he says.....Even as CVRDE develops this technological capacity, it is looking further ahead at a hybrid engine for the FMBT after 2030.

Timeframe specified for development.Now for the FMBT.

Features of the FMBT

Weight: 50-tonnes
Engine: 1800 Horse Power
Transmission: CVRDE-developed
Armour: Active Protection System (APS)
Gun: 120 mm smoothbore
Suspension: Hydro-pneumatic
Active suspension after 2030

by Ajai Shukla
CVRDE, Avadi, Chennai
Business Standard, 3rd Jan 12

As the Defence R&D Organisation (DRDO) begins designing the Future Main Battle Tank (FMBT), the army is sending out typically mixed messages on the vital question of how big and heavy India wants its tanks. While insisting that the DRDO’s 60-tonne Arjun tank weighs too much to move around the riverine terrain of Punjab and J&K, the army has demanded features in the next Arjun model (Arjun Mark II) that will raise its weight to 65 tonnes.

Planning for the FMBT --- the Gen-Next tank that will follow the Arjun Mark II by 2020 --- is even more contradictory. The army wants the FMBT to weigh just 50 tonnes while bettering all the Arjun’s features.

Officials at the Combat Vehicles R&D Establishment (CVRDE), Avadi, who will develop the FMBT, say it is impossible to build the FMBT 15 tonnes lighter while also improving crew protection; fitting a more powerful gun that can slam projectiles through improved enemy tanks; and making the FMBT faster and more powerful.

“If you want a 50-tonne FMBT you must choose wisely. If your Active Protection System can reliably defeat enemy projectiles, why do you also want the heavy armour plating of passive systems? Whatever you use --- composites, lightweight materials, etc. --- the weight of the tank will rise. Similarly, how can you increase your tank gun’s ability to penetrate enemy tanks without a weight increase?” asks Sivakumar.

Difficult choices like these are delaying the finalisation of the FMBT’s Preliminary Staff Qualitative Requirements (PSQR), the document that will specify its capabilities and major systems. With nothing settled, the DRDO is readying for a heavier-than-planned FMBT. Business Standard reported yesterday that CVRDE is developing an 1800 Horse Power engine, rather than the 1500 HP needed for a 50-tonne FMBT.

The big Q is,how are we going to bridge the gap between the IA's futuristic requirements and the "impossible" weight reduction statement from the CVRDE? Someone has to get realistic and fix the specs if we want a "working animal" .Are we in for another 30 years of waiting,while some new firang wonder will be snapped off the shelf while the FMBT,matures with the passage of time like a ripe old cheese ? Many of us will be 6ft under long before that time! Hopefully it will not be "dejas vu" for the next gen of BRites!

PS:Bharat "Earth Movers" Ltd. (BEML) wanting to enter the aerospace business? HAL watch out!

[nachiket]

I'd like to touch on a few points.From his statements,despite 30+ years on,we still do not have an indigenous engine for Arjun,this was earlier lamented by the PAC when the project was "26 years" old.He "counselled" BEML to help develop tank tansmissions,etc.,I'm quoting this to educate those who are of the impression that the Arjun is mainly indigenous and that there is an anti-Indian product conspiracy .The figure officially given of foreign content was "60%".Just like the T-90s,we are therefore also beholden to the firang suppliers of engines,transmission,thermal imaging sights,etc! VKS's words here are illuminating and a devastating indictment:

Philip you are so full of it. Is the T-90 tank engine Indian? Or its transmission? How is a 100% foreign tank better than a 50% Indian one? And how long are you going to keep making the same hackneyed arguments?

Read Singha's post:

speaking of import content the M1 uses the german 120mm gun even today (and used the british 105mm earlier) and the merkava uses a american diesel engine even today . neither have plans to pindigenize these critical items. the korean K2 panther uses a MTU engine and FCS/optics from thales license made by samsung under a JV. Leclerc uses a Wartsila(finland) engine. I dont see the media or defence enthusiasts beating up these products on the issue of having such vital parts imported.

On page 94 you were saying that the Arjun was a "bridge too far" for the DRDO (your words). And now you are lamenting that it isn't fully Indian. Your agenda is clear. Bash the Arjun no matter what. Even if you have to argue from both sides. And then you complain when people accuse you of being disingenuous.

I am astonished at the hardheadedness of people who refuse to accept that India can come up with something better than their favorite tin-can. I would like to point you to Shiv's "Indian sense of inadequacy and inferiority" thread in GDF. Maybe this is what we should be discussing there.

[Yagnasri]

and what is this end user concept? IA is some god or what? Does it not understand the importence of having major systems designed and made in the country? IA does not know the implications of dependence on other nations for systems and spares and lack of expertise in design and manufacturing of major systems will be major issue and has serious security implications to the nation? I see many here arguing that IA's views as end user to be respected. But I do not see any one presenting anything on the role, commitment and interest shown by IA ( of by IAF in respect of LCA) in the development of any major systems like Arjun. I think IA ( and IAF) still has some british hangover and thinks that the natives have to serve its wishes and it has no obligation to be part of increased security conditions of the nation.

