A delegation of India's Ministry of Defence will be departing later today to take part in the Ural Arms Expo in Nizhny Tagil later this week, and while there it will officially hand over to Rosoboronexport State Corp a restricted RFI which calls for the first 310 imported T-90S MBTs to be subjected to a 'deep upgrade', which will be designed and implemented by Uralvagonzavod JSC. These MBTs will be almost 10 years old by the time their mid-life upgrades are due to carried out from early 2013 onwards.
‘Der aye, durust aye’ (better late than never) will probably be the best way to welcome the emergence of the 50-tonne T-90AM—the latest member of the T-90 family of main battle tanks (MBT). In a nutshell, the T-90AM appears to have overcome all the previous design/performance deficiencies associated with the earlier T-90 variants (the T-90S and T-90M), and also with the T-72, from whose design the T-90’s design has evolved. Interestingly, India has had a huge though as yet unacknowledged role to play with the T-90AM’s R & D process. In order to delve deeper into this issue, we will have to take a walk down memory lane back to the late 1970s and early 1980s when the Indian Army was evaluating its options for a future main battle tank (FMBT) of imported origin to complement the indigenously designed Arjun MBT—which then was still on the drawing boards.
By the late 1970s, Indian Army HQ had decided to acquire new-generation replacements for its UK-origin fleet of Royal Ordnance Factories-built Centurion and Vickers-built Vijayanta Mk1 MBTs and consequently, paper evaluations concerning the firepower and mobility characteristics of the two principal contenders being offered for full in-country production—AMX-40 developed by GIAT Industries of France, and the Chieftain 800 (which later evolved into the Challenger 1 from Royal Ordnance Factories (then owned by British Aerospace PLC)—were conducted by the Indian Army. Between these two contenders, the Army had by early 1980 zeroed in on the 43-tonne AMX-40 MBT, which was still on the drawing boards and was meant to be powered by a 1,100hp Poyaud V12X 12-cylinder diesel engine coupled with a LSG-3000 automatic power shift transmission built by RENK Aktiengesellschaft of Germany (offering a power-to-weight ratio of 25.6hp/tonne, and armed with a 120mm smoothbore cannon. However, things didn’t go according to the Army’s well-conceived plans, since, after coming back to power, the then Indian Prime Minister Mrs Indira Gandhi took the political decision to acquire new-build MBTs from the USSR, following which the Soviet Union’s Ministry of Foreign Economic Relations (which after 1991 morphed into Oboronexport, then Rosoboronservice and ultimately Rosoboronexport State Corp) made a formal offer to India’s Ministry of Defence (MoD) for supplying the 37-tonne T-72M Ob'yekt 172M-E4 MBT off-the-shelf, and according an approval for licenced-production of the 41.5-tonne T-72M-1982 Ob'yekt 172M-E6 to the MoD-owned Heavy Vehicles Factory (HVF) in Avadi. By early 1981, two T-72Ms--powered by a 780hp diesel engine, armed with 125mm 2A46M smoothbore gun and offering a power-to-weight ratio of 20hp/tonne, were subjected to an exhaustive series of in-country firepower and mobility trials by the Army, while copies of the T-72M’s operating and maintenance manuals supplied by the Soviets (who in those days were totally aghast when shown marketing brochures of competing MBTs of Western origin and were asked why such types of materials were unavailable from the USSR) were subjected to intense academic and operational scrutiny for a 90-day period.
Immediately later, a delegation of ‘experts’ comprising members of the MBT’s design bureau-- Kartsev-Venediktov; the MBT’s manufacturer--Uralvagonzavod Factory located in Nizhny Tagil; and officials from the Soviet Defence Ministry’s Land Forces Armaments Directorate, all converged at the Indian Army HQ, where extensive deliberations on and analysis of the T-72M’s in-country firepower and mobility trials were conducted by both sides for at least a week. Following all this, it ultimately emerged that while the T-72M possessed excellent and hassle-free mobility characteristics, its firepower capabilities were clearly a full generation behind that of the AMX-40. The Army, which had all along wanted to acquire a MBT incorporating hit-survivability design features (something that the home-grown Arjun Mk1 MBT’s design strongly signifies), now found to its utter horror that basically, with the exception of the T-55, the overall Soviet approach to MBT design in the post-World War II era was found to be flawed on two major counts: namely, the gamble on not being hit rather than on surviving hits, and the refusal to perceive survivability of the tank crew as a quite distinct issue from survivability of the vehicle, with the former having priority over the latter. The combination of these two shortcomings produced design solutions such as the T-72M’s carousel autoloader and ammunition reserve being accommodated on the turret floor. This indeed allowed for a very compact configuration and ensured that the ammunition is less likely to take a direct hit—but it also entailed a very high risk of ignition or sympathetic detonation should the fighting compartment be penetrated, in which case there went the MBT and the crew with it. When confronted with such ‘hard facts’ along with the Army’s criticisms about the lack of even a ‘decent’ hunter-killer fire-control system (when compared to the likes on board the AMX-40), members of the Soviet delegation were clearly red-faced and a depressed lot, and it took several bottles of vodka during and after dinner-time to come out with the truth: according to the MBT’s designers, the performance characteristics of all weapons produced in the USSR were dictated purely by the warfighting doctrine of the country’s armed forces. Hence, weapons like the T-72M were meant for usage only by follow-on echelon formations of the Red Army, while the all-critical breakout forces then stationed throughout the East European member-states of the Warsaw Pact were equipped with state-of-the-art MBTs like members of the 38-tonne T-64 and 42.5-tonne/46-tonne T-80 MBT families—designed by the Ukraine-based Morozov Design Bureau and series-produced at Malyshev in Kharkiv, Ukraine, and in Russia by both the Leningrad Kirov Plant and Omsk Transmash. In other words, while members of the T-64 and T-80 MBT families were the vanguard elements of the Red Army’s armoured juggernaut, those of the T-72 MBT were meant to be used merely for encirclement and envelopment of the enemy’s armoured formations.
Yet, despite all this, India’s Cabinet Committee on Political Affairs of the day decreed that the T-72M and T-721982 (powered by a Model V-84MS four-stroke 12-cylinder multi-fuel engine developing 840hp and offering a power-to-weight ratio of 18.8 hp/tone) would be the Army’s future MBTs, and a procurement contract for 2,418 T-72s was subsequently inked. Interestingly, while the first off-the-shelf shipments of T-72Ms began arriving by ship in Mumbai in mid-1982, in Lebanon the 105mm APFSDS rounds fired by Israeli Merkava Mk1 MBTs with 105mm rifled-bore guns routinely pierced the Syrian T-72M’s front glacis, went straight through the MBT and exited through the engine compartment, leaving a turretless hulk behind. Five years later, The Indian Army’s worst fears were realised when got a first-hand demonstration of the T-72M’s acute vulnerability in October 1987, after LTTE guerrillas exploded improvised explosive devices underneath two T-72Ms deployed with the Army’s 65 Armoured Regiment for Operation Pawan during the battle for Jaffna, which resulted in armour penetration and the ensuing catastrophic detonation of the MBT’s ammunition reserve (this being stored alongside the carousel autoloader on the turret’s floor), resulting in the turrets being blown off. Subsequent events in 1991 during Operation Desert Storm would convincingly highlight the T-72’s totally flawed design features. Despite such developments, the Army—starting in 1988 began inducting the HVF-built T-72M-1982s into service.
A year earlier (1987), however, the Indian Army—being acutely aware of the T-72M’s vulnerabilities, had decided to undertake Project Bison—an ambitious upgrade project in cooperation with Yugoslavia’s state-owned Yugoimport SDPR, under which all its T-72Ms would be fitted with a new rolled homogenous armour (RHA) package developed by the Ravne-based Slovenske Železarne and comprising high-hardness steel, tungsten, and plastic fillers with ceramic components, plus the SUV-M-84 digital fire-control system that incorporated a Hughes-built gunner’s sight that was stabilised in two axes and included a thermal imager and laser rangefinder. The gunner’s ballistics computer—developed by Banja Luka-based Rudi Cajevec—was designed to automatically download crosswind data, vehicle cant, azimuth tracking rate and range, while the gunner manually inputted the data for air pressure, air temperature, barrel wear, barrel droop and ammunition type. Also planned for retrofit was the 12-cylinder water-cooled V-46TK 1,000hp diesel engine, that would have given the T-72M a power-to-weight ratio of 24.10hp/tonne. A procurement contract was signed with Yugoimport SDPR in early 1989 and an advance down-payment was made as well, but by 1991, Project Bison had to be scrapped in its entirety as by then civil war had broken out in Yugoslavia, and the country was subjected to an UN-mandated universal arms export/import embargo.
Both the MoD and the Indian Army learnt valuable lessons from Project Bison, and almost a decade later, when it came to the planned procurement of 1,657 T-90s (to replace the 1,781 T-55 and T-72M MBTs in a phased manner), it was decided to adopt a product block developmental approach similar to what by then was being planned for the Indian Air Force’s Su-30MKI procurement exercise. Consequently, in February 2001, India bought its first batch of 310 47.5-tonne 47.5-tonne T-90S MBTs worth US$795 million, of which 124 were delivered off-the-shelf, 86 in semi-knocked down kits (for licenced-assembly by the MoD-owned HVF in Avadi), and 100 in completely-knocked down kits (all these MBTs were retrofitted with Saab’s IDAS radar/laser warning system and LEDS-150 active protection system, or APS, worth Rs25 billion between 2009 and 2011). This was followed by a follow-on contract, worth $800 million (or Rs175 million per unit), being inked on October 26, 2006, for another 330 T-90M MBTs that were to be built with locally-sourced raw materials and also come fitted with LEDS-150 APS. The third contract, worth $1.23 billion (which was inclusive of the R & D funds required for designing a customised version of the T-90—the 50-tonne T-90AM), was inked in December 2007 for 347 upgraded T-90Ms, which are now being licence-built by HVF. These T-90Ms each come with a THALES-built Catherine-FC thermal imager (operating in the 8-12 micron bandwidth and housed within the Peleng-built 1G-46 gunner’s sight), the commander’s panoramic sight (which houses the Matis-STD thermal imager that operates in the 3-5 micron bandwidth and which has also been selected for the Arjun Mk1 MBT’s panoramic sight), an automatic gearbox, an electro-hydraulic turret-drive-cum stabilisation system, and most importantly, has a 2A46M-5 Rapira smoothbore main gun barrel that also comes fitted with a muzzle reference system.
While all the enhancements featured on the T-90M will also be found on the T-90AM, the latter will, among other things, incorporate a totally new redesigned turret that will now house a remote-controlled weapon station, an independent commander’s panoramic sight and gunner’s sight, a rear-mounted ammunition reserve stowage bustle and its autoloader (thereby doing away with the much-criticised earlier location alongside the carousel autoloader on the turret’s floor and enabling the stowage of single-unit FSAPDS rounds containing long-rod kinetic energy penetrators which the T-90S and T-90M cannot fire at the moment), and redesigned modular armour tiles. The hull-section, housing the driver’s and gunner’s compartments, will be equipped with a battlespace management terminal, fibre-optic gyro-based land navigation system, software-defined radio suite, health-and-usage management systems for on-board diagnosis of the MBT’s vectronics and automotive elements—all these being selected and furnished by the customer (in India’s case) to Uralvagonzavod for on-board fitment-cum-integration. Also to be furnished by India for integration is the active protection suite (APS), for which the LEDS-150 is competing with the Iron First APS (already installed on board the Arjun Mk2 MBT) from Israel Military Industries. Powerplant for the T-90AM will comprise a Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant-built 1,130hp V-92S2 diesel engine, while a 1kW AB-1-P28 auxiliary power unit will provide back-up electric power when the engine is idling. By today calculations, 670 T-99AMs could well be delivered to the Indian Army between 2013 and 2019.
This finally brings us to the issue of whether or not to upgrade the remaining 1,664 T-72s in successive tranches. Already, 692 T-72Ms have been upgraded thus far into the T-72 ‘Combat-Improved Ajeya’ standards, while a follow-on tranche of 700 T-72M1s (whose per unit procurement cost is Rs90 million) is due to be upgraded at a cost of Rs50 million per unit, for which there is an on-going competition between Russia’s Rosoboronexport State Corp, ELBIT Systems of Israel, and the Raytheon/Larsen & Toubro combine, with work scheduled for completion by 2018). One interesting view prevailing within the Army HQ’s Directorate of Mechanised Forces calls for scrapping the planned T-72 upgrades altogether and instead procuring up to 900 T-90AMs and up to 400 Arjun Mk2s (each costing Rs380 million or $8.2 million) before 2020. This view also calls for re-engineering the hulls of the existing 1,100 T-72Ms and 1,318 T-72M-1982s to accommodate a family of turrets housing not only missile-launchers of the Akash E-SHORADS and their Rajendra L-band PESA target engagement radars and battery command-and-control centres (62 T-72M hulls have already been re-engineered for this purpose), but also air-defence artillery guns and their fire-control systems like the Skyranger from Rheinmetall Defence, a turret containing anti-armour guided-missiles like up to eight Kornet-EM in ready-to-fire configuration along with a 30mm rapid-fire cannon and 30mm automatic grenade launchers—all remotely-operated, MLC-70 bridge layers (like the BLT-72), equipment required by armoured recovery vehicles for the T-90 family of MBTs, and counter-mine flails.—Prasun K. Sengupta
161 comments:
Would IA get these T-90 AM tanks.
Also would ARJUN MK2 be considered as a formidable/worldclass tank .
Sir i would like to congratulate you on such a detailed article
"Home-Grown Anti-Missile Shield For New Delhi By 2014? Sheer Unabashed Jingoistic Kite-Flying By DRDO, Period!"
I really enjoyed it and would hope that you will contine to the good work
I would also like you to do a little bit of writting if possible on the capabilities of Pakistan missiles, their acccuracies and capabilities against modern ABM systems ?(i have already read both your article on the development of Pakistani missile systems but dont think they covered this part)
Thank you in advance
Sir, do you think India would need foreign tanks post Arjun Mk2?
Also, what is the status of Kaveri? Suppose the joint partnership deal falls through - would India be capable of designing and producing a world class engine independently by next decade?
The C-17 deal tentatively includes setting up of wind tunnel testing and high altitude testing facilities. So would that boost our indigenous engine programs?
