Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 08 Jan 2012 15:49

Surya wrote:nice sentiment however it would have been better if by the same yardstick you had not posted your buddy Unnithan's drivel on the Army chief DOB - it is an obnoxious hatchet job

As for discrediting Army - the former DGMF who made stupid remarks have done more than any blog etc

Surya , I for one wont mix the Army DOB issue with Army Chief opinion T-90 ,72 ,Arjun ... no point mixing that ... should I get in Adarsh or Sukhna and mix it with Artillery or other issues that are totally unrelated.

You have heard what Army Chief has to say on T-90 , I cant get any one better to speak about it then the chief of Indian army , I for one wouldnt either claim that i know more then him about tanks.

So time to accept things as they are and move on , no point in poking fun into chief statement becuase its not as per your expectations.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 08 Jan 2012 16:26

The IA has been using the T 72 since 1979/80. The Arjun in its current form is a result of GSQR which was revised in 85/86, IIRC.

The above leaves me with two distinct questions.

1) Why did the IA not specify an 72 equivalent tank in the first place.

2) When the IA realized that the TSP will not be getting the M1, why did they not revised the GSQR accordingly.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 08 Jan 2012 16:37

Pratyush wrote:The IA has been using the T 72 since 1979/80. The Arjun in its current form is a result of GSQR which was revised in 85/86, IIRC.

The above leaves me with two distinct questions.

1) Why did the IA not specify an 72 equivalent tank in the first place.

Because they wanted a world class tank on the lines of Western School of tank design with 4-man crew like Abrams/Challenger/Leopard
2) When the IA realized that the TSP will not be getting the M1, why did they not revised the GSQR accordingly.
Because no one had the gumption to take a stand. Instead, it was tank is bad and everything else under the sun. IMO, two other factors - GOI would not have been too happy with the ping-pong being played out GSQR and subsequent expenditure. Second - tenure of General Shankar Roychowdhury. He was fully behind the tank and by the end of his tenure, tank had already been "dedicated" to the nation. It was under his tenure that 43AR had the ad-hoc Arjun Squadron for more closer interaction and feedback with DRDO/CVRDE.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 08 Jan 2012 16:41

Doctrines develop around technological advancement. Technological advancement rarely follows development in doctrine.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 08 Jan 2012 20:02

Austin

two seperate pts

one - DOB issue
they are together because you brought in 'discredit the army' - lot of things can do that - scams, incompetent DGMF, etc etc

Adarsh is a pure scam

as for the DOB issue I am sorry but your buddy Unnithan just sank through the bottom of shit pit. You can tell him so. I understand he has to climb the ladder but to sink so low to be a hit man for one of the more venal political power grouping is terrible.
You should not have posted it if you feel other things discredit the Army because this is the most terrible of them all.

second arty etc. - well thats how the army HQ responds

and I bring the para and SF because through people I know I was privy to that exchange. When factions in a psrticular group fight - the Army HQ generally tries to stay above it rather than have the balls to intervene for the higher good.

Arty situation - most on BR know its bad - yes getting a few more rocket luanchers, improving C4I etc will keep it survivable but the fact is we should have had 1500 odd 155 mm guns and we have 400 - the chief can spin all he wants - it just does not cover unless we got 1500 more 130 mm guns with better ranged ammo.

Now it just so happens its an issue of interest to me and I know enough to disagree with him. But as i said in this it is not a malicious statement - the man is a good

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 08 Jan 2012 20:33

harbans wrote:Doctrines develop around technological advancement. Technological advancement rarely follows development in doctrine.

++1

However, the user can participate in technological advancement requirements and the progress. In our case, it is their right and responsibility!

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 09 Jan 2012 10:31

Surya the discredit statement was only in the context of many blogs/website/wiki etc claiming that engine was sabotaged , the only reason why some one would make such statement i think is to discredit the army ( which is to say some one in army deliberately sabotaged the engine ) and fairness of trial process , I dont see any other motive when MOD has clarified that there was no sabotage nor did DRDO asked for any inquiry.. never mind facts are there for every one to see.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 09 Jan 2012 10:35

Merk IV and their engine problem.

Engine Failure on Merkava MK4 Main Battle Tank
IsrealDefense has learned that part of the reserve armor division has been disabled due to engine problems.