People may argue 124 units ordered is commitment. I say only 1600 units ordered is commitment and sent a direct message to every one involved in the Arjun project that their product is not wanted. Can any progress made after such message is sent? If you are some private spare parts supplier of Arjun will be continue with your involvement or not after getting this message. Remember the allegations that the test results were falsified? What more you require on the conduct of IA?

IA tried its level best to kill Arjun. But now being forced to accept it. If given chance IA will be happy to lord over the nation with 100% imported items.

I think time to change the IA name to Indian National Army and go for major cultural change in organisation to get rid of british time left over ideas like caste based regiments etc.

[Philip]

For heaven's sake,I've never said that Arjun-1,as is being produced is "inferior" to the T-90, after the face-off between the two and its reported superior performance! Pl.don't misquote me.Where is the Arjun or anti-Indian bashing? What I've done in ample measure is to trace its saga of development and why ,despite Arjun's triumphant arrival today,we are still unable to do without imports of both tanks and their key components.

Certainly the development of Arjun by the CVRDE was "a bridge too far".The project's history speaks for itself! The head of the DRDO specifically expresses his organisation's inability and shortcomings even today as quoted above.So is the head of the DRDO also anti-Indian? Just look at what he is saying:

“We (DRDO) make prototypes but do not convert them into products.We (DRDO) need to graduate to design engineering and development.

For decades the IA was given prototypes that did not pass the test.The services need "products" to fight their wars.If they can't get it at home they will import,press for imports,just as we are doing with the MMRCA!

What was the aim of Arjun way back 30+ years ago? To develop an indigenous tank as promised,with an indigenous engine and other associated key components.What was the result of 3 decades of R&D? We failed to meet the requirements within the timeframe envisaged,despite enormous costs and therefore had to import the T-90,when the Pakis acquired the T-80, while Arjun at that time was imperfect and unavailable.Even now we have yet to develop our own engine,transmission,etc.The national "holy grail" being indigenisation ,how much did we promise and how much have we achieved with this specific product? It is a very legitimate question given the enormous amount of money and time spent on it and the PAC laments are entirely within order.

Had we from the start realised our lack of technological base,which would lead to delays and quality issues,and roped in a foreign entity like Vickers,who gave us the Vijayanta (light tank) as a partner,I'm sure that many of the problems could've been sorted out much earlier.Trying to go it alone and make over-optimistic statements/assurances of the same has been the bane of the DRDO,also mentioned in the reports.Ultimately,when we couldn't "reinvent the wheel",we had to swallow our pride and go to the Germans,who now refuse to help us with the same for Arjun Mk-2! So who is accountable tell me?

In the aviation threads,I have often bemoaned the inability of us to design engines per se,for all the services and that we should've set up a specialist engine development organisation for all 3 services.Here again with the LCA the GTRE's tall claims about Kaveri delayed the project-along with US sanctions,etc. admittedly.We seem to have learnt very little despite the HF-24's early retirement for want of a more powerful engine.

Unless we accept our shortcomings in key areas of defence technology and realise that in many cases we will not be able to accomplish our goals on time following a totally "indigenous" route,abandon tall claims,do not fudge the issue,and look for JVs where and when we must,like B'Mos,or certain systems being developed with Israel for example,our desi projects will languish just as Arjun did.VKS must be commended for his very honest and forthright statements of the state of the DRDO today and the challenges ahead.We wish him welll.

NR: You've echoed what was in the reports/articles,about the IA/IAF and their "vendor" attitude towards indigenous products/PSUs.This is a hangover which has to be got over,which fortunately,as I've repeatedly mentioned,does not exist with the IN.However,I wouldn't go that far and say that the IA tried to "kill" Arjun. The staff reqs. were only met a few years ago and after the face-off,subsequent orders were placed.As Hitesh I think said,having already ordered in the interim a v.large qty. of T-90s ,there are limits (budget,numbers,etc.) as to how many can be ordered and built now.This is where,after Arjun's success and the 124 X 2 orders,there is talk of abandoning several hundred T-72 upgrades yet to be taken up,and using the old chassis for aux. armoured vehicles and ordering a further (400?) Arjun Mk-2s.This indicates a willingness to now accept the tank.The CVRDE's very difficult task of managing to handle Arjun,T-90,production,T-72 upgrades and other work simultaneously was the subject of a long feature in an IDR issue sometime ago.But are we going the same way again as I've said above with the FMBT where the IA has yet to give its requirements and the DRDO/CVRDE is going ahead with its own engine development.

