Oh yes i am, and i can take an insult.
What I am trying to draw attention to is that according to the forum rules (which I am supposed to be enforcing BTW) you should not be getting or giving insults. Everyone should respect everyone elses right to a different opinion... even if in you own opinion it amounts to the right to remain ignorant.
Calling the Arjun for crap, well, i could have used other words. Like : a very very expensive tank with very long development, with the end product, the tank, not satisfactory.
Well I think it is pretty clear that one answer is the language of argument and the other is the language of discussion.
I have mentioned my dislike for the Sheridan... it was probably much more expensive than the Arjun, and in so many ways fatally flawed... unlike the Arjun. The Sheridan had very thin armour that wont stop HMG fire. The ammo used combustible stub propellent charges that were enormous fire hazards just like the 125mm Soviet ammo, but they weren't in protected positions.
The ammo was optimised for a very very expensive missile that never registered a hit in combat despite being taken into combat several times. The vibration in the vehicle meant after driving for a while the electronics needed to guide the missile failed, so it had a very big low pressure gun that was not standard and the only other vehicle to use it was a modification of the M60, which was also a complete failure (that modification... not the M60).
Of course the armour had to be thin so it could be air dropped, and it was certainly safer and faster than walking.
The Russian equivalent has probably been the lengthened model of the BMD for troop transport, but fitted with AT-5 and AT-4 ATGMs, which are much more practical, standard within the Soviet forces and much much cheaper, and on a standard platform that will at least stop HMG fire from the front.
The current equivalent would be the Sprut, which is a much better vehicle with the ability to use standard 125mm tank ammo including missiles and ANEIT fused rounds.
Of course I am biased as well.
I think that it is more clever to not build a failure tank, as the French, Germans and US decided.
The thing to remember is that they didn't want to build a tank, they wanted to create a domestic tank building capability. If they built a world class super tank first time you would have to ask how Germany, France, and the US can fail in making a decent tank, when India got it right first time.
The simple fact is that the Arjun is not a bad tank and in many areas as good as, better than, or only slightly worse than the T-90, which is Russias best tank currently.
We can criticise it for having a german engine and French thermals, but then the T-90 has french thermals, and the Abrams has armour based on british armour, and a german designed gun, and even a belgian coaxial machine gun... (Chobham, 120mm Reignmetal (spelling) and M240 FNMAG).
So if the Armata will have very little in common with T-90, chassis, weapon and engine, it is advisable to not build so many T-90.
The vast majority of the tank fleet is either T-72 upgraded with T-90 components and systems, T-80s upgraded with T-90 components and systems, and T-90s.
The current situation is that a brigade will have a huge range of vehicle types and chassis... a T-72 equipped brigade with MSTAs will have MSTAs with T-80 chassis.
The future goal is to convert every vehicle within a heavy brigade to have MBT level armour... if the MBT is a T-72/80/90 then it makes sense to have the standard base chassis of the T-90 or upgraded T-72.
When the Armata enters production they will likely make the MBTs and all the support vehicles and introduce them a brigade at a time... probably a Moscow heavy tank brigade will make the conversion first, but upgrading T-72s with T-90 stuff makes the tank fleet more homogenious and easier to support and manage.
I don't know how much the Armata will cost, but I suspect the relatively low priority of armour that the T-90 chassis in the form of T-90s and upgraded T-72s will form the backbone of the Russian Army till about 2025... when the Armata chassis will have replaced all the other tanks and support vehicles in the heavy brigades. The smaller vehicles will be much cheaper and easier to make so I would expect the Typhoon (light) in four and six wheel designs and the Kurganets-25 and Boomerang (25 ton tracked and wheeled amphibious front engined medium vehicles) will be in service in most important areas by 2020.
The logistics will have enough problem with two main tank models, T-72.-80,-90 with 125mm and common chassi. Vs T-99 with 152mm and new chassi.
First of all I would think the first model T-99s will have 125mm calibre guns. They might change to the 152mm calibre gun when the Armata is the dominant MBT in heavy brigades, though any Sprut like vehicle in the medium brigades might keep 125mm for even longer.
Second the logistics will be greatly improved already.
Right now in a tank or motor rifle brigade there will be all sorts of vehicles... the tank might be a T-72, the air defence vehicle will be Tunguska on a GM-xxxx chassis, the MSTA will be on a T-80 chassis, the troop transports will be BTR-82s and BMP-3s.
