Arjun News & Discussions

[kashith]

I don't believe the armor of Russian,their composite materials technology established on the basis of the Soviet Union time,and can't keep up with the trend.The Russia lost many skilled worker and scientists in the past 20 years

Well they are still far ahead of anything other than US has to offer.They did lost a decade but still they are back in game...

 

[beckham]

I will go one by one.

1.) For politicians and bureaucrats all the deal = US$$$$$$$, There is a fetish for foreign items, at the Arjun's time MS Yadav was the defense minister need i say more. If you have denounced something for years how can you suddenly accept it with open arms, it will lower their credibility and everybody get to know the whole truth.

2.) The tank have no problem with Chinese borders being mountain regions and also cooler areas. Even with Pakistan there is no problem in Punjab sector, the real problem is the summer of Thar Desert. In winter there is no problem.
If a war broke out with Pakistan in summer the real tank battle ground will be Rajhastan even the atomic war if it will happen will be on this area, as Pakistan will not want its Punjab/Lahore/Multan to be wiped out. The high temperature in summer of Rajasthan desert causes damage to the night vision devices and some time they don't work or works in parts.

This types of problems occurs in all professional armies and get sorted out immediately but in India it takes a lengthy bureaucratic route.

What do you think Pakistan has all the system/weapons up to date and running fine?

It's just they are more secretive and their military does not allow it to come out.

Yes, T-90s are night capable as well as Arjun. By 2020 we will have enough MBTs to rock n roll.

IMO, the night vision devices will be there in India within this year.

3.) Arjun will prove its metal, it's world's only tank gone under so much trials, third party assessment etc.

Remember they are not going to select a winner it's just a comparative tests. No matter what will be the outcome of the test T-90 is a very good tank and same is hold true for Arjun.

The test will give army a reason and they will say the Arjun have grown up with time so we are going to order some x number of them.

Veer, all those problems have been sorted out.Check out points 2 and 4 .

http://www.defence.pk/forums/india-defence/44475-arjun-mbt-take-t-90-a-3.html#post627509

 

[Icarus]

Arjun won't stand a chance, T-90 is an incredible piece of machinery:

Arjun MBT-Mother of all Blunders Media Watchdog Pk

 

[Super Falcon]

arjun tank is nothing more than a junk very heavy cant move in desert warefare T 90 is better than arjun good system manuverability and i wanna say to you it will be like arjun vs T 72 which india has still T 72 gonnna register its kill on your arjun

china getting JF 17 and other aircraft which she it self produce but india if produce good arjun tank than why they buy T 90 they should make arjun 2 but arjun is failure they cant continue with arjun and still it is not inducted in your army still prototype in army

 

[paritosh]

There are few questions that rises in everyones mind on Arjun MBT vs T-90

1.why army is deliberately trying to avoid the comparative tests of Arjun MBT vs T-90 for so long??

If Arjun was found to inferior its fate'll be sealed and army can move with more T-90 i guess.

2.Our Army chief admitted that only 20% of our tanks can fight in the night times while pakistan and china have 80% and 100% capablility in that matter.

If T-90 is nighttime capable??
when would other legacy tanks in the Tseries becomes night time capable??
And how army is planning to replace these old tanks and by what ??

Talkng about T-90,it comes with its one set of problems.
T-90 rigged with engine problems and its has cooling issues in extreme heat conditions of Rajastan .It looks like IA ran out of money to put AC in these tanks.

3.IA might be right that it like to have more lighter T-90s fro its cold start doctrine.
But what happens when cold start gives way for a hot ended battle ??

If Argun is proven to be reliable and sturdy in the comparative tests ,i think IA shouldn't hesitate to go for more Arjun.



Btw,if one goes by the billions of dollors worth shoping spree of foreign armaments made by indian armed force every yr and sort of strong hesitation to buy indigenous product made by DRDO...i feel if Americans or russians were ready to sell IRBM's or ICBM's, our IA & IAF personnels would have been flocking at their doorsteps & our Prithvi's & Agni's would have been placed in museums.

well I don't know about the auditors but the army folks actually like the Arjun...it's a good thoroughbred tank.
What goes against the Arjun is that...it's a good tank for this day and age...but a tank needs to be cutting edge for years to come...the arjun was a good tank that should have been inducted a decade back.
Inducting armor is a long process...people higher up have a vision.
that is why we hear of Arjun mkIIs needed.
I have also recently heard about a lot of scmas that happen in the name of equipment testing...
the cancellation of the INSAS bull-pup is a classic case where the fat babus...ate upto 50 crores of public money all in the name of judging the field tests of the INSAS bull-pup...where actually only a paltry 15 lacks were spent!
some things never change

 

[paritosh]

but arjun is failure they cant continue with arjun and still it is not inducted in your army still prototype in army

not true at all.

