An early variant of the Arjun
Posted on 11/14/2007 9:21:22 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
Indian Army seeks next generation battle tank
New Delhi, Nov 13 - The Indian Army has sought a new generation main battle tank (MBT) even as it reluctantly prepares to receive the homegrown Arjun tank that has been over three decades in the making.
'What we have today is mid-level technology. What we need is a tank of international quality,' Indian Army chief Gen. Deepak Kapoor said Tuesday.
'I have no doubt that the DRDO (Defence Research and Development Organisation) will be able to develop indigenous capabilities for coming up with a better answer and more versatile armoured fighting vehicle (than Arjun) in the future,' he added while speaking at the inaugural session of an international seminar on Armoured Fighting Vehicles, the first to be held here.
Kapoor also called for synergy between scientists, users and producers to ensure the delivery of a cutting-edge-technology tank.
'The scientists cannot work in isolation. The users (the army) should be with them. So also should the producers, be they the public sector undertakings or private players. Only then will we see an indigenous armoured fighting vehicle of international quality,' the army chief maintained.
Kapoor's remarks were a clear indication that even as the Indian Army prepares to induct its first squadron of 14 Arjuns, it is not too happy with the tank.
These tanks, in fact, had been handed over for user trials last year and were returned to the manufacturer -- the Combat Vehicles Development Establishment -- with a list of defects that have now apparently been ironed out.
These include a deficient fire control system, inaccuracy of its guns, low speeds in tactical areas -- principally deserts -- and its inability to operate in temperatures over 50 degrees Celsius.
At a review meeting with the DRDO in April, Defence Minister A.K. Antony is known to have asked the organisation to get its act together to rectify these defects or the government might have to take another look at the entire programme.
Parliament's Standing Committee on Defence has, in two reports earlier this year, remarked adversely on the slow pace of Arjun's development and asked the DRDO to quicken the process.
The Indian Army laid down its qualitative requirement (QR) for the Arjun in 1972. In 1982, the DRDO announced that the prototype was ready for field trials. However, the tank was publicly unveiled for the first time only in 1995.
Arjun was originally meant to be a 40-tonne tank with a 105 mm gun. It has now grown to a 50-tonne tank with a 120 mm gun.
An early variant of the Arjun
ping
Do you know why India didn’t just build some very fine Soviet tanks under license?
“...These include a deficient fire control system, inaccuracy of its guns, low speeds in tactical areas — principally deserts — and its inability to operate in temperatures over 50 degrees Celsius.”
Real purty, but deficient nevertheless, just when I was thinking only we could produce a 30-year classic boondoggle.
Remarks made seem to indicate that totalitarian-style information firewalls between organizations and departments are the principle problem here.
Lemme see, if I recall correctly Arjun was the name of the ancient warrior for whom the god Krishna (disguised as his charioteer) stops the action just as he’s about to go into battle to start a philosophical dialogue that then runs on for umpteen volumes in the Ramayana or Maha-somethingorother.
Don’t build new battle tanks. Build heavy droids (about .5 to 2 tons) with light armor, ATGMs, AGLs, and MGs on ‘em. Give ‘em semi-autonomous and remote operation capabilities (and don’t forget the “off” switch). Hire video-game addicts to run ‘em.
You’ll have a cheap, unbeatable armored combat force.
Probably because the last “very fine Soviet tank” was the T-34.
India has built the T-72 & will build the T-90 (around a 1000) .But then there is section of the defense establishment which wants to develop Indian tech & which probably understands why Russian tanks are so good.
Oh come now. The T-90 is a decent hull. Add Israeli fire control and a NATOized 120mm smoothbore and you’ve got a decent and survivable tank.
A large part of the problem with the Arjun results from the fact that the Indian army top brass doesn’t want a “western” tank like it-they’ve been using Soviet tanks for almost 40 years now & since the T-72,have built up an entire support system around it.They would need to put in a lot of effort to accomodate the Arjun-which the army folks don’t want to do.
By the way,Arjun figures in the Mahabharat.
