Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

[sayareakd]

Guys lets wait for the trial to be over then we can discuss all this..............

@singh please dont give result before the test/trails are held....... lets wait for the result........

 

[p2prada]

1. It is because DRDO has developed an inferior product. Army is tasked with protection and it has never failed. Compare with DRDO's results and boasts.
2. Trials have been held umpteenth times. New trials in March.
3. Refer to previous test results. And all major components are imported.

Well, the current armour on the Arjun is inferior to the upgraded T-72s and the new T-90Ss. The T-90M has the best armour we can get.

 

[p2prada]

Not trying to be rude, but this seems like the doctrine terrorists and suicide bombers from across the border would have (if they had one). Hopefully this will change someday. After all lives of men protecting our country should not wasted this way in a battle. May be its time we started thinking of changing from soviet mentality to something else.

Unfortunately our society has not yet matured enough to understand such things. Our attitude needs to change first if we are to see a change in how our military fights. However, this a topic for another day.

 

[nitesh]

You forget an important point. It is the buyers market, not the sellers. Mig Corp made the Mig-35 for us. It is upto us to buy it or not. IA did not make a big deal when they choose the T-90. It was a quick decision, which had been planned previously.

Keeping Arjun type programs running means that DRDO will continuously gain experience in making better tanks. Some day we will induct better versions. But, not now. So, there is no question of wasting money.

You hadn't asnwered the question who has set the GSQR?

 

[p2prada]

You hadn't asnwered the question who has set the GSQR?

Who? The Army of course.

 

[notinlove]

WTH, i am talking about you calling him names,

not about you disagreeing with this opinions.
Grow up, or treat your elders with respect.

I got a bit carried away m sorry for that but we might even lose what we are getting due to this guy.

Right so why hide the costs of the T-90 while talking of a capability that requires more investment? Its not like there was a option available.

To cut through unnecessary Red tapism.

And T-90 is a upgraded T-72, removing the name 72 because of the reputation that tank has in the market doesnot change a thing.

You seriously need to do ssome reading.

 

[nitesh]

Who? The Army of course.

Then why the hell they are running from accepting the product?

 

[sayareakd]

Guys the question is: T 90S fulfill that GSQR ???

 

[bengalraider]

As far as logistical changes are concerned the IA has made two logistical leaps in recent history

1)when we nearly doubled our tank fleet between 1970 and 1980
2)when we moved from the British vijayanta to the T-72 as our workhorse MBT

Hence one more logistical leap may not be as difficult as many may imagine

The argument for the MI complex also looks flimsy when we take into account that between 1963 till 1983 our Mi was producing a British tank in the Vijayanta , it was only in the late 80's that the complex was remade/revamped to produce the T-series; Also the arjun factory being completely separate can be utilized without affecting the T-series production.

 

[anoop_mig25]

India Army has more than 2400 T-72 tanks. IA is ready to invest millions of US $ for up gradation of these obsolete T-72 tanks but will not accept Arjun.

It is also a fact that 70-80% of T-72 tanks are night blind. Is it about getting lot of commissions from the Russians??

if everything is known then what are our prime minister and defence minister doing.plus i would like to know status of night blindness foe arjun

 

[kuku]

Arjun was primarily conceived to counter the threat of Pakistan inducting Abrams in the 80s. That threat no longer exists.

Doctrine fits to the equipment. New assets like Attack helis and NCW can be added later. However, the tanks and infantry formations are the backbone of the doctrine. Changing this would mean changing strategy, tactics, logistics, planning, funding..in other words changing everything.

IA has been testing the NCW doctrine since 2002 with proven systems like the T-72 or the T-90. Bringing a new tank in the picture means putting pressure on the fighting abilities of the army. They will need to change a lot in order to fit the HMBTs into the doctrine. Even the US cannot be expected to change to medium tanks from the M1A2. Looking at their economy, they should be changing tanks every other decade. But, they are not. Changing infantry and tank formations would mean reorganizing the entire army. A similar comparison would be changing an entire form of govt. We can have democracy one or 2 decades, dictatorship the next, communism after that, then fascism. Battle Tanks are that essential to a doctrine.

We cannot have an equivalent number of Arjuns as the T-90s anyway. That's nearly 4000 tanks. Only US can afford it as of now. Perhaps when we get a $500Billion+ military budget.

The doctrine requires a specific number of tanks on the field, in the depot and in reserve at all times during a war. Undesirable changes in this number means we are effectively being pushed back, in other words, losing the war. Unfortunately in our doctrine, protection of soldiers is secondary to completing objectives. If a group can be destroyed in exchange for gaining a strategic point, then so be it. We follow the Soviet mentality. Number of dead mean nothing to us, unlike the Western Countries.

A doctrine is a guideline, not a set of rigid rules, a combination of lessons learned, theories formed, practiced and implemented.

