Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT)

[p2prada]

I am only at the halfway mark at replying to that long post. But its coming.

 

[rahulrds1]

India's DRDO "inverse-engineers" powerful explosive charge, could be used in Arjun tank shells

Source: Defense Aerospace news, exhibitions, C4ISR, Electronic Warfare, market research, artillery, naval, aircraft, procurement, pentagon, contracts.

India's Arjun main battle tank could get shells containing CL-20 explosive, a powerful new explosive charge, which is claimed to be several time more potent than RDX or HMX, the conventional explosive charges used in shells. The CL-20 shell could be fired from the 120mm main gun of the Arjun tank.


The CL-20 was synthesized by India's High Energy Materials Research Laboratory (HEMRL) based in Pune city, a press release from DRDO, HEMRL's parent body said. "It is the most powerful non-nuclear explosive yet known to man," says Dr. AK Sikder, joint director HEMRL. The compound, 'Indian CL-20' or ICL-20, was indigenously synthesized in the HEMRL laboratory.

more: India’s DRDO “inverse-engineers” powerful explosive charge, could be used in Arjun tank shells : Defense news

 

[p2prada]

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.

Gun cannot fire accurately, chips in the barrels, failure of powerpacks are niggles eh?

It's funny how the T-90s in Saudi Arabia completed the entire 1300Km trial with zero engine changes while the Leclerc, Abrams and Leo needed at least one engine change. Heck the Russians were so confident that they did not even bring a spare engine to the trial. All 4 tanks survived a sandstorm through the exercise as well. So, the hot winds and dust did not affect the T-90 even one bit. I guess it was a product of their experience in India.

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!

Then let's talk about power pack failures. The Army during summer AUCRT trials claimed the Arjun's engine needed to be replaced 4 times in less than 1000Km. The AUCRT trials are the Army's internal trials and there are is no media involved and the only time there is an official confirmation is when the trial result is announced in the Lok Sabha. The T-90s have gone through similar trials in the Army. Considering DRDO accepted the results, then it is bound to be true. So, no matter what you or any other media person says, the ground realities are different.

Arjun tank fails winter trials, Army Chief writes to Antony - Indian Express

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!

One engine failure compared to 4 engine replacements in the T-90. Let's not forget that since the T-90 is a foreign tank the repair and overhaul facilities for the new engine may not exist for the time being. So, the benefit of doubt still goes to the army.

- "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,

Similar to claims of engine failures and 4 replacements, the others may have fallen short of expected goals. Heck 4 replacements in 1000km, whereas the 1300Km for T-90 in SA went without a hitch. Even the other western MBTs needed one engine change to go through the same.

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.

It's funny how people claim the Army Generals have their palms greased, but Politicians criticizing T-90 must have impeccable records.

- "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.

4 engine replacements within 1000km is acceptable?

So what do you have? An out of context, googled up link ... I'll even go on and tell you more"¦look below"¦

So, PIB reports directly quoting Lok Sabha members and the highest officials is out of context. Certainly shows your credibility.

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.

Stuff which they didn't even bother with eh, or stuff they did not find important enough to tell you about. The results in SA are for every one to see. No failure of the T-90 in any circumstance.

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!

The last I heard it was supposed to be DRDO's idea along with MoD support that came later. The DGMF was accused of stonewalling the trials. Also considering the Army claimed this trial was only to see how the Arjun can fit into the Army's requirements rather than a competition between the two it goes to prove that it wasn't the Army's idea for the comparative trials. More misinformation from your part.

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?

The Arjun drivers were still veteran T-72M1 crews. Which means they have an idea on the advantages and disadvantages of the T types even if their experience on Arjun was lesser. They also know the advantages of the Arjun. So, they can easily pit their strengths against the T Types weaknesses. The Arjun crew had the advantage.

There was a time when DRDO actually accused the Arjun crew that the 20% to 80% accuracy that they achieved initially was because of their T-72 mentality. Now I don't know the particular difference between Arjun and T-72 firing sequences, but I do know from this accusation that there are certain difference in the way both tanks would work. These are advantages that can be used in comparative trials. But if the Arjun did indeed show superior accuracy, then I won't dispute that, but there are plenty of reports that the Army has allowed lesser capability from Arjun for making inductions happen. In this report;
Arjun MBT to Participate in Indian Army Desert War Games | India Defence

However, in mid-2004, the Army was told to set aside its reservations about its weight, profile and malfunctioning systems and place an order for 124 tanks.

A lot of your own claims indeed go into the dog house. So, your claims of me being the person spreading lies and hubris has actually backfired on you.

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!

4 engine failures on Arjuns against one T-90 engine failure. SA results speaks better of the T-90.

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.

Yeah! It had to clear trials to have finalized specs in the first place. But the army was asked to induct a tank short on requirements for the time being.

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.

Says only you. The army's trials with Russia were never released publicly. The AUCRT trials on the T-90s as well haven't been released. While all of DRDO's officials were openly claiming an Arjun milestone after every step.

When has the t-90 demonstrated - as are the arjun ASRs - 90% pk on the move against high speed targets.

Considering the Arjun did not even fire in 2005, even a 10% pk on the T-90 would have a winner.

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.

Why? Did you see the results of the Arjun or only heard about it from DRDO officials? The T-90s trials haven't been publicly released. The Army put the T-90s through trials anyway. Considering indigenous T-90s have Kanchan inserts, the armour would be equally effective.

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.

Arjun's shells aren't great anyway. The problem with Arjun is if it imports ammo and equipment from the west, they are liable to be sanctioned whereas T-90 shells and other components can be ordered on an emergency basis from Russia during wars. This is the primary reason for why the Army insists on indigenization of the Arjun. I guess with eastern bloc imported parts the Army may not have been that strict with indigenization for Arjun.

Also we do not yet know of the possibilities of the non French imports coming to a grinding halt due to some political problem or the other. The west's reaction to anything India does may harm our military imports. Heck the Russians will supply even if the Indian Army commits genocide in India.

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).

