Arjun Tank News Thread

Not to mention the makers of arjun still dont have a capable anti-tank round against the T-80UD. If I were the head of procurement for IA I would give rosobronexport a call and ask for some svinets-2 for T-90MS. Also a bustle autoloader.

collegeboy16 wrote:Not to mention the makers of arjun still dont have a capable anti-tank round against the T-80UD. If I were the head of procurement for IA I would give rosobronexport a call and ask for some svinets-2 for T-90MS. Also a bustle autoloader.

Actually the Arjun does have the 120 mm FSAPDS which can be used against T 80UD . However, the point is the IA will be using the T 90AM against the T 80UD and not the Arjun .

The T 90AM has been classified as a Medium Battle Tank whereas the Arjun is classified as a Heavy Battle Tank .

The IA intends to use the T 90 AM and the Arjun MKII in tandem ( especially in the absence of a BMPT 72 or a FICV).

Once the T 90 has done it's job the Arjun MKII will come into play .

Sujoy wrote:
Actually the Arjun does have the 120 mm FSAPDS which can be used against T 80UD . However, the point is the IA will be using the T 90AM against the T 80UD and not the Arjun .

The T 90AM has been classified as a Medium Battle Tank whereas the Arjun is classified as a Heavy Battle Tank .

The IA intends to use the T 90 AM and the Arjun MKII in tandem ( especially in the absence of a BMPT 72 or a  FICV).

Once the T 90 has done it's job the Arjun MKII will come into play .

No disrespect but that is just wrong.. the era of light and heavy tanks fighting side by side is gone.
Also, I find it funny that the medium tank is far more capable than the heavy tank when it comes to dealing with the enemy premier tank-
kinda like german tigers are meant for say T-34 and the panzer 4 for IS-2.
Also 120 mm FSAPDS... good luck with that   . Not even the brits are thinking about it. Its prolly best to just let go of the 120mm rifled gun- grab some 120mm rheinmetall smoothbore and its ammo and you're done. Its a good thing arjun's ammo are one piece, Chally 2s are 3-piece and because of that(along with a myriad of other reasons) the whole chally 2 line is discontinued.
Another thing... LAHAT... I mean wtf! why would you need a less capable gun fired atgm(LAHAT is 105mm vs 125mm). Then again, if they can do the same with tanks and aircraft, whats another missile.

collegeboy16 wrote: No disrespect but that is just wrong.. the era of light and heavy tanks fighting side by side is gone.

Primarily because most countries are using / producing just 1 type of tank . China is an exception though . And like I said the IA follows this tactic in the absence of a BMPT 72 or ICV .

collegeboy16 wrote:Also, I find it funny that the medium tank is far more capable than the heavy tank when it comes to dealing with the enemy premier tank-

Not true. The Arjun MK2 has a vectronic suite far more capable than the T 80UD . It also has better protection and a more powerful engine . The ability of the T 80UD to survive very high temperatures that it will have to encounter is questionable .

collegeboy16 wrote:Also 120 mm FSAPDS... good luck with that   . Not even the brits are thinking about it. Its prolly best to just let go of the 120mm rifled gun- grab some 120mm rheinmetall smoothbore and its ammo and you're done. Its a good thing arjun's ammo are one piece, Chally 2s are 3-piece and because of that(along with a myriad of other reasons) the whole chally 2 line is discontinued.

Arjun’s hull can easily accommodate the already-tested & validated T-6 turret (containing a 155mm/52-cal barrel) from DENEL Land Systems ( which is known as the Bhim SPH in India ) .

The current gun barrel has been partially auto frettaged to a pressure of 800 MPa to achieve a proof pressure of the order of 612 MPa . Ergo , it's more than enough to penetrate the armor of any MBT with the probable exception of some MBTs that China is developing .

collegeboy16 wrote:Another thing... LAHAT... I mean wtf! why would you need a less capable gun fired atgm(LAHAT is 105mm vs 125mm). Then again, if they can do the same with tanks and aircraft, whats another missile.

Merkava tanks’ 105 mm and 120 mm tank guns have both fired LAHAT .

