It's depends on electric engine layout and by the way that precious system which army want to replace was COMPACT and if I am not wrong compact systems are more easy to replace most of the times.
Also here is the layout of the hydraulic system.
These system that army want will definitely increase the weight.
One must ask army Lobby then, what is the primary concern for them weight or compact system that keep the weight down? this is plain repeat of ARJUN weight saga .
Not directed at you:-
Glad that internet is there today otherwise this plain IMPORT MINDSET WOULD HAD NOT CAME OUT IN open.
This is just another arjun in making.
Look like Israelis and if I may abuse these people and it's lobby are like s%+ms at the top of a beautiful dish.
This import army will never allow induction of ATAGS system.
Baba can at least do one thing and in the name of progress appoint an indigenous force feeder and "fired" paper pusher in the defense Minister post.
Man I am even writing in Gujarati if he is reading.
બાબા ઓછામાં ઓછું એક કામ કરી શકે છે અને કૃપા કરીને પ્રગતિના નામે સ્વદેશી દળ ફીડરની નિમણૂક કરો અને સંરક્ષણ પ્રધાન પદ પર કા firedી મુકેલી "કા firedી મુકાય".
Now there lies the problem with technical people like Amiet or others. They do see only the technical perspective and leave alone or I would say undermine the user requirement or why user is asking for that particular requirement.
An electrical drive system is of course better then hydraulics when it comes to targeting. But I would not agree with maintenance part here. An electrical drive consists of chains and interconnected gears. Break down of anyone of this component would make the whole system ineffective. On other hand, a hydraulic system consists of hydraulic liquid, tubes and arms. Now in case of a failure if you have to replace a hydraulic part on field, it is much more easier and even a nontechnical person could do it with a pair or wrench. But replacing or rectifying a faulty electrical drive needs highly trained personal for the job.
So from user perspective, which is better? A job which could be done by the existing crew or a job for which you have to train a set of crew specially?
Let me tell you a real life experience I had faced.
After Kargil, a new system was introduced across India for border monitoring. The system was put forward along with a Petrol genset which was miles ahead in performance then its K-oil counterpart. To say, its state of the art at that time. The setup was performing faultlessly across India, but problem started arising at the Himalayan heights.
The genset was provided with a flip switch to make the job easy for user where he don't have to use physical power in chord pulling to startup the genset. But at that temperature, the battery would not budge and user have to physically start up the generator which in itself is an arduous task at 14 or 15k altitude. Even if the generator starts, it just runs for 30 second at max and shutdown automatically. Reason being carbon formation on the spark plug due to inadequate oxygen supply. So at last for those sites, the Petrol genset was replaced with the older K-oil gensets which worked flawlessly.
So you could see that an advance system comes with its own set of challenges. If it works in certain geographical location flawlessly, it doesn't mean it would work same across different geography or environmental conditions.
Moreover as many youtubers are discussing, do you think IA has got up one fine day and decided to change the drive mechanism of ATAGS? It has been considered for long and most probably been put across the design table long ago. I remember Baba Kalyani stating that the weight of ATAGS could be brought down to 16 T. It means major design changes has already been put forwarded long ago to bring down the overall weight.