You need data. Then let's see what you have consistently missed over all the years of studying the Arjun program Mr Know It All. I have a PIB release stating there were problems with the tank even in 2008. Since you were the one who said only believe official words, then that's what I will use.
Press Information Bureau English Releases
you think this is evidence. Do you know what aucrt stands for? "accelerated usage cum reliability trials". The aucrt trials are done for *inducted equipment which is coming into the army*. They have a very specific purpose. In these trials the army uses the equipment till it breaks. They are meant to simulate usage over an entire operational period, in fact a quasi lifetime of the tank and it speaks volumes that after using arjuns in nonstop trials, the army could come up with only five niggles.
The army is complaining about the arjun having these issues in an aucrt and wants them rectified when in the real world, its tanks are never used constantly to this extent and are regularly maintained before that. There is field level repair and the army has an extensive array of BRDs- base repair workshops. So why are AUCRTs done? Spares burn, for the operational usage, and secondly to know how not to mishandle the tank. So what does your PIB report tell us? That for the Arjun, the army actually insisted that even the AUCRT be used as a sort of benchmark, raising the reliability requirements even further, for tanks to not break down in trials designed to test the equipment till it breaks!! So much for your victory!
And the icing on the cake, the army accepted the t-90 despite an engine failure in AUCRT, which tank the Russians promptly removed from the AUCRT!
Now let me educate you, on the offchance that you may actually learn something. And at least it will be useful for all those guys tracking this discussion to make sense of the Arjun trials and what not.
For the Arjuns: - "hit consistency and reliability" - in regular usage by 43 cav in 2006, the armys own regiment pointed out arjun met the requirements. That is what Ajai Shukla refers to.
- "chipping of gun barrel" and "shearing of top rollers" – what does this say, again, tanks tested to the end, and operating procedures need to be checked, as matter of fact the army tried the same stunt with engine failures blaming them for the engine failing. The OEM in question, unlike DRDO is no shirking violet dependent on the Army blamed them, they marched up directly to the MOD, a black box was put in and mysteriously the engine issues stopped and the then defence secretary came down hard even implying sabotage, go figure.
- "failure of engine" - aucrt is meant to test till failure. in contrast to arjun which was designed for quick engine changes, t-90 engine failed and tank had to be taken out of trials.
-"hsu failure" - again maintenance and issues from non trained personnel as versus 43 cav which was familiar with the tank. Without a proper functioning HSU, the tank cannot be even used.
So what do you have? An out of context, googled up link ... I'll even go on and tell you more"¦look below"¦
Of course you can always say the Govt is lying. Only DRDO tells the truth. Read the date with your own eyes.
Wrong!! That is a PIB release given out by the MOD with inputs sought from the drdo.
Funnily enough, these trials were exactly what I was referring to when i said when the army put the arjun through endless trials after trials including aucrt which is meant to gauge the spares burn and operational logistics for a tank as versus user trials! But the Army turned these into something else entirely.
Since you don't know of the trials process, there are developmental trials, these went on till 2000 till arjun met qualification for user trials, which were conducted and the govt sanctioned production of the first 124 in 2000. Thereafter, the arjun went through more developmental trials all the way till 2003, when the army asked for all sorts of issues to be "cleared", stuff which they didn't even bother with the t-90.
By 2006 the tank was hitting all sorts of specs, and user trials were also deemed complete and enough tanks had been inducted so by 2007-2008, the tank was then asked to be fielded for AUCRT, aka accelerated reliability cum usage trials.
After these were completed the army asked for further changes which the PIB report notes and which you clearly didnt understand, and when the army continued to drag its feet, the MOD asked 43 cav & other test crew their opinion of the tank and when the MOD realized there was something wrong when the users were praising it versus an establishment dragging its feet, it asked the army to settle the matter once and for all.
Whereupon the army came up with the great idea to field the arjun against the t-72 and t-90 in an all new set of trials, the "comparative trials" but stated it couldnt be done since there were not enough arjuns, never mind the series production had been stalled because the army kept asking for more and more changes above and beyond the original charter and OFB said there was no way it made sense to make the arjuns first and then change them! The oems also put their foot down!
So finally the army now had a brick of arjuns to field against the t-90s and t-72s wherein the army realized even the tisas equipped t-72s would be outgunned so it withdrew them and fielded a crack crew of t-90 tankers! These were the make or break trials for the Arjun, creating a new record for mendacity in terms of changing hitherto standardized operational procedures.
In contrast, the arjun crew was all new and new to the tank and had only been training on the tank for a breif time. Even then the arjun outgunned and outran the t-90 especially in the dynamic segments!
Go figure! And you think the T-90 is the bee's knees and the Army decision is the best. So lets approach it another way. The Arjun is a lousy tank, and a crew newly operational on the tank, beats an operational crew, highly trained on the T-90. What does it say for the latter tank?
You talk of the arjun having issues with AUCRT, whereas the fact is tanks are grinded down in the aucrt and the freakin' t-90 failed in the initial stages of the AUCRT, yet the tank was ordered in bulk & license production agreed to.
So great, you just figured out yourself how the army set standards for the arjun, which it never did for the t-90!
Wrong. You never answered my first question. This article was in 1997.
Arjun Battle Tanks Failed To Clear Trials: Cag
What question. I thought it was obvious that I informed you that I wasn't going to play the game of in a manner so as you could declare "a win" irrespective of the details. Kind of the infamous, have you stopped beating your wife, shtick. Heads you lose, tails I win.
Your claim that somehow the arjun was supposed to be ready in 1997, when the reality is that it was finalized specs wise only in 2000.
What is hilarious of course is that you speak of arjun failing trials in 1997 whereas those trials were never applied to the t-90 to begin with and still havent.
So, why dont you answer my question?
When has the t-90 demonstrated - as are the arjun ASRs - 90% pk on the move against high speed targets.
When have firing trials been conducted in india against the t-90 armour to demonstrate proof that the armour was effective instead of the dog and piny show russia put on? in 2000 before the arjun production was cleared, the kanchan had to face these tests as well. Go on.
Tell me by the way, the other thing the army insisted on for the arjun, local availability of ammo for the arjun and series production to be established for the arjun 120 mm fsapds. Tell me what rounds the t-90 can fire today. don't give me googled bunkum from the ofb and present it as "evidence", when the reality is far different.