Also the positioning of lights, tow hooks among others on the Indian LAHAT is different from that of the Israeli .

Integration of LAHAT with net-centric operations enables IA to overcome most of the limitations inherent to laser guided weapons, as missiles can be fired 'blind' into 'basket' where line of sight with the target is assured, enabling the seeker to lock on the designated target.

Sujoy wrote:
Primarily because most countries are using / producing just 1 type of tank . China is an exception though . And like I said the IA follows this tactic in the absence of a BMPT 72 or ICV .

Russia will soon be an exception too, tho in china's case its prolly because they have lots of legacy stuff(T-55/62 derived) that needs replacing- they are still producing T-72 equivalents.
Not true. The Arjun MK2 has a vectronic suite far more capable than the T 80UD . It also has better protection and a more powerful engine . The ability of the T 80UD to survive very high temperatures that it will have to encounter is questionable . [/quote]
you said the arjun mk2 is the heavy tank... but we all know its not much better than the T-90MS which is supposed to be the medium tank.
So what is arjun mk2's raison detre really?

Sujoy wrote:
Arjun’s hull can easily accommodate the already-tested & validated T-6 turret (containing a 155mm/52-cal barrel) from DENEL Land Systems ( which is known as the Bhim SPH in India ) .

Most 3rd gen MBTs can be equipped with a larger gun... one major problem is lower ammo capacity.

Sujoy wrote:
The current gun barrel has been partially auto frettaged to a pressure of 800 MPa to achieve a proof pressure of the order of 612 MPa . Ergo , it's more than enough to penetrate the armor of any MBT with the probable exception of some MBTs that China is developing .

afaik the rheinmetall and prolly new 125mm gun have full auto-frettage treatment- besides a smoothbore barrel is tougher and delivers more energy than a rifled one with the same materials tech.

Sujoy wrote:
Merkava tanks’ 105 mm and 120 mm tank guns have both fired LAHAT .

Also the positioning of lights, tow hooks among others on the Indian LAHAT is different from that of the Israeli .

Integration of LAHAT with net-centric operations enables IA to overcome most of the limitations inherent to laser guided weapons, as missiles can be fired 'blind' into 'basket' where line of sight with the target is assured, enabling the seeker to lock on the designated target.

nah, Im just not a fan of LAHAT- seems pretty expensive a widget when you already license produce reflex. Also LAHAT is not a good weapon against a capable enemy- I think Mindstorm has already covered the disadvantage of laser painting targets as opposed to laser beam riders.

collegeboy16 wrote:So what is arjun mk2's raison detre really?

Building domestic competency . Just to clarify that the MK2 is still work in progress . The Mark II has a total of 93 upgrades, including 13 major improvements over the MK 1 . As of now there are certain shortcomings that are still being  resolved.

As per CVRDE estimates the lifecycle costs of the Arjun will be much cheaper than other tanks . Therefore , it provides a cheaper option to the Army that can be added in large numbers . Just like the LCA provides a cheaper alternative to the Air Force.

It is good moment to return on a very old question more times touched in the past in this same thread : Arjun and T-90S and the outcome of the 2010 comparative trials allegedly resulting, in the totally unsubstantiated report, but strangely promptly publicized and highlighted in western media and forums, of a certain Indian ex Col....... , in a clear "victory" by part of Arjun


"

Ajai Shukla wrote:India’s home-built Arjun tank has emerged a conclusive winner from its showdown with the Russian T-90. A week of comparative trials, conducted by the army at the Mahajan Ranges, near Bikaner in Rajasthan, has ended; the results are still officially secret. But, Business Standard has learned from multiple sources who were involved in the trials that the Arjun tank has outperformed the T-90 on every crucial parameter.

   

This is what i had said instead on the same subject about two years ago (post 33 and 38 of this same thread )

https://www.russiadefence.net/t2333p30-t-90-news

Mindstorm wrote:Our dear ex Col. Ajai Shukla who return the the attack of the hated T-90S (and of the "inept and corrupt" Indian Army's Gotha) with its ,at best ,imaginative thesis Laughing


We are still all anxiously hanging on ,since more than two years and half, the names of any Indian Army's official confirming a single word of its reconstruction of the comparative trial of Arjun and T-90S of Febraury 2010.