Can the Arjun and T-90 complement each other or do they have very specific individual roles?.
If you had a choice to pick one of these for a battle which one would it be?
dear prasun da can u tell me which countries nuke bomb is more destructive INDIA or PAKISTAN
Can china shoot down Sukoi-30MKI by using s400/HQ9..?
Hey Prasun da,do you think that Arjun Mk2 will use new smoothbore guns like the Rheinmettal L/55?And what is the Swathi WLR?Is that a new system or just the same old BEL WLR?Any specs if new?
Thanks.
HI Prasun,
Read report of Iraanians moving its most sensitive nuclear fuel production to a heavily defended underground military facility outside the holy city of Qum.
Where is its nuke prog heading?
It has liquid fuelled missiles to reach its immediate enemies.
The front looks a lot like the Al-Khalid's....
It is good that it is the latest development of T-90.
Hello Prasun,
Good to see you have another blog up and running.
To Anon@2.07PM: Yes, the T-90AM MBTs will be headed for India in furure. The fourth tranche of 300+ T-90s to be acquired for the Indian Army would most definitely be these T-90AMs. The Arjun Mk2 will be a world-class MBT in most respects, especially in survivability, mobility and firepower.
To Anon@3.22PM: Many thanks. As for capabilities of Pakistan’s missiles, kindly see the topmost chart at: http://trishulgroup.blogspot.com/2009/05/club-family-of-multi-role-cruise.html
As for their survivability against existing BMD systems using Patriot PAC-3, THAAD or Arrow-3, these missiles (TBMs, IRBMs and MRBMs) with unitary warheads are highly vulnerable to interceptions.
To Anon@4.13PM: Yes, definitely. The situation would have been different had the Arjun Mk3 (which has now become the FMBT) been available by 2015. But since that is not the case, the T-90AM MBTs would be required. A fleet of 1,400 T-90 MBTs and around 600 Arjuns would be the optimum combination. As for the Kaveri and C-17A, I’ve already your queries quite a few times before.
To Anon@5.32PM: They’re not meant to complement each other in the same theatre, rather, they would be used in much the same way as the Soviets used a combination of T-64Bs/T-80s and T-72Ms during the Cold War era. In other words, the first shots to be fired by the Indian Army’s breakout forces will come from the Arjuns, with the T-90s being the follow-on elements for achieving the encirclement and envelopment objectives. My preferred between the two? The Arjun, of course. Why? That’s simple. On the battlefield it is almost impossible to distinguish (using thermal imaging or infra-red sights) between the silhouettes of the Indian Army’s T-72s and T-90s and the Pakistan Army’s Al Khalids, Al Zarrars, Type 85APs and T-80UDs. Therefore, the only way to avoid casualties caused by friendly fire is the employment of MBTs with distinguishable silhouettes by either side, especially in the initial hours of war breaking out. The Arjun’s silhouette (derived from thermal imagery) has distinct differences when compared to those of the T-90, T-72, Al Khalid, Al Zarrar, Type 85AP and T-80UD, a factor which will be critical for the hunter-killer fire-control systems employed by the Arjuns to seek out and destroy the enemy’s armoured formations in detail. In addition, crew comfort on board the Arjun will be of a higher degree when compared to the T-90S and T-90S+. Thirdly and lastly, the rifled-bore cannon offers distinct advantages over smoothbore types when armoured battles are fought at extremely close quarters, i.e. at ranges between 700 metres and 1.5km, as will typically be the case in both the plains of Punjab and deserts of Rajasthan, given the nature of the terrain prevailing in both areas.
To Anon@8.02PM: On paper, India’s nuclear arsenal is supposed to be more destructive, since India—on paper—has developed thermonuclear devices, while Pakistan is believed to have only boosted-fission and tactical nuclear warheads.
To Anon@8.11PM: Yes, if the Su-30MKI’s aircrew is dumb enough to keep the aircraft illuminated by the HQ-9’s engagement radar when flying over flat terrain devoid of mountains (like a plain or a plateau). Normally, the moment the Su-30MKI’s radar warning receiver warns the aircrew that a hostile SAM’s target acquisition radar has begun painting the aircraft, that’s the time evasive manoeuvres like terrain-masking or dramatic reductions in flight altitude are immediately undertaken BEFORE the powerful engagement radars could get a firm lock-on. And even then, the aircrew can still engage in terrain-masking to get off the engagement radar’s target tracking envelope. Thus, as you can see, the main job of the MR-SAM or LR-SAM is not to physically destroy the aircraft, but to force the aircraft to either abort the mission, or drop down to a far lower altitude where it will be vulnerable to quick-reaction SAMs fired by SHORADS or VSHORADS systems, and also to interception by defending combat aircraft.
To Anon@12.16AM: The Arjun Mk2 will use the same 120mm rifled-bore cannon as that on the Arjun Mk1, since its lethality has never been in question or doubted. The Arjun Mk3 is due to get an upgraded rifled-bore cannon with a higher calibre, but probably not as high as 55-calibre like that of the smoothbore L-55. The Swathi is the very same BEL-built and DRDO-developed WLR. The specs are here: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_5sP7XwykNSM/TPhPYEEyeII/AAAAAAAAC2w/z9zDg5ZBPeg/s1600/BEL+%25281%2529.JPG
To Anon@1AM: Looks like the Ayatollahs are other mullahs are engulfed by the Masada syndrome! Where’s the nuclear programme heading? It’s definitely headed for weaponisation. The main Iranian problem, however, is the arsenal of liquid-fuelled IRBMs and MRBMs, both of which cannot be employed for shoot-and-scoot operations, take a long time to gain altitude in the post-boost phase, and have lower terminal velocities—all of which the Arrow-2/3 BMD systems can exploit to the hilt. The main Iranian technological handicap lies in its inability to produce or acquire high-energy solid propellants for its ballistic missiles.
To Faris@5.07AM: A very joyous Id Mubarak to you and very best wishes for the new lunar year. Am glad you got in touch at long last.
The Arjun MK2 will have Iron fist APC.
This will protect it from incoming missiles.
ELBIT and IMI are assisting India in the ARJUN project.
Also one candid/thoughtprovoking confession has been made by IAF Chief that India should learn from China and should not try to develop everything in India .
Inhouse development and acquisitions should go hand in hand.
India should involve its private defence firms in its quest for an artillery gun and at the same time try to buy the M777 .
Thanks Prasun! I only discovered your new blog yesterday.
Apologies for being off topic as I realise that the main focus of this blog is India, followed by Pakistan and China, but I have some MAF related questions that I would like to ask you.
1. With regards to the RMAF's MRCA programme for a squadron of MRCA's, what does your crystal ball tell you - Super Hornet or Gripen? From an training and commonality perspective, logic would dictate that the Super Hornet is chosen [and it is the RMAf's favourite] but then again the Malaysian government doesn't always apply logic to its decision making.
2. Did you hear about the alleged offer by BAE Systems to transfer 10 Tranche 1 and 2s if the RMAF ordered 10 new Tranche 3s? This offer was reported shot down by the Eurofighter consortium. hopefully tempur, Perajurit and ADJ will ask the million ringgit question - apart from being more ''stealthy'' what does the Typhoon
do that the Super Hornet can't?
3. It was never reported by the Malaysian press but did you hear about the MV Leopard that was almost hijacked? It was reported to be carrying a load of Paveways for the Hornets and recently a Hawk 100 was photographed releasing a Paveway.
4. What have you heard about the LCS programme? Is it true that DCNS and ESSM are the leading contenders?
5. Wasn't there a report in ADJ some years ago about the IN wanting to integrate Exocet to its Type 209s but the French it seems were not eager.
To Faris: This blog also covers Southeast Asia, although i have yet to upload some dedicated posts, which will be done in the near future. Will definitely answer all your queries by tonight. Am rushing to complete the T-90AM narrative now. Cheers!
What happened to 1000 T90 bhishm which India was going to license produce ?
Also india didn't purchase the fully equipped version of t90 so as save some money then why would we be purchasing this new version ? what happened to t95 mbt ?
@Prasun da
I am confused a bit you are talking about T-90AM a new breed of MBTs but you have also put in pics of Arjun, as well as Tank Ex (last but 3rd). any specific reasons why
Thanks
Joydeep Ghosh
Hadn't India developed a RCWS? I remember seeing it on OFB site. What is this Indo-Polish Light Tank?
excellent narrative prasun. thanks!!
Just read about the Type 45 anti-air warfare destroyer of Royal navy seems quite impressive.How would our Kolkata class destroyer stack up to them in terms fire power and more importantly Radars and Sensors?
And does our Navy have plans to employ Nirbhay cruise missiles on ships?
hey thanks for the narrative prasun. it was really informative. hope we see more of such well written and timely articles in future. i mean articles like this is way better than the tall claim articles on prahaar, isn't it?
@ shree,
As per news Project 15B class destroyer will deploy Nirbhay missiles along with longer range Barack 2 (100 km)SAM / Brahmos hypersonic missile.
But as per p 15a it has 70km range SAM barack / brahmos /M F star radar , Aster 15/30 has higher range than barack SAM, modular structure is better than p15a class, but we have edge in terms of brahmos
To Faris: Regarding the future MRCA for the RMAF (to replace the MiG-29Ns) the principal contender still remains the JAS-39 Gripen NG combined with the Saab 2000 AEW & C platform. Making Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar al Bukhari the agent for this combination was a masterstroke by Saab Aircraft AB and I therefore see no immediate prospect for the Super Hornet in Malaysia, despite the fact that the Super Hornet’s marketing efforts began in Malaysia as far back as 2002 and we all had a chance to see it and feel it while countries like Australia and India were not even on Boeing’s radar screen. Between the Super Hornet and EF-2000 and Rafale, the former is definitely way ahead of the rest. By way of an elementary example, the Super Hornet sports the fourth-generation AESA-basded multi-mode radar (AESA-MMR)—whereas the Rafale, EF-2000, Gripen-NG, MiG-35 and the Super Sukhoi Su-30MKI all will have only a first-generation AESA-MMR developed by THALES, EADS-Cassidian, Selex-Galileo, Phazotron JSC and Tikhomirov NIIP. I didn’t hear about the Eurofighter offer to the RMAF, nor did I come across the MV Leopard incident, but I know that the RMAF Hawk Mk208s have been qualified with the Paveway since 2008 and they’re used in conjunction with the man-portable laser target designator imported from Pakistan and which was shown for the first time during DSA 2008 at the PWTC. Regarding the LCS, while logic would dictate that the RMN goes for the stealthy MEKO-CSL design, the French lobby in Malaysia has become stronger after Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib became the PM. Regarding the SM-39 on board the Class 209/Type 1500 SSKs, it was just a low-key solicitation of options (by way of an RFI) that also asked the same question to Russia’s Novator regarding the sub-launched Club-S (3M54E and 3M14E). But it wasn’t a serious query.
To Anon@3.53PM: The agreement with Russia’s Rosoboronexport State Corp wasn’t for licence-producing 1,000 T-90S Bhishma variants, bit a total of 1,400 MBTs of the T-90 family. The T-95 has been given an quiet burial by Russia and it now lies in an unmarked grave somewhere in Nizhny Tagil.
To Joydeep Ghosh: Pray read the narrative above later tonight and everything will then become self-explanatory.
To Shree: In terms of sensors and firepower, the Type 15A Kolkata-class DDG will score over the Type 45 DDG. Nirbhay is not a cruise missile, but a cruise missile simulating target drone and as such will find no place on board any operational warship.
To Anon@8.17PM: I don’t know what you mean by ‘timely’ as I’m not producing narratives against any kind of deadline. And if you mean about the tall claims on Prahaar of the type claiming it to be a derivative of either the AAD (as per the DRDO) or even the Prithvi (as per Chacko Joseph), then yes, those indeed are tall and preposterous claims.
To Anon@8.19PM: The P-15A and P-15B DDGs will be configured to carry the 120km-range Barak-8 LR-SAM as well. The BrahMos variant on board will be of the supersonic-type and not a hypersonic weapon.
Why not sir?By the time the first Project P 15B guided missile destroyer becomes operational,the Brahmos 2 should be ready.Don't you think so??Please reply.
Thankz
BrahMos-2 will be ready only by 2018.
Thanks for clarifying Sir.So which war ships will get the Brahmos II?Any sugestions?Besides,any news on the Astra BVR missile?Will it use a mono pulse frequency agile seeker??
thank in advance.
BrahMos-2 will initially be optimised for land-attack. The supersonic anti-ship variant will still be quite potent up to 2022, but the land-launched and air-launched variants will have to be fielded by 2020. The Astra Mk2 will use a monopulse frequency-agile active radar.
HI Prasun,
How do you think the Iran nuke scenario is going to play out?
Do you think North Korea will place its nuke prog on the negotiating table with the US?
Agni-5 will be with MIRV or not. Thanx in advance.
Ok, so the agreement with Russia was to license produce 1400 mbt of t90 family but what happened ? Are we still producing these mbt?
To Anon@12.28AM: The Iranian nuclear WMD programme will proceed unabated, but it is not actually targetted against Israel as is popularly believed (although the Israelis would like to vehemently disagree with me for now). The Iranians, being the pioneers of Chess (Shatranj) and having a rich civilisational legacy, are most un likely to indulge in self-destructive policies or acts of any kind, and especially against Israel, as there are no bilateral conflicts of any kind between the states of Israel and Iran. The Iranian determination to acquire n-weapons is--according to those Iranian officials that I've met over the past 20 years--targetted primarily against the Saudi Arabia-led Sunni alliance of the six GCC states which went all out to support Iraq under Saddam Hussein throughout the 1980s to pose a serious existentialist threat to Shia Iran. Though the world has not paid much heed to this angle, ironically, both Israel and Iran face serious existentialist threats, albeit from different enemies. Right now, the shatranj is being played out between the Sunni (led by the Saudis and Pakistanis) and Shia (led by Iran) forces in Afghanistan. In fact, contrary to what many would like to believe, right now it is Iran that is vying for strategic spaxe and influence within Afghanistan (and successfully too, given its successful alliances with the Central Asian Republics of Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and even Uzbekistan), but whether or not it will be able to sustain this against the combined military and financial prowess of the Saudi-Pakistan-US alliance, remains to be seen. India too should seize this opportunity to enter the fray and play Shatranj is such a way so as to outsmart and out-manoeuvre the Sunni alliance.
