Indian T-90S a sub-standard tank ?

[pmaitra]

Germany has been at the receiving end of punitive actions by India, given their laws that encourage bribery.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Weight , and even dimensions, matters since it affects bridge classification on either side of the border.

It affects road classification as well. Our National Guard unit has an armory in Southern Pines, NC, and its tanks at the MATES (maintenance facility) at Fort Bragg. a few miles away by road. One day somebody (could have been the commander ) made a decision to drive an M1 Abrams from Fort Bragg to the armory for some kind of public relations event. The NC Department of Roads found out and denied permission to drive it back. As far I know, that M1 still sits at the armory because, and I have not confirmed this, the road will not bear the load of a tank carrier either.

 

[Tronic]

T-90 and variants thereof have reached the end of their development life cycle.
Arjun family, no matter whatever marks they put, is a legacy system.

Let's get on with the FMBT, IMO.

Honestly, with news such as;

The Russians are understood to have offered to assist in the Indian FMBT project (and is in talks separately with DRDO about this) and that it was time to let the Arjun go.

To me, it indicates the Russians are eager to kill the Arjun so it can be replaced by a Russian FMBT. Similar to the PAK-FA, i.e., Indian money paying for Russian R&D.

 

[pmaitra]

Honestly, with news such as;

The Russians are understood to have offered to assist in the Indian FMBT project (and is in talks separately with DRDO about this) and that it was time to let the Arjun go.

To me, it indicates the Russians are eager to kill the Arjun so it can be replaced by a Russian FMBT. Similar to the PAK-FA, i.e., Indian money paying for Russian R&D.

That is the question. Keep most of the R&D in India. Pay Russian specialists for assistance and consultation, like in the INS Arihant project, but just don't blindly fund research in Russia. There is one area were Russia can offer a lot. Russia has already made forays into the unmanned turret concept. Even if they have not had significant success in term of a final product, there is a lot to learn from them and not repeat the mistakes that they have already made.

Coming to funding R&D, whether you get UralWagonZavod, or Renk, or MTU, or Snecma, or TATRA, or any company to help out with development, you are invariably paying for part of their R&D. You gotta chose the best offer at the best price.

As I said, T-90 is at the end of its development life cycle, and Arjun is a legacy system. We need to move on. My hopes are on the FMBT.

What I would like to see:

• India using its experience with the Arjun into FMBT. Keep in mind, the Arjun is a pretty good tank.
• Russia using its experience with the unmanned turret concept and helping India with design decisions early on.

 

[Tronic]

That is the question. Keep most of the R&D in India. Pay Russian specialists for assistance and consultation, like in the INS Arihant project, but just don't blindly fund research in Russia. There is one area were Russia can offer a lot. Russia has already made forays into the unmanned turret concept. Even if they have not had significant success in term of a final product, there is a lot to learn from them and not repeat the mistakes that they have already made.

Coming to funding R&D, whether you get UralWagonZavod, or Renk, or MTU, or Snecma, or TATRA, or any company to help out with development, you are invariably paying for part of their R&D. You gotta chose the best offer at the best price.

As I said, T-90 is at the end of its development life cycle, and Arjun is a legacy system. We need to move on. My hopes are on the FMBT.

What I would like to see:

• India using its experience with the Arjun into FMBT. Keep in mind, the Arjun is a pretty good tank.
• Russia using its experience with the unmanned turret concept and helping India with design decisions early on.

As long as India does not go the Japan way when it comes to its defence industries being entirely reliant on foreign firms.

Sometimes its good to instill faith in indigenous technologies and help them mature, rather than kill them off in favour of matured foreign products.

Every nation with a mature defence industry reached where they are by instilling faith in their own products, where even the armed forces themselves chose to buy inferior indigenous designs so that they could provide inputs and gradually make them superior.

An excellent example is that of Sweden. When SAAB came up with the much inferior designed SAAB-32 Lansen, the Swedes did not abandon their aircraft; they went ahead and bought ~120 Hawker Hunters from Britain to supplement the inferior Lansen, but still bought close to 500 Lansens to protect their industry from suffering a loss.