Mindstorm wrote:Returning to our Ajai Shukla , Austin has someone ever ,up to this point, asked to it to provide a single OFFICIAL declaration or OFFICIAL chronicle of the facts related to the 2010 "comparative trials" by part of DRDO (who should have ANY reason , getANY benefit and suffer NO drawbacks in revealing OFFICIALLY that its product had shown in the comparative trials far better performances in respect to T-90S) and  confirming ITS VERSION Cool ?

Do you know ,it is very ,very strange that the primary source providing this version of the facts is....JUST IT ,while any OFFICIAL source say simply that Arjun had (.....probably for the first time in its entire development's history) successfully passed all the trials.

Now a first official document -Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India on Army, Ordnance Factories and Defence Public Sector Undertakings - seem to push the first light on the real results of the up-mentioned trials.

http://www.saiindia.gov.in/english/home/Our_Products/Audit_Report/Government_Wise/union_audit/recent_reports/union_compliance/2014/Defence/Report_35/Report_35.html

From Chapter VIII ,8.3.2.8 Testing and issue of MBT Arjun, pag. 164/165

Comparative field trials of MBT Arjun with T-90 tanks took place in February/ March 2010.
Till such time, the Army had been consistently reporting quality problems in MBT Arjun; this was also reported to the Standing Committee on Defence (2007-08). The comparative trials were on four parameters viz. fire power, survivability, reliability and miscellaneous issues of the tank with weightage of 40, 35, 15 and 10 respectively.
As per the trial report, MBT Arjun performed marginally better than the T-90 tank in accuracy and consistency of firepower. However, T-90 tank performed better in lethality and missile firing capability. The Army concluded (April 2010) that “Arjun had performed creditably and it could be employed both for offensive and defensive tasks with same efficacy of T-90 tank.”

The Army also recommended upgrades 154 to make the Arjun tank a superior weapon platform. We were informed (February 2014) that the Mark-II version of MBT Arjun was under trials by the Army and that it would include the upgrades recommended by the Army.
We found that the MBT Arjun and T-90 tank were not exactly comparable in missile firing ability; the higher score of T-90 tank was mainly due to missile firing ability which was not in the design of MBT Arjun.
Barring missile firing ability, the scores of MBT Arjun and T-90 tank would be 25.77 and 24.50 respectively in firepower. In the overall comparative score, T-90 tank scored 75.01, marginally higher than MBT Arjun which scored 72.46, mainly because of higher score on missile firing ability of T-90 tank.

Therefore exactly as suspected was the T-90S at coming out on the top at the end of the comparative trials - 75.01 vs 72.46 -. and the unique good news from those trials fro the Arjun was, as i had foreseen , that Indian Army had for the first time found finally the domestic Arjun MBT worth of operational employment.    

Even more important is to highlight that even removing totally the missile firing capability (that is already integrated and PAID FOR in what Indian Army get from the price of each of its T-90S ) Arjun MBT ,with its naturally much more up-to-date vectronic suit, would have achieved only a mere 1.27 points edge ,in the firepower score, over the most older FCS equiped T-90S.

 

I find, at this point, simply PATHETICS the attempts ,in particular in some "suspect" forums, to still warp the spin of those cold numbers COMPLETELY DEBUNKING the version of the facts about the 2010 comparative trials ,  previously sold by some mercenary public media operator ,pointing on some minor differences in requirements (majority of which are anyhow vastly overcome also by today Indian T-90S) for Arjun in reason of the fact that the several development slippage in the program has trapped Arjun MBT  still in 2014 in the development phase  (now with MKII version) and this reality force the Indian Army to change cyclically the requirements to maintain the product more or less in line with worldwide requirements for its class at the time  .

