India's MBT: Arjun and its standing among Tanks

[suryaaa]

i believe these tanks have been updated with a 1500hp engine instead of a 1400hp engine and have an air condition system designed by mecon.

since weight of arjun is too high compaerd to our old ones what have army done to counter this prob
i mean in transportation

 

[aaaditya]

since weight of arjun is too high compaerd to our old ones what have army done to counter this prob
i mean in transportation

thats why they have built new blt's (bridge layer tanks known as sarvatra or universal) these are capable of accepting 60+ton loads,the current mgar class landing ship tanks have been designed to accomodate and transport the arjun tanks ,you must have read the article that you posted stating that the indian army is inducting a new rail based transporting system for arjun tanks capable of accepting 60+tons.

also the bridges and the roads along the indo-pak border have been strengthened(though this i cannot confirm).

 

[ahussains]

Admin: Text deleted. read the rules about respect and posting behaviour and then get it right next time.

 

[d_berwal]

Heay My Adiyta you all indians are always consider your selfs as the best peoples, If you peoples make some thing WORNG please at least except it...:fly Did you all Forget your Flying Cofins Made by HAL (Hindustan Aeronotical) Means Mig 21 how many you lost and how many presious life you losts in experimating MIG 21, in the ARGUN case you also got the same result. This started when i was not born, THE AKHAND BHARAT is not able to build 120 tanks. Which is Just 5% of your Annual Budget and scudle to be deliverd in 2000, As far as our project to AL KHALID is concern we started in late 80's and what we have today an out class machine with OUR OWN resources and we are selling it to the WORLD, we also MAKE SUBMARINEs and AIRCRAFTS when you going to start it your HAL also making SU 27/30 in india these are the new coffins for the AIR Force ,, If you say please then may be we can help you in ARGUN case what you have to say PLEASE ... ON Your Kneess..

Then WE have to Think ..........

Admin: Text deleted. read the rules about respect and posting behaviour and then get it right next time.

By responding in such a manner you are just as guilty as the original poster.

 

[Big-E]

What class do u study in ??????????/
HOw stupid can u beeeeee ???


SEE BABY UR AL-KHIlid can best compare to our T-72upgrade version ... PLs dont Insult ur own INTELLIGENCE by comparing it even with ARJUN ... dont they teach u to how to read even... secrch on google u will be Enlightened....

AT WHAT AGE DO PEOPLE GROW UP IN UR COUNTRY ?

While I don't agree with his juvenille behavior I think the Al-Khalid can give the Arjun a run for her money. India isn't exactly known for puting together the worlds best tanks. The development of the Arjun has been a rocky one to say the least. The whole program should have been scrapped from the beggining. If India bought the M1A2 they would have been much better off. Calling the man stupid isn't going to win you any brownie points in your argument

 

[powerslavenegi]

Personal attacks

The very fact that one resorts to personal attacks during a discussion reflects his/her deficiency both in terms of art of conversing as well as facts.As far as Al-Khalid is considered it's a Re-engineered MBT co-developed by China and Pakistan most of the modules like powerplant and gun are inherited from T-80 series.Arjun on the other hand is a Indian answer to it's ageing MBT fleet,MBT has been plagued by a weak powerplant and overheating issues.Having said that projects like Arjun,LCA,Dhruv,ADS & ATV
would strengthen India's quest for self-reliance in areas of advanced weapons.

 

[suryaaa]

While I don't agree with his juvenille behavior I think the Al-Khalid can give the Arjun a run for her money. India isn't exactly known for puting together the worlds best tanks. The development of the Arjun has been a rocky one to say the least. The whole program should have been scrapped from the beggining. If India bought the M1A2 they would have been much better off. Calling the man stupid isn't going to win you any brownie points in your argument

BIG see unlike alkhalid our arjun is developed from scratch ie an entierly new design and u know your m1's when it first arrived had faced so many chalenges isnt it true.Buying m1 is not a wise and economic decision for us [reason u know and i dont want to explain it because i dont want to get sacked from the forum]:ban

and i hope our arjun will stand to its feet and prove its metal.