A tank within a doctrine has to perform certain functions, now unless you are talking about a place where the weight of the tank prohibits the tank from performing those functions it is false to say that the tank does not fit in the military doctrine.

NCW does not depend on tank type, it will include MBTs, ICVs, APCs, Trucks, Jeeps, Motorcycles, any thing that the military has got with it and combine them to give the military a clear picture of what is going on with it.

In the last 30 years the US has carried out several upgrades to every single aspect of their MBT, the weight went up by 5-6 Tons, changed the gun, introduced improved ammo, electrical and electronics went up by several generations, meanwhile our soviet equipment lost a entire decade.

Again the Tank performs roles, i dont see the particular function that the T-72s perform better than the Arjun by just being a medium tank.

We are talking about a gradual replacement of T-72 and its upgrade the T-90 with the Arjun over a period of time, that certainly requires a 2000 tank figure and no it will not cost 500 billion dollar budget by any stretch.

The number of dead mean nothing till the reserves start to get exhausted, the days of training a soldier in a week and sending him in a tank are over, all the sophisticated equipment in a tank and the addition of NCW translates into increasing the value of every trained soldier, Soviets could do that through the 60s, 70s and 80s, that situation is long gone.

If the recent talks of an aggressive doctrine are true, having a technical and numerical superiority should be desirable.

This whole discussion should revolve around the tanks capability and cost, not its weight.

Cost of operating a T series is definitely cheaper than any HMBT. Especially when the HMBT is going to replace the T series. We need to set up infrastructure, train hundreds of tank crews with a new platform, train maintenance crews, train a million soldiers to fight with the tank. Training the soldiers alone would require a decade or more of continuous war exercises. Then synchronizing the new tank with Airforce and Navy. And this is only half done. After this comes the biggest headache of them all. Ensuring critical supplies during war and maintaining the supply lines. All of this is easier said than done. It can only be done once every 40-50 years and not every other decade.

It is impossible to do this with the Arjun right now. The problem is the Army has been accustomed to T-72s since the 80s. Changing them to Arjuns in 2010 and then changing everything all over again for a new generation tank after 2020 is impossible. Even the US is expecting to use Abrams through the next 2 decades.

The T series is very unique to the IA doctrine. And I don't see this changing for the next 10 to 15 years.

Even if we can afford to induct Arjuns, they will be given secondary duties like support or reserve. They can never be used in the frontline and will simply end up as Poster boys for the Army. You cannot expect the Army to come out with a new Cold Start doctrine for the Arjuns now can you?

The costs are marginally different till you start adding active protection, night vision, and all the fancy electronics.

In your argument you inflate the cost of Infrastructure and training, every number of tanks inducted carry the same amount of infrastructure with them be it support vehicles, crew, reserve or training, and the soldiers don't train to fight with a tank based on its weight, they train based on the capability of that tank, what i am saying is that the HMBT in question will do the same roles better.

The difference would be in the replacement of common equipment and training infrastructure which has to be raised over a long period of time (considering the huge amount of time it took to induct the T-72 and now will take to induct the T-90), which is considerable but not quite back braking as you suggest.

Supply lines are maintained by factories producing the parts required and transporting the parts to the field.

To arrive at a 40-50 years figure is strange considering that a nation can replace a entire generation by then.

The cold start doctrine focuses on achieving certain goals, the tank performs its part in achieving those goals, better armour protection with the same ability to maneuver is an advantage to the tanks ability not a disadvantage, and we have had multiple types in service before. The goals have to be achieved fast and then defended.

To start now for a entirely domestic MBT type would be very wise, as all the economic indicators seem to predict that the domestic industrial capability is on its way up, we have to start making the change now, only then will the capability develop.

The T-90 was a good deal in the mid 90s, a direct choice with induction running till 2010, however that generation had dreams of grandeur about the Arjun MBT, and the army had its own strange method of changing the requirements only to induct a tank which directly went against its changing requirements for the Arjun project.

I got a bit carried away m sorry for that but we might even lose what we are getting due to this guy.

To cut through unnecessary Red tapism.

You seriously need to do ssome reading.

No, he doesn't have the authority to make the army undertake any changes, he does however have the ability to start a discussion which is always helpful.

Redtapism? This is the work of Ministry of Defence they do the procurement, they present the data to the parliament, MOD is redtapism's biggest monument in India.

Production version of T-72BM, it provides us with not technological superiority over our adversaries.