Immeasurably more severe and increased changes in the technical requirements  (for mobility, fire control ,reliability  and logistic performances)  has been put by MoD for only partial modernization of old tank fleet  (such as for the T-72B3 program).  


Fact is that a '90 years MBT, such as T-90S ,enjoying by its same basis design concepts, simply crushing advantages in respect to any MBT designed on the opposite philosophy

had completed the comparative trials with Arjun in February 2010 COMING OUT ON THE TOP ,to the EXACT CONTRARY of what claimed in all those years by some well paid "spin doctor" present in the Indian public media and the following herd of easily guillable people deceived by its unsubstantiated claims.

@Mindstorm: even though the Arjun managed to defeat T-90 in this competition, I believe we can say, Arjun is less successful than T-90.

Arjun is 59 tonnes. T-90 is 47 tonnes. Arjun is 9,1 mil USD, while T-90 is 2.5-4.5 mil USD.

Arjun is much heavier and much more expensive than T-90, but it is still more or less the same in quality.

And T-90 has autoloader while Arjun still jerks off with manual loader.

T-90 wins.

higurashihougi wrote:even though the Arjun managed to defeat T-90 in this competition, I believe we can say, Arjun is less successful than T-90.

Interesting........say to me what part of 75.01 to 72.46 points result in favour of T-90S over Arjun is not clear to you ?

It is simple : the alleged "victory" of Arjun over T-90S in the comparative trials was a simple, pure complete LIE .

its always possible to tailor a competition to suit the inferior product. anyway what is insane is that arjun costs twice as much as the upper price range T-90, that kind of price is understandable for armata MBT but for an inferior leo 2 expy, no way .

collegeboy16 wrote:its always possible to tailor a competition to suit the inferior product. anyway what is insane is that arjun costs twice as much as the upper price range T-90, that kind of price is understandable for armata MBT but for an inferior leo 2 expy, no way    .

Well they need to compensate 30 years of development and pay everything off.

Werewolf wrote:
Well they need to compensate 30 years of development and pay everything off.

and that is the even more irritating part- why should ordinary indian taxpayer shoulder fckups, its not like there wasnt a viable alternative at the time- hell they couldve just gone for a license of a western tank and it wouldve costed a lot less and be done before 30 years - like more than 50% of the tank is foreign made anyway.

collegeboy16 wrote:

Werewolf wrote:
Well they need to compensate 30 years of development and pay everything off.

and that is the even more irritating part- why should ordinary indian taxpayer shoulder fckups, its not like there wasnt a viable alternative at the time- hell they couldve just gone for a license of a western tank and it wouldve costed a lot less and be done before 30 years - like more than 50% of the tank is foreign made anyway.

Well, like the current western dictatorship politics which is driven by US shows, is that is indeed better to develope and procure own arms of all vital parts of a functioning MIC and military to proclaim military independence. The other option was actually if they somehow could make a deal for full Transfer of Technology for Leopard 2 tanks and produce them entirely independend of Germany in India then they should (if they could) go that path, but that is unlikely today, if such an opportunity existed than it was during the 90's and early-mid 00's.

Werewolf wrote:
Well, like the current western dictatorship politics which is driven by US shows, is that is indeed better to develope and procure own arms of all vital parts of a functioning MIC and military to proclaim military independence. The other option was actually if they somehow could make a deal for full Transfer of Technology for Leopard 2 tanks and produce them entirely independend of Germany in India then they should (if they could) go that path, but that is unlikely today, if such an opportunity existed than it was during the 90's and early-mid 00's.

military independence is nice and all, but you have to have a military that can adequately do its job first. This thing missed the ultimate deadline- a real hot war ffs.

Mindstorm wrote:

higurashihougi wrote:even though the Arjun managed to defeat T-90 in this competition, I believe we can say, Arjun is less successful than T-90.

Interesting........say to me what part of 75.01 to 72.46 points result in favour of T-90S over Arjun is not clear to you ?

It is simple : the alleged "victory" of Arjun over T-90S in the comparative trials was a simple, pure complete LIE .