When they change to Heavy, medium, and light brigades, the tank, the command vehicle, the troop transports, the air defence, the artillery... all the vehicles in the unit will be either based on the T-72/90 tank or its components, or the Armata vehicle chassis. There will be different models, for instance there will be a front engined Armata for BTR and BMP use so the troops can use a rear ramp for entry and exit, while there will be a rear engined Armata chassis for the tank and other vehicles like artillery and air defence where rear access to the hull is not so important.
This will greatly simplify logistics and support... but in the heavy brigade it will be very expensive initially, so as I mentioned for a start they will use the heavy chassis they have... T-72 and T-90 and T-80 and merge them into a T-90 eventually... so it is likely that the backbone will be the T-90 and the breakthrough lead tank will be Armata, but in steadily increasing numbers till there is only armata in the heavy brigades.
The whole concept of chassis family only works if you apply it vigorously... so step one is T-64 and older tanks are gone, old T-72s are gone, new T-72s and good condition T-80s are upgraded to maximise commonality with the T-90. And then the focus becomes the new build armata. If it is too expensive to contemplate an all Armata heavy brigades then obviously consideration becomes production of T-90s to replace retiring T-80 and T-72 and T-90 tanks.
Upgrades are cheaper and save more money for armata production.
If so, i see the T-72 and T-80 to be used against low tech threats.
The T-90 and T-99 will have the battle management systems (BMS) along with other state of the art systems, and to be used against 1 line enemies.
With their BMS and improved communications even the T-72s and T-80s will become much more capable, and the current lack of mobility probably means that a surprise attack like Georgia in SO would mean the local tanks would have to deal with the problem, but yes... in terms of their choices of deployment and retirement the important places will get the new stuff first and the backwaters will have to wait till last.
Initially they will likely cascade stuff too, so the high prestige tank forces might currently have T-90s, but as Armatas become available they might get them and their T-90s will be sent to units with older models that can be retired with the T-90s as replacements.
T-90 faced problem with Catherine-TI and it took a long time to ruggedise it and it lacks stuff like AC and operating in tank without AC in hot desert of Thar where temperature normally goes above 55 * and inside tank about 58 or even 60 degreee , not having a AC is not a option , right now there is plan to put AC on T-72 and T-90. It seems AC procured from Russia and israel have failed in trials in very exterme hot climate of Thar ( these stuff are tested to their limit under hottest condition possible at Thar )
A tank at the best of time can be a hot and dusty experience... the fact that they were not fitted with any AC at all... even one that doesn't work all the time is very suspicious to me.
If the Arjun can operate in such conditions why not fit its AC system in the T-72s and T-90s and have some commonality and use an Indian product?
AFAIK the Russian T-90s have AC and can operate in desert conditions. There are no complaints from Algeria.
Tank warfare in Indian context is likely to be in desert and the electronics etc on Arjun are more ruggedish for desert environment then in say T-90 , becuase of better internal volume and by design Arjun take care of cooling issue etc ,
Actually smaller internal volume should make AC more efficient, not less efficient as there is less air to keep cool and less internal surface area to heat up the air space.
The main problem with the Arjun vs T-90 discussion is that people who support one seem to feel the need to stick the boot into the other.
India really needs to decide on what sort of gun it wants... if it wants 120mm rifled with single piece ammo, then I think they should look at something like the Burlak upgrade for the T-90 and T-72. Having one tank calibre would make things much easier, but you will of course need to choose carefully as if you go with a unique calibre you may find it expensive to develop all your own ammo. Of course what purpose independent tank production if you have to import ammo.
Has India given any consideration to an Armata-MKI?
Having to import stuff, as you say is more expensive, but licence production is even more expensive but you end up with a factory and skilled workers able to make what you want, that can lead to future innovation and Indian designed systems from the same factory... it is as I say more expensive, but it supports local innovation and development rather more than simply local assembly.
Obviously there might be issues with transfer of new technology, but India could simply put the armour structures of the Arjun II on the Armata chassis, and licence produce its new engine family too. It would help Russia as the extra investment and larger production volume will help economically and technically as there will be more money to try different solutions.
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
had better firepower than the BMPT with two 30mm cannon and mgs and grenade launchers and four ATGMs.