[NRao]

It is time to leave the past in the past, specially what happened eons ago. All that matters at this point in time is that the Arjun has gained currency. Would have loved if it were more than what has been accepted, but ..................

On the future tanks, it will depend on a few factors. From the designer/producer end: materials. For sure materials will govern everything.

From the user end: circumstances AND what is being developed abroad.

The producers will have to compete with the product outside the country - in all respects.

Finally, there are concepts out there - based on research that has already been conduced - such as transparent ceramics, walking tanks, etc - that will have to play a great part. IF Indian designers stick with the Arjun or the like based concepts and crib about weight, then it is a lost deal even before it starts. Here I am assuming that a true FMBT will be for about 20 years from now (at least).

[NRao]

A few examples of thinking:

Brits:

[Surya]

at definition


Nrao

if the Arjun had been accepted and a large production run with incremental changes planned I would agree with your view

I somehow do not believe this battle is in the past. The FMBT dithering and confusion seems to be a rerun - lets see

[NRao]

Surya,

Perhaps. However, if India could get it done in missiles and space, I would like to think it is feasible in other areas too. IMVVHO, what India lacks is PM. Badly lacks it. Starting with IST I guess. I think we need to tack on IST to that silly Lokpal bill.

[Boreas]

hey cant we use our T55 with upgrade in higherground, it will save lots money and we have many about to retired.
upgrade like upgunning, better engine, more armour.
it has small size can be airlifted easily more less like alzarra

Doesn't save much money.

It is hard to fit all the equipments into a box not designed for it, it takes a lot of effort and as almost everything except the box needs to be refitted there is hardly any money saving. The box itself doesnt have that much life left, its very old. Such upgrades always result in a subperforming machine as compared to the one designed fresh using same equipment.

A money saver could be converting an old tank into a mine hunter or a self propelled artillery or probably a SAM carrier. Provided its body is in good condition.

[Austin]

from BEL interview to Force magazine , some snippets on tanks development from BEL

What systems are being developed by BEL for Tanks such as the ‘Arjun’, T-90 and T-72?

BEL has a dedicated unit for land warfare systems. BEL is supplying the gunner main sight for ‘Arjun’ Main Battle Tank (MBT). It is an important part of the tank as it enables sighting of targets, day or night. Initially, we contributed towards testing. Now, in Phase II, we are going in for technology transfer. Recently, we signed a contract to be the lead integrator of the gun control system for ‘Arjun’. This responsibility was passed on to us after seeing the way we supported the gunner main sight. The commander panoramic sight was earlier a day-sight, but we have now developed, along with foreign partners, a new sight for ‘Arjun’ Mk-2 which can be used day and night.

About T-72, if our foreign partner gets the order for the Thermal Imager Fire Control System, we will do 30 per cent of the work. We are working on a commander sight for T-90 along with the DRDO labs; the product is expected to be fielded before March 2012. If proven successful, the same product can be fielded for T-72. For the T-90, we have indigenised about 18 sub systems for Stabiliser and Auto Loading Gear.

The items developed by BEL have already been cleared for bulk production. We have only four items to be indigenised at the moment. We are also working closely with Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) for the upgrade of Bofors FH-77B howitzers of the Indian Army. We have already modified a gun; yet another one is being modified now. It if comes through it will be a good achievement for both OFB and BEL, as OFB is handling the armament and BEL is looking after the electronics.

[Sanku]

and what is this end user concept? IA is some god or what?

Yes it is, customer is king. They are customers, they have to decide. That is unfortunately how it is.

Does it not understand the importence of having major systems designed and made in the country?

Yes and no. Yes it does, however it also has to balance it out with various other factors such as,
1) Current threat perception and response time, leading to external acquisition.
2) Past credibility of a finished product supplier (OFB+DRDO)
3) Ease of use and deployablity.

Their primary task is to defend, and rest is secondary.

What you mention is more of a MoD job. IA != MoD.

. But I do not see any one presenting anything on the role, commitment and interest shown by IA ( of by IAF in respect of LCA) in the development of any major systems like Arjun.

Incorrect Sir, if you read Karan M's post when he attempted to correct Philip on IAs involvement, you will see that IA has been deeply involved.

Go back 30 years, the civilian sector in India did not even know what a tank was -- all the early seeding was done by IA.

It does the hard task of forming specifications -- detailed specifications
It has maintained a full unit to keep working with Arjun, even when Arjun was not in active duty, test and send feedback.
It has deputed senior officers to DRDO/OFB to help.

A very high degree of support and involvement.

People may argue 124 units ordered is commitment. I say only 1600 units ordered is commitment and sent a direct message to every one involved in the Arjun project that their product is not wanted.

Who are you to say that? The 124 number was a joint IA-MoD-OFB-DRDO decision on what should be made as a first tranche as everyone involved ramped up on the things they needed to do.