Interesting. We now have definitive evidence that Russian export versions of GLATGM's are better than their Israeli export equivalent, which should also translate with their domestic versions of the same system. I really hope no one tries to claim that Israeli GLATGM have 8 km range...

As always when he appeares

My vote Mindstorm!

Well done, Mindstorm! Welcome back.

magnumcromagnon wrote:
Interesting. We now have definitive evidence that Russian export versions of GLATGM's are better than their Israeli export equivalent, which should also translate with their domestic versions of the same system. I really hope no one tries to claim that Israeli GLATGM have 8 km range...

against any modern tank LAHAT wont be effective as effective as reflex/reflex-m - the laser designator will trip the LWS and out pops the smoke. even if you only lase it for the last few seconds its still enough time for the smoke to pop(only takes barely a second) and obscure the tank. it will hit if the target is static but if it is moving the chance to hit is greatly reduced. then there is the problem that the enemy now knows exactly where you are (you just told him via laser) and has a round waiting for you as he emerges from the smoke cloud.

collegeboy16 wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:
Interesting. We now have definitive evidence that Russian export versions of GLATGM's are better than their Israeli export equivalent, which should also translate with their domestic versions of the same system. I really hope no one tries to claim that Israeli GLATGM have 8 km range...

against any modern tank LAHAT wont be effective as effective as reflex/reflex-m - the laser designator will trip the LWS and out pops the smoke. even if you only lase it for the last few seconds its still enough time for the smoke to pop(only takes barely a second) and obscure the tank. it will hit if the target is static but if it is moving the chance to hit is greatly reduced. then there is the problem that the enemy now knows exactly where you are (you just told him via laser) and has a round waiting for you as he emerges from the smoke cloud.

Shtora also has the two "red eyes" as laser dazzlers, that may even prevent the LAHAT GLATGM from acquiring a target, meanwhile like you said the laser will alert to were the opfor's armor's location, where the laser beam riding (virtually impossible to jam) Reflex/-m GLATGM can fire back at a Merkava and it's manual loading apparatus.

magnumcromagnon wrote:
Shtora also has the two "red eyes" as laser dazzlers, that may even prevent the LAHAT GLATGM from acquiring a target, meanwhile like you said the laser will alert to were the opfor's armor's location, where the laser beam riding (virtually impossible to jam) Reflex/-m GLATGM can fire back at a Merkava and it's manual loading apparatus.

afaik the red eyes are for blinding SACLOS that use IR flare, but those are being phased out with more secure guidance systems so the red eyes are cut.
the rumoured AESA radar on the tank could be used as jammer for radar guided missiles tho, add DIRCM and you have a mighty soft shield.

The new GLATGMs being developed for Armata will likely also be available to India soon enough, making the advantage even more sigificant.

I would suspect the T-90MS would have done rather better... perhaps instead of wasting time trying to build indigenous tanks they should just look at licence production of the T-90MS for the moment and then work together with Russia to develop a new MBT tailored to Indias needs with domestic production of all components based on further experience... the future tank development can be based in the companies licence producing the T-90MS tanks so they get a bit of production experience and can then use that as a base to further develop new technologies for the next gen Indian tank.

I personally would go for something like a T-90MS Burlak design with a 31 round auto loader in the turret bustle plus 22 round underfloor autoloader.

The turret bustle autoloader would be more vulnerable to enemy fire but could be designed so that it can be jettisonned in action... ie if it is hit and catches fire and can't be saved turn turret 90 degrees to one side or the other and push a button and eject it to the side of the tank and drive away with 22 rounds in the under floor autoloader.

Having the bustle able to be ditched like that would be beneficial as you could load them by crane like a rifle magazine so reloading will be quicker and easier and longer penetrators can be used if required.

I want to return one more time on the subject of the result of the comparative trials, because it appear that the blind impudence of some fanatic has truly no limit.


What i find amusing and pathetic at the same time, is how the herd of ignorant and easily gullible people that had in all those years blindly believed to the laughable version of the Arjun that had “smashed to shred” and "totally outclassed" in any cardinal parameter the T-90S in 2010 trials and that, on this imaginative version,  had constructed immense paper castles now ,with closed eyes and ears, still attempt to "play on the offensive" on the subject.......guided by some desperate but well paid spin doctor.......pointing on few statements referred to annex XIX and a question posed by the CAG on the possible “weight” that those requirement could had had.