As for the DPRK, I don't think the Chinese will advice Pyongyang to sacrifice this bargaining chip (the WMD capability) so easily.
To Mr RA: According to the 'Pujari of both Bhagwan and Vigyan'--Dr V K Saraswat--the DRDO is not developing any MIRV, as per his on-the-record interview to FORCE magazine as far back as February 2010.
To Anon@1.08AM: Yes, we are. To follow in future will be about 400 T-90AMs, while the first 310 T-90S MBTs will be upgraded to T-90AM standards starting from 2016.
Without MIRV the deterrent value of Agni-5 may be reduced to a large extent.
I too agree with your Iran Vs S.Arab+Pakistan scenario.
Prasun,
1. Which British company received the contract in the 1990's to supply a chain of radars that is based along the western cost of Malaysia, some on islands, to provide coverage for the Melaka Straits?
2. Are you not of the opinion that the RTAF's selection of the Gripen has killed whatever chances it had of flying in RMAF colours? Also, from what I understand the RMAF's leadership is very reluctant to get a single engine fighter.
3. Would you agree that the Iranian programme for getting nukes is aimed at regime survival rather than for threatening Israel or launching a missile in the future at Europe, as the mainstream Western press would have us believe? As the Iranians are faced with a whole string of Arab Sunni states that openly supported Saddam during the 8 year war and would be more than happy if the Israelis were to launch a strike on the 'heretic' Shiite Iranians and that Israel has nukes, IMO it is perfectly understandble why the mullahs would want nukes.
Here's an interesting link -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmAL4SaGA0s
4. You mentioned in a previous post that neither the USAF or RAF knows the full performance characteristics of the MKI as the IAF did not expose the full flying potential of its MKIs during exercises in England. As the MKI and MKM shares the same engine, airframe and has the same weight, would you agree that both have the same flying characteristics?
5. Is the main reason why the RMN selected Teluk Sepanggar to be home to its Scorpenes due to concerns about Chinese activity in the Spratleys or simply because the deeper waters there are more suitable for SSKs rather than the shallow waters of the Melaka Straits and the waters around Singapore?
6. Despie the reports that first appeared some years ago, is the RMAF seriously interested in retrofitting Brahmos to its MKMs?
So you are saying that we will at-least be inducting 1700 T90s and 126 arjun mk1 + 126 mk2 + 348 arjun ?
To Anon@5AM: Kindly peruse the narrative above.
To Faris: 1) It wasn't any UK company, but a Canadian company--Raytheon Canada that supplied the sea surveillance systems for the JPM's BKN. The local company now handling the product support is AMPCOP (they always advertise with TEMPUR) which is located at the Glenmarie Industrial Estate.
2) Like I said earlier, the local agent's clout counts the most. And as you said earlier, logic doesn;t dictate military procurements.
3) As Robert Fisk has explained, why should Iran nuke Israel when such an action will render the whole area inhospitable for both the Jews and Palestinians until kingdom come?
4) Yes, both have identical flight characteristics.
5)No, it has nothing to do with the Spratlys, but due to developments concerning Ambalat Bay. And that is precisely why the TNI-AU is concentrating its Su-27SKs, Su-30MKs and Su-30MK2s in Sulawesi.
6) The BrahMos has yet to be integrated on the Su-30MKI, leave alone the Su-30MKM. But unless and until the RMAF acquires MP/ASW aircraft, it won't be worth acquiring the BrahMos since long-range over-the-horizon targetting capability is a must for successful employment of the BrahMos, be it land-launched, ship-launched or air-launched.
Prasunda,
thanks for your excellent
narative, a well informative
one which also tells about
the history of our tank
procurement. Now, can you inform us why
only 1,657 T-90s were
contracted for replacement
of only 1,781T-72Ms & T-55s
when already 2,418 junk
T-72Ms & some hundreds of T-55s are already present in
our army's tank inventory.
Hi Sir,
Just read a 2008 article
http://www.business-standard.com/india/storypage.php?autono=320123.
*Due you think the news on price advantage is true cause a few days ago AK Antony announced the cost escalations in all types of ships .
*What do you think our ships will cost when they reach navy.
*And when one says a ship costs 1 Bil $ does it mean the cost thru out its life or only buying price?
*Kolkata class destroyer VS Type 052C destroyer which is better? Elaborate
Hi Prasun,
What do you make of Col Ajay Shukla's posts on DPP rules being watered down and that major defence contractors are flouting the rules in their recent contract wins.
Adding a extra request:
Please inform us about the concept of FMBT programme of U.S & when they will introduce them in service ?
To ABHINABA: As newer technologies become available, the Army too has then to rightsize itself. For a country like India it makes no sense to matain a fleet of 4,000+ MBTs when in all the wars fought thus far in the subcontinent, no more than 1,000 were committed to battle at any time and there have been no massed armoured engagements on a grand scale in the past, nor is there likely to be one in future. The existing T-72s and T-55s are certainly obsolete as MBTs, but their hulls are by no means junk asa they can be refurbished and modified to host new turrets for a variety of applications as I've outlined in my concluding paragraph. In addition, such hulls can also be integrated with turrets housing breech-loading mortars, SHORADS missiles, ATGM missiles (serving as tank destroyers) as well as mechanised trench-digging equipment. These types of innovative modifications and enhancements are easily within the technological reach of the DRDO and can be achieved in a very short period of time.
To Shree: The pricing levels on a comparative basis are highly deceptive and are a lot of hype. For instance, how can the much larger Project 15A DDG be 90% indigenous in terms of cost when the much smaller Project 17 FFG is indigenous by only 60% in terms of cost? The only inference one can therefore draw is that someone is lying somewhere. The $ figure you've quoted refers only to the cost price and its non-recurring supporting shore-based infrastructure development costs, and not through-life costs.
Between the Project 15A FFG and Type 052C Luyang-class DDG, the former will definitely be better due to its superior mission-sensor suite. The Project 15A DDGs will have the AESA-based EL/M-2248 MF-STAR on board, while the Type 052C DDG has only PESA-based distributed arrays on board.
To Anon@4.27PM: This was an inevitability, since the DPP procedures and guidelines were unimplementable and unrealistic. The MoD should have gone by the 'crawl, walk and run' approach, instead of deciding to leap to the 'sprint' mode. For instance, why cap foreign directr investments into the military-industrial infrastructure sector to 26% when the MoD as far back as in February 1998 created a precedent by allowing a 49% foreign (Russian) stake in BrahMos Aerospace Pvt Ltd? Does this make any sense to you? One cannot have different sets of investment guidelines for different vendors or for different countries. There must be a universal get of guidelines applicable to everyone across the board to make it a level playing field.
TO ABHINABA: The US' FMBT programme was originally conceived during the days of the Cold War and as such with the demise of the USSR and Warsaw Pact, the requirements for a FMBT have greatly diminished. Therefore, the NATO member-states are today quite content to cling on to their existing MBT assets and periodically upgrade them with newer propulsion systems, lightweight armour enhancements, and increase the lethality of firepower by introducing new-generation PGMs and battlespace management systems.
Thanks for your replies.
Now, what type of improvements will be takes place in M1A3 variant of M1 Abrams tanks ?
Why haven't the Russians decide to design a bustle mounted auto-loader for the T-90AM? Wouldn't this overcome any ''safety'' concerns offered by the traditional carousel auto-loader?
Apologies for my previous query - a bustle auto loader has indeed been developed for the T-90AM!
On another topic, is it true that the Russians abosolutely refuse to supply any components [ERA, APS, etc] for Polish and Ukranian MBTs, as it violates the licensing agreement agrred upon that only called for production of MBTs for domestic use and not or exports?
Would it be technically possible, with Ukranian help, to do away with the carousel auto loader on the PT-91M and fit a bustle mounted auto loader in its place?
Hi Prasun,
How would you like the Indian Dpp to be framed? Is there a way to avoid the pitfalls of the current one and yet contribute towards the growth of indegenous indian industry?
Do you think any reversal of the deals mentioned in Broadsword is possible or atleast the offsets be scrutinized if they are adhere to the law in letter and spirit?
This could generate controversy in the next CAG audit or is it that CAG does not look at policy decisions?
If it makes news in major television channels it will be good for the country!(Maybe even Anna can kick in :-)
The way the Mr Shukla's top MOD sources seem to sound, its good to know there are ppl worried in the MOD.
Hi Prasun,
http://news.in.msn.com/national/article.aspx?cp-documentid=5412068&page=3
says about missile defence cooperation being mootets on it?oughd between indian and NATO.Your th
To Faris: Yes, it is absolutely true even in case of the Czechs and Slovaks. For the PT-91M, the entire turret will have to be replaced in case the carousel autoloader is to be replaced by a turret bustle-mounted system on the turret. Do check out the T-84 Yatagan at: http://www.morozov.com.ua/eng/body/oplot.php
& for the T-72-120, check this out: http://www.morozov.com.ua/eng/body/t72-120.php
Between the Russians and Ukrainians, it was the latter that first came out with a bustle-mounted autoloader (on the T-72-120 and then the T-84 Yatagan), and the Russians followed suite with the T-80UM2 Black Eagle and first showed it to the public in September 1997. Now, with the advent of the T-90AM, both the famed MBT design houses of the erstwhile USSR—Morozov and Kartsev-Venediktov-- have finally admitted that the decision since the 1960s to go for a hull-mounted autoloader carousel was a strategic error of monumental proportions. Since the late 1980s, every official from either the Soviet/Russian armaments directorate or from the manufacturer (like Uralvagonzavod) that I have spoken to never admitted this shortcoming, and always went to all kinds of crazy lengths to defend the indefensible, ranging from “these are all Western propaganda” to “we have never had any such complaints from our customers”. Well, it now looks like folks like me will indeed have the last laugh!
To Anon@8.25PM: Before even framing the DPP, some deep-rooted structural reforms require enactment. Just introducing the DPP without such reforms tantamount to putting the cart before the horse. Firstly, the Govt of India must stop planning military force modernisation exercises according to the five-year plans. Right now, as the 11th Defence Plan (2007-2012) is nearing an end, the 12th Defence Plan (2013-2017) should have been ready, but nothing of this sort is happening. Therefote, a far better way to plan for force modernisation os to go for long-term perspective planning spanning up to four Defence Plans, or 20 years. The HQ IDS was created for this very purpose and it must be allowed to do its job properly. Secondly, the Govt of India should go for strategic divestments in the existing DPSUs, which will free up the MoD’s financial resources to be allocated for capital purchases (which presently as a ratio of total annual defence spending, is in a decline). Once these DPSUs are publicly listed corporate entities and enjoy strategic management autonomy, one will be able to see drastic improvements in their performance and productivity levels within a short span of time. I don’t understand this logic of maintaining 100% MoD-owned defence DPSUs. If I can fill up my stomach daily with food produced by private farmers and made by private restaurants/eateries, what’s the harm in securing myself with weapons produced by private entities? Therefore, I’m pretty sure these privatised DPSUs will be able to not only deliver on time and cost, but also become more innovative and swifter in terms of strategic corporate decision-making for entering into risk-sharing joint ventures with multinational weapons manufacturers. ONLY AFTER all this should a comprehensive DPP be drafted and put into effect. Follow this roadmap, and one will taste only success.
As for what “Mr Shukla's top MoD sources seem to sound” (your words), to me it seems like these ‘sources’ are crying foul over the wrong things. These ‘sources’ are undoubtedly batting for the DPSUs and want the status quo to remain, and are lobbying for only the perpetuation of the transfer of screwdriver technologies (of the type given by the Soviets since the 1960s) as this will enable the DPSUs to only build more licenced-assembly plants and build more residential townships for accommodating the workforce. What these ‘andha sources’ still haven’t figured out is that after the 6th Pay Commission, there’s less and less money available under the defence budget’s capital account for force modernisation purposes. Consequently, it is highly likely that the M-MRCA contract will be inked only in the next fiscal year.
To Anon@9.01PM: There's no need for any such cooperation beyond what has already been achieved with the likes of Israel and France. Just continue along this path, and develop/deploy separate constellations of GPS navigation satellites (IRNSS) and ballistic missile early warning satellites (the so-called missile monitoring system) ASAP.
To ABHINABA: For starters, the existing AGT-1500 gas turbine will be replaced by a far more reliable and fuel-efficient gas turbine developed by Honeywell. This has already been discussed in my earlier thread on 'Greenfield FMBT and Arjun Mk3'. This new gas-turbine is also on offer for the Arjun Mk3 and I hope everyone within the DRDO and Army HQ stops having any further wet-dreams about developing a 50-tonne MBT, which is a sheer impossibility. The tonnage of both Russian (T-90AM) and Chinese (ZTZ-99A2) MBTs is only increasing well beyond 50 tonnes, and not decreasing. Therefore, it is high time everyone realised that the 60+ tonne MBTs are here to stay at least for the next 15 years, and consequently, one need not needlessly entertain any high hopes of developing MBTs weighing less than 60 tonnes.
Hi prasun,
From what i have read, most of what T-90AM will have are already being tested on Al-Khalid I (or already exist on the basic al-khalid)....and this seems to be happening with the saudi financial help.....and mainly inhouse in Pak....there are even rumours that they have made a version of the rifle(125mm) that is more powerful...not to forget the ZTZ-99G tech that may come form their old friend....with all this going on: What is the best scenario for IA...should they really be going for the T-90xx or should the main focus shift to Arjun Mk II? Pak seems to have aquired some capability to develop MBT, and IA needs to be mindful of that...
To MPatel: The Al Khalid still suffers from one severe drawback: its hull-mounted carousel autoloader and its inability to fire the kind of single-unit FSAPDS rounds that have long-rod kinetic-energy penetrators. The only way ahead to overcome such shortcomings is to replace the existing turret with the kind developed by NORINCO of China for the ZTZ-99G MBT, i.e. having a turret bustle-mounted autoloader. Unless this happens, possessing a 125mm rifled-bore cannon fed by the existing carousel autoloader will not confer any advantage to the Al Khalid MBT. Believe me when I state that a country that cannot even design and build simple automobiles can NEVER be expected to design armaments or ammunition for a MBT. At the end of the day after the Saudis advance the money, this is then transferred to NORINCO and then NORINCO fabricates the weapon and ships it to Karachi, from where it goes to Taxila for installation on the Al Khalid's hull.