It was this determination to make indigenous products succeed which resulted in the confidence, having Grippen compete against the Rafales and the Eurofighters today.

 

[pmaitra]

As long as India does not go the Japan way when it comes to its defence industries being entirely reliant on foreign firms.

Sometimes its good to instill faith in indigenous technologies and help them mature, rather than kill them off in favour of matured foreign products.

Every nation with a mature defence industry reached where they are by instilling faith in their own products, where even the armed forces themselves chose to buy inferior indigenous designs so that they could provide inputs and gradually make them superior.

An excellent example is that of Sweden. When SAAB came up with the much inferior designed SAAB-32 Lansen, the Swedes did not abandon their aircraft; they went ahead and bought ~120 Hawker Hunters from Britain to supplement the inferior Lansen, but still bought close to 500 Lansens to protect their industry from suffering a loss.

It was this determination to make indigenous products succeed which resulted in the confidence, having Grippen compete against the Rafales and the Eurofighters today.

Cannot disagree with you on that at all. Personally, I wish IA bought more of the Arjuns, but then, if they won't buy more, they won't buy more. What can one do? Let us not forget the delay.

So what can we do to prevent this in our future FMBT? Get foreign assistance. Get MTU or Renk to help us with the engine and transmission, and UralWagonZavod with the unmanned turret concept. Get as much as we can from domestic experience, but I am against fiddling around for years and then not meeting the deadline. Sorry, I sound harsh, but in war, all that matters is how well your tanks perform, not whether it is domestic or imported.

From what I understand, the Germans are best with the engine and transmission, and the Russians the best with reactive armour, and have made good headway into unmanned turret.

Why do I keep insisting on the unmanned turret concept?

• It will make the crew safer well inside the hull.
• No need to bother about turret cook-off.
• Will require less armour for the turret and thus greatly reduce the tank's weight.
• Will keep the tank silhouette low.

Also, why should we take help in areas we are weak? Because, even great powers have done so.

• The US got Wernher von Braun to help them with their space programme.
• The USSR got US automobile companies to help them out with military trucks.
• Chobam armour shared diverse development history.
• Scalp-EG also shared diverse development history.
• Eurofighter Typhoon, Airbus, Sukhoi-Superjet, these all share diverse development history.

There is no shame in international collaboration, as long as we learn from them, while delivering what is required and on time.

 

[mki]

man please stop this russian backstab issue.........

simply compete Arjun mk2 with t90.... if arjun2 wins (I really hope our tank win) then put fullstop on T-90.

It will be our army and our people who decide the future of Arjun mk2....... who ever give bribe or what ever... it our people who have to decide the ethics..

dont behave like paki......... this backstab and that backstab......

 

[Adux]

man please stop this russian backstab issue.........

simply compete Arjun mk2 with t90.... if arjun2 wins (I really hope our tank win) then put fullstop on T-90.

It will be our army and our people who decide the future of Arjun mk2....... who ever give bribe or what ever... it our people who have to decide the ethics..

dont behave like paki......... this backstab and that backstab......

Morning,

Do you even bother to read the article, Do you know the history of Arjun , especially the last 5 years when the trials started?
Shut up and learn from people who actually know something. Dont call me a paki you ninocoomp.

 

[Tronic]

Cannot disagree with you on that at all. Personally, I wish IA bought more of the Arjuns, but then, if they won't buy more, they won't buy more. What can one do? Let us not forget the delay.

So what can we do to prevent this in our future FMBT? Get foreign assistance. Get MTU or Renk to help us with the engine and transmission, and UralWagonZavod with the unmanned turret concept. Get as much as we can from domestic experience, but I am against fiddling around for years and then not meeting the deadline. Sorry, I sound harsh, but in war, all that matters is how well your tanks perform, not whether it is domestic or imported.

From what I understand, the Germans are best with the engine and transmission, and the Russians the best with reactive armour, and have made good headway into unmanned turret.