Tell me why is it that the Army asked for containerized ammunition production as a must have on the Arjun whereas it was given the go-bye for the T-90 (still isn't there).
Why is it that the Army refused to accept the Arjun till its systems went beyond GSQR cleared in the user trials and had to fix additional things in the AUCRT whereas the T-90 was inducted en masse without a similar approach being taken?
Why is it that the Arjun has had to have demonstrated constant heat related ruggedization of its electronics, whereas as of 2010, the T-90 was yet to demonstrate this?
Tehelka - India's Independent Weekly News Magazine
620 Crore loss so far, and counting
Tell me these answers. Like throwing out select questions eh. Lets see you step up.
You seem to be one of those who thinks googled up stuff tells you everything.
Unfortunately, it doesnt work that way, because of the missing context.
All those fancy PIB links, websites dont tell you whats what. That takes effort and elbow grease. Go on, find out. And when you do, allow yourself a moment to realize how much the rules have been favoured and broken for the t-90 procurement.
I am sure now the CAG are also a bunch of liars. Of course, CAG's comments could be arbitrary comments as well, for "shock." However the report filed by CAG was clear about Arjun's failing tank trials as far back in 1997. When 1998 came, all the western electronics that DRDO had no hopes of building were sanctioned along with a major exodus of scientist from DRDO to greener pastures after critical projects came to a standstill.
Wrong again
Which western electronics did drdo lose out to attrition or because they were sanctioned in 1998? Don't mix up things with the LCA. The DRDO's own FCS is not the default on this tank.
That program was launched even so because the great IA decided in its wisdom that everything had to be indigenous, no such issues for the T-90 apparently, where we import everything give it a twist of the screwdriver, call it indigenous!
Get your facts straight, for once. The arjun's electronics were sanctioned before 1998 because the FCS partner sourced thermal imagers from the US and accidentally supplied some nv devices to china. Boom. The US said we won't work with you anymore.
The arjun guys then got sagem of france in which redesigned the entire fcs along with drdo, which put in its own gizmos to replace the original analog stuff and the end result was this that by
2005 the Arjun was outperforming everything the Army ever had – and probably will have as well, given there are no equivalent improvements on the T-90 planned. While you were busy PIB'ing away you couldnt be bothered with seeing what was before your eyes, or should have been,
Bharat Rakshak :: Land Forces Site - Arjun Experiment
This is not from some anonymous report on PIB which states "improvements", for the AUCRT which comes post induction and which showed defects for the T-90 as well, its from the vice chief of army staff himself, who along with lt gen singh took command of the arjun project.
8 APRIL 2005 (note the date). Lt. Gen. Niranjan S. Malik, a former Deputy Chief of Army Staff.
On Mobility.
As far as the Arjun is concerned, five have been produced and handed over to the users for trials. Arjun has been worked and thought out for a long period. It is one of the finest pieces of equipment. The Arjun's mobility with its 1400 horsepower engine is very good. The engine however is an old piece of equipment. This powerpack is no longer used in Europe. We got the 1400 horsepower, since the 1500 horsepower engine was only for NATO allies. However it is a big powerpack and the one they produced later is smaller, for which the tank would have to be redesigned and the cost would be astronomical. They said they had stopped manufacturing these engines and if we wanted them they would restart the whole thing for us. This has been done. It has been restarted. The problem lies with placing orders both with the manufacturing agency and the Ministry of Defence (MoD). When we know that we need 124 Arjun MBTs, as well as Bhim SPGs which will carry the same engine, but we do not place orders well in time. I have been told that the orders never went beyond 30 to 40 at one time.
On firepower
The engine itself has really no problem, but the problem is with regard to the size of the order. The Arjun's 120mm gun with the FSAPDS (Fin Stabilised Armour Piercing Discarding Sabot) and Hash ammunition, is excellent. The integrated fire control system had a lot of problems. We had got it from the Dutch, but it had an American component in it. Suddenly we were throttled as the Americans said that the Dutch could not supply this to us. After some time, we were able to get France to redesign the entire fire control system. Now we have an excellent fire control system. Arjun is a fine weapons system, though it looks big and very heavy, its tactical silhouette is very low. The T-72 and the Arjun in a hull down position are not very different. In a hull down position, the tank gives you the same silhouette as any other small tank. Also, its speed provides security in the battlefield. Its firepower is tremendous. Particularly on the move, its firepower is very accurate and good. Some people say that the Arjun is not strategically feasible due to its size and weight. However the Arjun has been running all over the railway systems of India and has been running all over the western deserts as well, on or without tank transporters.
Read the entire article. It will at least make you understand the basics of the unrealistic demands on the arjun and the effort it takes to make a local infrastructure.
The army had NO problems with the t-90 being imported but they expected the arjun to be built almost entirely in india, this when the OEMs said they would NOT transfer tot unless they were paid the right amount of cash.
Which when looked at from the project economics perspective would ONLY come about if 500 tanks were ordered.
The army says i will order the tank only if every widget is indian and btw, let me go on and take this t-90 which does not have any stringent requirements as that on the arjun and which is all imported.
You go by parliamentary records and cag. Dude, those who seriously track such stuff went beyond that a decade back, when it became clear to us that they nowhere had sufficient information to provide a detailed look at what was going on.
Here is what happened in 1997 by the way, since you are so happy about the cag 1997 link and which i cant even be bothered to open because know most of the stuff by heart. Does it have a bit about the engine packing up?
Guess why? Does the cag mention it? It won't. That's not their job. They are beancounters not tech specialists or even interested.
The real answer is the engine packed up because one fine day during the trials, the army asked the arjun to demo the t-72 mine trawl. Its a multi-ton, ugly (yup, it is) piece of steel used to clear mines for the corps of eme. The arjun was designed as a tank killer. The army said put this trawl on. The transmission was not calibrated for the trawl, and nor was the engine and it packed up. Thats typical of the trial comedy that went on in 1997. By 2000, the drdo had even crawled through these hoops.
Seen reports about the arjun mk2? Seen the weight about 65-67 tons versus 62 tons earlier? You know what that is? Thats the trawl.
Another piece of comedy to show how the PIB world versus the real world breaks down thanks to lack of context.
The 1997 trials, also had issues with the lack of containerization of ammunition.