Israeli fire control & NATO 120 mm-will cost more than the damn tank itself.& The Russians are increasingly pesky about allowing others to steal their thunder on their toys.
Interesting article on the Indian army’s treatment of the Arjun.The author is a defense journo who was colonel in the Indian army armour corp-so he knows what he’s talking about.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1894418/posts
Ajai Shukla: The desert duel that wasn`t
BROADSWORD
Ajai Shukla / New Delhi September 11, 2007
The Mahajan Field Firing Ranges (MFFR), near Suratgarh, in Rajasthan, a hive of army activity between September and March, transforms into desolation during the summer months. During that interregnum, the emptiness, the blazing 50-degree-plus heat, the absence of water, and the unrelenting sandstorms make MFFR an ideal testing ground for equipment that the army proposes to buy.
Here, over the last 33 years, the Defence R&D Organisation (DRDO) has carried out scores of often-unsuccessful trials on India’s Arjun tank. It is here, during this bygone summer, that the MFFR was to host the mother of all duels: full-scale comparative trials, in which the Arjun tank was to be compared with the army’s workhorses, the Russian T-72 and the new-generation T-90 tanks. If the Arjun performed satisfactorily (nothing better was even imagined) the army would buy 124 tanks, a minuscule purchase considering that its fleet has 3,500 tanks. This token order, worth Rs 2,250 crore, is believed to constitute a face-saving closure to the three-decade-old DRDO project that had spent Rs 300 crore on developing the Arjun.
But this long-playing tale has taken a rousing twist comparable with the most unlikely of underdog success stories. Recent technological breakthroughs in the Arjun project appear to have transformed what was an underperforming liability into something close to a world class 60-tonne Main Battle Tank (MBT) that could literally kick sand in the face of the Russian favourites. Army sources reveal that there was apprehension that the DRDO-built Arjun could outperform the Russian-origin tanks in all three determinants of tank ability: mobility, firepower, and protection. Now, the Ministry of Defence (MoD), at the request of the army, has cancelled the comparative trials.
Confirming that comparative trials would no longer be held, the MoD reasoned that it wasn’t possible to compare “a Maruti with a BMW”. The MoD’s logic that the 60-tonne Arjun couldn’t be compared with the 46-tonne T-90 is hardly credible; neither tank has gained or lost much weight since the comparative trials were ordered. The real reason for cancelling the trials is that if, in head-to-head trials, the Arjun proved to be the better tank, there was no way the project could be buried with an order of only 124 tanks. Instead, the army’s entire tank procurement programme would need to be reworked; the Arjun would take a sizeable bite out of the T-90’s share of the pie.
That would be a huge boost to India’s indigenous tank programme, but a blow to the army’s preference for the Russian T-90. Even as the Arjun’s designers fume at the Central Vehicles R&D Establishment (CVRDE) near Chennai, army chief General JJ Singh will visit Russia next week. High on his agenda is a billion-dollar deal for the purchase of 347 more T-90 tanks. Next month, Defence Minister AK Antony too will be in Russia; the T-90 deal could be signed during his visit.
It is ironical that the MoD, which financed and supported the Arjun programme through three decades of failure, has turned away just when the tank seems to have overcome its major problems. After a miserable failure in 2005, when the tank’s electronics proved utterly inadequate, the turning point came last year. In summer 2006, firing trials established, in the words of the army’s own trial team, that the “accuracy and consistency of the Arjun tank was (sic) proved beyond doubt”. Later, the MoD stated to Parliament’s Standing Committee on Defence that, “Arjun’s firing accuracy is far superior to the other two tanks”. This summer, the army raised another objection: the Arjun should be able to drive for 20 minutes in six feet of water. The CVRDE has managed that as well.
At the Arjun test track at Avadi, I drove the tank for an hour over a series of obstacles that would stretch any tank in the world. The Arjun’s chronic problems with the suspension and overheating were nowhere in evidence. While this hardly constituted a serious trial, the Arjun surely deserves to be put through comparative trials, if only to empirically determine which of India’s options is the best. This is especially important in the light of many reports that the T-90 is facing serious problems with its electronics in the desert heat. The army is planning to air-condition all its T-90s, a situation that is unlikely to work.