As of today, the IDF does not possess any working engines for their new Merkava 4 tanks.

After investing billions in faulty engines made by the German MTU company, the IDF invested more money in the company for new engines due to arrive in 2013.

Military officials said that due to the engine problems, tanks already in the field would not continue to travel as originally planned.

In addition, dozens of inoperable engines are waiting for repair in the IDF’s rehabilitation and maintenance center, while even more tanks continue to roll off the manufacturing line.

As a result, the IDF’s reserve division of tanks, composed mainly of Merkava 4s, is inoperable.

Although some Merkava tanks carry engines manufactured by the American L3 company, whose price is estimated at a third of the German engines, and are without any problems (though the American engines have a limited 12 horse power engine), the MoD and IDF purchased an additional 200 units of the German-manufactured 1500 horse power engine at a cost of $800 thousand per engine.

Defense officials told IsraelDefense that beyond the high cost of the engines, the maintenance of the German engine is also considerably high.

With the newly purchased engines due to arrive in Israel in 2013, in the meantime, there are no installable engines for the disabled tanks or the newly manufactured tanks.

Commenting on the issue, the Ministry of Defense and IDF Spokesperson Unit said, “The Merkava Mark 4 was installed with a new engine, which in its initial years, suffered early problems due to planning. However, in the ongoing manufacturing process, those problems were addressed, solved, and successfully tested in the Second Lebanon War and in Operation Cast Lead. Since 2009, some of the engines underwent a process of renovation from wear and tear, upgrades, and other problems that arose. It should be emphasized that the upgraded engines passed a series of tests and operational experience. The MoD recently signed a contract to purchase new engines to be installed in new tanks, and in these engines, the solutions found for previous problems are being implemented.”

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 09 Jan 2012 11:51

I also heard that Renk is a pretty bad company.

alexis · Post by **alexis** » 09 Jan 2012 12:31

Austin wrote:Merk IV and their engine problem.

Engine Failure on Merkava MK4 Main Battle Tank

Commenting on the issue, the Ministry of Defense and IDF Spokesperson Unit said, “The Merkava Mark 4 was installed with a new engine, which in its initial years, suffered early problems due to planning. However, in the ongoing manufacturing process, those problems were addressed, solved, and successfully tested in the Second Lebanon War and in Operation Cast Lead. Since 2009, some of the engines underwent a process of renovation from wear and tear, upgrades, and other problems that arose. It should be emphasized that the upgraded engines passed a series of tests and operational experience. The MoD recently signed a contract to purchase new engines to be installed in new tanks, and in these engines, the solutions found for previous problems are being implemented.”

If only in India, MOD and IA showed the same faith in Arjun tank!
Any new product will have niggles - only way is to stick with it and improve it one by one.

Tsarkar's example of Indica is a good example in this context - Tata stuck with it and improved the product some much that it became the best selling vehicle in its category till it was somewhat upstaged by Maruti Swift diesel (IMO). Indian public was willing to give Indica a second chance unlike Army wrt Arjun.

alexis · Post by **alexis** » 09 Jan 2012 12:46

Sanku wrote:
Not goading, its a "I told you so" -- you will have to travel down a few years back in history of BRF discussions to know why.

Dear Sanku,
I had followed that discussion with a lot of interest. I know you argued for a smooth bore gun - quite a logical arguement. Only the fact that you were also then defending T-90 on that premise was a little hard for me to accept.

Now that everybody has moved on, I was just requesting you to lay it to rest.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 09 Jan 2012 12:58

RI, Korea hammer out deal to develop tanks

The Indonesian and South Korean governments have agreed to work together to develop armored tanks and tanks. The agreement was made in the MoU between PT Pindad and Busan Ltd in Jakarta on Friday.

Defense Minister Purnomo Yusgiantoro said both state weaponry maker PT Pindad and Busan Ltd would jointly produce armored Anoa Tarantula tanks.

"Indonesia will produce 11 units of Tarantula panzers; South Korea will make another 11 units," said Purnomo on Friday as quoted by Antara news wire.

PT Pindad president director Adik Avianto Soedarsono said the Anoa Tarantula panzer would adopt the technology from Doosan DST. It will be armed with a Belgian-made 90mm canon.