Guess what, the current arjun has it, the mk2 improves it, the t-90 doesnt have it at all. So how is it that didnt act as problem for the t-90.
Your entire thesis that the Arjun was unready in 1997 and hence the ready T-90 was chosen is a freaking joke. Because you haven't even considered the fact that the requirements for the T-90 are nowhere as demanding as those for the Arjun. And that's where politics comes in.
Go read that link which I posted previously, about how a trials officer was more or less pressurized by the DGMF to give the Arjun a bad score. And his senior stepped up for him in a display of career threatening integrity. That's an ex IA guy saying it, an ex IA T-72 tanker, a former Arjun baiter himself, saying "look whats going on, this is not how things should be done".
Coming back to the thermal imager. If you can't read between niranjan maliks lines, the sagem guys put in an advanced TI for the arjun and we said bye bye to uncle sam and his tank tech (the same btw which is now bidding for the t-72 upgrade. Now tell me, what went on in the T-90 trials. How extensively were the TI evaluated. Was it even evaluated at all?
Which brings us to yet another interesting point about 2010"¦where the T-90s TI still doesn't work.
omehow the Lok Sabha and CAG make funny statements as well. I am glad truth can tickle your funny bone. Everybody can do with a laugh.
Ninety percent of your posts are anyway laughs, so yes they do tickle my funny bone in terms of the misinfo they have. Sorry, but it's the truth. You have a very vague understanding of the Indian MIC & tend to generalize a lot. I'd suggest you lurk, read, and then opine.
Then tell me, after WW2, how many times has India come under sanctions and how many times has Israel, US, Britain and Germany come under sanctions?
Heh, India has been under sanctions all the while. The MTCR restricts all sorts of stuff to us, so do a heck a lot of agreements, but that's not the point. The point is that if the Arjun has to be all indigenous, then so does the T-90. If a French TI, German engine for the engine are bad-bad, then a French TI, EURO ADS for the T-90 are equally bad. And being under sanctions or facing delayed supplies from a tough supplier who walks out on TOT (Russias tank firms, did I just mention you, oh yeah I did), is the same thing! Wake up – whats sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander!
Very simple question there followed by an even more simple questions. Where were the Germans in 1998 when the Arjun's engines repeatedly failed in Rajasthan?
LOL, the Arjun's engines never repeatedly failed in 1998 in Rajasthan in its designated role, that of a tank killer. They failed when the Army put a mine trawl on it, and by 2000, the issue had been rectified, trialled and demonstrated. For your kind knowledge, the Germans (and the DRDO) didn't stop there, they went on and made the engine and its filter system optimized for the Thar (fine sand). By 2004:
The advent of Arjun
With the help of a special filter system that keeps out dust, the tank can operate in the desert. Its cables and connections are protected from dust and it has a provision for deflogging the radiator and heat exchangers. Dr. Natarajan said: "The engine will never be shut down even in the most critical conditions. This addresses the heat transfer phenomenon... The tank, without air-conditioning, can dissipate heat." Arjun's design is modular, including that of the weapon system, turret and the power pack. "You can change the power pack in the field in 45 minutes. Elsewhere, it takes 14 hours," Dr. Natarajan said.
This because the Army insisted that the Arjun not use an AC or a dedicated ECS.
Since you are so good at simple questions, forget 1998, tell us whats happening in 2010 with the T-90.
Tehelka - India's Independent Weekly News Magazine
Yes, the thermal imagers are conking out. Ouch.
Let me ask an ever more simpler question. How many times has Russia sanctioned India?
Ha ha ha"¦if anything proves that you are the very person you thought you were not and superior to, an emotional "jingo", it is this. For all the tough talk, out comes the "jingo" who thinks that Russia is somehow in India's corner and hence all's well, no sanctions. I am going to go ahead & hurt your feelings now – I guess. Yes, Russia is a "friend", as far as these things go. Yes, it supplies goodies to us. Yes, its better than "most". But make no mistake, when it comes to its commercial interests, it will squeeze us just as much. As far as tanks go, I suggest you ask HVF Avadhi why is it that in 2011, they are still holding supplier conferences for things like gaskets and seals for the T-72 (forget the T-90 even!). Russia ostensibly was to give us "design data". It didn't. For the T-90, heres what they "negotiated" with us.
Niranjan Malik,
Then there is the problem of diversified equipment in the Army. For instance, it is claimed that 67% of the parts of the T-72 and T-90 are common. I asked the HVF as to why they are importing everything, if 67% of the parts are common between the two tanks. I was told that it was not possible due to the transfer of technology agreement.
Good old Russia. No sanctions, but supplies only from them, and on their terms. And what happens when India protests those terms? You get "delays". Guess what, no TOT for armour (we paid for it), no TOT for gun barrel (we paid for it, and then had to haggle for it), and no fixes for Thermal Imagers (Frances fault), no TOT for even source codes to add new ammo to the T-90 (so now we are using the Arjun Ballistic Computer (
Tata Power showcases indigenous defense capabilities | StratPost - "Two years ago, Tata Power SED was tasked with the challenge of developing an Indigenous Ballistics solution for T90 Tanks by the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB).") No Ammo tech, so OFB is going back to DRDO saying pretty please, new 125mm rounds please"¦
The list is endless. Understand how things work. The Russians don't sanction us, and they don't sanction the Chinese, because we are huge captive markets. But we are dependent on them. The Chinese being what they are, have decided to play hardball, which again has pros and cons. India is yet to even wise up.
That doesn't make the Army's decision right. They basically figured everything would work out, same as you did with "one liners"- and left it there. But it hasn't and we are still suffering.
Even with these issues the T-90 has done splendidly in Saudi Arabia and also has seen a lot more inductions even after the heating issues were identified way back in 1998 during T-90 trials in Rajasthan in June.
What splendidly. Who says that apart from the Russians themselves. Bunch of PR poppycock.
Saudi Leopard A7 - Google Search
Let me tell you what the Russians said about the Indian trials. "Indian officers super impressed about T-90 in desert conditions" – did they mention the subsequent TI problems in India or even the engine issue? Nope.
As much as it hurts a "jingo" or whatever, the T-90 is yesterdays tank. It has severe issues, and the status conscious Saudis and ME dudes, many of whom wont operate the tank in battle, but are keenly aware of the pecking order, won't even look at the T-90 beyond cursory trials.