Also GoI in parliament has at multiple times suggested a figure of 3000+3000 tanks, 3000 T series and 3000 Arjun series.

This information is openly available.

I think time to change the IA name to Indian National Army and go for major cultural change in organisation to get rid of british time left over ideas like caste based regiments etc.

Kindly cut the rant. It is unbecoming

[Sanku]

We do not know what was advertised??? As we had mentioned earlier I would love to see the test comparisons for T 72, T 90 and Arjun

Well let us leave some matters in grey area till more information is publicly available.

[keshavchandra]

and what is this end user concept? IA is some god or what?

Yes it is, customer is king. They are customers, they have to decide. That is unfortunately how it is.

Does it not understand the importence of having major systems designed and made in the country?

Yes and no. Yes it does, however it also has to balance it out with various other factors such as,
1) Current threat perception and response time, leading to external acquisition.
2) Past credibility of a finished product supplier (OFB+DRDO)
3) Ease of use and deployablity.

Their primary task is to defend, and rest is secondary.

What you mention is more of a MoD job. IA != MoD.

. But I do not see any one presenting anything on the role, commitment and interest shown by IA ( of by IAF in respect of LCA) in the development of any major systems like Arjun.

Incorrect Sir, if you read Karan M's post when he attempted to correct Philip on IAs involvement, you will see that IA has been deeply involved.

Go back 30 years, the civilian sector in India did not even know what a tank was -- all the early seeding was done by IA.

It does the hard task of forming specifications -- detailed specifications
It has maintained a full unit to keep working with Arjun, even when Arjun was not in active duty, test and send feedback.
It has deputed senior officers to DRDO/OFB to help.

A very high degree of support and involvement.

People may argue 124 units ordered is commitment. I say only 1600 units ordered is commitment and sent a direct message to every one involved in the Arjun project that their product is not wanted.

Who are you to say that? The 124 number was a joint IA-MoD-OFB-DRDO decision on what should be made as a first tranche as everyone involved ramped up on the things they needed to do.

Also GoI in parliament has at multiple times suggested a figure of 3000+3000 tanks, 3000 T series and 3000 Arjun series.

This information is openly available.

I think time to change the IA name to Indian National Army and go for major cultural change in organisation to get rid of british time left over ideas like caste based regiments etc.

Kindly cut the rant. It is unbecoming

Love to see the degree of conflicts on thoughts and notions. This is the level of required spirit either you are seeing benefits from the pro or cons sides of the issue.(like some favour's hitler while some opposes) But I think both side are required to retain the sustainability.

[RKumar]

Doesn't matter. Once you commit to a weapon systems procurement/buy, you are committed to it for the next 20 years depending on the lifecycle of the program. It is the same for all armies all over the world, even in the US Army. One major reason is that you have committed a doctrine around the weapon system and you have devoted countless manhours to developing the doctrine for using the weapon system, including war gaming, logistics planning, timetables, battle plans, etc. Unless the weapon system is so glaring defective or that it has so big of a major weakness that it would become a major liability despite any amount of repair or reduction work, no army in the world is gonna stop it. That's how armies work, including the western armies. That is why, with the exception of few programs such as the JSF program, in the US DoD, once the weapon system makes it past the R&D stage and into the procurement stage, it is hard to stop it or retire it early unless you are in a budget fight. Look at Crusader and Comanche, even the FCS programs. They did not make it past the R&D so it was easy to cancel it. But once you commit to the procurement, it is very hard to stop it. You can reduce the order but it means you are not gonna get anything else to make up for the lost numbers. Look at Raptor. They went from 767 to 187 without making up for the numbers. The JSF does not make up for the lost numbers. The planned numbers were already planned before Raptor's numbers were cut and they are even cutting the numbers. For a better example, take a look at the Sheridan project. It was found to be wanting on some levels but they kept it in service for 30 years because they have already committed to the procurement of the weapon systems. When the tank reached its end of the lifecycle, there was no replacement for that tank.

We are shifting from what good and best equipment at whatever cost logic. In my opinion, if someone wants to win the war then doctrine has to evolve with time. Doctrine can be outdated by single event e.g. going noclear. So it keep evolving, it is never static.

Our neighbors are not so peaceful as other nations... so we can't afford to copy them.

They are cutting Raptor's because there are multiple problems and they don't have money to keep it alive at astronomical costs. If it would be trouble free, they would not cut it. Anyway, here we have a product which is home developed and much better then the imported one. I don't know what is stopping IA to stop procuring new T-90 and start accepting Arjun. They should not come with excuses like arjun is substandard, breaks down aka maintenance, slow production rate, QC issues, too heavy, logistics issue, infrastructure not available and latest doctrine. They should clearly say we will not accept any desi maal, so that we can stop all this ToT and R&D circus. It is pure rip of the country, is it OK to waste countless hours of thousands of people working in local substandard labs?