 

[gf0012-aust]

our arjun is developed from scratch ie an entierly new design

sorry, thats not true. the design was part of a combined consultation with Krauss Maffei and was originally based on the Leopard 2A4 MBT. In fact, if you look at both tanks there is barely a difference in external design The Arjun was nicknamed the Leopard "I" by the Germans (ie Leopard "India"). In fact it carried over one of the flawed design elements of the leo (ie the observer ports in the front glacis - thus weakening the entire front armour glacis section)

Recent developments and the constant vacilating by DRDO have resulted in some internal changes - but externally its still a Leo 2A4. It is definitely not an entirely new design.

Krauss Mafei gave up on the project as DRDO and the Indian Army constantly stepped outside proper project management processes.

If you look at critiques of the Arjun programme by Indian Army Officers they have also stated that is progress has been impeded by that failure to iteratively develop the tank.

India picked up a lot of technology from the Germans in the early 80's and then changed design elements so as to use local technology. A similar example is the Dhruv - it is a modified MBB Helicopter that was abandoned by the company in 1982. If you ever get to the Sissheim Museum in germany, you'll see the Dhruvs "father" suspended in the air on display.

 

[powerslavenegi]

M-1 Abrams a German tank

sorry, thats not true. the design was part of a combined consultation with Krauss Maffei and was originally based on the Leopard 2A4 MBT. In fact, if you look at both tanks there is barely a difference in external design The Arjun was nicknamed the Leopard "I" by the Germans (ie Leopard "India"). In fact it carried over one of the flawed design elements of the leo (ie the observer ports in the front glacis - thus weakening the entire front armour glacis section)

Recent developments and the constant vacilating by DRDO have resulted in some internal changes - but externally its still a Leo 2A4. It is definitely not an entirely new design.

Krauss Mafei gave up on the project as DRDO and the Indian Army constantly stepped outside proper project management processes.
If you look at critiques of the Arjun programme by Indian Army Officers they have also stated that is progress has been impeded by that failure to iteratively develop the tank.

India picked up a lot of technology from the Germans in the early 80's and then changed design elements so as to use local technology. A similar example is the Dhruv - it is a modified MBB Helicopter that was abandoned by the company in 1982. If you ever get to the Sissheim Museum in germany, you'll see the Dhruvs "father" suspended in the air on display.

Hmm.. in that case M1 Abrams should be regarded as a German tank too for the most important module i.e. the Gun is GERMAN ( Rheinmetall Waffe Munition GmbH of Germany) .
Having said that there is no doubt that Indian Army has rejected the Arjun in it's present form ,I think DRDO and Heavy vehicles Fact. need to put their heads down and should consider other options like foreign powerplant,and a L55 main gun those would make Arjun a formidable tank in the sub-continent atleast.Hey why doesnt anyone furbish specifications of Al-Khalid and Arjun(at least powerplant,main gun and their make) at least one would get to compare em on paper for both tanks arent battle proven(please refrain from Chauvinism of any sorts).

 

[gf0012-aust]

Hmm.. in that case M1 Abrams should be regarded as a German tank too for the most important module i.e. the Gun is GERMAN ( Rheinmetall Waffe Munition GmbH of Germany) .

if thats how you're going to determine the nationality of a tank, then there are a few russian tanks that are really "german" as well I'd be betting that the Canadians would argue that the FCS is whats important. and thus, it would be a "Canadian tank"

AFAIK the engine, drivetrain and gun are still german. I think that the tracks are no longer german and are actually locally made.

the issue is that the Abrams was designed from the ground up - it was a greenfields design. The Arjun started off as a Leo2A4. In fact, put them side by side and you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference. even the viewing placements are identical.

my comment was to correct the notion that it was developed "from scratch and an entirely new design" - that is patently wrong.

However, be that as it may, it would be regarded as completely indigenous in fitment now as IA and DRDO have changed so many things over as part of a statacco development cycle. Thats been the probelm, an erratic development cycle - not the actual tank itself which was a sound robust design at interim.

It has inherited the Leos excellent ground pressure (although I'm not sure what it would be now with the larger engine). Its just a shame that it carried over some of the Leo2A4 flaws as well. In fact its better than some of the russian tanks (T-62, T-72) even though they are lighter tanks.