The UAE bought Pantsyrs and IFVs. The Pantsyrs were delayed for year after year, and finally the UAE paid more to have an upgraded version delivered.
The Arms business"¦.the Arjun is your own. No matter where you buy what from, Russia or anyone else, its theres and the screws can be turned anytime..
That is not an issue , it is a working system unlike Arjun's faulty gun system. The T-90AM deals with all the shortcomings. Our T-90 production still has a long way to go. So, expecting a better T Type being built during the course of it's production cycle will be obvious.
Bwaaahahaha "¦.what faulty gun system. As usual, you are making stuff up, and then you wonder why I said you were BS'ing. Give it a rest already, both of them have equivalent performance. The only advantage the T-90 had was the expensive INVAR, but that's gone with the Lahat. For APFSDS, they have similar performance, edge to the Arjun because of the better FCS, stabilization and suspension. For HESH, Arjun has the edge to take out hardened structures and IFVs. For HEAT, T-90 has the edge, no issues there because as a tank/IFV/crew killer, APFSDS and HESH do fine.
What working system is this mythical T-90AM. There is not a single tank in unit service, TOT for even the basic version has issues (they are using Arjun tech to save the run) and here we have you to come with up the most outrageous statements to support a "wannabe" system which is yet to be funded for series development, or even operationalized, yet to be inducted, and let alone be in India"¦and that is "not an issue""¦.working system it seems!
Boss, stop already.
I don't know in which world you live in but a lot of the ToT issues have been solved. OFB has already announced it can make indigenous T-90 guns that came from ToT as of 2 years ago. If you remember the 1000 tank orders were given only after a significant amount of ToT was handed over.
The world which I live in, is the real world, where I actually check stuff versus "a lot of the TOT issues have been resolved""¦.and why a "lot""¦.why not "all""¦.after all, its 2011 right, it should be all. Trying to go by the argument is all method again, eh? I already mentioned in my previous post that the T-90 gun barrels are to be made in India, this after we paid for them, and then had to haggle to have what we paid for, get delivered. But then what of the armour? Why is it that the Arjun armour has to be used? What of the ammunition? Why is it that DRDO is being asked for APFSDS for the T-90? What of the Source codes for the Ballistic Computer? Why is it that at great expense, OFB has to replace the BCs on Indian T-90s with the Arjun derived BC from TATA as versus using the original?
Give it a rest"¦you are just clutching at straws here to excuse the Russian side. And best of all, you accuse others of being a jingo...
All of this is as of 2008 and above and not as of 1998. CAG report still echoes through my head. The GSQR for the Arjun was modified only to cater to the possibility new threats in the region.
LOL, and as of 2011, the T-90 of 2011 still does not meet the requirements of the Arjun laid out in 1997-98.
What does that say of the T-90 procurement then? Containerized ammo? No.
Thermal Imager working? No.
Indigenous tech for most critical systems? No, have to adapt Arjun tech.
Can we use our T-72 indigenized systems? No.
Bottomline, your reliance on the CAG report to excuse a flawed acquisition, is bunkum of the highest order. If India had acquired some proven Merkavas or whatever, which worked in the desert versus the Arjun of 1998, then you might have had some merit"¦but we went and purchased a tank for which we didn't get what we needed and which still has issues..
The question was never about today. It was always about if it was better yesterday. And the Arjun wasn't.
Haha "¦it was never about today eh, which is why you said the Arjun MK1 "sucks""¦I see, so now your claim is it "sucked" and that you missed the "ed" part, "oh ooops". Never mind, that the T-90 "suck-ed" equally in 1998 and sucks even today"¦but lets leave that by..
You are looking at reasons for Arjun induction over the T-90. It won't happen. It's either the Arjun or the T-90, not both. There is a possibility of the Army inducting an initial 300 light tanks perhaps followed by follow on orders for a 1000 more to replace the old tanks. There is no doubt the T-72 will be upgraded as well.
Dude, I am too old to be looking for reasons"¦.and I know you enough by now to know that your predictions or knowledge of the Indian MIC is next to nil, so spare me the "it won't happen stuff""¦like as if you know..if you know so much tell me when india will get the balls to stop terrorism"¦this is yet another case of you opining with great confidence on a topic you have no certainty about.
Bottomline, the Army needs a lot of tanks, and there is a possibility that the Arjun may get more orders if the Army has enough sense and can overcome its institutional inertia and the ego aspect, of having to admit its procurement decision was flawed. The Army, for better or worse, in most cases, does have a self correction mechanism. It does have mature officers who revisit decisions..it may happen. So there is no way you know for sure to say it wont"¦
he T-72s with strike corps are being replaced as more T-90s are available.
They aren't being replaced "¦they are being upgraded with TISAS and the CIA upgrade, the T-90 is going to formations all over the place.. congratulations on yet another guess, and yet another fail.
Even T-55s are being replaced by T-90s. So, your logic goes to bite your own arse.
More comedy from your "end", again from googled up articles I guess. BTW, the number of times you mention arse, seems to me that you have a predilection with your rear....looks like you love it something fierce"¦.and here I thought one only saw that at the zoo"¦
For your kind information, the T-55s are being upgraded and retained in service. They will be shifted out to EME & other formations, while the Arjuns recently replaced a T-55 unit.
For your kind information, the Army does not look at the world in a "eh this type, must replace it with this type" manner. They look at taskings. Who is facing what. Who can receive new equipment, because its tasking requires it to and move accordingly.
Currently, the Army's tank holdings are on a decline with the phase out of the Vijayantas, and per the latest estimates released at a public event earlier this year, the Army is now looking to retire its older T-72s as versus retaining all with selective upgrades.. that's a huge shortfall of tanks..
Bottomline, before you go "arse"-ing around"¦make sure you know enough"¦
Even if Arjun is inducted it won't replace the T-90s which is what brings the question of its viability. Rightly said so by the Army. They don't need another MBT.
LOL, silliness incarnate. By the same standard, why does the Army need another MBT when it already has the T-72. Since it has the T-72 "MBT", it does not need the "T-90 MBT". Geez, silly word play again"¦
The point is the Arjun is a fine tank killer ..it has its uses. Irrespective of how much you spin..