[Anujan]

A Bit OT but it is worthwhile to keep in mind that during a key period, Marut was unsuccessful in getting an engine (mainly due to Govt dragging their feet). This led to Mig 21 procurement, which we still fly today and pay the Russies for upgrades and bulk of the Air Force relying on Russi maal to this day.

[Surya]

well there was some drama in Arjun too. Kirloskar started working on an engine which eventually was rejected (based on Kauls article).

probably have another depressing story there and this cannot be blamed on sarkari employees

[Sanku]

A Bit OT but it is worthwhile to keep in mind that during a key period, Marut was unsuccessful in getting an engine (mainly due to Govt dragging their feet). This led to Mig 21 procurement, which we still fly today and pay the Russies for upgrades and bulk of the Air Force relying on Russi maal to this day.

Funnily enough, that was not due to Russians, but British.

Ironic.

[Philip]

It would be most interesting to have access to the reports of the "embedded" IA officers who were "nurses" and "midwives" to the project.If they were so deeply involved for 30+ years,why didn't the baby arrive sooner? Since the IA for at least 26+ years,from PAC chronology,rejected the tank,it must've been the reports from these IA "monitors" that were the basis for the rejection.
Secondly,it is a contradiction for the PAC and other reports to recommend "close/better cooperation " between end user and the DRDO/CVRDE ,if there was such an alleged close/fine interaction.

It is why I draw distinction to the diff. between the IN's active (in the loop) involvement in warship production and the IA/IAFs involvement in similar projects for their branches,because the In has its own design team in-house.In the case of delays in warships,the causes have been clearly listed such as non-availability of special grade steel or other key materials, key weapon systems (like Trishul),delays in finalising the system or sensor,delay in arrival of the same from supplier,etc.,failure of systems during trials (Shtil SAM,Klub missile-rectified later) and lack of adequate infrastructure at the shipyards.In general,shipyard infrastructure and delays in sourcing key materials seem to be the main problems faced.The Gorshkov's delay has been well documented,but this has been a non-desi project/acquisition,where the IN's "monitors" were perhaps not as involved as much had it been a desi project.

Coming to current times,orders placed for T-90s -local production are probably too far in the pipeline and cannot be stopped now,which is why the talk of abandoning T-72 upgrades and building new Arjuns instead is on the cards.See the similarities here with the SU-30s/M-2000 upgrades/LCA delays and new MMRCA acquisition plans.There appears to be systemic attitude and management failures with our desi defence industry which is almost totally govt. run,whether projects are for any branch of the services.In the ATV thread,I've posted how the N-sub/ATV programme was inordinately delayed by the promises of BAARC and the DRDO (scuttling an offer of a full fleet of N-subs from the Soviets) of developing a desi sub N-reactor,which when finished,allegedly could not fit into the hull!

Anyway,dual production of T-90s (as ordered) and Arjuns will take place, and until the IA finally decides upon its FMBT concept will we see which school of thought has prevailed.The words of VKS on wanting the CVRDE /DRDO to develop the "lightest FMBT" ,indicating a possible "tilt" towards the IA's doctrine of the future,poses a problem for the organisation,which says that the IA's wants and weight reduction parameters are "impossible".So where do we go from here?

[Surya]

So where do we go from here?

To the Rodina

[Rahul M]

>> Since the IA for at least 26+ years,from PAC chronology,rejected the tank,it must've been the reports from these IA "monitors" that were the basis for the rejection.

you just have to go through Maj Gen HM Singh's comments to see that the above statement is utterly false.

[Philip]

If so,then who within the IA was responsible? Is the implication therefore that there were two conflicting factions within the IA? Maj-Gen. Singh was supposedly responsible for "tests and evaluation",so who then "evaluated" the tank during its trials ?

There are conflicting accounts of Arjun's trial results in 2006. In 2007, Major General H.M. Singh, a director in charge of trial and evaluation, said that the last year's user field trial report had certified that the accuracy and consistency of the weapon system was proved beyond doubt."[51][52] However, the 2006 army trial results showed that "the decade-old problems of overheating persist" and that "tank’s main subsystems, the fire control system (FCS) and integrated gunner’s main sight, which includes a thermal imager and laser range-finder, are rendered erratic and useless by the Arjun’s abnormally high peak internal temperature, which moves well beyond 55 degrees Celsius. This is in testimony to the Parliamentary committee."[53]

In 2007 the Arjun tank was fielded during the Ashwamedha exercise in the deserts of Rajasthan.[54] The army was extremely unhappy with the tank, citing 14 defects that included "deficient fire control system", "inaccuracy of its guns", "low speeds in tactical areas" and "inability to operate over 50 degrees Celsius".[55] "The Army is now faced with a troubling prospect: inducting a lumbering, misfiring, vintage design tank like the Arjun, and that, too, in large numbers".[53] This, after DRDO over-shot Arjun’s project deadline by 16 years — from 1984 to 1995, finally closing the project only in 2000 — and the cost over-run is almost 20 times the original estimate. This is the highest percentage over-run for any DRDO project.[53]

With the September 2007 winter trials, the Indian army deemed Arjun's performance unsatisfactory, including at least four engine failures.[56] DRDO, on the other hand, insisted the tank was a viable choice for adoption and suggested the unsatisfactory performance of the engine during the winter trials was due to sabotage.[10]

Where the tests and evaluations then bogus? The DRDO claimed "sabotage" during the tests,but was it ever proven? I'm asking this in earnest,not as an argument,as all the official reports carry details of how the tank failed to meet its expected parameters.