For now, despite the Arjun turnaround, its future seems uncertain. From October, the army will put the tank through trials; without the baseline parameters that would have been provided by the T-72 and the T-90 in comparative trials, its designers fear that the tank could be accepted or rejected based on arbitrary criteria.
If there is a silver lining in the dark clouds over the Arjun, it is in the fact that army officers and jawans who are involved in the tank’s development and trials are developing confidence in the Arjun. Once the tank enters service, this constituency could grow in size and influence. As Secretary of Defence Production KP Singh observed, “When the army uses this tank, who is to say what they think about it. God knows, they may just fall in love with it and decide that the entire production line should be Arjuns only. Who knows?”
I think the standard by which all modern MBTs should be judged is the M1A1.
Besides, this is all an academic discussion. I don't think India needs a bunch of tanks. If the conflict with Pakistan gets to the point of needing more than one armored division, there'll be a nuclear exchange anyway.
Yaaaa, “survivable” being the buzz word esp when the M1 is in the
theater!
Sabbat anyone?
MV
Unless Pakistan breaks up & the Pakistani army stays in place,there is still space for “limited” war with India.Where a Pakistani terror strike or attack on Kashmir will be countered by an Indian armoured thrust through the Punjab plains & desert regions before International pressure heats up.
About the M1 being the standard,well it’s too expensive for most folks & the A2 variant is almost 5 tonnes heavier than the Arjun tank,which is criticised for being too heavy.
And I'm glad the M1 is too expensive for everyone else; especially for third-world countries who would turn on us whenever a good opportunity presented itself.
The rich live well.
This tank is likely easily countered by selling A10s to Pakistool.
OOOOOOPs! There is that pesky air power tipping the balance of
power yet again! Hap Arnold was a f****** genius!
MV
Well you’re on the dot on where nuke is likely to go off next...
About the M-1,do remember that 3 out of it’s 4 export customers can use it on the Israelis.
I am reminded of WWII and the numbers of Shermans vs. the quality of the Tigers.
Also, let us not forget India’s friends to the North as well.
The North is not ideal tank territory.A few light armoured vehicles are probably the best out there.
It’ll make an impressive flaming coffin.
I wouldn’t say that; some PLA Hannibal will probably prove you wrong...
One of my frat bros was in armor during Desert Storm and he said the Bradley’s did very well against tanks.
The oldest story: fiefdoms defending their turf.
I stand corrected.
Against who? The Pakis?
You are assuming your Mig 21s will be allowed to get to the A-10s. The Pakis have F-16s.
They probably have a pretty good idea of what the Pakistanis are planning to add to their collection of largely Soviet and Russian-built armor, and want something better. And want it to be at least as good as the Paki Al Khalid, with 1200 hp Ukranian engine and 48 ton combat weight, of which 600 are supposed to enter Paki service by the end of this decade.
Worse, the Al Kalid has a 125mm Soviet style gun suitable for use with Pakistani- made Niaza depleted Uranium sabottype antitank ammunition. And the Saudis are also considering a buy of the Pakistani tanks, with the follow-on production likely resulting in a upgrade Al Khalid IIversion that could also replace Pakistan's 1200 aging Chinese T-59 and 300 T-85IIAP.
The Iranians are also reportedly interested in the Al Khalid as well....
If elephants were good enough for Hannibal, “Circus Boy” and Tarzan......
Quantity has a quality of its own. The follow-on T54/T55 design was nothing to sneeze at, particularly considering the fact that every M60 and M60A1 facing the Soviet 8th Guards Army on the other side of the Fulda Gap would be taking on odds of fifteen of theirs to one of ours. For those of us in Bavaria and the Czech Sudetenland the odds were more like 20-1.
And the T-62 was a MUCH better tank than either Theits predecessor T55 or the T72 that followed it.
As have South African Eland armored cars fitted with 90mm guns against 1960s-era Soviet armor.