It would be really funny if a $3Million T-90 is our primary tank compared to an $8million Arjun bringing up the rear, if the Arjun will be given that job in the first place.
More silliness"¦.the Army does not operate in "TankA followed by TankB following it up""¦.and whats with your rear fascination? Seems to pop up again and again..
The $ 8M figure comes if you add the project cost for the MK2 and divide it by units, by the same standards, the T-90 figure does not remain at $3 M either, it will balloon to much more"¦
And the $3M T-90 doesn't even offer some of the capabilities, the cheaper MK1 Arjun does, go figure. Bottomline, the procurement will pan out how it does"¦irrespective of your dreams..
It is not circa 1999-2001. The T-90 was first thought of in 1997. Extensive trials were conducted in 2 places in India and one in Russia. The T-90s flaws were already known. While the Arjun failed in 42deg of heat similar as the T-90. An environment cooling system will handle heating issues anyway.
Bwahahaha so now you admit the T-90s flaws were known and yet it was acquired, chalk up one for unintentional admissions! The Arjun has succeeded in 42 degrees of heat whereas the T-90 continues to fail! The T-90 as of yet has NO ECS. No ECS is available either, which solves the T-90 problems!
The IA has been searching for a solution for the past couple of years whereas it hasn't been able to find one? What does that tell you? You clearly won't admit the reality, but it should be obvious to everyone else here! And educate yourself, an ECS doesn't come "free", it soaks up engine power, and in turn fuel.
This is the exact reason the Arjun was designed to operate even without an AC, a near impossible requirement, given the world over designers compromised and put in ACs, but the Arjun team made it work without!! For an ECS, the T-90 will need to get an APU, one with more power than on current ones, and that will take more redesign.
Now are you beginning to see the issue or is it denial again?
Arjun was in development trials since the 90s. The first time it cleared trials properly was only after 2008 when it cleared winter trials. Comparatively the T-90s performed well in Saudi Arabia.
Bwahaaha"¦the Arjun cleared trials way back circa 2005 itself and Saudi Arabia is buying Leopards"¦if that's the extent of the success of the T-90, save us more amusement
ike I said, you are speculating on information without even knowing anything about the T-90. A lot of TOT issues have been resolved. Considering the T-90 is in serial production there is possibility many of the flaws having been fixed as well. If DRDO can fix flaws on the Arjun then they can fix them on T-90 as well.
LOL, dude have you any any idea of whats going on?.
This when the army placed a repeat order for t-90s from kits because ofb production is delayed, and why is it delayed, because of TOT issues.
And now you admit, that the Russians have to go crawling to DRDO to fix the T-90? What happened to your T-90 is perfect litany? After all, it cleared all trials?
So if the T-90 has no flaws, only speculation, why does DRDO have to fix them. See your own logic and your own desire to win the argument at all costs and which is why your statements are such a farce.
By now, even the most obtuse guy would have realized the T-90 is having issues. And now since the developers cant fix them, you are forced to admit DRDO should, for a tank they didn't design. Enough said..
Hehe"¦.accuracy of 60% from 8 km. What does this statement tell us? NOTHING. Does it tell us that the T-90s ammunition was effective at that distance? No. Does it tell us that in actual combat, the T-90 would be able to fire off enough rounds to actually take out targets at that distance? No. Does it tell us of the impact of the tank round on a target at that distance, whether the rounds bounced off or actually got through the armour? No.
Most important, does this tell us the performance could be sustained through the day or the month or even the year at operational conditions? No.
For your kind information, the Saudis are not buying T-90s.
That apart, way back in the 1990's when BC Joshi was around, the original Arjun was scoring 60% -80% hit rates using its original analog FCS on a sustained manner. And it wasn't good enough for the IA!
So much for your T-90 comparison!
And what ammunition does the T-90 offer btw, the Russian BM-42. Behind by todays standards, and the Army is scouting for a replacement for even that and DRDO has to step up even there..
So it was a part of an open tender competition with the M1, Leo, Leclerc and T-90 as bidders.
Wonderful"¦and the Leopard 2A7 is apparently the winnah, despite the Russian bizarre claims using some arbit percentages at non combat ranges"¦
Have these guys make their freaking TI work"¦then talk"¦
No. All the heating issues that exist today on the T-90 were known in 1998. These were regarded as teething issues. The T-90 program wasn't hurriedly done to counter the T-84. It was done over a period of 3 to 4 years including testing.
Hahahaha..
Arjun –"flaws" cant induct until they are solved. And it works.
T-90 – "teething issues". And it still doesn't.
Go figure.
You are just making excuse after excuse after excuse"¦.
Proves you know nothing. Let's go back to the history of the MKI program. Do you even know which country in the world was the first to order Su-30s? It was India in 1996, then came China in the same year. But India had already shown interest in the Su-30 since 1994 whereas the Chinese came in only in 1996. The Russians haven't ordered even a single unit of the Su-30. So, who do you think HAL and IAF relied on? It was obviously an untested platform. The host country itself had not placed any orders. So, it is obvious the MKI program relied heavily on manufacturer's words. Since you are so untrustworthy of manufacturers words, then there was no point even discussing this with you had we been arguing about it in 1996. This is exactly like the Mig-35 today. No orders from the user country and only prototypes. Heck the Su-30 decision was taken after looking at prototypes alone.
Dude, you are speaking rubbish again. Read what I said, instead of wasting bandwidth talking of stuff I didn't. The IAF did not rely on the manufacturers words. They deputed a development team to monitor and work with the Russians to see a customized aircraft was built to their needs, as versus the T-90 which was to be customized AFTER acquisition. If you can't see the difference, you are blind!!
The DRDO, HAL, IAF, CSIR all were roped in at different points into the MKI program! It was led by an AF guy who graduated test flying, the best there is, to vet the Russian claims and make sure they met requirements. And after that, there was a mark by mark induction..
You compare this to the T-90,with "teething troubles" which are yet to be fixed"¦where are the fixed T-90s with IA specific equipment? Go on, show us..its being done AFTER the fact, after problems cropped up"¦in contrast, the IAF saw the problems up ahead and mitigated the risks.
You have no idea of what you are talking of and wont even admit you are wrong.