Why do I keep insisting on the unmanned turret concept?

• It will make the crew safer well inside the hull.
• No need to bother about turret cook-off.
• Will require less armour for the turret and thus greatly reduce the tank's weight.
• Will keep the tank silhouette low.

Also, why should we take help in areas we are weak? Because, even great powers have done so.

• The US got Wernher von Braun to help them with their space programme.
• The USSR got US automobile companies to help them out with military trucks.
• Chobam armour shared diverse development history.
• Scalp-EG also shared diverse development history.
• Eurofighter Typhoon, Airbus, Sukhoi-Superjet, these all share diverse development history.

There is no shame in international collaboration, as long as we learn from them, while delivering what is required and on time.

Although I don't fully agree with your examples, I'm actually not against foreign collaboration.

What I'm against is killing off indigenous designs.

If the Russians actually wanted to help, they can give their inputs to improve upon the Arjun design. (Infact, rather than the Russians, I would rather go to the Koreans or the Japanese in this department). To totally scrap the Arjun project to start from scratch with "Russian collaboration" is what I'm against. We only need collaboration on things we need to improve on.

 

[Bhadra]

My two cents , this time stay away from T-90s .
We used a lot Russian tanks , enough now .
Switch to our own products + try some western tanks also .

Ha Ha Ha.... my two cents;

Stay away from Tank itself. Where is the place to employ tanks ??

 

[Bhadra]

man please stop this russian backstab issue.........

simply compete Arjun mk2 with t90.... if arjun2 wins (I really hope our tank win) then put fullstop on T-90.

It will be our army and our people who decide the future of Arjun mk2....... who ever give bribe or what ever... it our people who have to decide the ethics..

dont behave like paki......... this backstab and that backstab......

Our Tank at this stage only means DODO tank !

 

[pmaitra]

Although I don't fully agree with your examples, I'm actually not against foreign collaboration.

Thanks! Difference in opinion is what motivates us to continue to post.

What I'm against is killing off indigenous designs.

As a passionate Indian, I agree. As a dispassionate commentator, I'd say, kill anything that is not good enough, and deliberately stay ignorant to the origins of any equipment.

If the Russians actually wanted to help, they can give their inputs to improve upon the Arjun design. (Infact, rather than the Russians, I would rather go to the Koreans or the Japanese in this department). To totally scrap the Arjun project to start from scratch with "Russian collaboration" is what I'm against. We only need collaboration on things we need to improve on.

The Russians do not want to 'help' per se, they want to trade. Russia is not the Soviet Union, that they will send their specialists and help us build steel plants; the Bhilai Steel Plant is a citation here. Even in those days, they were motivated by the idea of spreading goodwill, and political influence. We could easily afford that. However, today, they want our money, for whatever they give us. We afford that, sometimes happily, sometimes grudgingly, and the Gorshkov-Vikramaditya fiasco is a case in this point.

I would not be so hostile to the idea of totally scrapping something. However, I do not propose total scrapping either. I have clarified that in my earlier post, so I will not elaborate on that further. Let me look at it from a different perspective this time.

Even if we plan the FMBT project from scratch, and not use any physical component from the existing Arjun, we will still be carrying over a vast wealth of knowledge. Yes, in that case, there will be need for new tooling, new castings, new processes, because older components will not fit in the new system. Therefore, we have to have, for the sake of economics, some scope re-usability of older components. In the extreme case however, if the Arjun project is totally killed off, in physical terms, it is dead, but in terms of knowledge and engineering, no one can, nor afford to, kill that project.

The concept of building something new using nothing from the past but experience has gained momentum, especially in the software industry. When it comes to heavy engineering, re-prototyping may not be an attractive option over re-usability, but one has to realize, that every military equipment, tanks in this case, will have (1) life cycle and (2) generation ceiling. Sometimes, we cannot squeeze any more juice out of it.

I hope I am making a connection here.

 

[p2prada]

P2P and Damian, I guess not everyone agrees with your assertion that weight based classification is not used anymore? If this report is to be believed, you guys are badly misinformed.