Those eight instances of different requirements between Arjun and T-90S  (some of which simply trivial by any extent and representing less than the MINIMUM for a MBT the development of which will, at best,  be completed  16 years  after T-90S ) has been put in the endless course of Arjun’s development phase and are in NOT WAY related to February 2010 trials.
The 2010 trials has been obviously conducted in the same place ,fording the same river , shooting at the same targets  etc…etc…
A simple statement on the subject by part of Indian Army would be sufficient, at this point, to utterly disintegrate theirs last frail hanging point.

Someone must truly get an iron face to have even only have the courage to speak about “level playing field” in a comparative trial between a MBT like T-90S and one  like Arjun constructed (for development risk mitigation reasons) on western MBT philosophy.
In facts  actually Indian Army is forced to prepare a similar “playing field” for the trial immensely unbalanced in favor of Arjun (or ,for any extent, any other western-like “heavy” MBT design) only in order to allow a competition to happen  !!!!

If Indian Army would truly intend to free itself and ridicule, one time for all, that herd of easily gullible persons with theirs chiefs of few well-paid and attentively guided detractors , it should simply repeat the same comparative 2010 trials ( anyhow ended  75.01 to 72.46 in favor of T-90S ,to the exact contrary of what claimed by a dishonest mercenary spin doctor, and that in spite of a naturally older FCS and vectronic suit ) and :

1) Force the platoon of Arjun to come to the testing range using the same, identical  number (and occupy the same, identical space aboard) of Indian strategic mobilization assets - aircraft, train, ship, tractor trailers etc… -required to the 14 T-90S , so to render evident the simply crushing strategic mobilization speed overmatch and the crucial sector force density in the event of a war, between T-90S and Arjun.

2) Provide the 14 Arjun’s platoon with the same ,identical Indian Army human resources  -42 tankers and not 33% more as required by the Arjun ,cause its  western genetic pool heritage-  required to the T-90S platoon , with also the same identical furniture for them (food, coverage, energy generators, clothes etc….) and with the related carrying vehicles. The results will be very interesting……

3) Measure the exact distance covered by the 14 Arjun platoon with the same identical amount of fuel provided to the T-90S, at the same conditions.  Moreover Indian Army should also provide the two groups with the same ,identical number of fuel resupply  vehicles for the entire duration of the trials so to simulate repeated fuel resupply in time of war and measure the total distance covered by the two groups. I manage already now to figure the faces….


4) Provide the two groups with equal number of repair vehicles with fixed number ,volume and weight of spare parts (at example replacement for damaged armor blocks , ERA tiles, transmission, engines, axis, tracks ,rollers, tires etc… within a prefixed volume and weight limit) so to simulate logistical needs in response to battle and environmental damages  for conflicts of different duration. The result would be very, very interesting.

5) Measure the weight , fuel/oil requirement and strategic lift requirements for the auxiliary engineering vehicles  ( recovering vehicles, bridging vehicles, amphibious fording etc) supporting the operation of the two MBT’s groups of different weight .  

6) Let both group to transverse different roads , canals bridges ,and enemy over-ditch passages  representative of both national and potential enemy ones and take account of how many of them sustain their weight ( with good peace of the comically abused nominal ground pressure argument).

7) Last  but not least : produce three-dimensional targets with the exact 3D size of the two tanks and conduct the fire at the shooting range allowing those targets to move ,exactly as in the reality, changing continuously and in a totally arbitrary way their speed and direction long different land morphology . That would allow also to simulate the different  capability to change more and more faster those variables by part of the two tanks in reason of the different torque potential available ,the different inertial mass and the maximum solicitation limit for the suspensions) and video-record the entire fire session. At the end of it measure with precision the number and placement of any hit and, from the video recording, the distance and direction of any miss. The cold results of a similar realistic test would cause majority of easily gullible “tin-can yelling” zombies  to fall in complete depression, even more because would become immediately evident  the dramatic effects that similar huge difference in target area would have in the exchange ratio between peer opponent employing MBT constructed around the two different philosophy.            