Heck who knows what the Arjun was required for, blame it on the possible Abrams induction if you want.

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?

This is only your opinion. The T-90s were trialled in India as well. The AUCRT trials are actually never revealed directly by the military. Only what the MoD reports to the press is revealed. We don't have similar AUCRT trials info for other imported components but can find quite a bit about Indian equipment, courtesy DRDO.

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.

SA trials, no hiccups. As for 620Crores etc it is answered in the later part of the post.

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.

I should have said components, not electronics. German engine and tracks were sanctioned. German engineers did not show up until after sanctions were lifted to fix issues on the Arjun. It wasn't just a DRDO effort. The Dutch TI was sanctioned anyway. Only 60% of the parts are indigenous on Arjun, suffice to say the other 40% was sanctioned.

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!

Russian supplies have never been sanctioned. One paper stroke from the US and the entire west will cease supplies. All the bon homie happening between the US and us today wasn't expected in 1998. Your only argument against Russia was ToT and that's gone down the drain.

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,

All I see is blah blah blah. The Sagem sights were rectified after the trials in 2005 where the Arjun did not even fire it's gun due to the failure of the rangefinder. This was one of the rectifications to be monitored and handed to Parliamentary committee.

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.

Press Information Bureau English Releases
The PIB report was not some anonymous gibber gabber. This was quoted in the Parliament and was quoted by------

This information was given by Minister of State Defence Production Rao Inderjit Singh in a written reply to Shri Prabhunath Singh in Lok Sabha today.

So, this info is as anonymous as all the links you gave.:roll eyes:

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.

What's so unrealistic on Arjun? Heck it does not even compare with it's better western counterparts even with the same design parameters. Or is it that the design is unrealistic for DRDO to achieve?

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.

The only ToT OFB was cribbing about was gun barrel because they couldn't make a satisfactory replacement of their own and that has been provided. The armour ToT was never even negotiated with according to the Russians. They flatly rejected the ToT, so the claim of we already paid for armour ToT is a fabrication. But Kanchan suffices since it is so great. You should be proud the T-90 has a supposedly superior armour. The OFB actually considers the Kanchan manufacturing for the T-90 as an achievement.

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.

So there are things even the T-72 can do that the Arjun cannot. This actually helps my argument. Perhaps the army isn't looking for just a tank killer. They want something killing tanks and clearing mines at the same time. Something every other MBT has already demonstrated.

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.

Ooo boy. 10 years to achieve the T-72s capability in mine clearing with the Arjun's own roller.

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.

The T-90 AM is similar to the T-90S and it has all the extras with major internal design changes. This may be available to the Army as well. So, why the hiccup? If the army thinks it may fit their requirements they could ask for a change in production line for the new T-90AMs for the last 500 or 600 tanks.

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.

The T-90 is still a proven tank. According to you the Generals have greased palms. Then let's see about that later.

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.

The Saudis never complained. If the French could fix the Arjun's TIs then perhaps the French have fixed the Catherines as well which was demonstrated quite well in Saudi. Like I said, there is no concrete info about the T-90 available because the army never goes to the press as it is not allowed to unlike DRDO.

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.

You sure claim a lot. For a guy claiming all that, you did not even realize OFB already has the T-90 gun barrel ToT. You are also giving a twisted picture of the T-90 just to prove something it is not.

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!

The MTCR isn't a sanction it is a restriction. We don't depend on many of the west influenced treaties anyway. The Russians still supplied nuclear reactors even when we are not allowed to. The French TIs are bought directly from Russia. The French have managed to circumvent supplies through other clients for the T-90s. So, little issues there.

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:

Nope. Apparently not. 4 engine replacements within 1000Km does not indicate any trawl placed on the Arjun. No army will ask for a 1000Km march with a mine roller attached and this is obviously something that did not happen in 2007-08. You keep claiming I don't know a thing, but suddenly come up with statements that prove it's the other way.

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.

It may have already been addressed. It is just that you may not know it. But this isn't what's happening with T-90 in 2010. This is mis information at it's best.

Your report claiming a loss of 620 Crores was a very old report. Like I said you are dishing out the same flavour in a different plate. For the first set of tanks that were inducted, the Catherines that failed were covered under warranty until 2004. For the next batch, the warranty expired only recently. The claims of 60-80 losses of Catherine were very old reports and not 2010 reports. IA paid for only a few losses whereas the rest were covered by Russia. So, it is just you who is twisting facts and spreading misinformation.

Like I said the heating issues were known a long time ago, including Catherine failures. DGMF believed the issue can be rectified with partial AC of the tank. They were looking for fixes since a long time. Considering the Russian tests in 2009 at Saudi showed the tank displayed great resistance to heat including surviving a sand storm, a solution may already be at hand.

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"¦

This is some negative criticisms for the T-90 which I rummaged. Perhaps you will like it.
India to buy 330 tanks from Russia

However, there are some snippets which I like to point out on how strict the Army can be even with the T-90s.

Alongside, armoured corps officers said the T-90S had been "overexposed" in exercises "to suit the individual whims of senior commanders" anxious to show off the new tank and were already in need of major overhauls.
Each tank has a maximum life of 650 cycles on the onboard rev-counter with static running equalling one rev per hour while travelling 17.5 km equalled one rev. But, in less than four years, most of the T-90S tanks had completed 600 revs.

Each of the T-90 tanks have already run over 10000Km in just 4 years. The Arjun wasn't the only tank that was flogged half to death. On the "whims" of senior commanders, the T-90 has supposedly been over exposed and running full without overhauls of the engines. This report goes a long way in killing your claims of the Arjun being given a step-motherly treatment unlike the T-90.

What splendidly. Who says that apart from the Russians themselves. Bunch of PR poppycock.
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 trials were part of an open tender. All tanks went through the same trial, even if cursory. The T-90 showed greater endurance and resistance to heat. The T-90 is a yesterday tank, but so are all the other tanks in operation. It's just that even yesterday's tanks are relevant in today's battlefield as long as air supremacy or air denial is ensured over the armoured groups. Nobody actually has the money today that can make newer generation tanks a reality. This is signalled by the economic condition and the cancelation of the FCS program particularly in the US.