Comparatively the T-90 did see induction in the Russian Army and it did see action in the Second Chechenya War. The T-90 was first used in the Battle of Dagestan. Around 12 T-90s were used for the operation and one T-90 was hit with RPGs 7 times and remained operationally employed throughout till the end. This is similar to claims made by M1 drivers in Iraq about having survived multiple hits from RPGs. So, considering the Russian Army ordered the T-90 and it saw combat, the Indian Army had a little more than just manufacturer's words to decide unlike the Su-30 program which was 100% manufacturer's promises.
Those were not T-90s in Dagestan but T-72s with an ERA package! Go ask any Russian tank analyst! MDB like a bunch of noobs started the T-90 story and here you are quoting it back to me..
You got a lot of this information wrong or rather it is a misconception. It is true for the T-72. It is true for the T-90 as well. The ammo is dispersed. However it depends on the eyes of the beholder. We have to understand the concept of penetration first if we are to progress. T types have been penetrated many times during battles and not all of them have blown their tops off. Some T types were penetrated and rendered useless, but the crew got out safely. This is to say either the T types have used up a lot of the ammo already or the projectile was not able to hit the stored rounds. So, let's see where the ammo is stored in the first place.
Ha ha ha , it is true for the T-72 and it is true for the T-90 but its wrong info eh? Do you even believe what you write?
The AMMO in the carousel is the most WELL PROTECTED! Its in the hull!! Agreed?
The exposed rounds arre the ones that are dangerous! They are all over the tank! Brilliant – use up the protected rounds, and leave the exposed rounds, which have to be manually loaded once the AL is used up! Then"¦
Turret, turret floor (top of auto-loader) 5 (2 APFSDS-T at left side and 3 at right side HEAT or HE)
Chasis, inside of (forward) fueltank 3 (HEAT or HE)
Chasis, front-left of fighting compartment, near main battery's 3 (APFSDS-T)
Chasis, behind turret in chasis floor (behind auto-loader) 8 (HEAT or HE)
Chasis, rear-left of fighting compartment, letside of turret 3 (HEAT or HE)
So, look at the positions. Turret floor is always difficult to reach and upon penetration the crew is dead even without the stored ammo blowing up. If a penetration happened straight towards the forward fuel tank, that would mean the occupants are already dead in any tank including Arjun. Main battery, left side of the turret and on the chassis floor behind the loader are all locations exposed to the crew. It is really simple, even if there is no ammo in these locations, the crew is as good as dead. So the ammo is not the reason of death in most cases. This was only an observation during the Gulf War where penetrated tanks meant the turrets blew up.
Again, with the denial! You yourself have blown huge holes in the Russian claims. Don't you see?
Rounds in turret floor, check!
Rounds beside fuel tank, check!
Rounds in fighting compartment, check!
All exposed rounds, check!
Turret so small that that any penetration will hit the crew, check!
In Arjun, fighting its peers, only a heavy penetration, which comes in from the front, crosses the entire armour array, gets through the entire armoured container, ignites ALL rounds, despite the IFDSS being right there, will kill all the crew.
In the T-90, any round that strikes ANY of these exposed rounds can ignite a sympathetic detonation. The Russian designers were so blasé about crew safety that they kept multiple rounds next to each other, and not only that, distributed them across the tank, so that a penetration from anywhere in the 360 degree circle can have a chance of coming across an exposed round!!!
So now what happens when there is a penetration or even some slag touches any of these rounds? What is the probability of a penetration NOT hitting rounds when they are ALL OVER the tank, including the very fighting compartment?
Turret ejection system, patented, Russia circa T series tanks! Please do not copy, under fear of death, oh wait the Chinese and Pakistanis did. Congrats guys.
So, let's take the case of an Abrams or Leopard. If the projectile penetrates as far as the driver, loader, commander or gunner, then it would be silly to assume any exposed ammo is of any significance. Heck the RPG-29 on the Challenger 2 penetrated only a few inches in the driver's position and that injured the crew inside. What if the projectile hit the side and went clean through. You would be seeing KIA's instead of WIA's. So, this concept of turret exploding is flawed as a reason for inferiority. The Iraqi T-72s blew up only because they were obsolete designs, including the Lions of Babylon. Welding the turret is actually done to disperse inertia of the projectile aimed at the turret back to the hull and the ground in order to reduce shock.
Dude, the RPG-29 "injured the crew", it didn't kill them all. No tank is fully protected from all sectors. You make a judgement call. The aim of passive protection within the tank is to have the crew survive, wounded they may be, but survive.
In a T tank, they would ALL be dead. That's the difference. The Challenger, has projectiles stored in the tank, and charges in armoured bins. The Arjun, Merkava use both turret storage in bustle with blow off panels and armoured containers. The Abrams, safest of all, uses both bustle and hull storage with blow off panels. ALL of them are BETTER designs than the T-90.
The dispersion of the ammo in the hull is behind the protection of the T-90s main armour. Which means a penetration will obviously mean going through the armour and cause massive damage to the tanks internals and hence the occupants as well.
Dude, even a minor penetration cooking off one round is enough for the T-90, in any other tank, it would kill/injure 1-2 crew. In the T-90 it kills ALL.
This is true for any tank. In Iraq a Challenger II's frontal armour and ERA was penetrated by a RPG-29. Even though the turret did not explode, the driver lost his leg and the other 3 were severely injured to the point where they were declared WIA and shipped home.
Lost his leg, rest shipped home to recover versus dying. Got the point? You'd prefer they all died? No, right!
80 Abrams have been rendered inoperative in Iraq while 30 Merkava's have been destroyed or rendered inoperative in Lebanon, out of which 5 of the destroyed were Merkava Mk4s. 24 Mk4s were used out of which 11 were hit with anti tank rounds and missiles. 5 were destroyed. In a similar hostile situation, fighting better equipped ex-Soviet troops in Chechnya(Second Chechen war), the T-90 has suffered no losses or no damages.
Tanks destroyed – Merks and next to no tank casualties, exact situation where passive protection comes into play.
No T-90 has seen combat so far.
T-72s have, crews have died.
Gulf War.
Turrets flipping each time a round struck. Great example.
There is still a risk of massive damage to the tank due to exploding ammo, as compared to a penetrated tank which can be reused with repairs. So, the T-90AM will be coming with an ammo compartment as well along with the T-90M upgrades.
LOL, not risk, tank is a goner. Get over the denial, man. If the T-90 didn't suck so badly in internal layout, the T-90 AM el mythical tank, would not have a bustle rack.