 

[beckham]

Arjun won't stand a chance, T-90 is an incredible piece of machinery:

Arjun MBT-Mother of all Blunders Media Watchdog Pk

WRONG THREAD ! PLZ MOVE THIS POST TO : Stupid and Funny from all over the world

Personally, I cant think of a better way to waste space on my blog than to write about a piece of military tech that took more than 3 decades and millions of dollars to develop and was cancelled before the delivery of about 124 units was completed, but reading jingoistic Indian claims that arjun is “The King of MBTs” and that it was “completely indigenous” compelled me to waste my time on this article.

For starters, the Arjun MBT project was given the green light in May 1974 with a budget of Irs.15.5 Crores. The plan was for DRDO to make the tank completely indigenous. However without even going into details one can guess the extent of failure of the project by the fact that the first five units were not delivered until 2004 and the DRDO had spent more than Irs.300 Crores on the project by 1995. As for the indigenous part, the tank was co-designed by the firm that made the Leopard tank “ Krauss Maffei“ and more then 50% of the tank’s parts were either German or French, including the engine, transmission, gun barrel, tracks, and fire control system.

The Arjun weighs almost 60 tonnes, making it a logistic disaster. Infact the Indian Army’s logistic Department had to make harder and larger carriages for transporting the Arjun by rail. It is also known that only a few (undisclosed number) Arjuns can be transported by rail at one time on one train without causing irreparable damage to the railway lines. The Arjun is one of two tanks in the world (Challenger being the other) to incorporate rifled guns. Most of the world has moved over to smooth-bore guns. The problem with rifled guns is that they cannot fire at the same target twice with out arranging it again after each fire. A painstakingly difficult and time consuming process. Defiantly not something one could do every time in a battle situation. The Challenger tank overcomes this problem by a unique system that fires a tracer round at the target and a computer then makes corrections to the trajectory of the bullet and fires another. When the bullet is in line with the target, it means the tank is ready to fire, however, Arjun has no such system. The gun also has to be loaded manually thus adding another member to the crew.

The Arjun program has been plagued with problems, ever since the first prototype rolled out of DRDO. If I start mentioning all known problems i fear it might take me my whole life to finish this article so I will list only the important ones that were reported by Indian Army itself in various trials.

1) Suspension has to be replaced every 150kms.

2) Engine fails at temperature of 50C.

3) Tank’s main subsystems, the fire control system (FCS) and integrated gunner’s main sight, which includes a thermal imager and laser range-finder, are rendered erratic in temperature over 50C.

4) The Arjun tank was fielded during the Ashwamedha exercise in the deserts of Rajasthan. The army was extremely unhappy with the tank, citing 14 defects that included “deficient fire control system”. “inaccuracy of its guns”, “low speeds in tactical areas”, and “inability to operate over 50 degrees Celsius”.

5) In winter trials in 2007, Arjun’s engine had to be replaced 4 times, surprisingly DRDO blamed the failiure of the tank on Pakistan, alleging that Pakistan had ordered agents to sabotage the tank.

6) Engine had to be replaced every 250Kms in 2008 summer trials, This was also attributed to sabotage but the allegation was later withdrawn.

On handing over of Arjuns to Indian Army in 2009, Lt General Dalip Bharadwaj, the Director General for the Mechanized Infantry tried to disguise his embarrassment for recieving such worthless peices of trash by saying that : “the joint effort and the will to succeed against odds displayed by various agencies in putting out MBT Arjun proved to the world that India was a force to reckon with when it came to weapon design capabilities. The Army, which was proud to possess the tank, was confident that MBT Arjun would rank among the best tanks in the world”.

The things people will say to try and hide their mistakes………………………………

Now thats what I call an expert analysis !

 

[Chanakyaa]

I dont see the point in bringing out the facts, which are history.

The tank is going to prove itself against one of the best tanks of the world.. This confidance speaks volumes about the "New improved " design.

Today india is making Gen 4.5 fighters, nuclear subs and moon missions dont u guys think its not that difficult 4 us, to make a world class tank?

the people pointing fingers may be right abt past.
This test is gonna change it.