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 word upgraded doesn't ring a bell? They paid for one version and got a better version a little later. The MKI was supposed to be the same, 2 squadrons of regular Mk1 and Mk2 versions along with a few MKIs. Due to delays, only 10 Mk1 version were delivered followed by 2 squadrons of MKIs. So, who's complaining? If you paid extra it is obvious you have to pay extra for the extra upgrades.

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..

The T-84 is still a deadly tank and the Al Khalid as much as the T-84. What if the Arjun falls short of these tanks due to the issues plaguing the tank even as far as in 2008 where 4 engine replacements were made in just 1000Km?

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.

Yes. Did you forget, the Arjun failed to fire in 2005 due to the heat? A gun system includes the rangefinder as well, or did you forget that?

Anyway, the Arjun's gun barrel is old and obsolete as well. It's funny for a guy who claims he is not BSing, you come with moronic information. For a guy claiming you know a lot about tanks, I probably have more info than you have for both Arjun and T-90. I still find it funny how you are trying to pass of no Russian gun barrel ToT and failed Catherines from early 2000s as news from last year while OFB has already made gun barrels using ToT and Saudi trials were supposedly smooth.

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!

The Arjun Mk2 is as wannabe as the T-90AM. Both are prototypes. Heck the claims of the extra 248 Mk2s to be ordered are just claims from DRDO as well. The 248 tanks are yet to be ordered.

The world which I live in, is the real world, where I actually check stuff versus "

Something that you haven't done. An amateur like me had to point out OFB is already making T-90 guns with ToT. Your real world isn't where OFB is living in.

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?

I actually like the fact that we are using our own armour on the T-90. The Kanchan may or may not be as good as the T-90's Russian composites, so I don't want to speculate on that, but the fact that we can improve on the design and perhaps even add a DU layer on it in the future would mean we can make modifications without restrictions. There is one important factor in tank warfare, it is that the ammunition will always be superior to tank armour. It is the tactics employed that will enable tanks to circumvent this disadvantage. If the RPG-29 could punch through the Chobam armour on the Challenger along with the ERA, then no tank in the world is particularly safe from ammos. The T-90s barrel allows for manual loading of the shells whenever the situation demands it. Shells that don't fit into the auto loader can be manually loaded. Due to the issues of secrecy it is obvious we will not know what kind of shells are already available. However, it is certain the T-90s current shells(circa 1995) demonstrate more stopping power than the RPG-29. Similarly specifications of guns have remained dormant. There is little or no difference between the Arjun's gun in 1998 and in 2011, same as there is very little difference between the Abrams gun in 1980 and 2011. It is just that new shells with new propellants and explosives turn the tide in your favour. Even with a weaker gun than the T-90, the Abrams can pack more firepower because of more advanced shells.

As for why DRDO needs to make APFSDS for T-90s. Isn't it quite good, that we can use our own shells? Or is it that your hatred for the T-90 has so emotionally overwhelmed you that you don't want DRDO to be making anything for the T-90. This makes you the least bit rational. It is the same with BC, perhaps we can make superior Computers now. This would obviously help increase T-90s accuracy as well. I for one am not complaining. It is obvious what worked on Arjun can work on the T-90. Now if the Army selects the Iron Fist for T-90s, I guess you will go berserk as well.

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...

I don't particularly give a fck about the Russians. But I am bothered about what our services think. If they say the Russian gear works for us, then I would support them. If they say otherwise as has happened with S-300, Mig-35 and rifles, then I would support them in that as well. It is your misconception that I support Russian gear. I actually support only the service's choices. I have never claimed myself as an all knowing expert as you did. So, if the air force selected the Rafale over the SH or if the IN selects the F-35 over a Naval AMCA, then they know best. I would rationally and not emotionally give the benefit of the doubt to them for obvious reasons. Similarly, I don't give a fck about DRDO either.

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.

How does that matter? It is just your misinformed gut telling you we cannot do this or that.

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 Israelis wouldn't even have replied to the RFI. Sanctions. The Swordfish and Phalcon happened after 2002, when our relations with the west had warmed up a little.

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"¦

Somehow you say I insult the Indians. But on the other hand you are calling our actual heroes, the Generals and Brigadiers who are making anti-Arjun decisions, the people who actually were there in 1965 and 1971, fighting the enemy, getting their hands dirty, shedding their own blood along with the enemies as "immature" while the "mature" officers were probably in their diapers at the time. Did you forget Gen Roy Chowdhury's intention of inducting the Arjun? Or was it some conspiracy hatched in the 80s to progressively discredit the Arjun over an entire generation. The current Generals and DGMF dissing the Arjun were merely Lts and Captains and Majors at the time. [sarcasm]Maybe the serving generals of those times planned to have the young Captains and Majors who could be future Generals to put roadblocks on the Arjun from Day 1 of the trials. So, the day they became Generals 20 years later, they would start achieving the dreams of the passed away Generals by progressively stopping Arjun inductions.[/sarcasm] Heck there is a limit to Conspiracy theories. Keep conspiracies to yourself. This is what separates the "experts" from the pack. The Arjun was not selected as IA's MBT simply because it has been consistently failing trials until 2008.

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"¦

Googling is way better than the conspiracy theories that you come up with. I guess I will sit with my Generals in the zoo rather than have people who think like you do in the Army.

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 T-72s are old and started inductions in the 80s. Some are being replaced, some are being upgraded. Perhaps you missed the news. T-90s will be the MBT for 20 years from 2002 onwards followed by FMBT after 2020.

The point is the Arjun is a fine tank killer ..it has its uses. Irrespective of how much you spin..

I wouldn't disagree with this. Even the T-55 has it's uses. But the T-90 simply makes the Arjun an unviable platform due to funding. I doubt any army in today's world can realistically field 2 different MBTs following 2 different doctrines in enemy territory. It is unfortunate that the Arjun was late and that it consistently failed tests. Now the small numbers being inducted will not make the army give the T-90 precedence over the Arjun in it's primary role.