Having said that there is no doubt that Indian Army has rejected the Arjun in it's present form ,I think DRDO and Heavy vehicles Fact. need to put their heads down and should consider other options like foreign powerplant,and a L55 main gun those would make Arjun a formidable tank in the sub-continent atleast.

I think that one of the main weaknesses has also been the FCS - (arguably, the canadians make the best FCS for tanks, so maybe someone should be talking to them). The ammo compartment is a combination of the Merkava 2 and the Abrams. So its not as if India is unwelcoming of foreign designs

I'd be interested in Waylanders opinion as I guess he'd be partial to the german FCS.

As I've said constantly here, and on other forums, IMV, the problem with the Arjun lies with the project mgt cycles - and less with the issue of base platform design.

 

[Waylander]

M1 and LeoII are children of the same tank programm but you cannot say that the M1 is mostly german.
The gun is german and they copied some parts of the chassis and some other minor things, but that's it.
For example the LeoII optics/laser system are from hughes.
I'm not partial to our FCS. There is no real difference between the US, German, Israeli and France first hit capabilities.
The brits seem to stay a little bit behind but it's not that much.

 

[n21]

if thats how you're going to determine the nationality of a tank, then there are a few russian tanks that are really "german" as well I'd be betting that the Canadians would argue that the FCS is whats important. and thus, it would be a "Canadian tank"

AFAIK the engine, drivetrain and gun are still german. I think that the tracks are no longer german and are actually locally made.

the issue is that the Abrams was designed from the ground up - it was a greenfields design. The Arjun started off as a Leo2A4. In fact, put them side by side and you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference. even the viewing placements are identical.

my comment was to correct the notion that it was developed "from scratch and an entirely new design" - that is patently wrong.

However, be that as it may, it would be regarded as completely indigenous in fitment now as IA and DRDO have changed so many things over as part of a statacco development cycle. Thats been the probelm, an erratic development cycle - not the actual tank itself which was a sound robust design at interim.

It has inherited the Leos excellent ground pressure (although I'm not sure what it would be now with the larger engine). Its just a shame that it carried over some of the Leo2A4 flaws as well. In fact its better than some of the russian tanks (T-62, T-72) even though they are lighter tanks.



I think that one of the main weaknesses has also been the FCS - (arguably, the canadians make the best FCS for tanks, so maybe someone should be talking to them). The ammo compartment is a combination of the Merkava 2 and the Abrams. So its not as if India is unwelcoming of foreign designs

I'd be interested in Waylanders opinion as I guess he'd be partial to the german FCS.

As I've said constantly here, and on other forums, IMV, the problem with the Arjun lies with the project mgt cycles - and less with the issue of base platform design.

yup i guess that(project management issues) is one of the prime reason.Moreover the kind of feedback u get to listen from the Indian Army sounds as if they never knew that a tank was been built in the country(too much weight and cannot be transported on the existing rail system) ...This clearly shows that either they were not included during the requirements definition or were "not interested" from day one!

I think right now the FCS within is French made(Also i happen to see some comments that the Arjun displayed on the annual Defence Expo in Delhi has BEL designed FCS... I cannot provided the link though).Apparently this expo listed the engine power as 1500hp(not 1400 hp as been reguraly described).

Is it possible that a "reduced" weight Arjun could be designed(I am not talking about Tank-Ex) to fufill the Indian Army's relucatant to change the doctrine of relying on lighter tank(T-72,T-90)??

also i would love to see if u guys can suggest what improvements need to done???

 

[gf0012-aust]

Is it possible that a "reduced" weight Arjun could be designed(I am not talking about Tank-Ex) to fufill the Indian Army's relucatant to change the doctrine of relying on lighter tank(T-72,T-90)??

I'm not so sure that absolute reduction of weight is that critical - after all, its ground pressure stats are very good for its mass.

Fundamentally to lighten it would mean going for current technology armoured laminates - and you'd have to question the cost benefits of that. In order of weight per mass, the single largest items of mass are the hull, then the turret and then the drivetrain.

Its thus a bit hard to reduce overall weight without going through some significant redesign (again).

