What's new

Arjun News & Discussions

If there is still something missing that the army wanted, the blame goes to army. It should have taken active participation in tank development. And if it has, how come the tank lacks anything that they wanted??!!

The biggest problem is, if army starts inducting tank now, they would be outdated before completing their full life. T 90 order are in place. T 72 can be heavily upgraded at an economical price. Both can fulfill the current needs of army. Than why to go for one more tank?

Or a case of falling prey to sunk costs and loss aversion. ;)

A lot had been invested, pulling the plug was going to be a disaster for the DRDO as well as the Army, so both gave it a lifeline...one asking the other what it wanted in the tank, the other not being able to figure out how to employ it and also frustrated by the immense delay in getting it right.
 
Or a case of falling prey to sunk costs and loss aversion. ;)

A lot had been invested, pulling the plug was going to be a disaster for the DRDO as well as the Army, so both gave it a lifeline...one asking the other what it wanted in the tank, the other not being able to figure out how to employ it and also frustrated by the immense delay in getting it right.

We can do all kinds of speculations here. And twist the story whichever way we want. Make army the villain or slam DRDO. Or may be draw a balance, putting blame equally on both. But here we are. A perfectly good tank, with no future...:sad:
 
Thanks. Pride aside, the tank may be excellent, but for a set of requirements that have changed.

Also keep in mind that the Arjun program predates any Pakistani interest in the Abrams (that too was shoved down our throats and fortunately for Pakistan, did not materialize). The Abrams was offered to Pakistan around 87-88 time frame. The GSRs for Arjun to evolve into a heavy MBT tank, along the lines of development that was taking place in the NATO armies at the height of cold war, had already happened in the 75-80 time frame, long time before Pakistan considered the Abrams.

Valid points pls take a look at the foll how the army kept on changing its requirements

The main battle tank MBT-80 which is now called MBT Arjun was conceived by the Indian Army after it realised the futility of its tanks mainly in desert conditions, during the 1971 war.

1972 – 1975

In October 1970 a symposium was held on the Indian Main Battle Tank (MBT) at Armoured Corps Center and School. It was attended by the representatives from Indian Army General Staff (GS), Defence Research and Development Organisation DRDO), Director General Quality Assurance (DGQA) and Department of Defence Production (DODP). The main aim of the symposium was to formulate GSQR for future Indian MBT.

The first draft of Qualitative Requirement (QR) was prepared by Armoured Corps Directorate and discussed with Vice Chief of Army Staff (VCOAS).

The first General Staff Qualitative Requirement (GSQR) was issued in August 1972 as QR No. 326 for the design and development of MBT. The QR 326 was not exhaustive and with regard to specifications but featured only skeleton specifications.

The design and development of MBT based on GSQR No. 326 was taken up by the Combat Vehicle Research and Development Establishment (CVRDE). The initial outlay of Rs. 15.50 Crore was sanctioned vide the Government of India (GOI) letter dated 02 May, 1974. Project Development Certification (PDC) of the project was 10 years from the date of sanction.

The MBT was to be designed around imported engine as the design and development experience to create a tank engine was not available within the time frame of the project. In 1974, DRDO had to take up design and development of a tank engine as Government of India could not import a tank engine because of political and other reasons.

1975 -1980

DRDO prepared the system configuration of the tank. Indigenous engine hardware was assembled and motoring test commenced by 1979. Indigenous suspension and transmission hardware was ready for development test. The main 115mm armament was developed and trials were carried out for proof at Balasore ranges. The gun system and fire control system design was configured. One prototype hull in mild steel was fabricated to check the fitment and assembly.

In April 1978, the Indian Army called DRDO for a meeting for mutual discussions. The aim was to change the GSQR No. 326. A series of meetings between DRDO and Indian Army, chaired by VCOAS resulted in change in GSQR. The new GSQR bearing the number 431 was issued in August 1982.

The changes in the GSQR No. 431 were

a)Increase in width and weight
b)110/115mm gun was to be replaced with a 120mm gun.
c)Improved Sighting and Fire Control system.

Essentially it meant creation of entirely new design and systems. A sum of Rs. 56.55 Crores was obtained mainly to cater to cater to GSQR changes and price escalation due to inflation/ rise in import costs.

The PDC of the project was revised. The first prototype was to be built by October 1980 and subsequently 12 prototypes were to be developed, one in every 6 months.

The indigenous engine and transmission evaluation on dynamometer was carried out during 1979-81.