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..

You need to go through Oxford Dictionary or even the Free dictionaries you can "google" over the internet to learn the number of uses for the word rear. Perhap your expertness can learn more.

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"¦

We will see how the 372 units will reduce that unit price. Definitely not below the T-90 anyway. The T-90 is obviously cheaper. It's a more mature platform.

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..

Considering the MK1 cannot even demine or fire ATGMs it makes little difference. There are advantages and disadvantages to both tanks. The Army simply believes the T-90 suits them better and thus the bigger number of orders.

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!

Nothing is available for T-90. Everything is available for Arjun. Shows how stereotypical you can get. Generals are just "immature" punks. DRDO rocks. It's supremely mature scientists can perhaps replace the soldiers as well.

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.

Russian tests in SA show otherwise. [sarcasm]But it could be a dog and pony show too. Just like the T-90 tests in India.[/sarcasm] Out of the 900KWs that the T-90's current engine makes, the ECS will drain 18KW, something that is supposed to be powered by an externally mounted APU anyway. The T-90 also has a newer 1200 HP engine available. So, that will reduce power requirements even more.

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?

Most of the best tanks come with ECS. This includes the Canadian Leos that they purchased.

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

Bwahahaha"¦ Check Army Chief's letter to the Mod report again. Arjuns failed trials. 2 Arjun tanks had to have engines replaced 4 times in less than 1000Km. What a success. In 2005, the Arjun failed to fire itself. Kudos to the Americans and also to Sagem.

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.

OFB openly admitted ToT issues earlier, but you conveniently missed reports of OFB manufacturing barrels with ToT and adding the 130mm Kanchan inserts into the T-90. So, keep flogging the dead horse.

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.

So, what? You conveniently keep harping about how Arjun cleared trials in 2005 when the Arjun could not even fire it's main gun. The T-90s flaws were simply too small compared to Arjuns bigger problems where even engines failed in 2008. I am actually glad the Russians or the Army is running to DRDO for the issue. It keeps both of them in an equal footing. DRDO gets to make more money while Army gets what it needs.

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..

Even the biggest idiot can figure out you aren't what you claim you are, an expert. Perhaps an expert in subterfuge. DRDO has fixed a lot of issues we faced in other imported items as well. Heck at least they aren't immature idiots who are claiming the army needs help with imports even after losing bids with indigenous equipment. They have the obvious tendency to help the Army with all their issues anyway. It is only the Arjun clan who bring this up as an actual point of debate. What are you, a little kid? "I want to continue batting because it is my bat and ball argument."

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.

Seems you know nothing about tank warfare. 60% accuracy means one in every two shells will hit the target. The target does not have to be a tank, it can be a Sniper or soldiers holed up in a building and killing our soldiers. A HEAT round can have it's effect in removing said threat. So, you never know when that advantage is required. The farthest kill was by a Challenger which killed an old Iraqi tank with a HESH round at 6Km. Now tanks cannot be killed with HESH, only APFSDS or HEAT. It may or may not be a requirement, but it is most certainly a design point that favours the T-90. At lesser ranges, the accuracy will be higher.

For your kind information, the Saudis are not buying T-90s.

It was never expected. It was an open bid and the Russians replied to the RFP. The Singaporeans and South Koreans rejected the EF-2000 for American, but we have the aircraft in our bid and we rejected the American. How does any of that matter? The main point was the T-90s ran 1300Km without needing an engine change, while the leo needed an engine change at the same time.

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..

Your points are that of a spoilt kid. DRDO will have to make an indigenous shells available to IA. Isn't the IA a proponent of indigenous equipment? DRDO always has to step up to fulfil the Army's requirements, that is their sole purpose for existing in the first place.

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!!

You are twisting comments to suit your purposes! What I said was the T-90 was chosen after the Russian inducted, while the Su-30 was chosen while it was only in the prototype form which needs manufacturer guarantees.

It is just like PAKFA, the PAKFA was in prototype form when the decision to join was made. The HAL team being deputed is well after that, for PAKFA as well as MKI. If we fix the issues on the T-90, then it will be all the more better for it.

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.

The Flanker was simply a near perfect platform, so it had lesser problems. There are similar quality parameters reached for the Su-30s inducted elsewhere like Indonesia, Vietnam and China and those aren't the Irkut supplied MKIs, MKMs or MKAs. It will be stupid to claim the Su-30 was a success only because IAF was involved. It was most importantly a Russian success. We just ensured we got what we came for.

You have no idea of what you are talking of and wont even admit you are wrong.

OFB ToT issues for T-90 resolved. Arjun failed firing the gun in 2005 and engine failures in 2007. Conspiracy theories where only Arjun supporters are mature. Arjun cannot ever clear mines, fire missiles or deep ford as all other tanks do. Let's see you claim you are wrong.
You claim I am wrong when I have already admitted to the only issue plaguing the T-90s and that's the Catherines heat issues. The trial in Saudi did not report of more Catherines burning up either. Comparatively you are passing off 2004 news about Catherines as though they happened in 2010.

You are indeed the king of subterfuge.

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..

All right. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and accept that the T-72BMs that kicked arse in Dagestan against a well equipped ex-Soviet Army war veterans from the First Chechnya war, it did particularly well. So what can the superior T-90 do in a similar situation if the T-72s with ERA performed that well? Now compare that to 5 Merkava Mk4s destroyed in a similar situation.

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"¦

You still don't get the point do you? If the rounds have penetrated that far inside, then the crew is already dead. The ammo stores exploding destroys the tank which amounts to material loss, meaning it cannot be salvaged and given to a new crew with repairs. Even if there is ammo only in the carousel, then the crew will die if the projectile is already that far in.

Turret so small that that any penetration will hit the crew, check!

It is hitting the T-90 turret which is harder than hitting a bigger tank. The Arjun has it's fair share of weak points which don't exist on the T-90. Ask any tank expert and he will tell you the T-90s turret design in the 65deg frontal area is the best among all operational tanks today. Meaning the probability of a tank round penetrating the Leo A4 or Arjun is higher than the T-90 because of turret design including a major flaw in the gun's fulcrum on Arjun.