Even though the said Blogger is Igor a well known "blogger,"
Is he a professional? Does everything a blogger write become official?
the fact is this T-90M tank was shown to Putin himself during one of the arms expos and was said to be an export variant, so India falls into that category. The T-90AM is set to be revealed in September.
Dude, everything and all sorts of stuff gets shown to Putin – dear uncle please fund it. A dog and pony show is not an operational system.
Anyway this holds true for the Arjun as well? The Indian Army has a little over 100 Arjun Mk1s with a weak armour,
Heh, the Arjun armour withstood point blank rounds fired at it"¦of the best kind available ....boss"¦you know nothing of Kanchan and how effective it is"¦its had to prove itself through all sorts of operational scenarios..
Which confers it a better P/W ratio than that on the T-90..which has a 1000 hp engine..
A gun which has repeatedly outperformed that of the T-90 in Indian tests"¦and something which you would have known if you had any real world information apart from the internet"¦
which cannot fire Lahats.
LOL, the Lahat was fired from a MK1 way back. The only reason why the MK1 didn't come with Lahats is because DRDO didn't see it worthwhile to invest in it since the APFSDS did its job & the IA had ordered only 124 Arjuns"¦for the MK2, the only concession required for Lahat is a LTD channel for the GMS"¦go figure!
The Mk2 with all it's bells and whistles is only a prototype as well. So, it's similar to "fanboy reports of Indians who glowingly talk of how great the Arjun Mk2 is and how awesome it is, and it has none of the weaknesses(yeah right) of the Arjun Mk1 when."
More gibberish man"¦stop argueing and THINK, you have brains THINK"¦..the Arjun MK2 is a well funded program, which is the point! Where is the T-90 AM or BM or CMs funded program, how many are ordered, when is it to be in trials! All you have now are russian wetdreams that it will be shown to Putin (OMZ) and the Czar will say, go forth and conquer"¦they even cancelled the t-95"¦
For your kind information there is no ERA on any Indian army Arjun Mk1 and nor are there ANY regiments of this new fangled Arjun Mk2 in Indian service.
And where did you read, that I told you that any Arjun had ERA"¦for your kind information, ERA MK1 was developed for the Arjun MK1 and then deployed on the T-72 CIA (Combat Improved Ajeya), whereas there is a new ERA MK2 developed for the Arjun and on offer for the T-72 upgrades as well, provided the Army can find a 1000 hp engine for the T-72 to take the weight..
As usual make up your own stuff, and rush with a reply.
ll those baseless personal attacks and you yourself have no data to back up your claims. Heck you never knew that OFB is already making T-90 guns after having received ToT from Russia and that Arjun's failure through 1996-1998 was what prompted the Army to go for T-90s in the first place. At least I am not the guy claiming to have been closely watching tank development to have missed these reports.
Jeez, genius go read my previous post"¦.what did I write"¦.we went and haggled for the gun barrel TOT, and we had the option of using the project maple guns if the Russians didn't agree"¦.go google for that as well, expert"¦first, you don't even read"¦and second, you come up with brilliant replies to what was not said"¦
Like I said you would have answered the question I had first asked you if you had known the Arjun had repeatedly failed trials even after COAS had given a list of improvements. Heck the COAS in 1996, Gen Roy Chowdhury, was genuinely interested in bringing the Arjun into service. He said the Arjun will see induction in just a few years and was quite confident also stating that they will work on other offshoot programs for the Arjun like the Bhim etc. Then in 1997 the Arjun failed trials and in 1998 a lot of DRDO's scientists left for more lucrative positions in the service sector. Google him with Arjun and you will know.
Dude, please don't give us more google fu rubbish"¦all you know about DRDO, Roychowdhuri or aunty or uncle apparently is from the internet"¦.answer the point, why is the T-90 of 2011 failing trials eg FCS with TI to work in 42 degree heat, which the Arjun of 1997 was supposed to? Why does it still not have containerized ammo? Why is it that it cannot fire Indian shells?
Your stuff about DRDO lucrative private sector is also junk"¦.DRDO scientists have been leaving, joining for ages. The point is whether the core Arjun team continued. Answer is, yes they did. HM Singh remained, so did Sundaresh, so did a bunch of others who led the effort. Go talk to some people as versus googling away and then patting yourself on the back..
Even that is a moot point. We Indians are the only ones today who believe we developed a tank superior to the T-90. Nobody else does and definitely not the army.
Yeah, sure
Arjun tank outruns, outguns Russian T-90
The trial pitted one squadron (14 tanks) of Arjuns against an equal number of T-90s. Each squadron was given three tactical tasks; each involved driving across 50 kilometres of desert terrain and then shooting at a set of targets. Each tank had to fire at least 10 rounds, stationary and on the move, with each hit being carefully logged. In total, each tank drove 150 kilometres and fired between 30-50 rounds. The trials also checked the tanks' ability to drive through a water channel 5-6 feet deep.
The Arjun tanks, the observers all agreed, performed superbly. Whether driving cross-country over rugged sand-dunes; detecting, observing and quickly engaging targets; or accurately hitting targets, both stationery and moving, with pinpoint gunnery; the Arjun demonstrated a clear superiority over the vaunted T-90.
"¦..Says the self proclaimed tank expert.
I don't need to be a tank expert to see through your statements which are either misinformed or plain wrong "¦ "¦bottomline, go figure, its not that I'm good, its that you're bad.. and you can do better, its just that you don't want to"¦
All of this falls back on you anyway. You don't recognize the T-90s superiority in every tactical, strategic and logistical scenario and also that the T-90 is better equipped to handle the threats we face. Your arrogance and stereotypical views on the T-90 is a sight to behold. The first time you posted, I actually expected to learn something from you. But all you did was dish out the same flavour on a different plate. You neither knew the basics of why the T-90 was chosen in the first place nor why the Arjun was rejected.
Boss, to learn from anyone"¦come with humility..if you call my fellow citizens "¦fvcking !@#$%, if you – without having a single days worth of development work in your life on any of these weapon systems, come and abuse them that too based on all sorts of dodgy misinterpretations, you will be treated the same way, as an individual, who dishes out disrespect and is hence liable to be treated equally harshly, understand..
