Indian Navy Developments & Discussions

arnabmit

Homo Communis Indus
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2012
Messages
6,242
Likes
7,522
Country flag
Are there any prototypes of 105mm Arjun left? Can they be looked into as light tanks for mountainous areas?



It is not as simple as some people point out. Blaming DRDO for evey delay has become a national passtime for the security establishment. Nobody bothers to understand why those delays occured in the first place.

Lets start with the Arjun MBT. When it was first conceptualised in 1970s, it was to be similar to the contemporary soviet tanks of the period, with certain enhancements. The requirements demanded by the army for the tank had already been standard equipments across Soviet and NATO armies for some years, and indeed would approach obsolescence by the time the Arjun was to be inducted in 1984.

The army had a glaring lack of even short term vision when issuing the original GSQR, which ensures that when Arjun became a reality in 1980s, it was already an obsolete platform with a 105mm gun, when the rest had moved onto 120mm and 125mm bore guns. Even then the blame was put squarely on DRDO, who had just followed the GSQR set.

Then the Army was faced with the spectre of the heavy American M1 Abrahams being supplied to the PA, with significantly superior armor protection and a newer main Gun, the army turned to the DRDO and issued a completely new set of requirements. It now wanted a western style tank with superior firepower and protection. In a single move, the army changed the requirements from medium tank to a heavy tank, and then set a weight limit of 50 tons, which was impractical from the start given the four man crew.

The DRDO was left with no option but to accede to army. The entire tank had to be designed anew. The engine, the suspension, the tracks, the track width, the electronics, the FCS, the transmission had to be redesigned from the start. None had been designed for the new requirements the army issued. The entire previous years had gone to waste.

So why is it that everyone blames the DRDO for the long development time of the Arjun. Essentially, the DRDO developed two tanks, one a medium Arjun with a 105mm gun and the heavy second with a 120mm gun and considerably thicker armor.

It is standard practise when issuing GSQR for any new large project to take into account the development time of the object. The requirements set are set according to what the army will want 10-15 years from now, what will be standard when the equipment comes into service. The IA everytime put forward a requirement according to what they wanted immediately. There was no consideration to the time needed for developing the project. As if it was halwa to develop a new gen tank.
 
Last edited:

DivineHeretic

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
1,153
Likes
1,897
Country flag
Ha Ha Ha.............. Next the Indian Army will ask for 155 mm/52 calibre guns for Arjun MBTs (same as Artillery gun). If possible they may also ask for Tanks with hover technology.
In case you didn't know, there was a plan to mount a 155mm/52cal onto the chasis of the Arjun, the BHIM project. The gun was a South African LIW/Denel T-6. It would have brought equipment commonality and solve the requirement for armored SPGs required by the Army. The gun system was trialled as far back as 1998-99. But then the MoD stepped in and blacklisted Denel, and crashed the Bhim project. As usual the blame again fell on DRDO.





All pictures courtesy of Bharat Rakshak.

Even after 15 years, we are still searching for a new SPG

The blacklisting by MoD has only hurt us, and not so much the target company. Makes me wonder who gave that bright idea to the MoD officials
 
Last edited:

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,594
I fully agree with the rest of your post. But,

I'm not so sure that a Masters Degree is the solution. No degree can match the experience gained by the infantry guy who has used his rifle for a decade. A tank crews experience in handling and maintaining their tank cannot be substituted by theoretical knowledge. It is the same for every unit and their equipment.

The best way IMHO is to form three teams.

One composed of retired/highly experienced soldiers who have extensive experience in the current equipments. This team will be best placed to know the equipment and its weakness, the difficulties facing it and even any jugaad that was used to solve the problem. This group forms a detailed study.

The second group is composed of skilled analysts, maintainance crews and senior commanders who are responsible for developing battle doctrines and tactics. The will present the picture of how the future battle is to be conducted and the role of the equipment in that context. This will help to develop the future requirements of the equipment, when it enters service. This group is also tasked with forming additional futuristic requirements that the military would like in the new equipment

The reports generated by these two groups will then be sent t the third team, composed of innovative developers and technicians. They will have to develop the new equipments to replace the defect of the current ones while at the same time make them fit for use on the future battlefield, when the equipment will finally enter service.

The 2nd group is similar to DARPA in putting forward futuristic requirements, while the 3rd group is responsible for actual designing of prototypes. The 2nd & 3rd group will also compose of industry leaders who are knowlegeable in the latest technology hitting the market or in the process of development.
Having an M. Sc. does not mean not having combat experience.

There are people in the army who are science graduates. Think of people who could get B. Sc., join the Army, and then take a sabbatical to get M. Sc., and then they could go back to the Army, and will qualify for committees such as those that draft GSQR.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

Articles

Top