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.

Perhaps. But, the crew will die if there is a penetration into the crew compartment irrespective of the ammo compartment igniting or not. It is true for all tanks. All modern MBTs we see today don't have anything protecting the crew from a penetration except the main armour. Get through the armour and the probability of a crew being injured or dying is high. Tankies don't become supermen because they are sitting in the Arjun as compared to a T-90.

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!!!

Anything that penetrates the main armour will injure or kill.

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?

It means the probability of a crew being killed in the T-90 is higher than in western doctrine MBTs UPON PENETRATION. The probability of crew being injured is higher in Western MBTs as compared to T-90. Now the question of penetration is what is supposed to be asked. Only a penetration will kill or injure the crew, nothing less. It is the same for all tanks.

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.

The RPG-29 hit the front armour and ERA, not from any other side. The crew was injured only because the penetration wasn't complete. Luck factors in this because a lot depends on the way the RPG was fired and from what direction. An RPG which claims a 750mm penetration from 500m is the same as compared to a tank which claims the same from 1500m. There is no passive protection that can protect the inside of a tank once penetrated. The crew either survives with or without injuries or dies.

As a General, meaning if you think like a General, then the tank is mostly out of commission for the duration of the operation, regardless of the crew being killed or not. So the WIA or KIA status does not matter to a General as long as a tank is knocked out. There is time for mourning after the war is over. There were certain lucky phases where even T type crews have survived with little or no injuries after penetration.

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.

I will accept the better design claim, but it does not mean invulnerability. A lot of crew men have died in these tanks even though the ammo containers did not explode. By the way, if you did not know, the loader in the Abrams can keep 6 shells outside the bustle in front of him for quicker access. Even this can be reached by a projectile upon penetration.

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.

It is unfortunately your stereotypical views that reflect your judgement. Crews have survived after penetration.

Lost his leg, rest shipped home to recover versus dying. Got the point? You'd prefer they all died? No, right!

This was one scenario out of many. It was less to show what happened to the crew and more to show how good Russian weapons can be even against the Chobam armour and ERA on Challenger. Crews have died in Western MBT tanks. Everybody dies. The T-90 crew may do more of the dying, but that is subjective since the enemy tank has to penetrate in the first place which is never guaranteed.

Turrets flipping each time a round struck. Great example.

Yes and Israeli F-15s and 16s eating up older generation Mig-21s and 23s. The newer generation M1 Abrams eating up 25 years old export T-72s does not make a difference either.

Is he a professional? Does everything a blogger write become official?

You sure are professional, Mr Expert. He is just a media guy similar to Shukla and others we quote in India. So, more of your stereotypical views. If you did not know, even Shukla ji quotes Prasun Sengupta ji when it comes to T types.

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..

Kanchan is on T-90 too along with ERA.

Which confers it a better P/W ratio than that on the T-90..which has a 1000 hp engine..

With lesser weight. The T-90 will have a bigger engine soon. More importantly, the T-90s engines deliver more torque to power. At least 25% of power is converted to torque as compared to 10-15% on Arjun. There is a reason why the T types are called the most maneuverable tanks in the world. P/W isn't everything. The American observation complementing the T types superior maneuverability by calling them Flying Tanks is well known.

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!

Would have increased the Arjuns costs and also gives an inferior capability against the Paksitani Al Khalids which fire the AT-11 knock offs from China. A Refleks from 5 kms on an Arjun would be devastating without the APS which it obviously does not have.

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"¦

They are currently devoted to continue using the T-90s until the Armata or Armada new gen tanks are available after 2015. A follow on order for a new T-90AM may be possible because there won't be a new tank hitting production at least till 2017 in Russia.

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.

Me and rush with my replies. Haha. Arjun does not have a deployed ERA. There is a difference between developed and deployed. The same as the Lahat argument. Placing the ERA on the hull is a very complex task on these big fangled tanks. Most tanks don't have the luxury of having a superior turret design as the T-90. You ask me to think while you fail at the same. Badly placed ERA can be detrimental to tank protection where a single hit can clear out the ERA's fastners.

DRDO has simply copied the ERA placement on T-72 by observing Russian T-72s with ERA. They aren't just placed on the hull and turret as it takes your fancy. It is obvious they will take a long time doing it on Arjun and that's what happened.

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"¦

I have already posted info about the Maple in the T-90 thread. So, I already know. The maple guns are weaker than the 2A46M2s. The ToT was crucial and we have it.

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..

2 or 3 names does not cut it. Senior most scientists never leave their positions. Even ADA had serious issues with attrition even though senior scientists did not leave. Do you even know how long it takes to train new guys? Even the lower most scientists are crucial. They leave without completing the project and leave the others in a lurch.

As an example my friend works at a software development company. His team was working on a project to write encryption software for a major European bank meant to send and receive messages from it's branches securely. It is a complex bit of work and goes into thousands of lines. It is obviously not upto the mark of DRDO's big projects. But the old team who was working on it quit the company. The new team, my friend and others, figured out that there were serious flaws in the old programming where the messages reached the recipient without any encryption. The old team would obviously not bother with it anymore. The only way to fix it was to make massive changes that brought delays into the project. These new guys were breaking their heads for no fault of theirs, something the old team could have fixed the issue in lesser time had they continued working due to their experience on the software. Attrition is a serious issue and the exodus of young scientists who are as crucial as the oldies will never change.

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"¦

Right back at you.

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..

Considering you called all our distinguished Generals with war hero honours as immature individuals with greased palms and concocting conspiracy theories, this paragraph reeks with insincerity.

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"¦

For what? To be fed their version of PR poppycock. You guys only focus on the Arjun's strengths against the T-90s weaknesses while completely ignoring the T-90s strengths does not make for a meaningful discussion. If DRDO is indeed so good, then there is a reason why the Army is requesting them to build a new generation FMBT. The Arjun is yesterday's tank and the Mk2 is the same but with newer electronics. It does not really mean the Arjun is the bees knees either.