It was DGMF Bharadwaj who said that when he rejected Arjuns for the Army. He was playing to the gallery. Arjun is a "heavier" tank while T-90 is a "lighter" tank. But there is no doubt T-90 is the Main Battle Tank and this is what counts.

One of the principle reasons voiced by the Army over Arjun's rejection was that it was a tank over 50 tons which the Army does not desire. Thus a "heavy" tank.

 

[pmaitra]

It was DGMF Bharadwaj who said that when he rejected Arjuns for the Army. He was playing to the gallery. Arjun is a "heavier" tank while T-90 is a "lighter" tank. But there is no doubt T-90 is the Main Battle Tank and this is what counts.

One of the principle reasons voiced by the Army over Arjun's rejection was that it was a tank over 50 tons which the Army does not desire. Thus a "heavy" tank.

Just as I had claimed then, this article mentioned, and Ray Sir and Mr. Ewald have explained, weight based classifications are relevant, and not discontinued. I am not going to debate what is a Main Battle Tank here, because that is irrelevant. My point was just that - weight based classification.

 

[Adux]

Russians dont want to 'help' any Indian design. Matter Closed, if they had their way they would India dependent on them for 100% Russian products and no Indian products at all, the difference is with the western countries, they know such a move will only antagonize the Indians, as they move forward and they dont have much lobby weight to throw around. Future Indian Defense personnel will 'hate' Russia. Russians on the other hand doesnt care about such a reputation, knows that their products arent actually good or cost effective as their western counterparts, there they want to make hay while the sun shines, and they are going to push and sabotage Indian products as well as others with the weight of their lobby. They see a 10 year window, where they will sell everything to India at expensive rates. Su-30MKI, T-90, Smerch etc all come at western european prices yet only deliever 40% of their effectiveness.

 

[Adux]

Weight based classification has been debunked by the DRDO and Ajai Shukla where he provided proof both on the Indian as well as Pakistani side the bridges can and will take 60 ton Arjun, actually it can go upto 80 tons, also Arjun's weight felt by the bridges is far less than that of the T-90's.

 

[p2prada]

Just as I had claimed then, this article mentioned, and Ray Sir and Mr. Ewald have explained, weight based classifications are relevant, and not discontinued. I am not going to debate what is a Main Battle Tank here, because that is irrelevant. My point was just that - weight based classification.

See. The point is there is no weight based classification.

A tank needs to weigh "this much" so our bridges, transports and roads can handle it. That is the point with choosing a 50 ton tank or else the Russians could have gone for the Obj 195 and killed every tank in the field with ease. For them too, the Obj 195 at 55 tons is a heavy tank. When they say heavy tank, they mean the weight is too much for comfort. Maybe they tried making a 50 ton tank and ended up with 55 tons due to design issues.

We don't know for sure, maybe the Arjun was always supposed to be a 50 ton tank and ended up with 55 tons due to design issues and thus was rejected by the Army. We don't really know what were the real reasons why Arjun was rejected in the first place, nor do we know the actual requirements of the Arjun. We don't know how Arjun is going to be used either. The only thing we know for sure is that DRDO is inefficient.

When heavy tank was mentioned, it did not mean the Lt Gen classified Arjun as Heavy and T-90 as Medium. He merely called Arjun a tank which is heavy for our requirements. The lighter Obj 195 can murder the heavy M1Abrams anyday.

Someone mentioned something about an open tender like MRCA. No one will provide us with the kind of ToT that will help us make even 50% of the tank at home let alone the 85% that we achieved with T-90. Buying a tank from the outside market is like buying the F-22 or F-35. Pay a lot of money and be happy with what little you get. Other than that a tank is purchased based on your logistics set up is and also your doctrine. While the M1 is the best tank, it may not be the best tank for us. So, while a country like Israel may adapt to the Abrams, we may not. In such a condition we cannot buy anything we desire rather than something that we actually need.