1980 – 1985

As already mentioned that the country had no experience in building an basic internal combustion engine. The tank engine development slipped as this engine was to be made after experimenting with basics of an internal combustion engine. Project of this scale was almost impossible for nascent Indian research laboratories. By this time, the western governments had shown willingness to supply the engines. A decision was taken to import a limited number of engines (also called “power packs”) from M/S MTU, Germany. For the fitment On Mark 1 (Mk 1) prototypes so as not to let the development schedule of the MBT slip.

Initially MTU supplied a 700hp engine for fitment trials and subsequently supplied 1100hp engine for prototypes. The MTU was also developing a 1400hp engine as per the specifications laid down by CVRDE.

The first prototype of the MBT was developed based on GSQR No. 326 of 1972 and No. 431 of 1982.

The prototype was subjected to limited technical trials by DRDO at Avadi and Jodhpur desert area.

Subsequently, few more prototypes were produced with different configuration by 1985.

In the initial development phase, suspension, running gear and other automotive systems were being evaluated with 1100 hp engine.

1985 – 1990

There had been significant enhancement in the battle tank technologies world wide and there was a possibility of these tanks being introduced in the Indian Sub Continent. This prompted Indian Army to change its GSQR and in November 1985, third GSQR No. 467 was issued. The changes in GSQR were:

a)More lethal gun of 120mm caliber.
b)Requirement of Fin Stabilized Armour Piercing Discarding Sabot (FSAPDS)
c)Development of Semi Combustible Cartridge cases and high energy propellant.
d)Integrated Fire Control System based on sight stabilized system with periscopic gunner sight.
e)Thermal Imaging system for gunner’s main sight for night fighting capabilities.
f)Provision of “Kanchan Armour” for enhanced immunity.

In addition following conditions were in the new GSQR:

•Manufacture of 23 Pre production Series (PPS) Tanks to enable full scale troop trials and after that smooth transfer technology (TOT) to a production agency.
•Setting of Armoured Fighting Vehicle (AFV) evaluation center and augmentation of infrastructure facilities.
•Realistic assessment of technical and user trial.
•Import of engines for prototypes and PPS.

The revised financial implication because of the new GSQR was Rs. 280.80 Crores which was issued in 1987. The GSQR escalated the cost of materials, stores and the import cost spiraled due to weakening Rupee.

The development of the tank was progressed with reference to the new GSQR. DRDO had to re – design the structure of chassis/ hull. The turret had to be designed again to cater to improved armour protection and a high power to weight ratio power pack. The MBT now also to feature Nuclear Biological and Chemical (NBC) warfare and protection system, Medium Fording capability, auxiliary power unit (APU), Laser Warning System (LWS) and Global Positioning System (GPS).

The period of 1985 – 1990 was significant in history of Arjun Tank for the progressive evolution of a number of systems through exhaustive field testing. A total of 12 Arjun Tank prototypes were built in order to prove the design, development and system integration of a number of systems through field testing.

The integration of first prototype with a proper 1400 hp engine was accomplished in 1989. During the automotive trials of the prototypes a total of 20,000 Kilometer run in various terrain. Arjun MBT covered 11000 kilometers in dessert terrain and 1000 kilometers in river bed terrain. The weapon system was also tested by firing 540 FSAPDS and 560 HESH.

1990 – 1995

The confidence of DRDO had built up with these prototypes and many improvements were made.

The first batch of 6 PPS tanks had got manufactured through Heavy Vehicles Factory (HVF) in Avadi, Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL) and Bharat Earth Movers Limited (BEML), each two PPS tanks. Indent for manufacture of manufacture of 9 more PPS tanks by HVF was released to HVF in December 1992.

MBT Arjun was formally inducted into Indian Army in 1993 with these 6 tanks. The performance of PPS tanks were demonstrated to the Defence Minister, COAS and the members of the Parliament in February 1993.

The PPS tanks were put through grueling tests by the field formations covering several thousand kilometers of automotive runs on various terrains and firing hundreds of rounds per tank to establish the efficiency of the Arjun tank.

The status of the Arjun Tank was reviewed by the COAS in May 1994 and “bottom line requirements” were laid down. After the completion of the 1994 trials on MBT Arjun, a presentation was made to the COAS and he laid down “Imperatives” in August 1994.