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.

Dunno where you got that info from but Arjun's EFC is 500 while 2A46M2's EFC is 1200. You are relying on the old figures of 250 the 2A46 baseline gun made in the early 80s for the T-72s. Even the maple series give an EFC of 800. The Rifling results in more wear if the gun is fired at higher pressures as compared to the smooth bore which would further degrade the gun.

I'd have given you all this info, more besides, if you had been polite.

Ha! I doubt you can give anything more useful when you have very limited info on the T types and their design principle let alone their capability. Along with all the wrong info that you have been feeding to the forumers while passing petty remarks about me and other better individuals, your credibility is not too good.

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 don't give a damn about how you treat me. Since you are elder than I am, the onus is on you to show the class required to actually prove you could be better at the discussion. However apart from providing a lot of wrong information on Arjun along with stereotypical views on the T types you have failed at the "class" aspect too. But I do care about how you think about our Generals who have continuously delivered during wars, defended the country and have made the right decisions till date by questioning their maturity and integrity by a no namer like you.

You could have proven you are a better man without having to resort to the petty insults that has become a norm in your posts to me and then go on to insult way better men than you have ever known or will ever know.

I'll ignore the rest of what you wrote"¦

Likewise.

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..

The Cobra stunt is a PR gimmick too. But it only shows the awesome maneuverability that's an icon related to Flankers. The T types are the Flankers of the wild. As for deep fording, all tanks have shown this capability. Deep fording is not just a PR gimmick, it is an actual requirement. Even though there is an extensive need for intelligence and prior preparations required before Snorkerling, it is however a very important requirement and is only a black mark against the Arjun.

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?

Big words from a small guy. Come back after you have decided our Generals aren't immature anymore, and then we will talk.

 

[p2prada]

Is it even feasible to cancel one's first project to build a tank ?
Has anyone even perused weapons development in that manner.

Sorry for the late reply. The Americans and Germans attempted to build a new 3rd generation tank called MBT-70 as a replacement for the M-60. but after working for 10 years they canceled the project. The Arjun's cancellation was requested by COAS as far back in 1991.

That's not the point , they went for new tank based on completely different GSQR ,
If the original GSQR was for T-70/T-90 class tank , we would not have as many issues with the Arjun as we do today.

The Arjun faced delays at that time as well. The T-72 was chosen and the Arjun was continued based on newer requirements. Something to challenge the Abrams.

If the army replaced the Arjun with another tank of similar class , i would not make this point.

A similar class is not available, even from Israel. Nobody gives up on tank tech that easily. It is a highly offensive weapon and all tanks use equipment made by others which mean deniability would be high.

They have yet to even submit a PSQR as of yet , that's something we do know

The Americans took 6 years to complete the F-22s ASR. The FMBT is supposed to be a 4th gen design. They have to study the feasibility of a lot of technologies and also the ability to employ it in the battle. This will take time. No need to be hard on the Army for being a bit more careful.

Its 2011 they don't know what they want , that's the truth.
If they knew what they wanted they would have submitted at least the PSQR by now.

We cannot be judgemental over something we have no idea about.

they have spent the last of 5 years harping on about Future tank's , now that they got MoD approval what's been done ?

ADA has been harping about working on preliminary designs for MCA. Now they are conducting a feasibility study, so you can't blame anybody for that. This is the first time DRDO will be developing things that will be relevant after induction.

Army does not need to be defended for everything p2p , it makes its own mistakes and they should be question.

Agreed. But not to the point where we are calling names and questioning their integrity. Even if one or two men can be questioned, it does not mean the entire army's high echelons is to be blamed.

What has DRDO claimed exactly , the army has given them nothing to work with other than the dead line.
Their only claim was an attempt to finalize the design by 2013 , something entirely dependent on the army actual requirements and when they can expect to have them.

Without a PSQR what can they even do at this point in time.

The dates can be extended. It has been done again and again for LCA and Arjun.

They army could start of with realistic GSQR and through feature creep , keep updating it , which would cause deal after delay after delay. Much simpler if everything was laid out at the start.

We will know what happens, at least by this year or the next.

DRDO has failed to live up to the army's expectations ,
The draft FMBT PSQR is also unrealistic.

Why? The FMBT and the Armata are supposed to be quite similar in class to the FMBT.

You have been rather fortunate , Glen Beck is TV host on the US channel fox news.
He makes a point ending all points with , " you know who else was like that Hitler".

Then that's my good luck.

comparing every little thing to Hitler is unnecessary , attaching an unnecessary label to something to make it seem wrong.

Nevertheless ego and pride do not help win wars. They never have even without the Hitler analogy.

 

[rahulrds1]

Arjun Engine Failure Story: reason behind the engine failure.

Indian Army has a new claim against the Arjun Tank. It claims that the engine of the Arjun Tank has failed four times. Before I get into the details further, its necessary that the background of this new claim has to be told.

Last year, Combat Vehicle Research Development Establishment (CVRDE, a unit of Defence Research and Development Organisation) was ready for a comparative trial between Indian Army's imported T-90S and the license produced T-72 versus the home grown Arjun Tank as asked by army. The Indian Army officials realizing that the national media is scrutinizing the tanks performance, pulled out of the trials and went for a "accelerated usage cum reliability trial" (AUCRT).

The trials are for over 5 months and 5000 kms from November 2007. Out of this 2000 kms have been run in the below 40 degree centigrade (winter) conditions. Rest 3000 kms will be done in the above 40 degree centigrade conditions.