 

[Gazzi]

Wouldn't put too high hopes on T90

--------

Flaws in T 90 Main Battle Tanks troubles Indian Army
Daily News & Updates
Dated 13/6/2006

Chandigarh: Inducted to serve as India's main battle tank just over three years ago, the Army's fleet of Russian-built T-90s have run into serious trouble.

The problems include critical flaws in its fire control system, availability of ammunition and, what military officers said, was avoidable overuse during training exercises, rendering many tanks in need of overhaul.

According to Jane�s Defence Weekly, the tank�s continuing technical flaws are "adversely impinging on the Indian Army�s operational preparedness."

Confirming the Jane�s report, senior Army officers told this newspaper that the French Catherine thermal imaging (TI) camera, which gives the T-90�s Belarussian (Peling IG-46) night sight its 3 km range and higher accuracy, is not "adequately tropicalised" and hence prone to malfunctioning in the extreme heat of the Rajasthan desert region, where temperatures inside the MBT routinely average between 55�C and 60�C.

During repeated manoeuvres in the Thar Desert, where the T-90s will ultimately be deployed in the event of an outbreak in hostilities, prolonged use under high temperatures had already "knocked out" between 80 and 90 of the Catherine TI cameras, rendering the FCS "unserviceable." The officers said that repeated efforts to correct the problem had been without success.

The TI cameras are the crucial "eyes" of the tank�s systems. At Rs 2 crores each, the Catherine TI system comprises almost one-sixth of each T-90�s total cost of Rs 11.75 crores.

One of the options currently being explored to rectify the FCS is to locally develop an airconditioning plant for the TI camera. For this, a former director-general of mechanised forces is understood to have already held discussions with some French manufacturers, including Thales (which makes the Catherine TI cameras). However, neither this nor the local vendors called in by the DRDO have had any success in this matter.

The Army, incidentally, does not have a D-G for its mechanised forces after Lt. Gen. G.D. Singh became deputy chief of staff at Army Headquarters recently. Under the circumstances, it could take any new D-G who is appointed quite a while before he can adequately address the T-90�s problems, possibly further delaying the MBT�s operational preparedness.

The problem of successfully integrating the Catherine TI camera with the Belarussian IG-46 sight is also believed to have considerably delayed the licensed production of T-90s at the Heavy Vehicles Factory (HVF) at Avadi. Sources said the indigenous T-90 production, as part of the transfer of technology agreement signed with Russia, which was scheduled to begin in 2006, has been deferred after problems were encountered in fitting out the FCS in assembled tanks. Of the total of 310 T-90 tanks, 124 were bought fully formed and kits were imported for the remaining 186 to be assembled at Avadi. The first locally-assembled T-90s rolled out of the HVF in January 2004, but these too have run into problems with the FCS.

According to the transfer of technology agreement, the T-90�s IG-46 sights were to be made at the Opto Electrics Factory at Dehra Dun, the gun at the Ordnance Factory Board facility at Rishikesh and its 1,000-horsepower engine by Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. All the three projects stand deferred, official sources said.

The T-90s are also facing a host of other problems, including a nearly exhausted inventory of ammunition. The tank�s 125 mm smooth-bore gun is electronically configured to fire imported Russian AMK-338 and AMK-339 shells, the supply of which has run out after innumerable exercises.

Surprisingly, the T-90�s gun has not been configured to fire the Indian-made AMK-340 shells. These shells have turned out rather dubious in quality, with over 150,000 rounds having to be destroyed, leading to the loss of over Rs 700 crores. Some AMK-340 shells have even burst inside the tanks, killing crew members, in at least one instance at Babina. Armoured Corps officers said many tank crews, who feared the shells would explode inside the barrel, had refused to use the faulty ammunition, and when forced to do so went to elaborate lengths, enabling them to fire from outside the tank.

According to the Armoured Corps officers, the ordnance factory board had triple-packed the 125 mm AMK-340 shells with propellant, but without adequate packing in between the layers to prevent leakage at high temperatures in which they are stored, often under the open sun. This had led not only to a near-complete freeze on regular firings but also "severely dented" the confidence of tank crews, sources said.

The Secunderabad-based Bharat Dynamics Ltd (BDL), which was scheduled to start production of 9M119 Refleks missiles for the T-90 early this year, has also fallen badly behind schedule amid failed trials. BDL is believed to have sought technical assistance from the Russians in building the Refleks (Nato designation: AT-11 Sniper) missile.