[Surya]

If so,then who within the IA was responsible? Is the implication therefore that there were two conflicting factions within the IA

after all the Ramayan you are asking who Ram is ??

how many times we have said that there is a Eastern design philosophy faction and a western design faction. It depends on where they served. Since we have more tin crappers there are more from that faction and dominate.

Go back and look at Col Kauls article


The team from 43 AR worked on the arjun with DRDO. The tests were conducted by folks under DGMF. There was a lot of pressure mounted on 43 AR to not praise the Arjun, Shukla mentions one but you folks will say he has a vested interest. From our chaiwallah we know that what Shukla says is true because it was worse than that.

By 2006 even the high temp problem which btw is only because these tanks have that sort of electronixcs - its not like the t 72 had wonderful electronics which functioned in that weather.
So if the production run had started even then we would be much further now

not as an argument,as all the official reports carry details of how the tank failed to meet its expected parameters.

Lets flip this the other way - did you hear about engine serizures on T 90 trials?? If not then it never had problems - correct?

[Rahul M]

Philip saar, let me put this as simply as I can, arjun circa 1998 was more or less at same completion level as T-90 in 2007-2008. yes there were problems but it was also apparent that *ALL* of those were solvable in a time bound manner (T-90 problems are *still* unsolved, army has asked DRDO to solve their problems because russia can't/won't). the source is someone who was intimately involved in the army's decision making process regarding wrt arjun in the 90's at the very highest level and a tanker himself.

there was very little logic in the panic 310 T-90 buy and absolutely none for consequent deals. the question we need to ask is who approved the massive T-90 buy while stalling the arjun and why ?

[tejas]

^^^ Exactly that is the million dollar question and I cannot see the person(s) involved in that decision acting in anything but a malafide manner. Also DRDO should give the IA a one finger salute when it comes to fixing AC/thermal imaging/gun barrel problems with the tin can-90. They are too busy with Arjun mk2 and the FMBT since the IA isn't happy with a "current technology" tank like the Arjun. This is simply not an IA operation it has to involve MOD and its political masters.
I think Bofors pales in comparison WRT to it's impact on national security.

[chackojoseph]

If so,then who within the IA was responsible? Is the implication therefore that there were two conflicting factions within the IA? Maj-Gen. Singh was supposedly responsible for "tests and evaluation",so who then "evaluated" the tank during its trials ?

There are conflicting accounts of Arjun's trial results in 2006. In 2007, Major General H.M. Singh, a director in charge of trial and evaluation, said that the last year's user field trial report had certified that the accuracy and consistency of the weapon system was proved beyond doubt."[51][52] However, the 2006 army trial results showed that "the decade-old problems of overheating persist" and that "tank’s main subsystems, the fire control system (FCS) and integrated gunner’s main sight, which includes a thermal imager and laser range-finder, are rendered erratic and useless by the Arjun’s abnormally high peak internal temperature, which moves well beyond 55 degrees Celsius. This is in testimony to the Parliamentary committee."[53]

In 2007 the Arjun tank was fielded during the Ashwamedha exercise in the deserts of Rajasthan.[54] The army was extremely unhappy with the tank, citing 14 defects that included "deficient fire control system", "inaccuracy of its guns", "low speeds in tactical areas" and "inability to operate over 50 degrees Celsius".[55] "The Army is now faced with a troubling prospect: inducting a lumbering, misfiring, vintage design tank like the Arjun, and that, too, in large numbers".[53] This, after DRDO over-shot Arjun’s project deadline by 16 years — from 1984 to 1995, finally closing the project only in 2000 — and the cost over-run is almost 20 times the original estimate. This is the highest percentage over-run for any DRDO project.[53]

With the September 2007 winter trials, the Indian army deemed Arjun's performance unsatisfactory, including at least four engine failures.[56] DRDO, on the other hand, insisted the tank was a viable choice for adoption and suggested the unsatisfactory performance of the engine during the winter trials was due to sabotage.[10]

Where the tests and evaluations then bogus? The DRDO claimed "sabotage" during the tests,but was it ever proven? I'm asking this in earnest,not as an argument,as all the official reports carry details of how the tank failed to meet its expected parameters.