If Indian Army would at this point act cruelly could ask the DRDO to produce those 14 Arjun for the same Indian tax payer money and in the same time of 14 T-90S ,even accounting for the projected decrease of the cost and time amount for procurement order equal to that of T-90S.    

Is important to notice that to the contrary to the effect of FCS , Sensor suit ,Engine output, defensive suit  etc..etc…  ,that can be easily fitted and implemented in the two MBTs and in models  even more advanced and up-to-date (is sufficient to see the modernized T-90S –T-90MS “Tagil” to easily realize that) similar crushing constitutive advantages are embedded in the design and cannot be implemented or compensated for in any way by a tank constructed around  a western design.

Arjun MBT is not all that bad as it is made out to be but it has come very late for Indian Army and without the so called indigenous levels

Producing a indigenous MBT is core to a country like India and Arjun is the first step in that direction. The inception of Arjun MBT programme and its first designs are a story of evolution form Vickers design to Leo design, with some components designed in-house, some sourced from US and Europe. With the sanction on India in 99 the US and European components had a BAN in place. This resulted in all the US components getting replaced by either new Indian or Israel components, surprisingly European components did not suffer from BAN as much as US ones did, if we leave out the germans.

What has India gained by this project as of 2015. (My view)

- The FCS and Gunners main sight of Arjun is atleast better than T-90 if i wanna compare (I am not saying T-90 sign is inferior), plus it is one component which is indigenous 100%. ( even a candidate for T-90 upgrade)

- Suspension system and ride of Arjun is better (compared to anything in IA) and 100% indigenous, and it has already seen a design evolution in MK-II version

- GUN is very accurate and 100% indigenous

- Armour is 100% indigenous and comparable to best in the class.

- Radio/ comm equipment is Indian

- Wind and other sensors are Indian

- APU is Indian

What has India not-gained by this project as of 2015

- Engine is 100% imported with and Indian turbocharger
- Transmission is 100% imported
- Panoramic sight is 100% Imported as of now

With a engine and transmission imported from Germans and which can be susceptible to US presser and already seen that situation in 99, plus Germans are not reliable partners strategically just because of their susceptibleness to US pressure.

The main reason Arjun will never go into mass production is its engine and transmission. No country will be fool enough to mass produce a vehicle (leave alone a AFV) who's engine and transmission is susceptible to outside pressure.

Main reason that T-90 is the main battle tank of Indian Army is that it is not  susceptible to outside pressure.

From an Indian perspective main thing is they have learned to design an MBT. The knowledge thus gain is very important.
- They have learned to design and build a HULL even if influenced by western
- They have learned to design a turret and turret systems with heavy influence of Leo 2.

I am more interested in what is the next MBT design form India if any, but the Waite is gonna be 8-10 years.

dberwal , Good to have you on Russiadefence

Good Summary considering you have served the Indian Army and have some insight on how things work.

As far as engine goes they can do lic production build from Germans but that will come at a cost with low production build but Germans have their own views on human rights and other issues , atleast a French engine would have been better.

T-90 FCS being not as good as Arjun is granted because the T-90 FCS are 90's ones when IA actually bought the T-90 and lic built it and since then never upgraded any thing on the tank.

For that matter the T-90 Bhim we build till date is mostly a early 90's product barring the Thales TI system. Even the Gun is early model 2A46M type.

Most Russian T-90A compared to bhim have more modern FCS and Gun 2A46M4 types.

The T-90MS has the most modern FCS of T-90 series with very high probability of hit 21 shots is what they mentioned of the 22 they fired hit the target compared to older gen having probability of hit of 15 for 22 hits.

T-90MS under the skin a new tank with old designation , much like Su-35 is to a flanker what Su-27SM would be in its first avtar

T-90A has 2A46M5, the M4 is for T-80U's.