But the Bradleys have never faced the mass battalion-level motor rifle regimental all-out assaults for which they were designed. And now the potential competition [BMP3] sports a 100mm gun/missile launcher that can fire either 3UOF HE-FRAG rounds or 3UBK10 anti-tank AT-10 Stabber guided missiles out to 4KM.
Bad juju for Bradleys, worse for the Strykers that mount only a .50 M2 and a 40mm grenade launcher, and whose defense against hostile armor is a guy standing up in the back hatch with a Javelin AT missile launcher.
You know what happended to Big Mary. Elephants are no match for the boom on an M88 Hercules VTR.
You can most certainly get a great many BMD4s and NONA-S SPGs over them. And those vehicles are also amphibious.
New combat vehicles on way to Russian airborne units
MOSCOW, June 16 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's Airborne Forces will receive the first batch of a new armored airborne combat vehicle on June 21, an army spokesman said Friday.
The BMD-4 airborne combat vehicle is amphibious, light and well armed. Like its predecessor, BMD-3, it has a hull made of special alloys and a turret, but features many modifications. In addition, it is equipped with a 100-mm gun.
"The start of deliveries of the BMD-4 marks a new era in the development of the Airborne Forces and will significantly raise the combat strength of Russia's most mobile units," Alexander Cherednik said.
The vehicle will be shown off during an exercise on June 26 that senior officers are expected to attend.
###
Rogue elephant??
That was the subject of my War College dissertation, Defence or Retaliation- A Projection of the Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in Southwest Asia.
Following the detonation of six Pakistani nuclear devices in May of 1998, my old paper was dusted off, read [in particular, the annexes on possible delivery methods, and most of it was hastily classified. In particular, the annexes on possible delivery methods....
The NRDC has a pretty good analysis of the consequences of a Indian-Pakistani nuclear exchange *here*.
Oh WHEN will this dreadful history of elephant lynchings in the American South come to a final close!
Theres no need to go out of our way to further embarass the nice Ukranian folks at Obukhovsky, [previously Uralvagonzavod] though their upgrade programme for previous Soviet designs has been both very credible and cost-effective.
Why do the Indians need tanks? To guard their Casinos and Resorts?
Good read Archy. Thanks !
Listening too the rats last night....Edwards said something along the lines that if elected he’d remove every nuke from our arsenal and dismantle the program etc ......said “we” must set the example or something along those lines.... I only caught part of it. Don’t quote me.....:o)
You are assuming that Pakistan has scores of F-16s.They only have around 30(they may not get the 36 new ones they ordered from Uncle Sam) & those are 25 years old-they don’t have any new generation air to air missiles which even the upgraded Indian Mig-21s can fire.Pakistan’s F-16s are primarily tasked with nuke-strikes & protection of their N-installations.& India has over a 150 other aircraft which are in the same league or better than the F-16 like the Mirage-2000,Mig-29 & SU-30.
Isn’t the Al-Khalid a variant of the Chinese Type-90,which they modified for the Pakis?????
The Pakis operate the T-80UD variant,which they purchased from Ukraine-that purchase was the reason why India went in for the T-90 from Russia.Not to mention it’s gas turbine engines are not preferred by many.
BMP3s are good vehicles, no doubt. Fortunately, not many folks have them.
They found out in Desert Storm and in Iraqi Freedom that the Brads were far more survivable against tanks than first believed.
Full disclosure - I was a mech infantry officer in Bradleys, I love ‘em. :)
I thought the BMP-3 had a 30mm gun. That 100mm on the BMP-1’s was not worth anything.
Ut Prosim.
"What we have to do, what America needs to do and what I will do, as president of the United States, is to lead a long-term international effort to rid the world of nuclear weapons. It is the only way we're going to keep the world secure and keep America secure."
Good luck with that, John. I'm sure ridding the world of nukes will be as successful as a New York City gun buy-back program is in ridding the city of guns.
This gaggle of goofballs will get us all killed......Thanks for the quote !
Thank you. Are you also a member of the Hokie nation?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