Adik said PT Pindad would also develop a lightweight combat tank starting in 2014 to cater the need of the Indonesian Army to strengthen territorial defense.

According to Adik, the plan to produce the lightweight tank is the answer to the concern that 90 percent of the armored tanks being used in the Army are not Indonesian-made.

The lightweight tank will refer to the K-21 tank produced by Doosan DST from South Korea and that of Turkey.

Aside from cooperation in tank development, Indonesia also signed an MoU with South Korea's Daewoo International Corporation to work together in the development of fast missile boats (KCR-70).

The signing of the MoUs was witnessed by Indonesian Defense Minister Purnomo Yusgiantoro and South Korean Defense Minister Kim Kwan-jin.

In addition to expansion in the weaponry industry cooperation, both countries also agreed to join hands in training and the educational exchange of soldiers.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Jan 2012 14:01

The chief interviewed in the "F" mag.There are a lot of details about allegd plans for the IA-armour/etc/. in the future .osting them later.

Q:"What is the status in armour?Is T-90 the MBT now?What's being dome about the llarge number of T-72s which do not have night ightign capability?Hoew many regiments of Arjun do we have and are there plans for Arjun upgrades?"

A:By terming the T-90 as MBT,the IA implies that this tank is the mainstay of the IA and is indicative of the volumes of the tank comprising the backbone of the mechanised forces.The T-90 is a stae of the art and highly capable weapon system,capable of survival in the most challenging enviromnents.

T-72 upgrades,"Large number night-enabled",same plans for balance numbers.for the entire tank fleet.

Arjun.The IA is looking at inducting a few aditional regiments in the future.The tank,"finally produced" by the DRDO has "come a long way".Upgradations and improvements to the MK-2 are underway.On "successful completion of these improvements",the tank will "meet the requirements of the IA".

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 09 Jan 2012 14:23

Arjun.The IA is looking at inducting a few aditional regiments in the future.The tank,"finally produced" by the DRDO has "come a long way".Upgradations and improvements to the MK-2 are underway.On "successful completion of these improvements",the tank will "meet the requirements of the IA".

Thats high praise, coming from IA.

<OT>There needs to be a change in populate culture within the IA - a vision to see that any imported system is a liability/impediment in a war. There needs to be a high weightage given to strategic independence - homegrown system considered strengths and imports counted as weaknesses. They need to cultivate what is already sown</OT>

keshavchandra · Post by **keshavchandra** » 09 Jan 2012 15:23

The current war scenario in terms of net cost and affordability is some how projected in the time frame of next one decade but the core will change drastically after and on this I need some views from all seniors...
Like on average as per current economy stands we can fight for 45 ~ 50 days in one stretch. And this figure is wastly depends on many factors but as I think it will depend mainly on the fuel cost and its consumption(As it is the most variable and limited resource). So as I calculate on a very small scale, on average a T-90 consumes 4 ~ 5 litres for one Km, and we may assume that a standard distance a tank runs in war may comes around 40 ~ 50 Km per day. So a net consumption per tank will come around 160 ~250 litres per day or 6400 ~ 12500 litres for whole war span. Now the final operational cost(here we are taking fuel as the basis of cast as it is the main variable determinant).
The cost of fuel will depend on many factors after one decade, like its feasibility will directly proportionate on the diplomatic and political situations rather then economic. But it is so sure that the cost of war will be so high that what ever country economic and political situation, the span of full war on every front will come under a limit of 5 to 10 days maximum.

........

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 09 Jan 2012 15:55

keshavchandra wrote:The cost of fuel will depend on many factors after one decade, like its feasibility will directly proportionate on the diplomatic and political situations rather then economic. But it is so sure that the cost of war will be so high that what ever country economic and political situation, the span of full war on every front will come under a limit of 5 to 10 days maximum. ........

That is why i said few pages back , when the cost of fuel reaches $150 barrel in the next 15-20 years as is being projected , it would have impact on many aspect of armoured vehical design specially heavy fuel sipping tanks will give to lighter or medium type , considering we are major importer of fuel and it keeps rising every year there is a economic dimension not just to war but even equipment.