As for India, the priority should be to complete the Arjun Mk2 MBT's field/user trials and concurrently initiate development of the Arjun Mk3 MBT. The momentum gathered so far must be further accelerated without any further hiccups. The T-90AMs will definitely be coming in future, as the overarching agreement to this effect was inked long ago.
Thanks...
Yesterday i discovered a forum (named as russian photo discussion) in which some members repeatedly claimed about the presence of classic carousel type autoloader with 22 rounds in a new armored carousel on the floor & there's an armored storage box for 18 rounds in the bustle.
Now what is your view on that type of claim?
dear prasun da,
which one will be a better tank upgraded al-khalid or Arjun-mk2
From that forum what I've heard is that- in T-90M there is a semi-ready
storage box that has a sliding armored
door into the turret much like the M1 does. But unlike the M1 the crew
don't need to load the gun all the
way, they only need to transfer
these rounds into the autoloader
carousel, which has its loading port
basically right under the ammo box door. And, as the ammo box in in the
bustle and thus rotates together
with the turret, they don't have the
Leo's problem of needing to rotate
the turret into the loading position
— in Leo, IIRC, the ammo box is in the hull and is thus accessible only in
the certain turret positions.
Are you think in that style the solution was solved?
Prasun couple of quick points.
The new model of tank available for export to India and others should be designated T-90MS , since S is the export variant of Russian army T-90A , the T-90AM model would be the Russian Army variant of the tank while the MS would be the export type.
I have my own doubts regards IA purchasing any "MS" model of the tank , I have not heard MOD talking of purchasing any upgrade of T-90 , they would rather work on deep upgrade of T-72 which is long pending , yes some basic upgrade has been done via DRDO package.
Officially they have not disclosed any specs of the MS model (that should happen on September 8th )most of the information is really from leaked news or the excellent Gur Khan Blog but we have to wait , since right now lot of contradictory information is coming out like the export model not having the new gun.
There are quite a lot of wrong notion when it comes to T series tank regarding its protection level ,crew safety and some history that goes along with it but i have seen such statement being made by many around and its not surprising since they are not aware of design philosophy behind the T series.
Your Conversation with Vasiliy Fofanov is really nice and informative and Vasiliy has given many good points that would throw light on many of rather wrong belief on this tank.
http://trishulgroup.blogspot.com/2009/08/whats-wrong-with-t-90s-mbts-fire.html
Not sure why my post is being shown under Anonymous reposting again - Austin
Prasun couple of quick points.
The new model of tank available for export to India and others should be designated T-90MS , since S is the export variant of Russian army T-90A , the T-90AM model would be the Russian Army variant of the tank while the MS would be the export type.
I have my own doubts regards IA purchasing any "MS" model of the tank , I have not heard MOD talking of purchasing any upgrade of T-90 , they would rather work on deep upgrade of T-72 which is long pending , yes some basic upgrade has been done via DRDO package.
Officially they have not disclosed any specs of the MS model (that should happen on September 8th )most of the information is really from leaked news or the excellent Gur Khan Blog but we have to wait , since right now lot of contradictory information is coming out like the export model not having the new gun.
There are quite a lot of wrong notion when it comes to T series tank regarding its protection level ,crew safety and some history that goes along with it but i have seen such statement being made by many around and its not surprising since they are not aware of design philosophy behind the T series.
Your Conversation with Vasiliy Fofanov is really nice and informative and Vasiliy has given many good points that would throw light on many of rather wrong belief on this tank.
http://trishulgroup.blogspot.com/2009/08/whats-wrong-with-t-90s-mbts-fire.html
MR.Prasun, i notice that the Arjun MBT's turret housing looks fairly boxed, bulky and vulnerable. compare it with M2A1Abrams / Challenger / Leopard and those look small, skeep and prism shaped. Is this a disadvantage with the former? Please share your views on the former's obvious vulnerability. Thank you.
To ABHINABA: The situation will become clearer within the next few days after the armoured vehicles expo at OMSK concludes. By then, a lot more info will emerge and I know the officials from the Indian Army who are also there right now to take a look at what’s new and am in touch with them as well. Will upload more data as and when they become available.
To Anon@11.16AM: The Arjun Mk2 is at least a generation ahead of the Al Khalid MBT.
To AUSTIN: I you were to read the interviews published by FORCE of the then Indian Army Chief Gen J J Singh in the 2005-2007 period, in some of them he has clearly said that growth enhancements of the T-90 will be inducted in successive tranches as and when they become available. The problem with the ‘deep upgrade’ of existing Indian T-72M-1982s is structural, since several of them have not been subjected to the scheduled structural refurbishment timetables. It is for this reason that Uralvagonzavod JSC’s proposal calls for supplying new-build T-72 hulls if the ‘deep upgrade’ has to have any serious meaning. Being the OEM, Uralvagonzavod JSC has no reason to lie and the Indian Army therefore has every reason to believe what the OEM is saying. Therefore, in the end, the T-72M-1982s will not be subjected to a ‘deep upgrade’ but rather an upgrade similar to the T-72CIA configuration, albeit with some further enhancements. But a final decision in this matter has not yet been taken.
Regarding the design philosophy of T-series MBTs, especially what I’ve stated in this thread, ALL the information came to me from none other than the late Gen K Sundarji, who was leading the T-72 evaluation team in the late 1970s/early 1980s. It was in February 1992 that I had hosted him for three days during the Asian Aerospace expo and during these three days he explained several things, one of which was the evolution of the selection process regarding the T-72. And according to the General, after the Indian Army began receiving its T-72Ms and subjected them to some ‘friendly fire’ using 105mm DSAPDS rounds fired from the RO-designed L-7 105mm rifled-bore cannon of the Vijayanta and upgunned T-55s in the early 1980s, the result was the same as what happened in early 1991 during OP Desert Storm. When such data comes from the horse’s mouth, I have no reason to doubt it whatsoever. One must also take note of the fact that in the USSR, any major weapon system was approved for export only after it had been in service for a 10-year period with the Soviet armed forces. Which meant that by the time an export customer received it, it would have been almost 12-15 years old. Therefore, what the Indian Army received from the USSR in a certain timeframe is not the same as what was in service during that same timeframe with the Red Army. For instance, while the T-72S had entered service with the Red Army by 1984, it was only in the mid-1990s that the T-72S was made available for export. Therefore, post-1991, when Russian ‘experts’ began comparing MBT design/performance characteristics of Soviet/Russian and Western MBTs, they have often tended to refer to the model-type in service with the Red Army during a particular timeframe, rather than referring to the export model-type, which is obviously inferior to what was serving with the Red Army. So yes, in terms of vehicle protection levels and crew survivability, the Red Army did possess assets capable of standing up to their NATO counterparts, but this ruling did not apply to those MBTs that were exported as frontline MBTs for the customer countries. And India was no exception either. Therefore, when I’m referring to the design/performance characteristics of the T-72 or T-90 family of MBTs, I’m referring only to their export variants destined for India, since what’s was/in service with the USSR/Russia is of no consequence to me whatsoever.
TO AUSTIN: The conversation with Vasiliy Fofanov which you've referred to was more of a slugfest (LoL!) as I was quite pissed off with his dry sarcasm, which often wasn't substantiated with facts at that time. But from OMSK, I expect good tidings soon from the Indian Army brass visiting the expo. Hope to share some of them pretty soon. Cheers!
hi Prasun,
Any photos of Arjun mk2 available?
I remember reading an article stating that mk2 will not have any structural modifications.Can ya confirm sloped turret.
To sagar: How can it not have any structural modifications if it has to accommodate a new powerpack (engine and transmission), plus a host of on-board vectronics systems? I have the photos but am not yet authorised to release any of them. The CVRDE has the final call on this issue.
To Edward Wang: It does look boxed and bulky, but is not vulnerable. Those armoured boxes in fact carry the vital spares, rotables, consumables and tooling required by the MBT, thereby ensuring minimal battlefield logistics support from dedicated field workshops. But these structures have been done away with in favour of sloped modular armour plates on the Arjun Mk2, which is now undergoing mobility-cum-firepower trials.
''NATO offers missile defence cooperation to India'' .
1, what kind of SAM's /Radar have been deployed in other countries.
2, what is/may be the response on india side.
3. Next any defense purchase (ready to sign) is awaited .
Regarding MBTs India may be nearly OK. Now what about the Light Tanks from Austria/Australia/Poland as indicated earlier.
Hey Prasun Da,I was wondering if our Arjun MkII can stand toe to toe with chinese Type 99 tanks in terms of protection(armor,ERA,NERA to passive and active defence),fir power and vectronics or not.Can you please share your views??And how will Arjun MkII fare against South Korean K 2 Black Panther??Please reply.
Thanks. stand toe to toe with chinese Type 99 tanks in terms of protection(armor,ERA,NERA to passive and active defence),fir power and vectronics or not.Can you please share your views??And how will Arjun MkII fare against South Korean K 2 Black Panther??Please reply.
Thanks.
Hey there sir,great to see you back,thought lost you forever.
By the way,can you please confirm if our Arjun MkII will use some heavy long rod FSAPDS rounds like DM 63 or not??
Thx
Hey Prasun da,do you have any info about the honey comb NERA developed by DRDO which they claimed to be capable of defeating multiple hits from HEAT warheads??What's the status??Has this NERA been employed on Arjun MkII or not??And what about the armor?Is it still using earlier Kanchan or some kind of new composite armor??Hope you can solve my doubts.By the way,keep up your great job,it's really great fun to read your blog.
Thankzz.
Hi ,
I found the below article on Arjun MK2.
http://indian-defense-news.blogspot.com/2011/04/arjun-mk2-will-use-leclerc-and-merkava.html
Its very informative.Also the pics shows the sloped armour plates.
Prasun please look at the pics and confirm if its the MK2
Hi Prasun,
What are your views on Type-26 Frigates for P-17A and Swordfish for P-15B..?
Both seem pretty good and can really help our own shipyards. it will be even more beneficial as we can jointly develop the ships..
thanks
To Anon@10.31PM: For your information, that article on the Arjun Mk2 was written by your's truly and first published in the January 2011 issue of FORCE magazine, and last April I uploaded the same article with additional photos in my blog at: http://trishul-trident.blogspot.com/2011/04/arjun-mk2-mbt-emerges.html
And those photos are NOT of the Arjun Mk2, but of the Leclerc and Merkava Mk4.
To Saurav Jha: Are you kidding? This is the age-old Anglo-Saxon Firangi way of asking India to subsidise the R & D costs of the Type 26 FFG in the name of 'equal partnership'. And the kind of modular design approach the Brits are suggesting (but haven't yet done) was in fact pioneered more than a decade ago by the German shipyards Blohm + Voss & Thyssenkrupp. If Indian shipyards indeed want to take part as equals in designing and building new-generation warships, they will learn a lot more from the French and Germans, and not the Brits.
To Anon@9.42PM: Even the Arjun Mk1 uses heavy long-rod FSAPDS rounds.
To Anon@9.49PM: No one in India developed NERA. The NERA blocks were imported. As for what the Arjun Mk2 will have, here's the data: For ensuring MBT survivability, the Defence Metallurgical Research Laboratory (DMRL)—located in Kanchanabagh, Hyderabad,has developed a Mk2 variant of its Kanchan modular armour, which was made by sandwiching composite panels (ceramic, alumina, fibre-glass and nickel-alloy) between rolled homogenous armour (RHA) plates to defeat APFDS or HEAT rounds. At the same time, the DRDO’s Pune-based Composites Research Centre (CRC) and the Research and Development Establishment, Engineers [R & D E(E)], have developed multi-layered multi-functional fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP) composite hull/turret sub-structures at much lower weights in comparison with metallic counterparts. More than 40 per cent weight savings over steel hull structures have been achieved. Also developed for the Arjun Mk2 is co-cured composites integral armour (CIA), which comprises ceramic tiles and rubber sandwiched between two FRP composites layers. While the outer FRP composite layer acts as a cover and provides confinement, the ceramic layer provides primary protection against ballistic impact, and the inner FRP composite layer acts as the structural part as well as secondary energy absorbing mechanism.
To Anon@9:38PM: The Arjun Mk2 can stand both head-to-head and toe-to-toe with its Chinese and South Korean counterparts.
To Mr RA: The reqmt is for tracked light tanks and wheeled tank destroyers. As for tracked light tanks, the current favourite is the CV-90-120, which is being offered with both the Rheinmetall-built 120mm smoothbore cannon, as well as the HITFACT turret housing a 120mm cannon--this coming from Italy's Finmeccanica/OTO Melara. The HITFACT is a good and proven system and can also go on board any 8 x 8 wheeled armoured vehicle (tank destroyer) like the Mowag Piranha or Steyr's Pandur-2 or IVECO's B1 Centauro 8 x 8 or Nexter Systems' VBCI.
So, How about FREMM for P-17/A..
You should do an article on the upcoming Projects for Navy. There are so many. A detailed article will be very welcome..
Thanks
To Saurav Jha: I'd rather go for the F-125 or MEKO-D designs for Project 17A, and the MEKO-CSL for the Project 28A corvette reqmt.
Hi Prasun,
Thank you for the reply...i like your anology about the engine....however could we be under-estimating their capabilities....many people thought the same about their atomic technology and look at the result now...they have multiple centres producing full spectrum of nuclear technology....no sane person doubts their capability now...it shows what a focused approach can do....
Cheers.
To MPatel: Where on earth are these "multiple centres producing full spectrum of nuclear technology" inside Pakistan and what's their rationale for existence when everything nuclear-related that's presently standing there has a 'Made in China' manufacturing tag?
Thanx - "The Arjun Mk2 can stand both head-to-head and toe-to-toe with its Chinese and South Korean counterparts." - A Milestone statement.
Prasun da i am Anon 6:35 PM
''NATO offers missile defence cooperation to India'' .
1, what kind of SAM's /Radar have been deployed in other countries.
2, what is/may be the response on india side.
3. Next any defense purchase (ready to sign) is awaited .
I would Like to add to Mr Ra's comment:
Thanx - "The Arjun Mk2 can stand both head-to-head and toe-to-toe with its Chinese and South Korean counterparts." - A Milestone statement.
This is truly a milestone statement and gives us hope.
At the same time it shows what a proper planning along with defence co-operation with other firms can achieve.