All the additional 9 PPS tanks were handed over to Army progressively and the final handing over of the 9th PPS Tank to Army happened in 1996. The last PPS tank (i.e. XV) incorporating improvements as suggested by the Army and with add on features viz. APU, NBC, Medium Fording Capability was demonstrated to COAS and users at Avadi.

The PPS Tanks delivered to the Army during this period had covered 70,000 kilometers of automotive trials and fired 7000 rounds. The average kilometer run by a PPS tank was 4500 kilometers and 460 rounds fired from each tank.

DRDO addressed the bottom line requirements and imperatives as demanded by the COAS. The overall design of the Arjun Tank was cleared.

1995 – 2000

A set of dedicated trials as directed by the COAS was carried out during August – December 1995 successfully.

The Prime Minister P.V Narsimha Rao dedicated the MBT Arjun to the nation in January 1996.

The Army designated the XV PPS tank as the reference tank for production.

In the year 1997, 11 PPS tanks participated in Indian Army Exercise “AGNIR.ATI-t.” (A clarification on the name of the exercise is needed. It could be Exercise Agnirathi). 10 Arjun Tanks successfully completed the exercise. But the Army again came back with suggestions and modifications. In November 1997, the final list of suggested modifications and “joint Action Plan” for the implementation and certification was drafted. DRDO implemented the modification to the satisfaction of the Indian Army.

The Indian Amy again put the improved tanks to trials. The 43rd Armoured Regiment conducted the automotive trials. The trials were successful and Arjun tank was brought ready for full scale production.

The Arjun MBT project was successfully closed at Rupees 305 Crores. The final acceptance by the Indian Army led to placement of order for 124 Arjun Tanks in 2002.

DRDO transferred the design and other drawings to the manufacturing agency HVF in 2002.

The Authorised Holder of the Sealed Particulars is with DRDO till certain maturity level is reached in production, i.e, the first 30 tanks produced by HVF will have quality control certified by DRDO. After that Arjun Tank will be certified by DGQA.
 
Last edited:
but why can't army take these tanks if the are looking for joint ventures with Russia in tank of the future god forbid if the t 95 is just another PAK FA after we all know what that aircraft should have been and what it is... I frankly think India can build a modern tank on it's own by now and better than the Russians remember what happened to Iraqi t 72's in gulf war. Russian Armour!!!!!!
 
but why can't army take these tanks if the are looking for joint ventures with Russia in tank of the future god forbid if the t 95 is just another PAK FA after we all know what that aircraft should have been and what it is... I frankly think India can build a modern tank on it's own by now and better than the Russians remember what happened to Iraqi t 72's in gulf war. Russian Armour!!!!!!

You have an ill understanding of "Russian armour" firstly most Iraqi tanks were old T-55's and T-54's, the few T-72's they did have were actually not T-72's but kit builds with parts from Poland and Iraq, another factor you fail to see is many tanks were destroyed from the air and lacked night vision capability; moreover, Iraqi tanks used steal core rounds instead of DU rounds and of course one can not dismiss there poor training which imo was Iraq's downfall, and you have no authority to talk about the pak-fa, something you know nothing about, and a reminder just becuase a "blogger" said the Arjun outguned the T-90 doesn't mean it's true or better for that matter.
 
Last edited:
but why can't army take these tanks if the are looking for joint ventures with Russia in tank of the future god forbid if the t 95 is just another PAK FA after we all know what that aircraft should have been and what it is... I frankly think India can build a modern tank on it's own by now and better than the Russians remember what happened to Iraqi t 72's in gulf war. Russian Armour!!!!!!

SEE it will be very biased if we compare the the iraqi armoured regiments vs the americans,there are simply to many factors which were favouring the americans in terms of tech,training and fire power,T -90 is a good tank our war doctrine actuall revolves around the t-90's n t-72's..the purchasing of T-90 was the need of the hour as the paksitanis had gone for t-80 ud's and also Arjun at that point of time was facing many problems which needed to be sorted out..today we have arjun which is a tabk cutomised and tailored made for inside it is a tank which the indian army demanded the norm laid down by DGMF..it s superior then the t-90 in almost all everythng,IT has not seen success just in a day,repeated failures,mockery,complains and what not,actually all these things were a sort of blessing in disguise.
now see INDIAN ARMY has been saying that they now need a futuristic MBT, are they reffering about the T-95???? or any collaboration work??wont the new T-XX NEW NEW CHAIN OF LOGISTICS?? question is if they can support it fr a new tank why not for the ARJUN's...i know officer's who operate the ARJUN,i have asked them about its performance and also about the performance of t-90 they say T90 IS A GOOD TANK but ARJUN IS NOW A LEAGUE APART,no body would want the tank crew of other tank to be cannon fodder in front of it..The blogger about who we are discussing here is himself an ex army officer..may be some of us here should read his older article on arjun,he was a ARJUN HATER,but when he saw things tarnsformation he's stance changed.
 