 

[Sridhar]

Recently export version of T 90 have been upgraded with a range of new things ,some / all of them will find a way into our inventory. Let us have the weight implications from informed members . I hope it will not remain a constant.

let me list few for easy understanding

New airconditioner

New bigger turret without weakened frontal areas and with the all-aspect ERA covering.
- ERA 'Relict'
- Additional roof protection against atop attacking munition.
- New additional autoloader, placed on the aft part of the turret and able using the new longer sub-caliber rods.
- Aft ammo storage.
- Panoramic 3-channel IR commander site with improved anti-split/rounds protection.
- 7.62 mm automatic turret instead of 12.7mm.
- Totally new 2A82 125 mm MG (2A46M5 - optional).
- FCS with the net-centric module.
- New radio.
- New navigation system.
- New anti-split kevlar layer instead of the standard Russian anti-neutron layer.
- new anti-fire system.
new commander hatch with better accessability
new tracks
- stronger rolls and some improvement in the chassis
- possibly 1200 hp engine


In work:

- Mono-block power unit on 1200 hp V-99 engine.
- Steering wheel control.

http://igorrgroup.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-tank-conditioner.html

http://igorrgroup.blogspot.com/2010/01/90-new-specs.html#more

http://igorrgroup.blogspot.com/2009/12/t-90me.html#more

regarding logistics (railway wagons) they have been implemented already . they should be able to transport arjuns to required places.

BFAT wagons inducted into Army Staff Reporter
Progressive indigenisation: Army Chief


Wagons made within deadline of 12 months
BEML Bags Army order for 1,400 Tatra vehicles
BANGALORE: Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. (BEML) on Saturday rolled out 29 of the 178 Bogie Flat Arjun Tank (BFAT) wagons of military rail ordered by the Army.
Gen. J.J. Singh, Chief of the Army Staff, formally flagged off the wagons here. Induction of the wagons is expected to boost the Army's ability to transport heavy equipment and tanks, increasing its combat preparedness.
"BEML has been working overtime to produce these vehicles, floating bridges and rolling equipment. It has been able to indigenise progressively in a significant manner, helping the country's self-reliance," Gen. Singh said. Indigenisation would help meet the country's requirements as well those dependent on India for such equipment.
V.R.S. Natarajan, Chairman and Managing Director, BEML, said 178 BFAT wagons were manufactured within the specified timeframe of 12 months. But the rollout was delayed owing to shortage of wheels. "The remaining 149 wagons will be ready in the next three months."
Lt. Gen. P.K. Singh, Director-General (Operation and Logistics), said on the direction of the Army Chief to improve operational manoeuvrability, the Directorate worked on a three-pronged strategy for wagons to transport men and material. Orders were placed with BEML and the Railways. Repeat orders were being placed with BEML.
The BFAT wagon is primarily used for transportation of Arjun tanks. The under-frame is flat, with dimension of 14,500 mm x 3,550 mm. It can carry a load of 61 tonnes. The wagon is fitted with tri-axle fabricated bogie, specially designed to carry heavier loads. It is provided with an air-brake system and a through vacuum pipe.

http://www.hindu.com/2006/05/28/stories/2006052805401000.htm

For these many years Arjuns have traveled to places for various trials and tests and why not during wartime when they are a priority.

 

[ppgj]

@p2p

Arjun was primarily conceived to counter the threat of Pakistan inducting Abrams in the 80s. That threat no longer exists.

agree with your above comment. T-90 was a panic buy on the part of the army to counter pakistan's T-80 buy.

however T-80's were inducted by pakistan in 1997 after placement order in 1996.

The T-80UD MBT was demonstrated and subjected to trials in Pakistan in 1993 and 1995 to meet this country's requirement for a new MBT. In August 1996, Pakistan placed an order with the Ukraine for the supply of 320 T-80UD MBTs with the first batch of 15 vehicles being delivered in March 1997 and with the second batch of 35 following in mid-1997.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/ukraine/t-80ud.htm

so the Abrams threat which our Army perceived vanished in 1996-1997.

why they did not stop DRDO from going ahead with Arjun production, which is the result of their own specs??

india started inducting T-90 from 2001.

A major contract was signed with Russia for the procurement of 310 T-90 tanks in February, 2001 to strengthen Indian Army. Under the contract 124 tanks will be imported in fully formed condition and 186 Tanks in Completely Knocked Down (CKD) / Semi Knocked Down (SKD) condition along with Transfer of Technology for indigenous manufacture in India. As of 2001 eighty T-90 tanks were expected to be supplied by Russia by the end of the year.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india/t-90.htm

even if they had made up their mind on T-90, they could have at least stopped Arjun production in 2001 when they had formalised the agreement with Russia.

why they never bothered to stop the DRDO? instead, they spent time in sabotaging trials and spreading falsehoods and canards about their own manufactured problems!!!

why was that??

 

[sayareakd]

Arjun tank comparative trial, with T 90S and T 72 has been rigged from the very start, these are the reasons for the same.
1. T 72 is out of comparative trials.
2. Trials are not conducted in June in Rajasthan desert. To save T 90 tank
3.Statement that T 90 is not on trial by the Indian Army
4.To use 14 tanks instead of one or two of each tank.

It would have been better if Indian Navy would have been the independent observer for the tank trials.

 

[sayareakd]

http://planeman-bluffersguide.blogspot.com/2010/01/bluffers-guide-indo-pakistan-border.html

The primary tank of the Indian army is the Russian T-90. Initially 310 T-90S ‘Bhishma’ were ordered, with a follow-on order of 330 T-90Ms in 2006 and another for 347 T-90Ms. When deliveries are complete India will have some 987 T-90s in service, although general reports suggest as many as 1,000 T-90s will be built under license. There are reports that Indian T-90s may in future be equipped with more indigenous and ‘western’ equipment, possibly including active-defence.

The T-90 is really just a T-72 version with a different numeral to mitigate the marketing disaster of T-72s in the 1991 Gulf War. In many respects that’s not a bad thing; the T-72 has its fans, not least the Indian Army. Having said that the T-90 is a much improved tank relative to the older T-72M1 in Indian service. The main areas of enhancement is in armour and electronics. The T-90S is equipped with Kontakt-5 explosive-reactive armour (ERA), and the T-90M with the more modern Kaktus ERA. Indian T-90s are equipped to carry the Refleks gun-launched anti-tank missile which is laser guided and has a range of 5km.

 

[bengalraider]

Even the US cannot be expected to change to medium tanks from the M1A2. Looking at their economy, they should be changing tanks every other decade. But, they are not.

The reason for the americans not looking for a replacement to the ABRAMS is that the Abrams as it stands today is pretty much invulnerable as a MBT to any tank that any nation opposed to the americans can field against it. look at the kill records of the ABRAMS in Iraq(against T series ) and anyone will know why no replacement is necessary.The Abrams is a tank under constant evolution along with the Leo 2, the recent TUSK upgrades also address the issue of urban warfare.

 

[p2prada]

Then why the hell they are running from accepting the product?

Don't see why they should accept it either way. They developed it and that's about it. If the Army does not want to buy it they cannot be forced to do so. DRDO has nothing to lose except a market both here and abroad. The Arjun project is well funded despite the reluctance of the army. Not many countries have such a good govt.

 

[nitesh]

Don't see why they should accept it either way. They developed it and that's about it. If the Army does not want to buy it they cannot be forced to do so. DRDO has nothing to lose except a market both here and abroad. The Arjun project is well funded despite the reluctance of the army. Not many countries have such a good govt.

Well it is developed based on the requirement of the user when they didn't wanted to buy it then why they put the requirement in first place?

 

[p2prada]

so the Abrams threat which our Army perceived vanished in 1996-1997.

why they did not stop DRDO from going ahead with Arjun production, which is the result of their own specs??

india started inducting T-90 from 2001.

even if they had made up their mind on T-90, they could have at least stopped Arjun production in 2001 when they had formalised the agreement with Russia.

why they never bothered to stop the DRDO? instead, they spent time in sabotaging trials and spreading falsehoods and canards about their own manufactured problems!!!

why was that??

The Abrams threat disappeared way before that. The Pakistanis figured they cannot maintain and deploy a HMBT anyway. But, Arjun stayed its course simply because we could afford it. A lot of industries and a lot of employees were dependent on the Arjun. Cancelling the project meant the employees were no longer required. The Govt does not have a policy of firing employees en masse. Continuing the project would mean keeping a lot of people happy. So, expect a Arjun Mk2 and beyond.

A lot of such projects are kept running even after the military decides not to buy it. At least till their first prototype. Look at the USN. The F-17 lost to the F-16 in the USAF. The F-17 was given a new project name and replaced the F-14 which was a far far superior fighter compared to the F-18. Here economics comes into play.

So it is not up to the Army to cancel projects. They provide a requirement and they will have you develop a tank. But, the army places no guarantee of actually buying the product. The Govt decides if the project is to be cancelled or not at the behest of the army. Even if the product is not required, the govt will continue with the project for other reasons like PR, continued employment etc.

Similarly, IAF is not obligated to buy the LCA. They can simply reject the entire program and move on to inducting more MRCA. Nobody can stop it.

 

[p2prada]

Well it is developed based on the requirement of the user when they didn't wanted to buy it then why they put the requirement in first place?

Only to develop an equivalent tank if the need arises. The army can post any number of requirements. But, they have no obligation to buy it. So, it is up to you to take such a risk.This is pretty much one of the most important reasons why private industries in India don't get into the defence business. The competition is too intense and the armed forces are not bothered at your loss.

Boeing spend Billions developing the YF-23, it was rejected for a more affordable YF-22. Now imagine TATA and L&T in the same situation. Some one always get the short end of the straw. This time DRDO got the short end while Russia got the deal. Simple as that.