The AUCRT trials are army's internal trials and hence is out of scrutiny of the media and the third parties. Right from the beginning of the (even before) trials, it was forgone conclusions about the color the Indian Army would give to the Arjun Tanks performance during the trials. Now since the trials were Army's readiness for inducting Arjun tank, but, being the user, it has the right to comment about the performance of the tank in trials. As was expected this particular loophole seems to have been exploited by some officials. Here is a simple logic, if the Arjun Tank engine has a problem, simply replace it in 40 minutes flat and move on. Rectify the faulty engine and keep it as a stand by. Its very very simple. What actually happened was the transmission had a problem (something related to the ball bearings), which was rectified. The transmission is imported from the finest transmission maker in the world. Mind you, the tank did not stop for the reason, it got a different engine in 40 minutes and moved on. If the same transmission failure had happened in the imported T-90S tank of T-72 tank, it would have been grounded till the repairs were affected. So, Arjun Tank engine failure does not has same meaning as T-90S or T-72 engine failures. This is another loophole that is been used to exaggerate the engine issues of Arjun Tank.

Now the claim it failed 4 times has be be really proved by the concerned Indian Army officials. Four engines changes with just 1000 kms (by each tank) being run is bit too much for a knowledgeable person to digest.

source : Indian Army's claims over Arjun Tank was expected - Frontier India - News, Analysis, Opinion

More...

During the AUCRT in Pokhran, there was NO problem with either of the two engines. The problems were actually with four transmission systems: supplied by Renk AG, from Germany.

The problem: When the oil temperature went up, the oil viscosity was reduced"¦ and the oil pressure was therefore insufficient. As a result, the bearing gave way, and the main shaft in the transmission also got damaged. Pieces were flying around and, when the transmission gearbox was opened, it looked pretty ugly.

The investigations are focusing on three aspects:

#. The possibility that the use of indigenous oil, rather than German oil, may have led to a failure of lubrication. The CQA (PP)"¦ that is Controller of Quality Assurance (Petroleum Products)"¦ has examined the oil and said that it is of the same grade as the foreign oil. However, the experts from Renk AG are still not convinced. They have taken samples of the oil to Germany to analyse, are will reach a conclusion by Monday, 21st April.

#. There is also a possibility that a recent change in the supplier of the bearing that failed might have led to the problem. [Renk AG, which manufactures the gearbox, recently changed its bearing supplier.]

Experts from Renk AG are reaching the trial area and also CVRDE, Avadi, on 22nd April. Renk AG is one of the world's most respected suppliers of transmission systems and it's prestige is at stake here. A top Arjun designer says, "Renk's prestige is at stake. I have no doubt they will fix the problem fast."

 

[rahulrds1]

Continue ...

NEW DELHI - India's state-owned Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) claims that it has completed upgrades on the Arjun tank, replacing existing German engines and transmission systems with homemade systems.

The Mark-II Arjun will incorporate up to 90 percent of indigenous content, compared with current model, a DRDO scientist said, and should be ready for induction by 2014.

source : Development of Improved Indian Arjun Complete: DRDO - Defense News

 

[rahulrds1]

Continue ...

"The Arjun could have performed even better, had it been operated by experienced crewmen", says an officer who has worked on the Arjun. "As the army's tank regiments gather experience on the Arjun, they will learn to exploit its capabilities."

Source: Arjun tank outruns, outguns Russian T-90

 

[p2prada]

Here is a simple logic, if the Arjun Tank engine has a problem, simply replace it in 40 minutes flat and move on. Rectify the faulty engine and keep it as a stand by. Its very very simple.

This guy, whoever wrote the article, his logic is in the doldrums. This guy forgets that there is no truck carrying an engine right behind the tank and there is no crane crew ready to change the engine just a second away.

The engine change time is calculated when the entire infrastructure is ready. It means the truck carrying the engine, the men required to make the engine change and the crane and the operator are all in the field and next to the broken tank. Then comes the 45 minutes time.

If you consider all of this is at least 10 Km away from the tank, then you calculate how long a truck and a crane will take to reach the position of the broken tank and then initiate repairs.

Also, a truck, a crane, a tank and 6 men working on it would produce large heat signatures which will help artillery spotters or aircraft to spot the damaged tank and engage it with ease.

All of this hassle is not required if the engine is only repaired which only needs a jeep with 2 men. The supplies for repairing stuff can be carried inside the tank itself and the tank can be repaired by the crew, in which case the jeep is also not required.

If the same transmission failure had happened in the imported T-90S tank of T-72 tank, it would have been grounded till the repairs were affected. So, Arjun Tank engine failure does not has same meaning as T-90S or T-72 engine failures.

Repairing the tank without resorting to replacement which is time consuming and needs more men and infrastructure, then repairing would win more points.

Now the claim it failed 4 times has be be really proved by the concerned Indian Army officials. Four engines changes with just 1000 kms (by each tank) being run is bit too much for a knowledgeable person to digest.

This guy is as knowledgeable as a frog in a well. The Indian Army has nothing to prove to him when DRDO itself has not complained. The Indian Army is only answerable to the results and not to the way how they achieve the results as long as they follow procedure. People forget that always.

The solution lies in third party auditing. Its high time we the tax payers know the truth.

This was in the last line of the article and proves how naive and emotional people can get.

Third party like CAG are only used to audit finances, not technologies, based on reports generated while CBI handles fraud and other exigencies.

People don't want Americans in air bases in India, but want some third party to actually assess an offensive weapons platform. How extremely dumb. If he does not like the Army's decision then he just has to suck it up and live with it.

 

[sathya]

India conducts trials on its Arjun MBT

JODHPUR (PTI): The defence establishment of the country will be keeping a close watch as India's Main Battle Tank Arjun Mark II, which can fire missiles to destroy long range targets, goes through trials in the dessert environs of Pokharan.

The pre-induction trials, which started Saturday, are about the efficacy of scientific and technological up gradation of features of Arjun II, which is under developmental phase.

"Such trials will be undertaken quite frequently till the time it is handed over to the Army," said Col SD Goswami, Defence spokesperson.

Weighing 62 tonnes each, the Army has placed an order for 124 such tanks at a cost of Rs 5,000 crore.

DRDO is working on Arjun Mark II at the CVRDE (Combat Vehicles Research & Development Establishment) with an immediate task of demonstrating it to the user and ensure the delivery of the first batch comprising 30 tanks by 2013-14.