It was the T-90�s missile-firing capability that had initially clinched the Army�s decision in its favour way back in 2001. But with BDL unable to supply the missiles and the endless problems with the fire control system, many officers are of the view that the tank appears little better than the already proven T-72, also currently in service with the Indian Army.


Flaws in T 90 Main Battle Tanks troubles Indian Army | India Defence

 

[lockh33d]

Shut up, we have been friends for years. I have known him longer than you.

He has for some reason he has decided to be Anti-Russian.

No matter how much i try i cant change his mind.

He be entitled to his own POV so i let him be, just warning others not to waste their time. He is commited to be Anti-russia.

Who on Earth are you? Last time I checked, you're just another Indian trolling around on these forums.

what reason does the US have to attack India or Australia.

US does not share a healthy appetite with India overall. Down the road, I don't see there to be no possibility of the two becoming enemies or arch rivals at the least.

P.S. If you ever make up information to mislead again, I'll report you to a mod for invading my privacy.

 

[lockh33d]

http://www.defence.pk/forums/628672-post182.html

Does those Abrams were down by Militants strapping women and children to bomb vests or by Militants using civilians as cover and fodder or by Suicide bombers???

Learn to read. I said most Abrams were lost to FF. The terrorist attacks were another story, I was merely stating what terror attacks were.

 

[lockh33d]

I guess you missed the part were he said "i hate Russians"

I have my reasons.

Again most tanks the Abrams destroyed were not T-72's, and the tanks Iraq has lacked basic capabilities that Russian tanks had. Not to mention the Iraqi army was incompedent. Congradulations, to the Abrams for destroying T-55's and some Iraqi made tanks without night vision capabilities.

Can you prove this? The book I read said otherwise. Your source might change my view on this.

Details of the M1 losses were given, including one where 25mm armour-piercing depleted uranium (AP-DU) rounds from an unidentified weapon disabled a US tank near Najaf after penetrating the engine compartment. Another Abrams was disabled near Karbala after a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) penetrated the rear engine compartmen
Abrams tank showed 'vulnerability' in Iraq - Jane's Land Forces News

In the second Iraqi invasion, yes. Gulf war, no.

"During the ground war, only seven M1A1's were hit by rounds fired from the Iraqi's T-72 tanks, with none being seriously damaged. The Army reported that the Iraqi armed forces "destroyed no Abrams tanks during the Persian Gulf War."22 Nine Abrams tanks were destroyed during the war: seven due to friendly fire and two were intentionally destroyed to prevent capture after they became disabled.23 One incident in particular demonstrates the effectiveness of armor-piercing rounds and tank armor made of depleted uranium. As allied forces pushed into southern Iraq at the start of the ground war, an M1A1 tank became stuck in the mud."

Collateral Damage: How U.S. Troops Were Exposed to DU

As of March 2005, approximately 80 Abrams tanks were forced out of action by enemy attacks

Those are all from the second Iraqi invasion, most loses from the A1 variant after the Iraqi armed forces better equipped themselves the second time round.

23 M1A1s were taken out of service in the Gulf[10] and one of these losses resulted in crew deaths from Iraqi fire.

M1 Abrams - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Source:Collateral Damage: How U.S. Troops Were Exposed to DU

Western experts regard the Merkava as the best protected tank in the world. With that being said, the Merkava's got punished in Lebonon with Russian RPG's, so were does that put the Abrams?

Merkava is not an Abram is it? Any test to show that it's better? A direct comparison perhaps?

You're contridicting yourself. First, the Abrams armour can't be penatrated, then most Abrams were destroyed with Mavericks. FYI roadside bombs have taken out scores of Abrams, and you have to remember the blast from a road side bomb is not concintrated like a 125 mm round is.

If you understood the context of my view I was coming from, you would have understood that I was talking about Iraqi weapons. The Maverick and Hellfire missiles can destroy any armor on this planet. As for Iraqi gear imported from Russia? Well that can't destroy M1's I'm sorry.

You know what Russian RPG's did to the Merkava, there shouldn't even be any debating what it can do to the Abrams.

Read above, Abrams are not Merkava's.

And please explain why the American would bomb their own tanks via mavericks and AGM-114's. It's a fact that the US military salvages everything.

Because of bad information relay, and to prevent enemies from stealing US equipment and technology.

The actual numbers of Abrams M1 and M1A1 tanks deployed to the Gulf War (according to official DOD sources) are as follows: A total of 1,848 M1A1 and M1A1

M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank

Again, sources differ and vary. But congrats to your source for running along the same lines as what you want to believe.