If the GAO/Army identified impediments are carriage of it into battle then I'm confused as to what the issues are - it is a Leo2A4 in all of its extremities, and that means that it fits all of the NATO transportantion requirements. That means that India has ready access to other transport solutions from NATO countries if she doesn't have her own available. The Germans have been almost giving away tank transporters to fellow NATO members - I'm sure they'd offer "mates rates" on some to India as development mules. Similarly the rail carriages are a standard designs - well within the capability of Indian engineers to redesign, after all - India is running on a universal rail gauge - so any problems will be bogey width related - not significant transporter width issues.

 

[n21]

I wouldn't see transportation/logistics being such a "impossible" wall to break in the induction of Arjun as the Indian Army makes it sound..personally i feel that it is a very lame excuse...
what would happen if Russian decided to go for a heavier tank(better armored)?
Wouldn't the army induct as there is no way bu to continue with the T-series tradition.

Arjun should be inducted as kind of doctrine test machine...try to evovle it as the needs within the doctrine... One of the IA tank commanders squarely blame on the East v/s West design confusion for the mess within Arjun!

Scientist want better technology and see west as the reference and IA see cheap and lighter tanks as the doctrine and see east! This describe the Arjun mess !

 

[gf0012-aust]

I wouldn't see transportation/logistics being such a "impossible" wall to break in the induction of Arjun as the Indian Army makes it sound..personally i feel that it is a very lame excuse...
what would happen if Russian decided to go for a heavier tank(better armored)?
Wouldn't the army induct as there is no way bu to continue with the T-series tradition.

Arjun should be inducted as kind of doctrine test machine...try to evovle it as the needs within the doctrine... One of the IA tank commanders squarely blame on the East v/s West design confusion for the mess within Arjun!

Scientist want better technology and see west as the reference and IA see cheap and lighter tanks as the doctrine and see east! This describe the Arjun mess !

I'd agree with you somewhat. I think the main problem (apart from the project mgt) has been project definition.

• over complicating modifications through the life of development. rather than establishing it as a technology demonstrater through iterative proof of concept cycles/roll outs
• failure to sign off at prescribed sign off stages - thus ensuring core design stability throught development
• confusion over doctrine. they picked the best available euro tank of the period and the modified it internally to suit Indian physiology, an then kept on changing components based on a fluid Army requests. Thats a complete contradiction of how project management is supposed to work - especially with military vehicles. It's not a problem that is unique to India either - Australia has some stellar examples of project disconnection due to poor management and a willingness to make things "unique" and indigenous. Local design mods are not always a wise path to choose.

If you look at the issue of design philosophies between russia and NATO then you can see how Arjun would have confused development with doctrine.

NATO wanted high armour, heavy survivable and accurate weapons platforms. The russians wanted massed armour at blitzkrieg pace. They wanted to overwhelm an enemy by mass and speed and as such platfrm survivability was less important as they had sheer numerical mass advantages.

NATO went for smaller calibre but higher quality main guns - the russians were never able to achieve the precision and ballistics qualities of both the 105 and the 120 and elected to go with higher calibre rounds to try and compensate for quality deficiencies.

WARPAC went for lower profiled tanks so as to make it harder for enemy MBT's to hit. WARPAC also went for lower quality builds due to saturated mass production requirements.

NATO went for more accurate FCS, and more importantly in the case of the US, made the qualifications to achieve Master Gunner status very tight. Ie repeated kill shots on a moving 1 metre target (to simulate the turret) at various ranges. They also compressed their capability to kill by going for helos and A-10's and arty.

thats oversimplifying things. but you can see that the evolution of differing armoured warfare philosphies would impact on quality of design issues etc....

The point is that a massed armoured battle in a "today" conflict is not a good idea - and to some extent, that soviet generated philosophy is a temporal anomaly.

Even the "Cold Start" philosophy is subjected to platform development "schizophrenia". ie, which is the better platform for the mission?

 

[n21]

I'd agree with you somewhat. I think the main problem (apart from the project mgt) has been project definition.