One of the vital features of the tank is that a missile can be fired from it to destroy long range targets and bring down helicopters. It is also equipped with a panoramic night vision.

The tank will also have an automatic target tracking system, which will add to accuracy while firing on a moving target.

 

[JAISWAL]

India conducts trials on its Arjun MBT India MBT Arjun Mark II Army

JODHPUR (PTI): The defence establishment of the country will be keeping a close watch as India's Main Battle Tank Arjun Mark II, which can fire missiles to destroy long range targets, goes through trials in the dessert environs of Pokharan.
The pre-induction trials, which started Saturday, are about the efficacy of scientific and technological up gradation of features of Arjun II, which is under developmental phase. "Such trials will be undertaken quite frequently till the time it is handed over to the Army," said Col SD Goswami, Defence spokesperson.
Weighing 62 tonnes each, the Army has placed
an order for 124 such tanks at a cost of Rs 5,000
crore.
DRDO is working on Arjun Mark II at the CVRDE
(Combat Vehicles Research & Development
Establishment) with an immediate task of
demonstrating it to the user and ensure the
delivery of the first batch comprising 30 tanks by
2013-14.
One of the vital features of the tank is that a
missile can be fired from it to destroy long range
targets and bring down helicopters. It is also
equipped with a panoramic night vision.
The tank will also have an automatic target
tracking system, which will add to accuracy while
firing on a moving target.
.
.
http://www.brahmand.com/news/India-conducts-trials-on-its-Arjun-MBT/7591/1/10.html

 

[sayareakd]

with new Arjun MK-II, by launching CLGM (JV of LAHAT) it is possible to have non line of sight launch for 6-8 km range target and all these things which is shown below.




Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

hope other Arjun MK-I would also be upgraded to MK-II or at least launch CLGM/LAHAT missile in near future.

 

[sayareakd]

Shot at 2011-02-26[/IMG]

 

[Kunal Biswas]

^^ That is nice sir, where u took the pic ?

 

[sayareakd]

Nishant New laser designator has been made by TATA Nova and CLGM would be game changer for Arjun tank, T80UD and al Khalid Missile which is similar to what T90S/M has require line of sight so that missile can ride the beam with range of only 4 km, now just image what 6-8km CLGM would cause T80UD and Al khalid. It has tandem warhead, so good bye ERA on Al Khalid.

Shot at 2010-08-25

and it can take out helicopter too. Now IA should scrap T90S and go for Arjun MK-II all out.

 

[sayareakd]

^^ That is nice sir, where u took the pic ?

post 921 is DRDO brochures from Defexpo 2010 scan.

Post 920 was made by me when i was told how CLGM operate and how BMS will work in 2008.

 

[sayareakd]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

for Arjun MK-II

 

[Bhadra]

Their are media reports for last few weeks that Arjun tank has achive edge over T 90S tank, contrary to what IA (DGMF) was saying all these years.

Who has to decide about what IA wants to fight a battle? The Media or DRDO or PSU? Say it is the nation. Is not Armed Forces responsible enough and part of the nation. Remember they are ones who have to use it and produce results with what ever they use.

If this report was not true, then IA would have beaten their drums denying every single allegation about the triumph of Arjun tank.

Scewed logic. Is Indian Army free to beat their drums in public like you are doing. So leave it at that.

This prove what was said all along by DRDO that their tank is far superior then T 90S tank.

Are DRDO and IA adverseries in a debate? or does it prove any thing? Does keeping quite is admissin of guilt? Where does one learn such jurisprudence ?

Now lets put all these controversies to rest and accept the Arjun as it is.

Prejudical conclusion based on flawed cause and effect argument.

Please remember that Arjun tank is our tank, design for and made by us.

Is that an appeal !! even a stone inside India belongs to us. So why Arjun, let us bring back Vijayant made by us less DRDO.

These kind of arguments are emotional. Wars are not fought on such subjective factors.

 

[Bhadra]

@Sayareaked

Good pictures and goos demonstaration... keep it up and make something like that like Lahat... bring from Isrealies and claim it your own. However if if that is done for the good of the Country, it is welcome and acceptable.

Do you know in Armour warfare there is something called mobility ? what about that?

 

[ace009]

@Sayareaked

Good pictures and goos demonstaration... keep it up and make something like that like Lahat... bring from Isrealies and claim it your own. However if if that is done for the good of the Country, it is welcome and acceptable.

Do you know in Armour warfare there is something called mobility ? what about that?

Isn't the Arjun faster and more mobile than the T-90S?

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Isn't the Arjun faster and more mobile than the T-90S?

@Sayareaked

Good pictures and goos demonstaration... keep it up and make something like that like Lahat... bring from Isrealies and claim it your own. However if if that is done for the good of the Country, it is welcome and acceptable.

Do you know in Armour warfare there is something called mobility ? what about that?

Arjun Success History Re-posted:

Desert Ferrari and More..
'Desert Ferrari' and more

Indian Army chief appreciates performance of 'Arjun'
Indian Army chief appreciates performance of 'Arjun'
Deccan Herald - Indian Army chief appreciates Arjun tank's performance

Indian army deploys first indigenous tanks along Pakistan border
gulfnews : Indian army deploys first indigenous tanks along Pakistan border

Trials up: Arjun tank outruns, outguns Russian T-90
Arjun tank outruns, outguns Russian T-90
Arjun tank outguns T-90 in desert trial - India News - IBNLive
Trials up: Arjun tank outruns, outguns Russian T-90 - 1 - *2010: Defence & Internal Security Special on MSN India
Arjun tank outguns Russian T-90 in desert trial | Taaza.com
Army to purchase more Arjun tanks (India)
The TND Armoured Fighting Vehicle Forum::General Banter ::India's Arjun tank outruns and outguns Russian T-90

FLASH! Indian Army Orders 124 More Arjun Tanks!
http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/05/flash-army-orders-124-more-arjun-tanks.htm

Army set to place order for 248 more arjun main battle tanks
Army set to place order for 248 more arjun main battle tanks - The Economic Times


All you need to know..