Something wrong with above report

Indian Army finds no major defects with Arjun Tank during Ex Ashvamegh

Arjun Tank to be put through summer trials

Philip,

Maj Gen HM Singh fought for Arjun Induction till his last days in service. He was not responsible for evaluations. The Army lost track of the evaluations in the process. Each time NEW DGMO stepped in the good soul went to him with papers and he was told that they did not have time to read the set of papers.

[Singha]

the DGMO seems almost like a offshore branch of the Rosboronexport-Ural tank marketing dept!

we have lost the wisdom of our fathers who used robust british designed eqpt to give a good hiding to the technologically tfta patton and other paktanks.

we must return to our roots to find peace...

[SaiK]

Philip saar, let me p..there was very little logic in the panic 310 T-90 buy and absolutely none for consequent deals. the question we need to ask is who approved the massive T-90 buy while stalling the arjun and why ?

I am wondering if Philip saar would know the answers for this question.

[Singha]

at the time (post Kargil) it was the NDA Govt in power.

the power of the Natasha lobby no doubt extends across the political spectrum since they have hardly missed a beat when the UPA is in power.

[Philip]

Look,I am not as naive as some may think.The power of vested interests in the arms trade upon the GOI,depends upon the degree of hardness of the regime in power.Some families in Delhi have legendary links to certain def. majors.However,I do not think that buying the T-90 was a bad idea once Pak obtained the T-80UD,as we only had the T-72s to counter it ta that time.

Just a few points.I feel really sorry for Maj.Gen Singh if he was treated with such disdain by his superiors over decades.One Q is why did successive chiefs/top brass keep him with the project? Did they have confidence in him getting the CVRDE to deliver the goods (not from an above post where he was allegedly treated like a clerk) or was it a way in which he could be kept in a "cupboard"? However,it is also a fact that it did take a long time for the tank to mature enough to be accepted.

Coming back to current times,both the T-90 and Arjun are supposedly being upgraded.There are details of the "93" improvements to Arjun and some reports about new eqpt. on the T-90 too.Could a comparison be made ,key components only ,of the two?It would give us an idea as to where the shortcomings/improvements are going into each.

[SaiK]

Look,..,I do not think that buying the T-90 was a bad idea once Pak obtained the T-80UD,as we only had the T-72s to counter it ta that time. ...

Why not merkava or leopard ?

[Multatuli]

I thank Karan M for his last few very open and direct posts in this thread, I read the several times with great delight.

One thing I have noticed to my increasing anger is the constant unfair criticism, condemnation and cursing of major defense platforms developed in India by Philip. Take a look at his remarks on the LCA Tejas for examle: he mentions the Tejas when there is no reason to bring in the platform and of course always does so in a negative and hostile tone.

Some of the comments by Karan M and Rohitvats were personal, but they are entirely justified as it should be clear to any neutral reader/observer with common sense that Philip is on a personal crusade to discredit major indigenous platforms as the Arjun and Tejas. There is no nyaay (integrity/justice/logic in thinking) in his critcism.

His contempt for indigenous products, like Arjun and Tejas, just drip of every word. His attitude toward the DRDO is like that of a gora sahib towards brown men in the 1940's!

nachiket wrote:

I am astonished at the hardheadedness of people who refuse to accept that India can come up with something better than their favorite tin-can. I would like to point you to Shiv's "Indian sense of inadequacy and inferiority" thread in GDF. Maybe this is what we should be discussing there.

Yup, my thoughts too. I know that everyone is "the product" of his environment (the meso-cosmos, if you like), but we should be able to grow and fundamentally change our (Macaulite) outlook.

Narayana Rao wrote:

But I do not see any one presenting anything on the role, commitment and interest shown by IA ( of by IAF in respect of LCA) in the development of any major systems like Arjun. I think IA ( and IAF) still has some british hangover and thinks that the natives have to serve its wishes and it has no obligation to be part of increased security conditions of the nation.

Yes, this is the astonishing thing with the Indian Army and Indian Airforce: the totally absolve themself of any responsibility towards building an indigenous defence industry/capablities. Some defend this carefree attitude with the arguement that it's not the duty/responsibility of the Indian armed forces to build up an indian defence industry but to defend India against external threats.

Finally, please do not construct this as a personal attack, I have nothing against Philip, he is totally patriotic in many other respects.

[chackojoseph]

Just a few points.I feel really sorry for Maj.Gen Singh if he was treated with such disdain by his superiors over decades.One Q is why did successive chiefs/top brass keep him with the project? Did they have confidence in him getting the CVRDE to deliver the goods (not from an above post where he was allegedly treated like a clerk) or was it a way in which he could be kept in a "cupboard"? However,it is also a fact that it did take a long time for the tank to mature enough to be accepted.

One of the fortunate things Army did was to keep him there and forgot about him and the project. At the same time, the chief's/v chiefs who showed interest in the project appeared to be very ok with his role in the project. You should meet him to understand his knowledge in the area. (Added later). Also Army is rank conscious. They don't like to be taught by their juniors. As per Maj Gen HM Singh.

He is also main proponents of Tank Ex. The article Tank Ex, T-72 upgrades mentions George Fernandes with DRDO and Army standing on top of the Tank-Ex. I have mentioned GF and DRDO talk. What I omitted was Army gent asked "Who asked you to make this?" Singh told me that they were clearly angry with the display of the tank.

Your concept of "Tank matured" needs to be defined. Tank was mature each time. But, each time, it was asked to be taken back for newer features. If you know the history of T-72 purchase, the decision was to keep Arjun in r&d for newer features, meanwhile inducting T-72.

A lot of people, who are the part of goof up have begun saying "now matured" to hide their lies and incompetence. The tables turned after the sabotage slur came up. I will give you an example of delay tactics before the sabotage slur. Read this Delay in induction of the new Arjun tanks averted

[Philip]

Tx. Chacko.I thought that the "sabotage slur" was by the DRDO which supposedly fitted a black box to prove itself? (tank matures-with regard to specified failures,such as engine/transmission "mismatch",leading to "hull bulges" in PAC reports)

Multa,Nothing more incorrect in assuming that I am anti-Indian product I assure you! Look,I am all for indigenisation,laud those responsible when they deliver,if you've read my posts on the IN,etc. Have you seen one post in my decade+ involvement on BR criticising an Indian built warship,but for production delays? But in two of the most important projects,nay three-if you include the ATV,shrouded in secrecy,where there has been NO audit allowed,or if it has it has been classified;the other two- LCA and Arjun,we have taken far too long to deliver the goods and even now 3 decades on,the foreign content is huge.When these projects started,they were supposed to also deliver these very imported components like engines,etc. developed in house.This has not happened and we have returned to imports and the systems still have a high import content.During this time,the cost overruns have been huge,the Arjun the highest of any DRDO project.We have to examine the reasons for this,have every right as taxpayers,to see that our hard earned money is not wasted. Unfortunately,our "chalta hai" attitude,where no one is taken to task and as Shiv said,bosses are further booted upwards,sometimes to receive a "Padma award",has resulted in PSUs which do not have pressure upon them to succeed-the fear of being fired,to diligently stay focussed on the their responsibilities.

Now,the reasons for the saga of the LCA ,it overcoming its technical hurdles, has been better understood with AM P.Rajkumar's book on the subject.But even he when associated with the project,did not have the neccessary authority to crack heads and "hire and fire".The DRDO and assoc. PSUs do not want to lose their turf control,as a result the end-user has to wait, and wait, and wait,until the baby finally emerges after years of trial and tribulation.A galaxy of officers and scientists have regularly demanded that the DRDO be revamped and restructured.Even AKA started just that a few years ago.I have posted from the DRDO's own head,Dr.Saraswat's own recent comments above,where he criticises his own institution for its shortcomings ,"develops only prototypes not products"! How can anyone then say that I am anti-Indian when I quote him? Why is everyone shying away from the statements of those in charge of our premier R&D institution? They have no answer at all to statements nailing the truth!

As for my comments on the LCA,the tall claims made by GTRE,etc.,they were first person info given to me by one of our most distinguished AM/VCs,who told AK that the manner in which the project was being run was "a fraud upon the nation"! he told me that he told the team right from the start that the engine was the critical key and not perfecting it would delay induction.He has been proved a prophet.Where are we now? Still developing Mk-2 with a new engine which has yet to fly.Mk-1 flies with an underpowered engine,just like the HF-24.What have we learnt since then? PAC and other reports underline the fact that over-ambitious claims of developing key tech and their timeframes were made by the DRDO and other assoc. institutions,like BAARC which delivered a sub N-reactor too large to fit into the sub's hull! Faced with such inordinate delays the services turn to imports and yes,there are very many willing "helpers' within the security establishment to accomplish this lucrative task for "kudos" from the foreign supplier!

It would be very worthwhile to list out all the major projects that the DRDO has been involved in over the last 30 years,the timeframe initially envisage along with the estimated costs,the actual time taken and the cost escalation,and the time of induction into the services of those that succeeded and those that didn't,or have yet to bear fruit.Barring our indigenous nuclear technologoy-tx to Dr,Bhabha and co.,and rocketry,which have been our greatest successes,where we have had huge success spending a fraction of the cost of what it took the advanced nations to deliver the same,has been because of the tireless dedication of the scientists and character of the organisations involved,due to the likes of Kalam and his colleagues who were the pioneers,who planned their institutions in such manner that they achieved their goals.Apart from these examples,the rest has been a patchy performance.