OFB have already predicted a 30T tank as the future

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 09 Jan 2012 16:20

Even if the cost reaches $200 per barrel, how much does a modern military consume anyway that makes that much difference compared to what a complete entire economy consumes?

keshavchandra · Post by **keshavchandra** » 09 Jan 2012 16:55

Austin wrote:
keshavchandra wrote:The cost of fuel will depend on many factors after one decade, like its feasibility will directly proportionate on the diplomatic and political situations rather then economic. But it is so sure that the cost of war will be so high that what ever country economic and political situation, the span of full war on every front will come under a limit of 5 to 10 days maximum. ........
That is why i said few pages back , when the cost of fuel reaches $150 barrel in the next 15-20 years as is being projected , it would have impact on many aspect of armoured vehical design specially heavy fuel sipping tanks will give to lighter or medium type , considering we are major importer of fuel and it keeps rising every year there is a economic dimension not just to war but even equipment.

OFB have already predicted a 30T tank as the future

But sir, more fuel efficient mass movement should and would not be a real efficient way(a effective way some-how ). The resource changes surely and first adversely will affect on war doctrines. IA still using T-72 with certain updates and IAF wont just scrap the MIG 21-23 series 2017 onwards even. The point is this platform involves heavy cost and time involvement to make a mature system. So it is really not easy for any country to change and adapt the new resource base for movement...As first and quick we adapt the reusable energy( or some how a mix involvement) it will be easy for us...

Note: I request to all BRF seniors to start a thread just dedicate on the new reusable energy base war doctrines, their degree of involvement at initial to full application at end with all developmental threats....

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 09 Jan 2012 17:03

merlin wrote:Even if the cost reaches $200 per barrel, how much does a modern military consume anyway that makes that much difference compared to what a complete entire economy consumes?

Well they would be forced to consume less and so will the entire economy , how many economy can actually sustain a $200 barrel price when a $150 in 2008 brought many to their knees.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Jan 2012 18:53

Thereis an excellent papaer in F mag by Maj.Gen. Mrinal Suman (retd),"In a blind lane",about the need for appreciating the "transformative nature of innovations",whihch hs been the bane of the Indian mindset.

In it he has proposed a "Defence Innovative Centre",structure and procedure,fed by 3 innovators."Innovative Industry,Innovative Academy and Innovative User Service".In turn the Centre disseminates its findings to 3 more entities,Innovative Technology,Innovative Process and Innovative Procedure",which in turn send their finding to respectively,HQ DRDO,Dept. of Def. Prod. and Acquisition wing.,who forward their decisions to respectively,Related labs,related DPSUs/OFB co. and DDP,HQ IDS and SHQ.Perhps one could term his suggestion,ythat of the "Def. Centre",as being our version of the US's "skunk works"!

Anyway,in the light of the energy crisis,lready worldwide huge movs are being made using waste oil from commercial hotels,etc.,refined a aircraft fuel.Solar powered prototype UAVs are already flying and drone cargo aircraft too.Eliminating man from the machine is making war machines smaller and less costly and thus consumng less fuel.Growing Miniaturisation was predicted by French philosopher a century ago,who also predicted whay we know today as the Net,encircling the globe.Along with nano-tech,the size of war machines and sundry gizmos will be incredibly small,as e already have micro-UAV sensors looking like insects and butterfliesmwhich can penetrate inside buildings and sen back ther visuals/info.Smaller,lighter,faster,greater (endurance) and stealthier are going to be the hallmarks of future war machines.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 09 Jan 2012 19:26

Philip,

India has always been one of the most innovative societies in the world. But for a while now, the mentality has been survival oriented. Indian innovations are hence directed towards immediate benefits. Long term thinking is only now percolating down as survival needs are getting fulfilled.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 09 Jan 2012 19:30

However, the user can participate in technological advancement requirements and the progress. In our case, it is their right and responsibility!

Indeed, i should have qualified my statement more in that regard. Doctrine can be user and strategic. It is strategic doctrines that provide the 'exception to the rule' thrust to development of some aspects of technology. End user doctrines are adjusted to make the necessary changes. Loop completes with the end user feedback. Operational end user inputs to start with technological development is weird and flawed thinking. That's why some of the end user requirements can be ridiculous and lead to project delay or abandonment.