SEE it will be very biased if we compare the the iraqi armoured regiments vs the americans,there are simply to many factors which were favouring the americans in terms of tech,training and fire power,T -90 is a good tank our war doctrine actuall revolves around the t-90's n t-72's..the purchasing of T-90 was the need of the hour as the paksitanis had gone for t-80 ud's and also Arjun at that point of time was facing many problems which needed to be sorted out..today we have arjun which is a tabk cutomised and tailored made for inside it is a tank which the indian army demanded the norm laid down by DGMF..it s superior then the t-90 in almost all everythng,IT has not seen success just in a day,repeated failures,mockery,complains and what not,actually all these things were a sort of blessing in disguise.
now see INDIAN ARMY has been saying that they now need a futuristic MBT, are they reffering about the T-95???? or any collaboration work??wont the new T-XX NEW NEW CHAIN OF LOGISTICS?? question is if they can support it fr a new tank why not for the ARJUN's...i know officer's who operate the ARJUN,i have asked them about its performance and also about the performance of t-90 they say T90 IS A GOOD TANK but ARJUN IS NOW A LEAGUE APART,no body would want the tank crew of other tank to be cannon fodder in front of it..The blogger about who we are discussing here is himself an ex army officer..may be some of us here should read his older article on arjun,he was a ARJUN HATER,but when he saw things tarnsformation he's stance changed.

Sir this tamasha between DRDO and army is nautanki.Everybody in india knows drdo chief will be out of job in one minute and so will be any army officer.Real power in india is with politicians.Arjun is a very strategic weapon and with help of israel it has become a weapon of offence.Mark my words pakistan will be buying javelin ATGM very soon to counter at the minimum and something more at maximum.American goras are using india threat to get pakistan to do their dirty work in afghanistan
 
Sir this tamasha between DRDO and army is nautanki.Everybody in india knows drdo chief will be out of job in one minute and so will be any army officer.Real power in india is with politicians.Arjun is a very strategic weapon and with help of israel it has become a weapon of offence.Mark my words pakistan will be buying javelin ATGM very soon to counter at the minimum and something more at maximum.American goras are using india threat to get pakistan to do their dirty work in afghanistan

Calm down buddy,its ok,see this is how democracy works,DRDO is an organisation which will work for the requirements of the armesd forces,the ARMY IS THE REAL USER OF THESE WEAPONS PLATFORMS,point to be discussed is that why do want to go fr somethng which is less capable then our current desi maal which is now ready,I SAY THAT T-90 IS THE WORK HORSE WITH T-72'S but will that mean that we would not induct anyother platform superior then it???this time its the army which has to justice,and iam sure they will deliver:cheers: wait for some more time and let the official report come out,i ave stated before in previous posts that army will be asking for mk2,by the time Arjun mk2 rolls out they would want the additional order of mk1 to finish..so that the manufacturing line can be kept engaged,the hard earned knowlege can not be wasted like anything atleast not when so much moneys and time has been spend.and the ARMY KNOWS THAT NOW
 
The main problem faced by Indian army in Inducting arjun mbts are it overall dimentions and weight..Arjun is a heavy tank with nearly 60 tons fully laden..Indian tanks forces are primarily meant to fight in the western regions of Gujarat and rajasthan and to some extent in kashmir region and the army needs to reinforce all the numerous bridges and roads in the region to support ARjuns weight...also tanks are transported to different location by the Indian railway and the width of arjun meant that it could no longer be transported in normal rail carriages unlike our T-series tank,,,it is only now that the railways are in the process of building compatible carriages to transport arjuns and its progress in not clear...:what:
 