Aircraft is different because it is not expected to hold position in enemy territory. It has the easier option of returning to base any time while a tank is expected to sweat it out 24/7 inside enemy territory. If we cannot supply weapons, fuel and food to the tank, it is as good as dead, nevermind an Abrams or a Panzer. Air warfare is entirely different from tank warfare and the same rules cannot be applied.

 

[pmaitra]

See. The point is there is no weight based classification.

A tank needs to weigh "this much" so our bridges, transports and roads can handle it. That is the point with choosing a 50 ton tank or else the Russians could have gone for the Obj 195 and killed every tank in the field with ease. For them too, the Obj 195 at 55 tons is a heavy tank. When they say heavy tank, they mean the weight is too much for comfort. Maybe they tried making a 50 ton tank and ended up with 55 tons due to design issues.

We don't know for sure, maybe the Arjun was always supposed to be a 50 ton tank and ended up with 55 tons due to design issues and thus was rejected by the Army. We don't really know what were the real reasons why Arjun was rejected in the first place, nor do we know the actual requirements of the Arjun. We don't know how Arjun is going to be used either. The only thing we know for sure is that DRDO is inefficient.

When heavy tank was mentioned, it did not mean the Lt Gen classified Arjun as Heavy and T-90 as Medium. He merely called Arjun a tank which is heavy for our requirements. The lighter Obj 195 can murder the heavy M1Abrams anyday.

Someone mentioned something about an open tender like MRCA. No one will provide us with the kind of ToT that will help us make even 50% of the tank at home let alone the 85% that we achieved with T-90. Buying a tank from the outside market is like buying the F-22 or F-35. Pay a lot of money and be happy with what little you get. Other than that a tank is purchased based on your logistics set up is and also your doctrine. While the M1 is the best tank, it may not be the best tank for us. So, while a country like Israel may adapt to the Abrams, we may not. In such a condition we cannot buy anything we desire rather than something that we actually need.

Aircraft is different because it is not expected to hold position in enemy territory. It has the easier option of returning to base any time while a tank is expected to sweat it out 24/7 inside enemy territory. If we cannot supply weapons, fuel and food to the tank, it is as good as dead, nevermind an Abrams or a Panzer. Air warfare is entirely different from tank warfare and the same rules cannot be applied.

I do not link weight of a tank with a tank being an MBT or not, because, one country can have a light MBT, and another, a heavy MBT.

Additionally, yes, our infrastructure, especially bridges, mean a lot when it comes to what tanks it can support or not. Perhaps T-90 can traverse a lot more bridges than Arjun can, and there is argument about it. Even if Arjun has less ground pressure, it is irrelevant when it comes to bridges. Let's say a bridge section or the piers can support only 50 tons, so, a <50 ton T-90 will easily pass it, but a >50 ton Arjun, will cause the bridge to collapse.

I agree with the rest of what you said.

I still think collaborating with the Russians and the Germans is the best bet we got at the moment. It is also true we cannot, from all practical considerations, build a next-generation tank all by ourselves.

 

[Adux]

Weight footprint of Arjun is lower than T-90, the T-90 puts more weight on a bridge than a Arjun, enough said.

 

[p2prada]

I still think collaborating with the Russians and the Germans is the best bet we got at the moment. It is also true we cannot, from all practical considerations, build a next-generation tank all by ourselves.

CVRDE is looking for partners for the FMBT. It can be Russian or American/European, or a mix of both. For eg: we may go for Russian assistance in turret, ammo and hull design while we may partner with Cummins or MTU for engines. Maybe CVRDE will want to go alone in all departments and find partners within our own private industry once the FICV partners are decided.

Anyway, the new T-90 may be like the Super 30 upgrade on the MKI. So, there is no question of a competition between tanks. Whatever T-90s can be upgraded, can be brought to the MS standard and the production run for the last 700 tanks can be MS instead of S.

Weight footprint of Arjun is lower than T-90, the T-90 puts more weight on a bridge than a Arjun, enough said.

A bridge and a transport have weight specifications beyond which ground pressure is useless.