The assumption that an Army Chief best understands Tanks, Network Centric warfare is flawed, or that a Naval Chief has the best understanding of Ships is flawed. Presently am myself working on a technology innovation that will simplify something at end user level that has been a cause of many a problem more than 50 years. It slipped the end users that period that there are simple technological solutions to overcome that problem. Once we complete the innovation, we will provide specifications, product manuals and operational doctrine specs to the end user and get feedback to tweak and improve end user operational functionality and ease.

To really make proper technological advancement, one must send technologists, control system engineers to the end user platforms. Technology exists, but it's applications are limited still. End users continued landing in planes in fog till control system guys felt one could do it on auto too perfectly..my take is that all those involved in warfare strategy, design and weapons platform development, operational end user functionality must get perspectives correct where they understand that technology and innovation is the driver today and that their familiarity with the status quo of the present operational doctrine a given and over riding factor can be subject to change. But i guess that there have been some lessons learnt for sure, the hard way though.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 10 Jan 2012 21:33

On my way to the office this morning, I saw 3 unmodified 72s loaded (No ERA, ) on heavy trailers, and parked on the side of the Mathura road, Delhi-Faridabad border.

The interesting thing was that they were loaded on civilian trailers.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 10 Jan 2012 22:16

I think they are mostly moved on civilian trailers around the country...have seen my share on blr-tumkur stretch.

sarabpal.s · Post by **sarabpal.s** » 10 Jan 2012 23:26

Nothing unsual i seen 130mm gun on a civil trailer it not common site but they do this.

And 26th jan around corner you may see more thing

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 11 Jan 2012 14:19

alexis wrote:
Dear Sanku,
I had followed that discussion with a lot of interest. I know you argued for a smooth bore gun - quite a logical arguement. Only the fact that you were also then defending T-90 on that premise was a little hard for me to accept.

Now that everybody has moved on, I was just requesting you to lay it to rest.

I am glad you remember that Alexis, I will however continue to claim that T 90 was/is a good purchase and a good decision and am quite confident that events will prove me right once more.

Arjun makes and breaks on its own, dissing or praising T 90 is not relevant to it.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 11 Jan 2012 16:01

Rafaels Integrated Upgrade Solution for AFVs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2qq8efFGak

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 11 Jan 2012 16:22

Austin; on the issue of user trials vs AUCRT for T 90 (w.r.t. the discussion on the article I posted)

Step 1 -- evaluations of T 90 in Russia. In principle agreement/decision to buy. Immediately post Kargil.
Step2/3 -- User trials in Dec/May in Rajsthan, PNC worked in parallel for 2 years, 1999-2001
Step 4 -- AUCRT in India in 2001+ time frame.

The article that I had posted referred to step 4 where the tanks were run to find out the extreme levels. This is where the engine failures was reported. IIRC it was at about 90% of the max broucher lifetime. Pretty decent IMVHO considering that this was done in one shot (as opposed to over many years in a real life case)

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

PS> At other points of times reports for Step1 and Step2/3 have been posted too (including by me) -- I don't recall any particular issue that was noticed.

The two main items from Step 2 were
1) Shotra was not ready and not purchased
2) The French TI was chosen instead of Russian. MKIzation of sorts was done.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 11 Jan 2012 17:34

Austin wrote:Rafaels Integrated Upgrade Solution for AFVs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2qq8efFGak

Finally there is a solution to the FMBT.
There is something like two man tank.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/falcon_turret.htm
But the turret is the same old one, taking the same amount of space and now with the Rafale's idea of mounting the turret on top of the tank hull, there is good scope to have the two man tank as our FMBT. That can replace the T-72'.s
Even if it's a three men crew, those space saved in the hull can be of use to put the third man, while having automatic loading.
Where is the design your own FMBT thread.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 11 Jan 2012 17:56

Sanku wrote:The two main items from Step 2 were
1) Shotra was not ready and not purchased
2) The French TI was chosen instead of Russian. MKIzation of sorts was done.