Not only we do achieve our objective of formidible fighting machine , it also helps our organisations absorb latest tecnologies.
Whats more heartening is the role of Indian firms like Tata , Cummins india in this project .
I just wish that Arjun becomes such a formidable MBT
that even our adverseries take note of it and praise it .
It would be great if we can carry out such defence cooperations in the field of artillery guns too
plz plz go through the article below: an israeli view on arjin mk2:
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=152117238162818
i just hope its true...if its true then I am flattered.
There have been various pieces of floating news that India and Israel have mutually helped each other in their tank developments to their maximum possible accomplishments and time savings.
I think the development of T-90AM might have been impressed by the above experiences.
@Prasunda
a few points
1. where does the Tank EX fit in this narrative.
2. with Arjun Mk2 set to become he costliest MBT in the world will it be prudent to go for more Arjuns.
3. you failed to mention the power-to-weight ratio of T90AM
4. will the T90S be uprated to 90M in coming years
a few questions
1. with LCH on the way do we need ALH Rudra
2. the BAe ULH we are getting through FMS is said to have problems like
a. angle of depression is not enough for firing at tanks
b. no automatic loading facility
c. does not have an auxiliary power unit (though needed it would have increased weight)
d. lacks a safety catch mechanism, with so many problems is it worth to buy it.
4. Will it not be prudent for India to buy Sentinel aircrafts UK is retiring after 2015.
Hope to get answers and clarifications
thanks
Joydeep Ghosh
Prasun,
Would you agree that the Malaysia's decision to go for the PT-91 was a huge mistake and that surplus Leopard 2s should have been bought instead as they offer much improved protection levels and there is still room for future upgrades or growth potential? The Armour Directorate narrowed its choice to the T-84, T-90 and PT-91 as it felt that any MBT with a weight of more than 55 tonnes could not operate in the local terrain. But don't you think that this theory is flawed as any future use of MBTs in a Malaysian or SEA context will make use of highways for movement and will mostly operate in urban areas [the SAF has given great though to the Thunder Runs done in Iraq].
I'm aware of your view that the day of towed artillery is over due to technological advances in counter battery radars and the need for artillery to keep pace with fast moving armoured formations. In Malaysia's case, given its terrain, would you not agree that towed 105mm howitzers still have a very useful role to play as they are not as bulky as 155 pieces [like the G-5] and can be unlimbered and laid much faster?
The Artillery Directorate I believe is still undecided whether to go for the Caeser or the K-9 Thunder. Whilst the K-9 offer protection to its crews it is very bulky, unlike the Ceaser which can also be air lifted. What are you views on this?
To Mr RA, Anon@12.37PM &Anon@1PM: Once the Cummins India-developed 1,500hp powerpack is fully validated, the Arjun Mk2's power-to-weight ratio will be unmatched in the subcontinent. However, for manoeuvre warfare to be fully implemented, the BMS network along with the F-INSAS system needs to be commissioned ASAP. Only this will enable the Indian Army's armoured corps to wage full-spectrum knowledge-based manoeuvred warfare. Seconfly, thanks to the acquisition of networked gunnerey simulators from CAE (HQ in Florida but all software development being done in Bengaluru at its CAE India office), platoon gunnery simulation is now in place and this will further raise the proficiency of the MBT gunnery crew. Lastly, India has been a pionner in the field of health & usage management systems (HUMS) for both helicopters (starting with the Mi-17 in the early 1980s) and then with the Su-30MKI. Therefore, developing a HUMS for the Arjun Mk2's vectronics suite was a walk-in-the-park. The objective now should now be to consolidate these core technological competencies and apply it to the Arjun Mk3 project, which is what the FMBT project is all about.
To Joydeep Ghosh: Tank EX was an unsolicitated proposal to upgrade existing Indian T-72M1s. Arjun Mk2 may well be the costliest MBT in the world now, but once additional orders start flowing in as I’m pretty darn sure they would, the funds invested in the project and production line will all be amortised over a period of time. And don’t forget that the bulk of this money will be spent WITHIN India. Therefore, when it is our own baby, why should we kill it? Power-to-weight ratio of the T-90AM will not much higher than that of the T-90S, since the T090AM’s powerplant will produce only about 130hp more than what’s being produced right now (1,000hp). The T-90S can be upgraded to T-90AM standards. For the Army Aviation Corps, there’s a need for both the Rudra & LCH, with the latter acting as an armed aeroscout platform. But when exactly these assets will reach the AAC is anyone’s guess, given the inter-services turf wars that are wages on a daily basis in Delhi. Regarding the UFH, firstly, it was never designed with India in mind, and secondly if such add-ons are desired, then might as well as buy the LW-155s first and insert a clause in the main contract document that commits both the buyer (Indian MoD) and seller (BAE Systems/Mahindra Defence) to develop on a risk-sharing basis a Mk2 version of the LW-155 that would incorporate such add-ons. What’s so difficult about that? It’s just plain paperwork. Regarding manned airborne surveillance platforms, the Union Cabinet Secretariat has already decided to go for Bombardier Aerospace-built platforms fitted with IAI/ELTA-supplied mission avionics. Better therefore not to rock the boat. The RAF can keep its Sentinels.
To Faris: The Malaysian Army went for the PT-91M simply because the Federal Cabinet had decided in 1993 that Malaysia’s future MBT would be a T-72-based platform. It was only after that that the Ruskies, Ukrainians, Poles and Croats began hawking their products. Yes, the Leopard 2A4s would have been a better choice. And now the Royal Thai Army is going for the Ukrainian T-84 OPLOT-M, which is superior to the PT-91M. As for manoeuvre warfare operations, field artillery today has to keep pace with armoured/mec hanised/motorised forces and therefore there’s no viable substitute for self-propelled artillery howitzers. Between the towed 105mm guns and self-propelled breech-loading 81mm/120mm mortars capable of firing PGMs, my preference would be for the latter. The Caesar definitely outclasses the K-9 as it can be airlifted to East Malaysia in times of emergencies. The K-9 is more suitable for plains warfare.
Prasun,
Thank you for your patience in answering my numerious queries. I know it can be very taxing...
1. Does the Indian army have any plans to install bar cage armour on its T-90s and Arjuns, around the sides and rear of engine deck [around the detachable fuel tanks] or to the rear of the turret, to provide added protection against hand held rockets and ATGM? The Russians about a couple of years ago started using bar cage armour on some of its MBTs and the Terminator.
2. Would you agree that the most vurlnerable and relatively unprotected part of MBTs are the still the commanders and gunners hatch which, along with other areas of the turret, remain unprotected by ERA? Though the latest Merkava has a thickened commanders hatch that has to be power operated due to its weight and so does a Leopard 2 upgrade package, nobody else is following this route.
3. In discussions on a defence forum, several Australians, including some ex-RAN and defence pros are of the firm opinion that the Collins class, due to constant upgrades and a more comprehensive sonar suite, are capable than other other SSKs operated within ASEAN, India and China, and that they are the still the quietest SSKs in the region. Would you agree with this statement? Interestingly, the Collins also has one advantage over other regional SSKs - anechoic tiles, using Aussie technology - which are used with an Australian designed bond that is very effective at keeping tiles from falling off, unlike Russian boats that can frequently bee seen with missing tiles. To the best of my knowledge anechoic tiles are not ofered by HDW or DCNS.
#HI Prasun,
you too believe that the indian industry is not capble of abdorbing the technologies that the western arnms companies are offering to india.
Is there any chances tat the MOD will bring any meaningful changes to the DPP which will be meaningful.
Do u have any hope with the congress Govt. whereas BJP seems to have done a better job with defence?
Many thanks to you Prasun da,though off topic still I am asking this-how good are those bullet resistant Patkas used by IA soldiers??According to their official website,these patkas can give protection from 7.62*39mm AKM rounds from 10 meterdistance in the frontal ark and also 5.56 and 7.62 mm NATO rounds,which if true shoukd be the best in the world.My question was that is this claim true as their official site is claiming or not??Hope you can clear the doubt.Again sorry for this offtopic question but there is no one else to help.
Thankzz.
Dear Prasun Sir,are you completely sure that now our FMBT will be the Arjun MkIII(I will get mad in joy if that really happens)??Please don't think I am questioning your authenticity,I just asked because still there is no news from the IA regarding the FMBT project.Begging your perdon if told anything wrong/offencive.Please try to reply.
To Faris: Bar-cage armour is required for enduring protection for armoured vehicles against infantry-fired ATGWs like ATGMs or RPGs or LAWs, which are typically fired from either trenches, bunkers or from man-made dominating positions in built-up/urban areas of the types prevalent in the Gaza Strip or Chechnya or Mogadishu. In India’s case, the designated areas/type of terrain over which armoured battles will likely be fought will not be such built-up areas, but over undulating desert terrain and agrarian land hosting standing crops—which make the line-of-sight employment of ATGMs, RPGs and LAWs almost impossible against armoured vehicles. The scenario changes only when the harvesting season is over and one has flat agrarian land as far as the eye can see, but MBTs will never venture out on their own without fire-support from BMP-2 infantry combat vehicles (ICV) equipped with 20mm cannons and Konkurs-M ATGMs, whose job it will be to seek out and destroy entrenched hostile infantry forces. The Indian Army’s Training Command is also contemplating the usage of BMP-T Terminator-type ICVs in support of accompanying MBTs, which is logical given the huge numbers of T-72M/M-1982 hulls available for conversion with the Indian Army. Modifying such hulls by up-armouring them, and equipping them with a new-design turret carrying a 30mm cannon, a raisable mast housing target acquisition/designation sensors and up to eight Kornet-EM-type ATGMs (plus 16 reloads) will enable such ICVs and MBTs, backed up by light observation helicopters, to function as lethal hunter-killer combined arms teams against both hostile dug-in infantry and mobile mechanised forces. As for self-protection of the more expensive MBTs, the Indian Army has wholeheartedly embraced active protection systems (APS) like LEDS-150 (for the T-90s) and Iron Fist (for the Arjuns). Therefore, the most vurlnerable and relatively unprotected part of Indian MBTs are not the commander’s and gunner’s hatches or the rest of the turret, but the rear engine compartment, which can be protected with both APS as well as signature management solutions (check out this photo showing the modified exhaust piping for the Arjun at: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dBR4VHtFDlY/TmCrENOSYOI/AAAAAAAAASw/VGQWa3w7pKY/s1600/Arjun+Mk1+-2.jpg)
As for SSKs, the Collins-class and Type 877EKM/Type 636 Kilo-class boats were designed for operating in the deep seas, whereas the SSKs from HDW and DCNS are optimised for shallow water operations, for which rubberised anechoic tiles aren’t necessary. Presently, the quietest SSKs operational in Asia are those AIP-equipped SSKs in service with the navies of Japan, Pakistan and Singapore.
To Anon@9.40PM: As I’ve tried to explain above, Indian industry can certainly deliver what’s expected of it ONLY IF the proper business environment is created for nurturing and empowering the industry. Right now, this is missing and this has been the case since independence, and all successive—be it the Congress, Janata Party, or the BJP—are to blame. There are no exceptions and no one is holier than thou.
To Anon@9.49PM: The answer is quite simple: if they weren’t effective they would have been discarded long ago, wouldn’t they?
To Anon@9.59PM: Yes, yes, yes. The FMBT will be the Arjun Mk3. Since the US, Germany and France have already decided to live with MBTs exceeding 60 tonnes for the next 20 years, and if both China and Russia have just unveilled new MBTs that are way above 50 tonnes, it would make the DRDO look damn stupid to make tall claims and empty boasts about having the ability to develop 50-tonne FMBTs. Therefore, the Indian Army HQ has told the DRDO to stop defending the indefensible and get real and focus on what can be realistically delivered by 2020, which is the Arjun Mk3 (a further evolution of the Arjun Mk2 and is NOT a brand-new Greenfield design).
Hi Prasun,
I'll like to ask you the following and expecting your usual detailed analytical response. In the pick of the tank battle, how does replenishment (tank ammunition, water for crews etc.) activities take place.Replenishment assets are most vulnerable in a situation like this in my limited knowledge.
I thought vehicles like BMP - T are troop carrier in the thick of the battle. Is taking care of hostile antitank personnel/asset its secondary role?
I have seen pictures where soldiers (most likely US soldiers) carries computers in the battle fields. Does Indian soldiers carry/use such assets?and conduct.
Much appreciated.
To Anon@4.33PM: Whenever perishable commodities like ammo run out of stock, the MBT crew has no other choice but to break contact with the enemy forces and go back to the rear-logistics area for replenishment. The MBT crew can survive without sleep, food or water for 48 to 72 hours but not without ammo reloads. Yes, Indian Army soldiers do carry such ruggedised BMS terminals as do field artillery gunners.
"Regarding manned airborne surveillance platforms, the Union Cabinet Secretariat has already decided to go for Bombardier Aerospace-built platforms fitted with IAI/ELTA-supplied mission avionics. "
Could you please elaborate more on this? (quantities, timeline for expected delivery, types of sensors etc)
thanks
@ Prasun
3 doubts:
1) What is the status of Nag/Namica ?
Last I heard, Army wanted some last minute changes in Namica even after it passing the trials. Something that has delayed the Nag induction.
2) Wasn't it the Army that proclaimed Arjun to be obsolete and overweight and hence they wanted to think 20 years ahead and go for a new tank design (FMBT). They even had capped the order at 124. It was only after Arjun spanked T90 that IA ordered 124 more and some steam was given to Mk2.
3) a) Has Mk1 participated in any IA exercises? How did it do?
b)Plus what is the viewpoint of IA on Mk1 now that they have operated it for some time?
c)How does IA place it wrt T90 capability wise?
d) If Arjun outperformed T90, then wouldn't it(Mk1) just outclass Al-Khalid?
Thanks in advance..
To Anon@6.03AM: It's all there at: http://trishul-trident.blogspot.com/2011/04/rista-platforms-sought-for-persistent.html
To Anon@7.18AM: 1) What the Army had 'recently' discovered was that the NAMICA vehicle required an independent target acquisition/designation panoramic sensor, preferably mounted on a raisable mast. To therefore re-engineer the NAMICA vehicle and select the appropriate sensor via competitive bidding and then conduct user trials of the re-engineered NAMICA is a long drawn-out process. That's how things stand at the moment.