• over complicating modifications through the life of development. rather than establishing it as a technology demonstrater through iterative proof of concept cycles/roll outs
• failure to sign off at prescribed sign off stages - thus ensuring core design stability throught development
• confusion over doctrine. they picked the best available euro tank of the period and the modified it internally to suit Indian physiology, an then kept on changing components based on a fluid Army requests. Thats a complete contradiction of how project management is supposed to work - especially with military vehicles. It's not a problem that is unique to India either - Australia has some stellar examples of project disconnection due to poor management and a willingness to make things "unique" and indigenous. Local design mods are not always a wise path to choose.

If you look at the issue of design philosophies between russia and NATO then you can see how Arjun would have confused development with doctrine.

NATO wanted high armour, heavy survivable and accurate weapons platforms. The russians wanted massed armour at blitzkrieg pace. They wanted to overwhelm an enemy by mass and speed and as such platfrm survivability was less important as they had sheer numerical mass advantages.

NATO went for smaller calibre but higher quality main guns - the russians were never able to achieve the precision and ballistics qualities of both the 105 and the 120 and elected to go with higher calibre rounds to try and compensate for quality deficiencies.

WARPAC went for lower profiled tanks so as to make it harder for enemy MBT's to hit. WARPAC also went for lower quality builds due to saturated mass production requirements.

NATO went for more accurate FCS, and more importantly in the case of the US, made the qualifications to achieve Master Gunner status very tight. Ie repeated kill shots on a moving 1 metre target (to simulate the turret) at various ranges. They also compressed their capability to kill by going for helos and A-10's and arty.

thats oversimplifying things. but you can see that the evolution of differing armoured warfare philosphies would impact on quality of design issues etc....

The point is that a massed armoured battle in a "today" conflict is not a good idea - and to some extent, that soviet generated philosophy is a temporal anomaly.

Even the "Cold Start" philosophy is subjected to platform development "schizophrenia". ie, which is the better platform for the mission?

Even if the IA thinks than Arjun is misplaced in terms of Cold Start doctrine, as it is a heavier tank, I wonder what distance does the IA intent to to cover. How "fast" and further would this "fast attack" concept would take them? With such a saturated defence on it's western border I would wonder how penetrative a armor thrust would be?

The American clearly demonstrated a "blitz" in the GW2 with their Abrahams.? Would the IA would be able to accomplish that with T-90's which rely on speed for defence and mass saturation?

I would definetely want to be in a heavily protected tank if I have to face a heavily defended areas, where invariably would be present anti-tank welcome teams!

All these news about Arjun seems(sometimes) like delibrate mis-information or there is some very serious problem within the system..which is not meant for public domain and the army is vary of accepting it !

 

[gf0012-aust]

Even if the IA thinks than Arjun is misplaced in terms of Cold Start doctrine, as it is a heavier tank, I wonder what distance does the IA intent to to cover. How "fast" and further would this "fast attack" concept would take them? With such a saturated defence on it's western border I would wonder how penetrative a armor thrust would be?

The American clearly demonstrated a "blitz" in the GW2 with their Abrahams.? Would the IA would be able to accomplish that with T-90's which rely on speed for defence and mass saturation?

I would definetely want to be in a heavily protected tank if I have to face a heavily defended areas, where invariably would be present anti-tank welcome teams!

All these news about Arjun seems(sometimes) like delibrate mis-information or there is some very serious problem within the system..which is not meant for public domain and the army is vary of accepting it !

To be absolutely honest, I have no idea what they're seeing as a fit for "Cold Start". To get absolute max opportunity you need autonomy and minimal logistics imposition at each stage of the thrust. having multiple tank types makes that contradictory.

I think to some extent indias armoured doctrine is a combination of WW2 british (ie a cruiser tank and a heavy tank), soviet tactics, british armour culture and european/israeli technologies. Cold Start is pretty well much a modernised teutonic/american version of the blitzkrieg.

This is way outside of my comfort zone as such - and I'd have to defer to a real operator like Waylander for clarity.

From my perspective though, the current indian procurement cycle is very much in a position where it needs review. you cannot effectively manage a modern military with mutiple platforms that are blurred on capability.

it's not the things that necessarily go bang that determine the outcome of wars - its the logistics - and Indian logistics would be a nightmare in a high tempo trans national war. Thats the reason why the GAO/Exchequer has been overly critical. Too many procurement chefs in the kitchen - so to speak.