Coming to "stereotypical views" on t-90, stop being emotional, the tank has flaws and no, only one who hasn't seen the tank dispassionately would say something like "T-90s superiority in every tactical, strategic and logistical scenario" when the reality is that as far as tank technology goes, its of a vintage which the world has passed by. No tank developer in any conference, and I have seen my share of them, uses the t-90 as any benchmark. Its sell-by date was 1990, when it appeared as the last new Russian thing in news articles.
By todays standards, its technological junk and its design flaws are legion.
If the Arjun had these flaws, I'd excoriate it for them. As luck or rather effort would have it, the Arjun guys vetted their design properly, even involved KMW way back in the 1980s and made a baseline design which could be upgraded properly, as it is being today, and kept significant flaws out of the tank.
The challenge always has been integration, making state of the art European, Indian and other equipment work plus developing systems which were worldclass and then making them enmasse for when India had no automotive or electronics industry to speak of and we learnt along the way. Our nations army, as is usual treated this as a civvie project and didn't support it properly"¦the contrast between the Chrysler M1 and the US Army support and the Merkava is pretty obvious..
Unlike you though, I did make the effort to find out everything I could about these efforts and understand. In contrast, you use the term jingo, proudly call your own countrymen "fvcking" this and that. Speaking of misplaced arrogance, while you insult your countrymen with the filthiest of language, you talk glowingly of Russia, without even having the foggiest of how hard dealing with these "allies" is, take every bit of information fed to you as grounds for some mine is bigger than yours argument, deliberately misconstrue and misunderstand the things told to you, and have no idea of the reality as it stands. So tell me, do you deserve respect as you have behaved so far or is there a possibility you will change?
So far from what I have seen, half of whose context you are unaware of ("1997 CAG reports reverberate through my head") or are stuck on argument winning tricks ("answer my one line") or wont understand the things explained to you, that the T-90 has design flaws, still doesn't work & that the Russians shafted us on it..
I have seen Russians on the net post idiotic photoshop after photoshop of mythical equipment"¦yet to see service"¦freaking ammo is not available from them"¦ we have to run across the world"¦.and they glowingly talk to themselves about their superior tank guns and this and that"¦absolutely clueless about the reality"¦
The arjun fcs has repeatedly outperformed the t-90"¦but find any Russian willing to admit their tank is inferior"¦geez no way"¦.meanwhile go spend some time w/ the guys who have worked on the arjun, you'll know the reality"¦
It's a sad fact of life"¦that our army has had issues with civvie street developers and acts as a customer"¦not as a partner"¦as Israel tal did with the merkava"¦.so the arjun got far more bad press than it deserved"¦..
Every tank has been through an arjun type experience"¦unlike india though"¦.these mature developed countries"¦.did not go out and rubbish their equipment"¦.they work with their civilian partners as equals and have a sober outlook on exports"¦.so they kept their mouth shut about WIP results"¦.and only tom tommed the finals"¦challenger 1, first gulf war, hit pk% - 40%. Used in war. Seen any comments on it on the net? Difference between india and the west"¦
In the case of the arjun, select segments of the army"¦.regarded it as a civilian ploy to force a tank on them..not that it was an EME design to begin with and they would actually be helped by indigenization"¦.their attitude and leaks to the press distorted the arjun story almost beyond repair"¦.to the extent, people like you cannot even hope to accept that hey, an Indian product is actually equal to a russian one "¦
But that is no excuse to remain stuck without information when there is data out there"¦
Take for instance this:
For news, how about this. As far back in 2005, we had this;
Arjun Tank for accelerated user trials - Frontier India - News, Analysis, Opinion
Heck even then the Arjun was far from ready. The PIB report from 2008 gives an equally bad picture.
AUCRT trials, whose meaning you don't know. Now you know do you understand.
You quote that website, check this link. Which is superior across the board? From 2007, results already achieved"¦
Dissimilar Combat: Arjun MBT Vs T-90S specs - Frontier India - News, Analysis, Opinion
Similar cross country range performance, greater speed with better suspension, APU versus no APU, better FCS (and in actual results, the t90 has even worse FRHP than the comparison suggests, whereas arjun has demo'ed 90% hit pk in dynamic conditions coyly referred to as >60%), has same defeat capability set to improve further and one with twice the barrel life (which you were dismissing as a weak gun), highly effective armour –note the bit about 2000 trials to future proof them versus performance at 2km combat ranges when even harder rounds would be available, they even fired rounds pointblank (and you said "weak armour")"¦bottomline, you have a lot to know about the Arjun.
This is not some "indian fetish" – as you seem to be worried about, it's a world class piece of kit, which has earned plaudits after developmental trials, which would have led any other team to walk away. They stuck on the job and delivered.
Programs like the Arjun are not for the weakhearted. They are the work of generations. The Army may have chosen the easy way out by taking an inferior product for time and whatever exigency or reason they came up. Today, they have a better product available, and if they have common sense, and the right spirit to reevaluate their decisions, they'll do the right thing.
I'd have given you all this info, more besides, if you had been polite.
It's funny how these two statements contradict each other. On one hand you goad me, but on the other hand you think you are too important. For a guy who conveniently claims you are bigger than the internet, you still post the biggest post I have ever replied to.
Goad you. No – I am treating you, as the way you treat others. There are a lot of people whom you have been disrespecting, you are just getting treated the way you treat others. If you had been civil to begin with, you would have been treated civilly. Be civil, ask politely and I will respond politely.
I'll ignore the rest of what you wrote"¦
A Titbit info for all: The T-90s maneuverability is great where even western tanks have fallen short(there is a reason why the T types are called flying tanks) and also it's ability to wade through canals by moving underwater. Comparatively the Arjun can only wade through 2.4m of water whereas the T-90 can move through 5m of water, which is more than twice it's height which shows the advantage of the design when it comes to crossing the numerous canals in Pakistan. The Arjun is required to keep above the turret line in order to prevent flooding of the engines. Some other MBTs can do the same using the method of Snorkeling, same as the T-90.
C'mon don't go by PR gimmicks man"¦."flying tanks""¦.combat utility"¦.ZERO"¦.tank in its Indian iteration does not even have a MRS, reducing its overall firing accuracy"¦.fording stuff, again, limited as en masse operations are unlikely and only with careful presentation, otherwise sitting ducks..