2) There were (as yet publicly unidentified) vested interests at play in Delhi three years ago that wanted the Arjun MBT project killed in favour of financially rescuing Russia's T-95 FMBT project, which for all practical purposes was a dead duck even from the Russian side, as we all now know, given the subsequent Russian decision to stick to the T-90 MBT family and ditch the T-95 option. It was only after the Russian govt officially clarified its stand on the T-95 issue to the Indian MoD that reality dawned upon the Indian decisionmakers and they accordingly became more sober and realistic and decided to continue with the Arjun Mk2's development process. The Arjun Mk1 has participated in several Regimental-level and Brigade-level exercises to date and the verdict has always been overwhelmingly positive. That is the very reason why the Army now wants the Arjun to evolve further into the Mk2 and Mk3 variants. The Arjun Mk1 in terms of mobility and firepower outclasses the T-90S, but meets its match with the T-90AM. Yes, Al Khalid will be outclassed and outfoxed too, provided the Army's BMS and F-INSAS networks are activated. Presently, the Pakistan Army's BMS network is already operational, whereas that of India is not.
Mr Sengupta,
I know you must have gotten these questions for the nth time-
1. What is the status on the 2nd line (project 75I) of subs for the IN-will it be a heavy, land-attack capable series? or remain in the classical SSK mould.
2. Any news on the MMRCA competition as its been a couple of months since the 'shortlist'? I have a gut feeling that Dassault has a real chance here since they have been as discrete on this competition as the Rafale's touted capabilities!!
Thanks
Mr. Sengupta, a question for you - how many HAL Lancer helicopters are in AAC service ? I know of the intial order of 12 but nothing more.
Also, I am given to understand that the Indian army operated 4 Heavy Artillery Regiments but I can only find evidence of sufficent 7.2 inch BL Howitzer Mk.6 for 1 regiment. What were the rest equipped with.
sir u said that mk2 will outclass alkhalid....
what i wanted that whether mk2 will be superior in firepower , mobility , protection , subsystems or other criteria and how ???
are there any updates or any developments on ficv and finsas projects....??
plus will the bms on arjun mk2 only involve the other arjun tanks only or will it include other elements like infantry , icv's , attack helos or other support elements ??
whats the status of the hal/uac il214 mmta....are they still making agreements on dividing work or have they moved on to make some prototypes....??
sir I have two question,which I wa nt you to clearify.
1.how would compare ARJUN MARK 2 in comparesion to U.S M1A2 ABRAMS tank.
2.will you please clearify the current status of several small arms being developed by DRDO/OFB like kalantak micro assult rifle,amough carbine ,MSMC,insas excalibur,trichy assult rifel.
sir if you have any visit to PUNA,so please bring some information from ARDE
about F-INSAS progrmme.when the 1st phasa of F-INSAS will be completed and what are components of its first phasa.
To Anon@10.01AM: The project 75I SSKs will be multi-role—capable of land-attack, anti-ship strike and as hunter-killer boats. But they in all probability will not have BrahMos on board for the simple reason that no one in the world has as yet qualified this formidable but bulky missile on board any SSK. If the Indian Navy were to qualify this missile for a particular SSK design, then this will take a lot of time and effort, plus non-recurring expenditure, which will push back the P75I acquisition plan by several years. Even the K-152 Nerpa (INS Chakra) Akula-3 SSGN will have Novator-built 3M54E and 3M14E cruise missiles on board, and not BrahMos. Therefore, Navy HQ is likely to eventually opt for either the same Novator package, or RGM-84A Harpoon, or the SM-39. Of these three, the Novator package should appear to be the best option, since it is already operational with the existing upgraded Type 877EJM Kilo-class SSKs.
Regarding the M-MRCA competition, Dassault Aviation has maintained a strict silence thus far simply because it was always known that France had initially insisted since 2001 that a G-to-G agreement be inked between Paris and Delhi under which the Rafales would be supplied to India as one-for-one replacements for the Mirage 2000H/THs. France has never been in favour of a no-holds barred competitive bidding process because it had got burnt several times in the past in South Korea, Singapore, and the UAE. Instead, France, like the erstwhile USSR and present-day Russia, prefers the restricted RFP approach under which it will be the sole bidder. Since that is not the case in either India and Brazil, Dassault Aviation has chosen to keep a low profile as opposed to its competitors like Boeing and Eurofighter GmbH.
To SBM: Dr ji, aapka haardik swaagat hai, as always. Hope sab kuch khushaal hai. Aur chod bhi dijiye yeh ‘Mr Sengupta’. Yes, the Army has got only 12 Lancers as of now, but interestingly, talks are on with HAL to relife at least 60 existing SA.315B Lama/Cheetah airframes, re-engine them with Turbomeca TM-333-2B engines, re-quip their cockpits with lightweight AMLCD displays, comms units and lightweight ESM sensors and countermeasures dispensers, plus attach a four-unit HELINA ATGM launcher fitment (two on each side)—this becoming the operational Cheetal variant for the AAC. It is for this reason that the HAL facility for producing the Chetak/Cheetah helicopters has been re-opened in Bengaluru (the overhaul/refurbishment facilities are now at Barrackpore) and firm contracts are due for award in the very near future.
Regarding heavy artillery assets, perhaps you may have overlooked the Uri-based SOLTAM 160mm mortar assets. Interestingly, a friend of mine who in 1997 as a Col was heading a GR battalion along the LoC, repeatedly found his company-level Langars being attacked at night with NORINCO-built Red Arrow ATGMs. After HQ Northern Command approved a counter-strike (after the then PM I K Gujral sanctioned the counter-strike), this friend of mine devised an elaborate deception plan under which jeep-mounted 106mm RCLs and 160mm mortars (helilifted from Uri for the first time since 1971 by Mi-26T helicopters) were covertly brought in and put to devastating use in a series of simultaneous dawn attacks (when the NLI personnel would be having breakgast at their Langars) against the facing NLI formations along the LoC in that particular sector. But regrettably, the Col’s Divisional Commander was flabbergasted by the use of 160mm mortars and angrily asked the Col is his intention was to start WW-3! But on the other hand, when the then GOC-in-C Northern Command, Gen ‘Paddy’ Padmanaban, was briefed about this incident, he personally called up the Col and said: “Well done my boy. Now, what more do you need to fulfill your mission?”. See the contrasting attitudes here of senior commanders, with one admonishing his subordinating officer for displaying audacity, while another is encouraging the Col to be even more innovative, should he choose to?
To Anon@9.30PM: Yes, the Arjun Mk2 will have superior firepower, mobility, and protection. Just compare the data I’ve given in previous threads about the Arjun Mk2 with what I’ve reproduced about the Al Khalid MBT at: http://trishulgroup.blogspot.com/2008/10/pakistan-armys-mbts-detailed.html
But it must be noted that the BMS is a critical component of the network-centric battlespace and without it the Arjun-equipped squadrons and regiments will be severely handicapped. The Pakistan Army began implementing its BMS project since 2004 and it is now operational with its armoured corps, whereas the Indian BMS is still in the laboratory stage. BMS will be all-encompassing and will involve all combat and support arms of the Indian Army. Regarding the IL-214 MRTA, ToT has already started with the HAL designers beginning to master the Russian language before going to Russia to begin the detailed design phase. Prototype construction is still a long way away.
TO JEET SINGH: Data about F-INSAS will not come from the ARDE, but from the Deputy Chief of Army Staff (Information Systems and Training), and the Chief Signals Officer, both at Army HQ. The F-INSAS project, C4I2SR (Command, Control, Computers, Communications, Intelligence, Information, Surveillance and Reconnaissance) System, and BMS are all seamlessly related, meaning one will not function without the other.
Well the Pak are working on Alkhalid Mk.1 and an improved BMS, afterall they have over 7 experience now. We are not standing still and waiting for you to catchup. Infact one of the outputs from their experience on the west is even more professionalism. Sometimes I get the impression on this site that whilst IA moves ahead to catch up, PA will remain stationary :-). Wishful thinking indeed.
Have you seen how PA equipment has changed in the last 10 years? PA plan was to completely move to 155 Artillery by around 2015 and to produce it locally. Do you know how they are progressing?
I have been told that they are locally manufacturing the A-100E in Karachi and expect to produce at least 96 units. At what level do you think these unit are likely to be deployed?
To SherKhan: Your dismissive comments strongly indicate that you're not too conversant with the past contents/earlier threads of this blog. Pray do some more reading before reaching any ill-conceived conclusions. As far as armour goes, yes, the Pakistan Army is terribly inferior to the Indian Army in terms of both numbers as well as theatre-level command-and-control. The perpetual obsession ofthe Pakistan Army HQ and its GHQ with a centralised command and control structure and the institutional inability to create theatre-levels commands has, does and will continue to put the Pakistan Army's Corps Commanders at a tremendous disadvantage and if you want more data on this, kindly ask Gen Mirza Aslam Beg to share the results of EX Zarb-e-Momin of 1989. The subsequent creations of ARN & ARS is nothing more than lip-service, to say the least. Forget all about high-tech weapons and bandwidth available etc etc, and just for a moment focus on the operational inability of the Pakistan Army's Corps Commanders to come to terms with the multiple theatre-level commands of the Indian Army and you will realise just how backward the Pakistan Army is. As for 155mm artillery I don;t know whether you're referring to artillery howitzers or orunds, but as far as rounds go, POF has been licence-producing 155mm rounds of French and South Korean origin only since 2008. As for localised production of a mere 96 units of CPMIEC-developed A100E MBRLs, I'm sure no one in Pakistan is so stupid enough to make non-recurring expenditures for establishing industrial facilities for such a small number of MBRLs. It is far more cheaper to procure them off-the-shelf and have therm shipped to Karachi, which is exactly what has happened. If you want to know more about all this, then do visit this site: http://trishulgroup.blogspot.com/2008/09/pakistan-army-upgrades-its-field.html
Ah but the 160mm are in Heavy Mortar regiments. The ones I speak of are Heavy Regiments (artillery) and are supposed to have had the 7.2inch BL Howitzer Mk.6 or perhaps even 180mm S-23s from the USSR. 40 of which are alleged to have been delivered according to SIPRI - have never seen them though.
To sbm,
I have read your comments in this blog and you sound to be knowledgeable. 7.2inch BL Howitzer Mk.6,180mm S-23s, seriously. Is it part of setting up 'Retro' artillery brigade?
prasun, however i feel the main disadvantage with arjun is the Rifled gun instead of a smoothbore. smoothbore has less barrel wear and failure tendency in combat. it is also more suited for launching ATGMs / KE / HEAT rounds which don't require spin.. is thr any chance of Mk.2 being featured with a SB gun? thanx.
Mr.Prasun some news says '' over 300 su30mki will be added'', upto know india ordered 272nos (2 nos lost in crash, so its 270 nos only, do india have plan for another 30 nos new su30mki or news is confused, what's ur opinion .
To SBM: To the best of my knowledge the howitzers you've mentioned are not in operational service.
To Anon@12PM: There's no problem with the 120mm rifled-bore gun as it now exists.
To Anon@1.37PM: Plans always exist, but whether the plans will be converted into firm contractual orders is another matter. Right now, 272 is just about the optimum size for the Su-30MKI fleet. And once the 'deep upgrade' gets underway in a staggered manner, the effectiveness and lethality per aircraft will increase manifold.
To Anon@12PM: The crucial difference with the rifled gun is that it can fire APFSDS (Armor Piercing Fin-Stabilised Discarding Sabot), HEAT (High Explosive Anti Tank) and HESH (High Explosive Squash Head) projectiles. A smoothbore gun can fire only APFSDS and HEAT projectiles but not HESH ones. What is so special about HESH? HESH rounds have a high explosive content that spreads itself on the surface of the target upon impact. It does not possess the armour-piercing ability of the HEAT or APFSDS projectiles. However, the shock-wave it creates upon impact travels through the armour and results in metal parts inside the compartment to spall off and fly damaging weapon systems, igniting fuel and ammunition in its way and particularly causing injury and death to the crew-members. It has been argued that current armoured fighting vehicles with composite or layered armour are safe against HESH as the shock wave is not carried inside. In addition, there exists some level of controversy over whether the reactive armour found on most MBTs effectively counters the shockwave or adds to the blast and shock effect. However, the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) claims that the HESH ammunition, designed by it, has the ability to strip off the explosive reactive armour (ERA) and incapacitate the crew severely. Apart from having a deadly effect on previous generation MBTs, it also has its use against fortifications. In the Arjun, the HESH is the secondary ammunition and is aimed against soft targets, tanks and fortifications; APFSDS projectiles are the primary anti-tank ammunition.
it's a pity you can't make out the advantages of having centralized C&C structure for a smaller country like pakistan vis-a-vis India - and how this strategy works out to be better. U talk about Zarb-eMomin. How did India fare with theater level planning during Ops Brasstacks (86-87) and Ops Parakram (01-02)?
Thanks you for your detailed reply prasun, i was anon@12.. But the question is to your answer is: why even use HESH? With UK introducing the Challenger 2 which is supposed to be smoothbored (being trialed with a Rheinmetall 120mm gun), India would probably be the only country to use HESH. Considering Indian probable employment of tanks in war time, would HESH be the better bet since HESH is more effective against buildings than modern MBTs? In fact APFSDS is not as efficient in Rifled as in Smoothbore because the spin diverts some of the linear kinetic energy into rotational energy which thus reduces effective penetration, because the velocity in turn reduces due to the spin. I know that modifications can be made to the rounds, i.e. by adding bearings to compensate for the spin, but then anyhow the life of the gun gets significantly reduced since excessive wear is caused. So how practical is it to maintain such a gun?