 

[n21]

To be absolutely honest, I have no idea what they're seeing as a fit for "Cold Start". To get absolute max opportunity you need autonomy and minimal logistics imposition at each stage of the thrust. having multiple tank types makes that contradictory.

I think to some extent indias armoured doctrine is a combination of WW2 british (ie a cruiser tank and a heavy tank), soviet tactics, british armour culture and european/israeli technologies. Cold Start is pretty well much a modernised teutonic/american version of the blitzkrieg.

This is way outside of my comfort zone as such - and I'd have to defer to a real operator like Waylander for clarity.

From my perspective though, the current indian procurement cycle is very much in a position where it needs review. you cannot effectively manage a modern military with mutiple platforms that are blurred on capability.

it's not the things that necessarily go bang that determine the outcome of wars - its the logistics - and Indian logistics would be a nightmare in a high tempo trans national war. Thats the reason why the GAO/Exchequer has been overly critical. Too many procurement chefs in the kitchen - so to speak.

yeah right ..if u read about the number of weapons vendors(russian,american,isreal,german etc!) at the indian door .. and the stuff Indian defence forces intent to buy, i hope they don't convert themselves in to a big "Military System Musuem"


Probably the IA do reliase that sudden attack on such a saturated region with
quick reactions units supported by a smaller number of armored would be a massacre! (massing the required armor on the theatre would take a hell of time and that would mean they are back to the old doctrine) and hence they are now stressing on special forces and airpower action first before they move in.All the army excercises involve these elements now!

 

[n21]

I found this article and it mentioned about a re-designing of the turret of Arjun which would be part of Mk2 version.

http://www.forceindia.net/exclusive1.asp

FORCE Jan 2006 [www.forceindia.net]
By Prasun K. Sengupta

Indo-French Defence Ties

For THALES Avionics, the vital breakthrough in India came in 1996 when its AMLCD displays and standby cockpit instrumentation were selected as standard fit for not only the Tejas light combat aircraft, but also for the Su-30MKI, upgraded MiG-21 Bison, and the yet-to-be-upgraded MiG-27Ms and Jaguar IS/IMs of the Indian Air Force (IAF), and in 2004 for the MiG-29K/KUBs on order for the Indian Navy (IN). Also ordered by the IN is the company's TopOwl-F helmet-mounted cueing sight. For the Indian Army, THALES Optronics supplied 208 hand-held thermal imagers (HHTI) under a contract worth US$9,587,686 inked on 1 February 2000. All HHTIs were delivered by November 2000. The company's Catherine-FC thermal viewer with the ability to detect and engage targets at night; through dust, smoke and fog was selected early last year for installation on board the Army's T-90S+ main battle tanks (MBT). These viewers will be assembled and serviced in India by Bharat Electronics Ltd. THALES is also the preferred contender for supplying 14 SMART-L low-level transportable radars for the IAF, and is currently the sole supplier of shipborne airspace and surface search radars like the LW-08 and DW-08 for the IN's locally-made warships.

Another subsidiary of THALES, Belgium-based Forges de Zeebrugge, has been selected by the army to supply its LAU-FZ-231 pods carrying 2.75-inch rockets, to arm the attack variant of the Dhruv. The MoD's Ordnance Factories Board will license-produce the HE and last-fragmentation rockets. THALES Missile Electronics is currently negotiating with the MoD and its Hyderabad-based Defence Research and Development Laboratory (DRDL) to co-develop and mass produce a family of dual-mode seekers for locally-developed air-to-air and anti-armour
guided-missiles like the Astra and Nag. For the air-launched and surface-launched variants of Nag, an imaging infra-red-cum-laser seeker called DMIIRL was selected for co-development in July 2004. The DRDL has since 1988 bought 60 imaging infra-red seekers for prototype Nag missiles. Limited series production of the Nag by the MoD'sHyderabad-based Bharat Dynamics Ltd (BDL) is due to begin by June this year at a rate of 500 for the army and 100 for the IAF. BDL, meanwhile, is gearing up to licence-produce the 2km-range Milan 3 wire-guided anti-armour missile, developed by MBDA, a company jointly owned by BAE Systems, EADS and Finmeccanica . BDL has to date licence-built 16,000 Milan-2 missiles since 1981 for the army. MBDA has also been short-listed by the IN to supply air defence missiles like the vertically-launched Aster 15/30 for the IAC, and VL Mica for the IAF for base air defence.

