Army dithers over futuristic tank, DRDO pursues engine

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,594
What in your opinion is developing from scratch?
Building something new, something that has not been developed before.
  • Arjun does not have a parallel anywhere in the world. It is not like the Vijayanta Tank or Bhishma Tank. It is one of its own kind. Yes, it may have similarity with some European tanks, but that is because form follows function.
  • Arjun does not have a predecessor in India. It was not an incremental development.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
That is a chicken and egg problem. I don't think DRDO and the Army have enough confidence in one another. Army will not give orders unless DRDO reaches the goal on time. Fair enough. DRDO will not be willing to invest enough unless there is no guarantee that the Army will buy them in enough numbers to justify the investment in man, material and resources.

I think the current approach is good. Go along with your own development. This way DRDO, hopefully, will find a customer for the new engine, either in India or abroad.

To keep this tank story running, the DRDO must churn out Arjun tanks in incremental batches with minor improvements and the Army should keep absorbing them. That will create enough talent pool and ensure a running production line and there will be provision for constant upgrades.

While I agree that one cannot control the military strength of the enemy, one can definitely support the import of foreign components or collaborating with foreign companies so that the product can meet the requirement as much as possible.
The issue is simple.

Lives depends on the product.

It is not about indigenisation alone.

As Indians, we are proud of our industry.

However, we are also concerned about the lives of our men and the safety of our Nation and more so, to preserve the faith of the Nation in us.

That is why, there has been no major complaint about the INSAS, though the media is making a hue and cry over the same. And the media are civilians who claim to be experts and who do not have the patience of the Army that the glitches will be overcomed! Or have the excitement of the forumers to have 'sexy' weapons (whatever that means)! ;)

Or the crocodile tears over the 'massive loss of lives' in the Kargil War.

Or the fact that those in the Kargil War was deprived of Siachen clothing and were merely on ECC.

I have been there during the Kargil War and before that in Op Intrusion Dalunang and we had no complaint about ECC.

And the IA is not too concerned about bodybags when the country's safety and honour is involved.

We are paid to defend our country and we go into service knowing fully well that our lives are cheap and yet essential so that our folks can sleep well at night because of the security that we provide, even with our lives in times of peace!
 
Last edited:

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
Ambassador
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,042
It was not a entirely Indian Deign but LEOA4 turret deign for IA specific..

Except the deign, Every thing is from scratch..

  • Assembling foreign components should not be seen in bad light. It is not very useful to re-invent the wheel, unless there are sanctions.
  • Finally, Arjun was developed from scratch. This time, we have a less generation gap and we definitely can do much better; and I have no doubts about it. The only doubts I have is about meeting the deadline.
What in your opinion is developing from scratch?
 

Payeng

Daku Mongol Singh
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
2,522
Likes
777
The stuff that I am interested in is the Turret and engine manufacturing, somewhere I have read that it contributes to 40% of the tanks build up. A definite go for this two, more interesting is the fact that the engine development process would take 3 years max and 18000 hp engine is also interesting to be noted DRDO could fail to deliver the promised power output claims ultimately resulting in a 1500 hp engine :lol: and even though 1800 hp is achieved it is not a problem to derate it, not the case other wise. The plan should have a go, FMBT or no FMBT we will have the technology acquired.

I also think India should have an eye on South Korean Developments.
 

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
Ambassador
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,042
I think its a first tank India made, And first tanks have flaws..

Even though on a third nation budget and derived a first grade tank..



Its a step towards progress in tank deign, And next generations will be much better..
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
Maitra,

The bottom line is simple.

Do what you want, but give a product that meets the bill!
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
I think its a first tank India made, And first tanks have flaws..

Even though on a third nation budget and derived a first grade tank..



Its a step towards progress in tank deign, And next generations will be much better..
Design away.

Who has stopped that?

But give a product that is contemporary to meet the Threat.

We also had HF 24 way back designed by the Focke Wulf engineer who made best of German air machines in WWII.

It was world class!

Shelved since India could not design a compatible engine or import one.
 
Last edited:

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,594
I think its a first tank India made, And first tanks have flaws..

Even though on a third nation budget and derived a first grade tank..



Its a step towards progress in tank deign, And next generations will be much better..
I am all for incremental development. Threat perceptions may change gradually or abruptly and scientific breakthrough might happen gradually or abruptly, but both don't necessarily coincide.

Maitra,

The bottom line is simple.