Mr PK.loy
You are talking of BRASSTACKS and PARAKRAM
You have forgotten That BOTH these exercises caused PANIC in Pakistan and Pakistan Army was SHITTING BRICKS
If you want to fight with PENNY PACKETS that is your operational Philosophy
Indian ARMY uses MASSED armour and Massed Artilery For attacking ALL parts of the Battlefield ie
REAR ; the FLANKS and ofcourse the Front
This is known as DESTRUCTION IN DETAIL
Therefore we NEED THEATRE level planning and tactics and strategies
Finally IN SHORT ;you must admit that pakistan army is no match for the Indian army
And Indian Army TOO ;now is Focussed on China .Pakistan is JUST A NUISANCE NOT A THREAT
The CVRDE, with IMI’s help, has also redesigned the Arjun Mk1’s turret to incorporate modular sloped armour fittings, and has developed a slat-armour package to protect the MBT against anti-tank rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) attacks. It functions by placing a rigid barrier around the vehicle, which causes the shaped-charge warhead to explode at a relatively safe distance. For protecting the Arjun Mk2 against tandem-charge RPGs and guided anti-tank missiles, the CVRDE and IMI have co-developed a lightweight non-energetic reactive armour (NERA) package, comprising tiles in which two metal plates sandwich an inert liner, such as rubber. When struck by a shaped-charge’s metal jet, some of the impact energy is dissipated into the inert liner layer, and the resulting high-pressure causes a localised bending or bulging of the plates in the area of the impact. As the plates bulge, the point of jet impact shifts with the plate-bulging, increasing the effective thickness of the armour.
SO NERA has been developed
Retro artillery ? Possibly yes. It would be funny but the 7.2 inch Mk.6 BL Howitzers only left service in 1997 (the last regiment) and the 5.5 inch Gun left service around the same time.
India does keep some artillery pieces around for a very long time.
During the Kargil operations we all saw a single 75/24 howitzer serving alongside a 105mm regiment.
Hi Prasun sir,can you please inform me that which of these following tanks has got stronger armor-Arjun MkI or T 90AM or Al Khalid I??I am asking about the main armor without ERA.Hope you can solve my doubt.And keep up your great job.
thanks.
Hi Prasun,
Is Mayanmar edging towards nukes as well? It would have made sense for the generals b4 their democracy.There wes speculation on this front as well in the media talking about underground roads to a site near the new capital and the North Korean regime helping it.This was because the chinese were not trusted (chinese citizens settling in mayanmar border)and a guarantee against US invasion.
Prasun,
Do you know how acoustic signatures are recorded and stored by ships and subs? Are such features a standard fit in all modern sonar systems or does it have to be bought seperately?
This is what I picked up from another forum, though I didn't give me any clues to my question.
''I know in the old days,(pre 1980) audio information was recorded on a multi track(>50) tape recorder using 1" magnetic tape that could record at speeds over 30 inches per second. equipment was sorta portable(2 man carry). with the advances in electronics, creating a multi channel digital record should be easy and the equipment briefcase size. i wear a hearing aid that has 2 microphones, has an 8 frequency equalizer, and samples what i hear at a 2 Mhz rate. it isn't much bigger than my thumbnail.''
''There are a number of ways we do it. One is a fixed cage where the sub is sailed into the middle and then mapped. The solution I've been involved with was a conformal array which was moved along the hull and then the subs acoustic reflection image mapped. Am not too keen on expanding the detail on this for a number of obvious reasons.''
''technically you could record the data to any storage device large enough to receive the
output - but that usually co-resides on the appl which processes the data. they're kind of intrinisically linked. The cage is designed to take a sub the size of a Seawolf or 688I
I've used the other solution using a conformal array and a laptop.I'm not going to discuss details of how and what is done to map the hull though ''
Also, I would assume that all modern naval ESM system provide the ability to record and store ELINT and SIGINT?
Sir, i would like to ask a question which is not related to this post ,
we all know indian infantrymen severely lack equipment like nvgs n bullet proof gear..y such equipment is not procured & wat kind of equipment do our infantrymen get & where do they stand training wise ??
sir , can we expect a detailed article on indian infantry from u ??
thanks sir.
To pk.loy: It appears that you’re not the kind of person that does one’s homework prior to wagging a boneless tongue like a dog’s tail. For instance, it was after EX Zarb-e-Momoin that the Pakistan Army HQ and GHQ together realised that notional theatre commands were indeed a necessity and consequently, ARN and ARS were created. Secondly, Brasstacks was not an OP but was part of a two-front multi-Corps-level EX, the other being EX Checker Board that was conducted as soon as EX Brass tacks ended. As for OP Parakram, by the time full mobilisation was completed by India by January 9, 2002, more than 80% of the Pakistan Army was still deployed north of the Shakargarh Bulge. Had it been India’s intention to conventionally overwhelm Pakistan in detail in any theatre stretching from the Punjab till Sindh, this could have been achieved within a week.
To Anon@4.35PM: HESH is used for the very same reason that it was used during OP Bluestar against the Akal Takht. In the India-Pakistan scenario, HESH rounds will be used for engaging and neutralising the scores of hardened and armoured bunkers spread along the ditch-cum-bundhs that straddle the numerous canals along a north-south axis in an area stretching from the Chicken’s neck area right up to Sialkot and sometimes even further down south . HESH and APAM rounds fired from MBTs are therefore crucial for supporting the mechanised assaults against such man-made obstacles.
To Anon@5.54PM: The Arjun Mk1 and T-90AM have RHA that is superior to that of the Al Khalid MBT. If not, then POF wouldn’t have developed FSAPDS rounds containing DU-made kinetic energy penetrator rods.
To Anon@7.12PM: Myanmar is not edging, but racing towards acquiring nuclear-based WMDs. The target date is 2015 and in anticipation of that, Myanmar has already acquired a few Nodong-1 ballistic missiles from the DPRK.
To Faris: Acoustic signature recording is a fairly easy process and easily done by modern-day sonar suites. The explanation that you posted refers to acoustic signature measurement, for which there are conformal flank-array sonar suites in either side of a SSK.
To Anon@1.12AM: There is no dearth of NVG gear or HHTIs. The paucity is that of battery chargers for such devices. When such devices were bought, only one battery charger per four devices was procured for reasons beyond my comprehension.
Hi prasun,
There is a conference in Delhi on soldier modernization 2011. They will be discussing FINSAS program.
I hope you will post an article on FINSAS program for your fans here.
Prasun Sir , Will Arjun Mk2 will be superior to T-90AM and can Arjun Mk2 match Abrams M1A2 and Leopard 2 capability ?
Prasun and fellow bloggers
"...The “Shakti” project for a command and control system for the artillery, called Artillery Combat Command and Control System (ACCCS), has reached the stage of maturity and is now being fielded up to the regimental level....."
Above is from the article http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories240.htm
What is 'Shakti'. Appreciate a detailed information on its form, functions, equipments involved and objective.
Thanks in advance.
Sir, what is ARN and ARS that you refer to in case of Pakistan? Thanx.
Hey Prasun,
You said you the pictures of Arjun mk2. Is the newly designed sloped turret, part of the upgraded arjun that is being tested in Rajasthan ?
If the turret is redesigned how does it look ? Like Leopard 2A6/2A7 or more like Merkava 4 ?
Has arjun mk2 outperformed Singapores leopard in trials or has the same capabilities ?
Is there a plan to develop technologies like the recent BAE systems infra-red 'invisibility cloak' for MBTs ?
You said DRDO should not concentrate on developing a 50 ton MBT as only Japan has succeded. I just wanna know then what will be futuristic in Arjun mk3 aka FMBT ? All the latest system are already incorporated in Arjun mk2.
Also if DRDO will be able to reduce weight to 50 ton then we can work more on armor making it impenetrable...
When is the requirements for FMBT will be finalized by army ?
Are we going to see a weaponized version of laser on our FMBT ?
Any new product from the JV formed by Indian private companies with global defence giants in the last few years ?
Are their any programs for naval equipments like Radars, turbines etc. ? I mean the parts which India is importing from foreign companies .
Which aircrafts IAF is looking for replacing 50 Avro ? How big will this order be ?
As far as cost is considered i think its fine. Latest version of leopard cost around 11.8 million $. Japans Type 10 cost around 11 million$ and so is the cost.
Something is wrong I can't log into my blogger id.
when are more write-up expected sir??
wud love to have one on the finsas and ficv ....
has the development on ficv been started ??
any updates on the lca mk2 , lca-navy ,super mki, amca and aura project...???
To Anon @ 11 45 AM of September 9
Project Shakti is the NAME of the new "Network System " of Indian Artilery
Basically today's battlefields are NETWORKED .
The First task is to SEE the enemy and then HIT HIM before he hits you
So as soon as the enemy's position and SIZE is known by NEW TECH METHODS such as satellites; UAVs or Reconaissance aircraft ; Then Very quickly Such information is relayed to the GROUND ARTILERRY Commanders
The Arty Commanders will Decide HOW MUCH FIRE is necessary to Destroy the target And do the job
Next task is to assess the DAMAGE and then decide if More FIREPOWER IS needed
Here also SAME reconnaisance tools are needed
When Arty is NETWORKED then its EFFICIENCY gets increased many times .
Also Nowadays LONG range artilery such as MBRL Smerch and Prithvis and Prahar etc have MADE IT POSSIBLE to HIT DEEP inside ENEMY territory and TAKE OUT HIGH Value Targets
But FOR THAT you need PRECISE and Real time ie QUICK updates
To Anon @ 11 53 AM of September 9
You asked about ARN And ARS
Let me tell you all that I know about STRIKE CORPS or RESERVES
as they are known
Pakistan Army has two Strike Corps Which are called
ARMY RESERVE NORTH ie ARN
and ARMY RESERVE SOUTH ARS
BUT Indian Army's Three STRIKE CORPS are MUCH BIGGER than Pakistani Strike corps
Therefore Pakistan DREADS and PANICS in front of INDIAN ARMY'S STRIKE CORPS
ARN HQ is Mangla in pakistan and is to be deployed in Punjab and jammu region
ARS HQ is Multan and to be deployed in Rajasthan and sindh
The 2 Corps of Indian army or as its nickname is THE KHARAGA Corps is the SWORD ARM of The Indian Army
It contains 50 percent of India's Strike capability
The Other Strike Corps are 1 Corps its nickname I dont know
And 21 Corps which is also known as SUDARSHAN CHAKRA CORPS
But IN the NEW Cold start doctrine The Pivot Corps or HOLDING corps will have to START
the war without waiting for Strike corps to reach the Border
So accordingly Pivot Corps have been STRENGTHENED with ADDING some formations from the Strike Corps
Dear Prashunda,
Please accept my sincere congratulations and thanks for your detailed, incisive and pragmatic reporting. Also for your patience and commitment!
May I ask you a few questions please?
- In its current configuration (without new engines) what payload can IAF Jaguars carry in a Deep Strike mission in our hot and high conditions.
- When will MLUs of Godavari and Rajput class happen, which vessels will be upgraded and with what sensor and weapon fit. After the upgrades how long will the upgraded vessels be in commission
- When will Project 17A construction start and when will the first vessels be commissioned. Appreciate your realistic schedules not MDL/MOD's paper projections.
- Can you do a piece on India's tube arty in terms of current capabilities and numbers and assured inductions (not proposed) and innovations (ACCS for example)over the next 5 years?
I am deeply concerned about the capability erosion in tube arty and believe that that arm is more important than armour for several reasons - not least that it is used in 'peace time' as well (Kargil, LOC exchanges). If we need to save lives, inflict damage in short localised exchanges or during full fledged operations, strong capable tube arty is critical. Only tube arty can deliver tons of devastating firepower hour after day after day flexibly and cheaply.
Akshay
To Anon@9.23AM: Will try to post something on the F-INSAS programme, but no firm promises as yet.
To Anon@10.10AM: In my view the T-90AM, whose design was heavily influence d by Indian Army inputs, is making a brave attempt to catch up to the Arjun Mk2, but it is only the Arjun Mk2 with its capability to fire HESH rounds, can engage both hostile MBTs (with FSAPDS rounds) as well as hostile dug-in infantry forces (with HESH rounds), something which the M-1A2, Leopard 2 and T-90AM are incapable of at the moment. Therefore, it would appear that the Arjun Mk2 is superior to all the others.
To Anon@11.45AM: The Shatki ACCCS is to the field artillery what the F-INSAS will be to the infantry and what the BMS will be to the mechanized/motorised/armoured forces. Anon@2.30PM has thankfully provided you additional details.
To Anon@11.53AM: Army Reserve North (ARN) and Army Reserve South (ARS).
To Anon@1.03PM: The Arjun Mk2’s frontal turret section is sloped like that of the Leopard 2A6. From the very beginning the CVRDE has used the leopard 2 as its design/performance benchmark for the Arjun Mk1 and this practice has been retained for the Arjun Mk2 as well. As I’ve explained above, the ability to fire HESH rounds confers a unique ability to the Arjun family of MBTs to not only engage hostile armoured vehicles, but also dug-in infantry. Therefore, in a way there’s no comparison between the Arjun Mk1/2 with other MBTs. ‘IR-visibility cloak’ and other novel technologies are already being researched and looked into not only for armoured vehicles, but for combat aircraft as well. The Arjun Mk3 will have an open-architecture vectronics suite integrated by a MIL-STD-1553B digital databus, similar to what’s on board modern-day combat aircraft. Its control systems (for automotives and gun-control) will be all-electrical, and not electro-hydraulic as is presently the case. The Arjun Mk3 is also due to have a larger calibre (likely 55-calibre) cannon. There’s absolutely no need to set unattainable R & D targets like MBT weight reduction (especially since even the Brits, French, Germans and the US are not doing it); instead, focus on perfecting the vectronics suite that will also include the APS. The FMBT’s GSQRs should be ready by the year’s end.
To Akshay: In its current configuration, the Jaguars, backed up by aerial refuelling, can go as far as eastern Afghanistan when adopting a hi-lo-high flight profile. The MLUs of the Godavari and Rajpuit-class vessels have already taken place, and one can see the OTOMelara 76/62 cannons on the Godavaris and EL/M-2238 AMDR radars on these vessels as well. The Rajput-class DDGs will also have the vertically-launched BrahMos on board. Project 17A FFGs will begin being fabricated by 2014. Four will be built by MDL and three by GRSE. Like you, I too share my deep anguish about the depleted state of the Indian Army’s tube artillery assets/capabilities. Hopefully, the LW-155 UFH deal will soon go through and will be followed by the competitive bidding for motorised 155mm/52-cal howitzers, for which the SOLTAM Systems ATMOS and Nexter Systems’ CAESAR have responded to the Army’s RFP, along with KMW’s AGM howitzer. In my personal view, the Indian Army must baltogether do away with towed 155mm howitzers and instead focus on heliborne, motorised and tracked lightweight self-propelled 155mm howitzers like the DONAR and K-9 Thunder.