 

[lockh33d]

seems exaggeration of little bit of info here to suggestions of high T-72 kill with insignificant armour assets in place.
actually i saw the whole discussion going awry ....

there was a claim of high kill ratios achieved against T-72s .... which was surprising as there was no direct significant confrontation of republican guards with US and T-72s were held by Republican Guards Division and not Iraqi Regular Army Armour Corps ... which was already a load of crap

plus they had use of APFSDs on US side and Iraqi had none ..... and by that time the M1A1 was DU protected which was introduced as an emergency add on before onset of war in 1991. only US Marines M-60s were the ones not having the same ......

as for invincibility .... well any tandem warhead of a modern RPG (RPG-18) can penetrate with some effect with multiple effort and a good KE projectile (APFSD Sabot) can definitely go through in first shot .....

now the only positive side which is noteworthy is that there has always been a stress on air cover for US armour .... as a result of which an opposing tank is neutralised well before its able to fire at M1s or even if it is ..... it is immediately neutralised ....

What has been the success attribute is not the piece, but the US precision of conduct of operations with adequate cover and ensuring superior employment of firepower and assets ..... which is a force multiplier on its own

"The unit (part of the 24th Infantry Division) had gone on, leaving this tank to wait for a recovery vehicle. Three T-72's appeared and attacked. The first fired from under 1,000 meters, scoring a hit with a shaped-charge (high explosive) round on the M1A1's frontal armor. The hit did no damage. The M1A1 fired a 120mm armor-piercing (DU) round that penetrated the T-72 turret, causing an explosion that blew the turret into the air. The second T-72 fired another shaped-charge round, hit the frontal armor, and did no damage. The T-72 turned to run, and took a 120mm round in the engine compartment (which) blew the engine into the air. The last T-72 fired a solid shot (sabot) round from 400 meters. This left a groove in the M1A1's frontal armor and bounced off. The T-72 then backed up behind a sand berm and was completely concealed from view. The M1A1 depressed its gun and put a (DU) sabot round through the berm, into the T-72, causing an explosion.24"

A nice combo of HEAT's and Ek rounds.

Source: Collateral Damage: How U.S. Troops Were Exposed to DU

 

[lockh33d]

any links to substantiated portion? I missed it somehow inspite of extensive reading

A good book I read at my local library a few years ago.

 

[lockh33d]

seems exaggeration of little bit of info here to suggestions of high T-72 kill with insignificant armour assets in place.
actually i saw the whole discussion going awry ....

there was a claim of high kill ratios achieved against T-72s .... which was surprising as there was no direct significant confrontation of republican guards with US and T-72s were held by Republican Guards Division and not Iraqi Regular Army Armour Corps ... which was already a load of crap

plus they had use of APFSDs on US side and Iraqi had none ..... and by that time the M1A1 was DU protected which was introduced as an emergency add on before onset of war in 1991. only US Marines M-60s were the ones not having the same ......

as for invincibility .... well any tandem warhead of a modern RPG (RPG-18) can penetrate with some effect with multiple effort and a good KE projectile (APFSD Sabot) can definitely go through in first shot .....

now the only positive side which is noteworthy is that there has always been a stress on air cover for US armour .... as a result of which an opposing tank is neutralised well before its able to fire at M1s or even if it is ..... it is immediately neutralised ....

What has been the success attribute is not the piece, but the US precision of conduct of operations with adequate cover and ensuring superior employment of firepower and assets ..... which is a force multiplier on its own

The Iraqis had Sabots and HE rounds. That's the most you can ask for from the ME nation. Read below:

The unit (part of the 24th Infantry Division) had gone on, leaving this tank to wait for a recovery vehicle. Three T-72's appeared and attacked. The first fired from under 1,000 meters, scoring a hit with a shaped-charge (high explosive) round on the M1A1's frontal armor. The hit did no damage. The M1A1 fired a 120mm armor-piercing (DU) round that penetrated the T-72 turret, causing an explosion that blew the turret into the air. The second T-72 fired another shaped-charge round, hit the frontal armor, and did no damage. The T-72 turned to run, and took a 120mm round in the engine compartment (which) blew the engine into the air. The last T-72 fired a solid shot (sabot) round from 400 meters. This left a groove in the M1A1's frontal armor and bounced off. The T-72 then backed up behind a sand berm and was completely concealed from view. The M1A1 depressed its gun and put a (DU) sabot round through the berm, into the T-72, causing an explosion.24

Collateral Damage: How U.S. Troops Were Exposed to DU