Do what you want, but give a product that meets the bill!
Absolutely. That should be a goal of DRDO. We can debate on whether DRDO met the goal or not and whether it met the goal on time or not; but debating on foreign components, assembly etc., are not that important as long as the country is well defended.

Soldiers' lives are not cheap and my motto (actually Patton's) states the same.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835


Here is the HF 24 designed way back!'

'Check the design with the contemporary ones of that time!
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
The Marut was designed by the famed German designer Kurt Tank, but never realised its full potential due to insufficient power. The basic design was developed by Kurt Tank's team during Tank's days developing jet aircraft in Argentina, which was to be called Pulqui III, as a follow on for the Pulqui II. Tank departed Argentina for India carrying the Marut's concept with him. Although originally conceived to operate in the vicinity of Mach 2, the aircraft in fact turned out to be barely capable of reaching Mach 1,[2] due to the lack of suitably powered engines for the airframe. After the Indian Government conducted its first nuclear tests at Pokhran, international pressure prevented the import of better engines, or at times, even spares for the Orpheus engines. This would be one of the main reasons for this aircraft's early demise.

It was used in combat in the ground attack role, where its safety features such as manual controls whenever the hydraulic systems failed and twin engines increased survivability.

A total of 147 aircraft were built, including 18 two-seat trainers. The last examples were withdrawn from service in 1990.

Given the limited number of Marut units, most Marut squadrons were considerably over-strength for the duration of their lives. According to Brian de Magray, at peak strength No.10 Squadron had on charge 32 Maruts, although the squadron probably did not hold a unit-establishment of more than 16. All in all, the Marut squadrons acquitted themselves very well in the 1971 war. The Marut, as an aircraft, was shown to be tough and capable. No aircraft were ever lost in air-to-air combat. However, 4 were lost to ground fire and two were lost on the ground. The Maruts were in the thick of it, right through the fighting on the western front, and the Squadrons ended the war with a total of three Vir Chakras.[3]

A mock up of the Hf 24 Marut can be seen in Kamla Nehru Park in the city of Pune, India.
[edit] Operational history

In the 1971 war, some HF-24 Maruts and Hawker Hunter aircraft were used to assist the post at Battle of Longewala in the morning by the Indian Air Force. They were not outfitted with night vision equipment, and so were delayed from conducting combat missions until dawn.[4] In 1967, one Marut was used as a testbed for the Egyptian Brandner E-300 engine.[5]

HAL HF-24 Marut - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
Ambassador
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,042
But give a product that is contemporary to meet the Threat.
@Sir
If it so, One should give proper directions on stand, Back in days when FCS was malfunctioned why rectified in 2005 only why not in early 90s as it was using the same FCS ?, It was undoubted a communication problem, Even today regarding FINSAS project for infantry..
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
The story of Marut is the story of India's lacklustre approach to indigenisation!
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
@Sir
If it so, One should give proper directions on stand, Back in days when FCS was malfunctioned why rectified in 2005 only why not in early 90s as it was using the same FCS ?, It was undoubted a communication problem, Even today regarding FINSAS project for infantry..
What is FCS?
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
Good point.

Was the Army coopted?

And if they were, they did not comment on that?

If not, why not?
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
Having some experience in User Trials, I would say that such a gross error would be surely reported in the User Trial Report.

All said and done, no one would sacrifice his career to save an equipment that does not function.

I have myself commented adversely on the Infantry BFSR inspite of seniors and Govt pressure to 'allow indigenous production that will be corrected at the production stage'!

My loyalty to my men was first over the loyalty to the Govt's populism that would kill the soldiers!
 
Last edited:

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
Ambassador
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,042
Good point.

Was the Army coopted?

And if they were, they did not comment on that?

If not, why not?
The flaws were discovered only in trail test not during developing process, The project was under Army`s supervision..

They reworked on a new FCS only after 2005..
 

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
Ambassador
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,042
All said and done, no one would sacrifice his career to save an equipment that does not function.
Sir, I would like to know about your View on FINSAS project for Army`s Regular Infantry ?
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
I have no idea about the FINSAS in actual terms.

I cannot even check back with the troops since it has not been introduced.

On paper, it looks good.

On ground, who knows?
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
The flaws were discovered only in trail test not during developing process, The project was under Army`s supervision..

They reworked on a new FCS only after 2005..
Under army's supervision?

Was someone stationed there?

Like who?
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top