Hi Prasun , Since you have mentioned Arjun Mk2 will be superior to Leopard 2 and M1A2 , Is there any discussion with customer to export Arjun Mk1 and Mk2 ?
Did DRDO received any interest from countries who will be interested in buying Arjun tank ?
Hey Prasun,
Thanx for a great answer for arjun mbt. Would love to see the pics as soon as possible...
I also asked a few more questions. It will be great if you take allok at them too...
Any new product from the JV formed by Indian private companies with global defence giants in the last few years ?
Are their any programs for naval equipments like Radars, turbines etc. ? I mean the parts which India is importing from foreign companies .
Which aircrafts IAF is looking for replacing 50 Avro ? How big will this order be ?
Battlefield Mangement System solutions are also provided by many private industries like Tata, Mahindra, LnT, Rolta Thales etc. in collaboration with global defense giants which are tailored to meet indian requirements. Why don't army give this project to private industries ?
How many mini and Micro UAVs IA is planning to induct ? Please just give the number...
You said you prefer F-125 or MEKO-D designs for Project 17A, and the MEKO-CSL for the Project 28A corvette reqmt.
Who is offering these ? i mean which shipyard MDL or GRSE ?
Last i heard the decision was tilting towards FREMM. What is favorite among MOD and IN ?
Has GRSE proposed MEKO-CSL design for Project 28A ? When the work on P28A starts or when is the last P28 going to induct in IN ?
Any steps government is taking to reduce the cost of the ridiculously expensive warships being built by Indian shipyards which is mainly because of the cost over-run due to inefficiency ?
How is this going to work ? We will be purchasing the design from DCNS or whichever shipyard's design is selected ?
Any chance that Goa shipyard, HSL(i know already work on submarine) and CSL entering in the warship or submarine business ?
I heard MDL is building a second shipyard in Gujrat and Bharti in WB. Any update on that ? How big it will be ?
Any news about governments plan for private shipyards or they will continue to make speed boats and at best OPVs ?
Is india planning to develop OPVs using modular shipbuilding technique like Visby ?
HI Prasun,
Why is the US not opting for a regime change if Burma wants to go nuclear.after all they are part of the axis of evil.And do you think Burma will acheive its target of 2015?
What is the US's goal in building mil bases in Libya, Afghanistan,Iraq?What is its purpose when they are slashing defence spending?
Why is the US peeved " Chinese gas pipielines fom burmese port to south western chinese territories bypassing the malacca straits how is it disadvantageous to US goals in the region?
Is Pakistan-US reln goinng anywhere after Osama was killed?
MK Bhadrakumar thinks Pakistan is pragmaic enough to build a reln with India and solve issues with neighbours w/o US help.
Is it doing tat and militarliy convincing India abt its peaceful intentions?
WHAT ARE the listening posts in Maldives India wants to construct?
Why do the US still hold Diego garcia inspite of repeated protest by india in the Past?
What military value does it hold to the US?
With china helping the EU in buying Eurobonds will China in future strike a strategic partnership with EU or its members individually?
Thanx for your comment reg Arjun Mk2 with its capability to fire HESH & FSAPDS rounds, something which the M-1A2, Leopard 2 and T-90AM are incapable of at the moment. Therefore, it would appear that the Arjun Mk2 is superior to all the others.
Hi Prasun,
Indeed having too much central (GHQ Army) control is a weakness in PA and they are very aware of it. They have tried to offset it by having greater degree of flexibilty at unit level. PA is also working towards a 3rd Strike corp based in karachi. This is almost ready now with its constituent armour/mechanisation/artillery formations in place.
Your indeed have a lot of knowledge on PA, i admit, however it does get clouded sometimes. PA thinking comes from (sanctions/lack of money) mindset: It is one of the main reasons they turn to china becaue they get the knowledge and freedom to assemble/manufacture/adapt weapoen system they purchase. Even when purchasing in small numbers.
You mentioned that (one of ur clody moments):
"To Anon@5.54PM: The Arjun Mk1 and T-90AM have RHA that is superior to that of the Al Khalid MBT. If not, then POF wouldn’t have developed FSAPDS rounds containing DU-made kinetic energy penetrator rods. "
This really doesn't make sense to a non-indian person. US army developed and deployed DU-made rounds in Iraq, not because they thought T-72 had better protection than the Abrahm Tanks but because they wanted to kill a T-72 with ONE SHOT. That is the exactly approach PA has taken...get the best round they could possible developed in house to kill any IA tank, even Arjun MkII. You may be aware they are currently working on an improved version of this DU-round (Pak Press), with much greater penetration.
To Anon@9.02PM: The Arjun Mk1 & Mk2 MBTs having been developed for India-specific requirements, is unlikely to be find an export market which is dominated by already well-established MBT manufacturers. Furthermore, as far as present-day foreign customers of MBTs are concerned, the bulk of them are African countries that are more likely to opt for T-72S or T-80UD MBTs which are cheaper to acquire.
To Anon@10.21PM: I had already highlighted earlier in the thread on Arjun Mk2 MBT the MBT driving and gunnery simulators developed by CAE India Pvt Ltd. TATA Power SED has, along with CAE India Pvt Ltd, has developed a gunnery simulator for the T-90S for export worldwide, since the Indian Army’s reqmts for T-90S gunnery/driving simulators are being met by simulators developed wholly in-county by ZEN Technologies Ltd. L-3 MAPPS India Pvt Ltd, based in Bengaluru, has already developed and supplied IPMS and battle damage control systems for the Indian navy’s three Project 17 FFGs and six MEKO-100RMN new-generation patrol vessels of the Royal Malaysian Navy. HBL-Nife, based in Hyderabad, is an approved exporter of several types of batteries for aircraft (civil and military), guided-missiles and torpedoes and this company owns a few production facilities in Europe and the US. Similarly, MKU Ltd is world-renowned supplier of composites-based products like helmets and armoured panels for warships. These companies have done things smartly by acquiring established manufacturing facilities abroad (lije in Germany) instead of re-inventing the wheel. Private-sector companies like them can produce co9mplete weapon systems and sensors in JV with foreign OEDMs PNLY IF they are assured of orders from the Indian MoD. But this is not yet the case, since, despite all protestations to the contrary, the MoD continues to favour DPSUs like BEL, HAL, etc, which is sheer doublespeak and hypocracy. Just look at the mess created by BEL with regard to supplying maritime LORROS sensors for the coastal surveillance system, which has been revealed by the CAG’s latest audit reports! For this contract, there should have been a competitive bidding process for supplying such optronic sensors, but instead the Union Ministry for Home Affairs arbitrarily appointed BEL as the prime contractor when BEL had no in-house expertise to either develop or choose such products. That is also the reason why private players have been excluded from the BMS and F-INSAS projects as well. HS-748 replacements could be the CN-235-220 from EADS/Airbus Military, Alenia Aeronautica’s C-27J Spartan or ATR-42-600, and An-32B-300. But herein lies the complication: since all these aircraft come with glass cockpits how on earth will they be used for providing flight/navigation training for those aircrews destined to fly the An-32Bs (since these so-called upgraded aircraft don’t have glass cockpits)? Shouldn’t the IAF have included the glass cockpit suite as part of the An-32B upgrade package? You see how stupid the IAF was to reject this option? As for mini- and micro-UAVs, the numbers to be procured runs into the thousands.
To Anon@12.45AM: Presently, only the OEMs are offering these FFGs, and not any Indian shipyard. The shipyards have their own preferences, like MDL which favours tying up with DCNS since it already has existing tie-ups with DCNS for the Scorpene SSK, while GRSE also has tied up with DCNS for the Project 28 ASW corvette programme. Currently, there are no favourites since the Govt of India has yet to sanction the P-17A FFG project. No one has proposed the MEKO-CSL for Project 28A except ME. The last project 28 ASW corvette will be commissioned into service by 2017. As of now the government is NOT taking to reduce the cost of the ridiculously expensive warships being built by DPSU shipyards. Well, what do you expect from a government that despatches a 6,700-tonne destroyer or 4,500-tonne FFG to conduct anti-piracy patrols in the Horn of Africa—a job that can easily be done by an offshore patrol vessel!!! Only the production rights for the selected P-17A FFG design will be bought, not the design rights. GSL will stay in the business of building OPVs and AOPVs, HSL will be building two LPHs, CSL will stick to building the IAC-2 and fast interceptor craft, GRSE will stick to building FFGs, corvettes and OPVs, while the private shipyards will become mere sub-contractors to the MoD-owned shipyards and produce vessels like tug-boats, ocean surveillance catamarans, and cadet training ships. Only Pipavav Shipyards will build the AOPVs for the Navy. MDL’s second shipyard is in Mumbai, which is the Alcock Shipyard which it has bought and it is there that the second Scorpene SSK line is coming up. The first Scorpene SSK will be delivered in August 2015 and the last by November 2018. Bharti in WB? It better go to any other state but not in WB, which is totally anti-industry and discourages any form of heavy industries entering the state. That’s why the TMC govt does not want the six 1,000mW n-reactors from Russia!!! Therefore, stay away from WB, period! Far better to go to Orissa or Tamil Nadu if one wants to set up greenfield shipyards. Modular shipbuilding will take off at MDL when fabrication of the Project 15B DDGs begin. But even now the Scorpene SSKs are being built in modular form.
To Anon@2.01PM: Since Myanmar does not pose any kind of existential threat as yet to anyone else, the US is not too interested in initiating a regime change in Myanmar. As for Myanmar achieving its target of 2015, it all depends on how desperate Myanmar is to acquire this capability and if the DPRK is willing to sell and supply this to Myanmar for a price. As for building bases in Afghanistan or Iraq or Libya, the goal is always to secure and protect US investments in these countries. For instance in Libya and Iraq, the US will secure its long-term fuel supplies of low-sulphur crude. For instance, the US has since 2005 been importing Basra light sweet crude at US$20 per barrel and this arrangement will continue for the next 10 years—this being Iraq’s payment to the US for ushering in democracy. Unlike the rest of the world, the US and UK are not paying market prices for Iraqi crude, but are getting it at heavily subsidised rates. And that’s precisely their economies are managing to stay afloat. The same goes for Afghanistan, where the US will guarantee the safety of gas pipelines emanating from Turkmenistan and ending up in Pakistan and India and a US company will be paid lumpsum amounts per annum by both Pakistan and India for purchasing this gas, thereby foregoing Iran’s offer to supply gas to India and Pakistan. Its all about making money at the end of the day.
To Mr RA: Yes, that would appear to be the case.
To SherKhan: Lack of money? What has the US been giving to Islamabad since late 2001? Money is not the problem for Pakistan, it is the lack of skilled human resources. And FYI the US knew all about the T-72’s vulnerabilities since the 1981 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Hell, even the Indian Army’s T-55s fitted with L-7 rifled-bore cannon, when firing 105mm FSAPDS rounds, would routinely pierce the T-72M’s armour. Therefore, the US had no need to make use of DU rounds against Iraqi MBTs per se. There were other reasons for their usage. India has been well-aware of what’s been cooking at POF and what kind of DU rounds have been or are being developed there, and therefore as far back as early 2009 several T-90S MBTs were equipped with the LEDS-150 APS and now it is the turn of the Arjun Mk1s and Mk2s to be equipped with Iron Fist APS suites. Bottomline: I prefer to stay objective and resort to logical reasoning, no matter how cloudy or foggy the environment may get.
Dear Prashunda,
Thank you for responding. A couple of follow on questions if you don't mind
- What payload can the Jags carry in that mission? 1 ton, 2 tons? I presume refuelling will happen atleast 100 km in our airspace.
- Is the EL/M 2238 AMDR a development of the EL/M 2238 STAR? Did this happen recently? Were the styx missiles be replaced as well? They retain their Barak 1 for now? Any change in sonar fit?
- AFAIK Ranvinjay and Ranvir already had the 8 cell VLS, Ranjit had 8 bow mounted Brahmos, Rana none and Rajput 4 bow mounted Brahmos. So now Rajput, Rana and Ranjit have VLS Brahmos as well? What about SAM capability on all these vessels.
The Navy chief had said in his Navy Day press conference in Dec 2010 that 13 ships including Godavari and Rajput classes will be given MLUs. So you are saying this has already happened?
How many Godavari's and Rajput's can we keep commission till 2025. Because if P17A fabrication starts in 2014 there is no way the first vessels will be commissioned before 2022. Looking at our track record, average construction time is 8.5 years per ship for frigates and destroyers since early 1990's.
Thanks and apologies if any of these are obvious questions.
Akshay
To Akshay: The SEPECAT/HAL jaguars can carry up to 3,000kg of payload. The EL/M-2238 STAR is also known as the AMDR and has been superceded by the EL/M-2288 AD-STAR that is on the Shivalik FFGs. Styx SSMs remain on the Godavrai-class FFGs. Barak-1 is on board and the sonar is the HUMSA-NG. The plan is to re-arm all the Kashin-2 DDGs with BrahMos. SAM capability remains unchanged but Barak-1 is being installed and in some cases has already been installed. The existing vessels can be retained up to 2020. For P-17A FFGs, delivery of the lead boat will take six years, following which the remaining six will be delivered in one-year intervals. MDL has undertaken a lot of upgradation and expansion thanks to the Project 15B DDG programme and this will come in handy for the P-17A programme as well. Furthermore, MDL has taken the lead in roping in private shipyards as sub-contractors capable of supplying fabricated modules. This will further cut down the time taken for final assembly.
Thank you Prashunda. Much appreciated. Last question, is it true that the lead vessels of P15A will now be delivered in 2015?
Akshay
How are dhruv alh and LCH panning out.??
why army not inducting dhruv in large numbers.??
can anyway LCH be compared to Eurocopter tiger in performance if not sensors and all.??
It was very well authored and easy to understand. Unlike additional blogs I have read which are really not that good. I also found your posts very interesting.this was actually what i was looking for,and i am glad to came here.
website hosting company
Hey
TRISHUL
Excellent publish, I wish to thank you for this informative read, Keep up your work
thank youuuu
Deep thoughts but shallow knowledge. Especially on the Arjun vs T-90. The only + for an Arjun - is that "the crew can comfortably play cards onboard". The FMBT (judging by the tempo of Arjun development) will always remain the "MBT in future".
Can your change layout of your blog. put dark font on light background. current format is difficult to read.
Post a Comment