You have an ill understanding of "Russian armour" firstly most Iraqi tanks were old T-55's and T-54's, the few T-72's they did have were actually not T-72's but kit builds with parts from Poland and Iraq, another factor you fail to see is many tanks were destroyed from the air and lacked night vision capability; moreover, Iraqi tanks used steal core rounds instead of DU rounds and of course one can not dismiss there poor training which imo was Iraq's downfall, and you have no authority to talk about the pak-fa, something you know nothing about, and a reminder just becuase a "blogger" said the Arjun outguned the T-90 doesn't mean it's true or better for that matter.
sir with due respect may be yes i don't know much about pak FA but from its outer dimensions it makes me clear if this is fifth gen aircraft then suckhoi 30 mki can be made stealth with little modification the airframe that amount of rcs i wonder if it can be done but clear it doesn't have the thrust vectoring nozzles of the f 22
:undecided::undecided:
 
what if our top army brass is getting kick backs from the Russians for selecting these tanks as i know t 90 have been exported to very few countries
 
The main problem faced by Indian army in Inducting arjun mbts are it overall dimentions and weight..Arjun is a heavy tank with nearly 60 tons fully laden..Indian tanks forces are primarily meant to fight in the western regions of Gujarat and rajasthan and to some extent in kashmir region and the army needs to reinforce all the numerous bridges and roads in the region to support ARjuns weight...also tanks are transported to different location by the Indian railway and the width of arjun meant that it could no longer be transported in normal rail carriages unlike our T-series tank,,,it is only now that the railways are in the process of building compatible carriages to transport arjuns and its progress in not clear...:what:

The arjun that has emerged today is according to the specifications given by army itself. It is not like that army was kept in dark and a tank was developed and then one fine day shown to army and then army says oh!!! good tank, but heavy. Make another one.

A reputed officer having experience in "tanks" was deputed to drdo by army during the entire development phase.

When T-90 was inducted, army faced a lot of problems in everything and had to make necessary changes in its logistics and infrastructure.

Yes, arjun is meant to be deployed in deserts and plains. The transport is not a major problem as it is being made out to be. India has adapted a cold start doctrine and these hardwares are usually stationed in the strategic areas with standard operating procedures fully worked out.

You need to have different tanks for different regions and that is why army has issued an RFI for light tanks for deployment in kashmir and arunachal pradesh.

But, again, if arjun is inducted and proves successful and then drdo comes up with newer advanced variants, our generals will lose their pocket money and life will become dull for them.
 
Can anybody tell me which is better: Rifled or Smooth Bore?
What difference will it make in the battlefield?

I will try to give generic answer

Smooth Bore Vs. Rifled Bore

There are several bore options for hunting, including smooth bore or rifled bore. Each bore has unique features and advantages over the other. Review all the features to determine the correct bore for your shooting style.

Early firearms had smooth barrels, and fired projectiles with no significant spin. These projectiles had to have stable shapes, such as finned arrows or spheres, to minimize tumbling during flight. However, spherical bullets do tend to rotate randomly during flight, and the Magnus effect means that even a relatively smooth sphere will curve when rotating on any axis not parallel to the direction of travel (see knuckleball for an example of intentional random tumbling.)

A rifled barrel, having spiral grooves or polygonal rifling, imparts a spin to the projectile which stabilizes it and prevents it from tumbling. This does two things; first, it increases the accuracy of the projectile by eliminating the random drift due to the Magnus effect, and second, it allows a longer, heavier bullet to be fired from the same caliber barrel, increasing range and power (see external ballistics). In the eighteenth century, the standard infantry arm was the smoothbore musket; by the nineteenth century, rifled barrels became the norm, increasing the power and range of the infantry weapon significantly.

Identification
1. Rifled bores include rifling in the barrel composed of spiraling lands and grooves. The small grooves can be seen by looking down the barrel of an unloaded gun. Smooth bores do not contain rifling and are typically found in shotguns.
Function
2. Rifling is designed to twist the bullet as it travels down the barrel, which helps to stabilize the bullet in flight. Smooth bores do not spin the bullet or projectile and allow the use of pellets or slugs.

69b645e4c3a66de58d54487e25920741.jpg


Ammunition
3. Shotgun manufacturers produce both types of shotgun barrels. Smooth-bore barrels are designed to use with shotgun slugs, rifle slugs or buckshot. Rifled barrels are designed for use with rifled sabots.
Accuracy
4. Smooth bores are accurate to approximately seven inches at distances less than 75 yards. Rifled bores provide more accuracy at longer ranges, up to 150 yards or more.

The first tank with a smoothbore gun was the Soviet T-62, introduced into service in 1961, and today all main battle tanks except for the British Challenger 2 & Indian Arjun MBT support smoothbores.
 
Back
Top Bottom