Thanks Sanku , I was talking to a Algerian national on T-90 since they are one of the major operator of T-90SA , according to him they did not face any issue with T-90 including its TI which is similar to Bhishma Catherine system , they do operate the tanks near Libyan border where the temperature can go up to 55°C , changes compared to indian T-90 are Air Conditioning System and German transmission gearbox.

http://i1090.photobucket.com/albums/i37 ... /t90sa.jpg
http://i1090.photobucket.com/albums/i37 ... 33/1-3.jpg
http://i1090.photobucket.com/albums/i37 ... 1T90SA.jpg

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 11 Jan 2012 21:10

the unmanned turret thing might fly with IFVs but hard to see how a 2 man MBT tank crew can retain efficiency over a period of few days on the move, needing to do minor repairs, change tracks , load ammo, stand guard duty, prepare food, help wounded comrades etc. great for lean manning and efficiency hawk ppt slides though. a very beefed up IFV force would need to move with them everywhere to provide the additional manpower.

at one level if you can control UAVs via satellite link you can also control tanks. perhaps a line of
'disposable' remote control tanks armed with a 120m L65 smoothbore using a naval caliber charge for hypervelocity as the first line attack force is in order...the manned MBTs can follow in the 2nd line to shatter the remnants bypassed by the 1st line

being unmanned and not needing to protect people, it could definitely be much smaller turret, smaller front hull and hence smaller engine...imparting good range and lighter weight, plus lots of ammo perhaps 80-100 rd in dual autoloaders both sides of the gun..masha allah.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 11 Jan 2012 21:40

You're very correct. I did not think on those lines, which are very important from operational point of view. One more important aspect is the role change. Especially in an attack heli, it's not going on for a prolonged patrol (compared to a tank). Here the challenge is about roles. There cannot be any change in the Drivers role. He must drive the tank. Then comes the Gunner and the Commander. The commander is the one who takes decision be it about tactics or about fighting the war. Also he is the one who will be utilizing the machine gun. The Gunner do have a dedicated role to take out targets either allotted to him or by himself. So loader is the only person who can be removed with automation. The tank commander doing the job of the gunner will be very tedious task, especially when the tanks are going on for long distances and the challenges and situation will prefer the dedicated tasks be done respectively by Commander and Gunner.

The unmanned tank/AFV is being developed. And it must be the first ones going in for the war and causing havoc, then the second line can follow.

Seems there is plans to fit Daksh with a gun to take out terrorists hiding in houses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRDO_Daksh
http://expressbuzz.com/nation/DRDO-deve ... 42381.html
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... ablishment
Who knows, may be a group of Armoured robotic vehicles will roll into position, all controlled from far away places. Then the commander in the control room will assign a group of targets to be taken out. On final confirmation, there will be ripple firing of missiles, all stored in vertical tubes. Then the vehicle backs off as the missiles are in flight moving a distance of around 7 or so kilometers they take out the target. The vehicle is loaded with another set of missile launchers replacing the old ones by a remotely controlled loader, And it move out in search of further targets.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 11 Jan 2012 22:18

watch the movie lebanon to get a feel of inside the tank. Now think of our conditions (maybe NBC) - shakargarh type intense battles

would the 4th man help?? or not??

I personally think - yes -

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 11 Jan 2012 23:48

can't we have a remote commander? complete audio-visual, IR and radar feeds linked in? Perhaps he would be more useful in the sense, any CAS or satellite data and other monitoring/sensor feeds can be used to analyze remotely.

though that role may entirely different and may have security problems in terms of jamming etc. unless, we have advanced enough for jam proof commn and feeds.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 12 Jan 2012 00:05

Sorry, not so simple.

Sanku wrote: <SNIP>Step 1 -- evaluations of T 90 in Russia. In principle agreement/decision to buy. Immediately post Kargil.

IA reccommends the induction of T-90 after trials in Russia. Nothing "in principle" about it.

Step2/3 -- User trials in Dec/May in Rajsthan, PNC worked in parallel for 2 years, 1999-2001

It is PNC which asked the IA to conduct the trials in India. IA was willing to let the tank pass muster based on trials in Russia.

Step 4 -- AUCRT in India in 2001+ time frame.
AUCRT in 2003

The article that I had posted referred to step 4 where the tanks were run to find out the extreme levels. This is where the engine failures was reported. IIRC it was at about 90% of the max broucher lifetime. Pretty decent IMVHO considering that this was done in one shot (as opposed to over many years in a real life case)
There were two tanks in AUCRT. In one, engine seized after 90% of proclaimed kms and hrs. In another, it was replaced after less than 50% of kms and hrs. And BTW, the T-90 AUCRT was for 6,000K kms while Arjun AUCRT was for 8,000kms

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

PS> At other points of times reports for Step1 and Step2/3 have been posted too (including by me) -- I don't recall any particular issue that was noticed.
Points from the trial and I quote:
The engine has a designed power rating of 1000HP, that is not practically achievable. The power rating of the system as per the Russian test certificate is 846/910HP
One engine failed the mobility trials after 1037kms. The engine was subsequently replaced by RWT by replacing the cylinder head and cylinder liner assembly
Smoke generating system pipe of all three tanks broke down during trials
No stripping or dismounting of sights permitted by OEM.
STE (Special tools and equipment) for testing and calibration of sights not provided for MET (Maintainability Evaluation Trials)

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 12 Jan 2012 00:21

rohitvats wrote:Sorry, not so simple.

Not too complicated either Sir. Sure I have omitted details, but the overall picture is indeed quite as what I stated.

Sanku wrote: <SNIP>Step 1 -- evaluations of T 90 in Russia. In principle agreement/decision to buy. Immediately post Kargil.
IA reccommends the induction of T-90 after trials in Russia. Nothing "in principle" about it.

A recommendation is even less than a in principle decision to buy? Whats the conflict.

IA can make a recommendation, thats not even a decision. Let alone in principle decision.

Decisions are MoD.

Step2/3 -- User trials in Dec/May in Rajsthan, PNC worked in parallel for 2 years, 1999-

It is PNC which asked the IA to conduct the trials in India. IA was willing to let the tank pass muster based on trials in Russia.

Sure, and it is PNCs job, which incidentally also has IA members. The previous decision was only to get a first level clearance from IA.

Step 4 -- AUCRT in India in 2001+ time frame.

Points from the trial and I quote:

I dont fully remember the failure modes from the previous article, but what you post does not take away from what I said. That the engines ran to 90% of the broucher times.

There were other observations too, but in AUCRT ANY tank will have observations of failure. Thats hardly a failing of tank. Arjun also went through AUCRT in 2007 after which it was put up for comparative trials and then mainline induction.

There is no hidden stuff here.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 12 Jan 2012 00:37

Sanku wrote:
I dont fully remember the failure modes from the previous article, but what you post does not take away from what I said. That the engines ran to 90% of the broucher times.

That is not what rohit has posted. He says that of the two tanks, one tanks' engine failed at 50% and the other at 90%. He mentions the exact distance after which it failed. 1037 km.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 12 Jan 2012 00:44

Not so fast. The main sticking point is simple - IA reccomended the induction of T-90 based on trials in Russia and CCS even gave approval. It was the PNC which asked for trials in Indian conditions - something, IA should have done before reccomending the induction of the tank. On what basis was reccomendation done when the the performance was not proven in Indian conditions?

As for AUCRT - well, you forgot about the "two tanks" bit - sure, one engine ran for 90% of stipulated time and hours. But the other had to be replaced with less than 50% performance. Both 90% and 50% figures also mean that OEM figures about sub-system performance cannot be taken at face value. Which is not surprising because in the trials itself, one engine packed up after less than 20% kms in the test.

And btw, the same report also says that EME Team from IA had reccomendations about (a) cooling systems for electronics to avoid overheating(b) APU for the tanks (c) improved TI Sights. This was in 2003. AFAIK, none of the above has happened with T-90. So, the product improvement part is till pending. But the Arjun must get the XYZ number of upgrades before making the cut.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 12 Jan 2012 00:45

nachiket wrote:
Sanku wrote:
I dont fully remember the failure modes from the previous article, but what you post does not take away from what I said. That the engines ran to 90% of the broucher times.
That is not what rohit has posted. He says that of the two tanks, one tanks' engine failed at 50% and the other at 90%. He mentions the exact distance after which it failed. 1037 km.

nachiket, the 1,037kms point is from trials (before induction) while "two tanks" part and 90%/50% figure is from AUCRT - which happens after induction in the IA.

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 12 Jan 2012 00:47

The Gentleman is absolutely fit for being the DGMO. 50% == 90% onlee!