Dassault Aviation, which has since the mid-1980s supplied 49 Mirage 2000H/TH multi-role combat aircraft to the IAF, will receive a contract later this year to upgrade these aircraft along with HAL by installing THALES-built RDY multi-PRF fire-control radars, hybrid GPS/inertial navigation systems and integrated airborne countermeasures suites, and arming them with MBDA-supplied Mica active radar-guided beyond visual range air combat missiles and SAGEM's GPS/laser-guided AASM precision-guided munition. Dassault is also in contention to supply the IN with at least 12 maritime surveillance/ASW aircraft, for which the Falcon 900MPA is on offer. For the IAF's M-MRCA requirement, an upgraded version of the Mirage 2000-9 is being offered for co-production with HAL.

GIAT Industries, which lost out to Bofors AB (now SWS Defence, owned by BAE Systems) in the mid-1980s for supplying 410 towed 155mm/39-calibre howitzers, is now well-poised to take its revenge by competing against Israel's SOLTAM and SWS Defence to supply up to 180 CAESAR motorised 155mm/52-calibre howitzers to the Indian Army. GIAT, which had in the early 1970s proposed to co-develop the Arjun Mk1 MBT and its 1,500hp diesel engine and related transmission systems (the DRDO had then arrogantly dismissed this offer), is currently cooperating with the DRDO to develop a radically redesigned turret for the projected Arjun Mk2 MBT, and is also offering the FINDERS battle management system for installation on board the T-90S+. GIAT has already bagged a contract to supply up to 60 THL-20 chin-mounted GIAT Industries-built three-barrel 20mm guns for the Army's Dhruv attack helicopters.

Propulsion manufacturer SNECMA Moteurs has had a distinguished track record on industrial cooperation with its Indian counterparts since the early 1980s. The company had then given HAL the licence to build the Viking (Vikas) rocket engine for the PSLV satellite launch vehicle. By the late 1980s, SNECMA had teamed up with the DRDO's Bangalore-based Gas Turbine Research Establishment to co-develop the Tejas' Kaveri turbofan and supply the engine's directionally-solidified turbine blades. In 2001, SNECMA supplied three Larzac 04H20 engines to power the HAL-built HJT-36 single-engined intermediate jet trainer now being developed for the IAF. Recently, the company proposed co-developing the M53-PX3 turbofan for the Mirage 2000-9 and last June created a joint production team with HAL concerning about a dozen forged aluminium parts for the CFM56 family of turbofans. Notably, this is one of HAL's first export contracts for forge and foundry services. In addition, the Bangalore-based SNECMA Aerospace India Pvt Ltd, manned by a staff of 100, specialises in aeronautical design and onboard software development. SNECMA has also created a joint venture called PowerJet with Russia's NPO Saturn and HAL to develop the next-generation SaM-146 turbofan, which will be offered as power-plant for the four-engined Multi-Role Transport Aircraft that HAL will be co-developing with IRKUT Corp.

 

[powerslavenegi]

Faulty system

yeah right ..if u read about the number of weapons vendors(russian,american,isreal,german etc!) at the indian door .. and the stuff Indian defence forces intent to buy, i hope they don't convert themselves in to a big "Military System Musuem"


Probably the IA do reliase that sudden attack on such a saturated region with
quick reactions units supported by a smaller number of armored would be a massacre! (massing the required armor on the theatre would take a hell of time and that would mean they are back to the old doctrine) and hence they are now stressing on special forces and airpower action first before they move in.All the army excercises involve these elements now!

The whole system (political/military) that is responsible for arms procurement is in a state of chaos,& both MOD and the Armed forces are to be blamed for the same .The procurred entities seldom comply with the requirements.Arjun and LCA are examples of incompetency ,and a policy of 'Rob peter to pay Paul'.: