What's new

Major proportion of Arjun tanks in service not operational

Pakistan should also have Public-Private joint development of defense manufacturing. Unlike India, Pakistan does not have private sector with enough capital and experience to start large scale defense manufacturing.

public sector usually does not work
 
.
this is a shame, but it's learning experience. india still has time to work this out.


 
. .
You and your lot must be really desperate to point out Indian issues if you cannot comprehend what I was talking about.

I was not even talking about the imported content but issues plaguing the defense-industrial complex in India in general.

P.S: Having 60% imported content is not a failure for me or the armed forces.Then again, I rarely come across Pakistanis with analytical ability.
Keep pointing fingers at us, unfortunately the indigenous Arjun with 60% imported parts is still a failure :coffee:
 
. .
Arjun is a failure and soon you would hear similar news about few Tejas inducted and Indian Armed Forces know it but there stupid government is making sure in war Indian Army faces severe losses because of this disastrous equipment
 
.
Nothing will change there is too much corruption and bureaucracy in india and one man can not change it.
 
.
Arjun is a failure and soon you would hear similar news about few Tejas inducted and Indian Armed Forces know it but there stupid government is making sure in war Indian Army faces severe losses because of this disastrous equipment

When T 34 was introdued it had many flaws but Soviets still inducted it, worked on its flaws and then came T 34/ 85, the tank which evetuallly became work horse of Soviet Tank Armies and played crucial role in battle of Kursk.

Your beloved F 16 too had many issues, but that did not stop USAF from inducting it.

Gradually Designers ironed out its issues and it became success.

India's SLV 3 too had problems. In 1960s India used to launch 10 KG Rockets.

Today Our GSLV MK II can place paylod of 2500 KG in GTO.

Now had Soviets, US give up on T 34, F 16, would they have become a legendary platforms?

If a platform is not upto Mark, induct it and iron out its flaws.

This is what developers around the world do.
 
.
It would be unwise to blame everything on the army general's shoulder. Yes, army haven't been very supportive of the project right from the inception, but still allegations of kickbacks for every mundane thing isn't good. It should be kept in mind that if the actual need arose to use these machines, it would not be you or me or rest of us going to drive these tanks in the battlefield, but these soldiers, and if these machines malfunctions or not up to their paper specifications, they would loose their lives FIRST.

Every machine needs periodic maintenance to keep it up to the mark be it car, bike, a/c anything... than a complex mechanical machine such as Tank with thousands of moving parts would need obviously more maintenance. when we give our car to service center, how much time do we expect it to be returned back to us. May be one day or two days, isn't it we want it back to us as soon as possible??................... now if the tank is sent for maintenance (general wear and tear), after how much time should our army expect it to be returned, may be one week, two week or two months (from the article it appears two months is more likely),

Now why army men would give a damm... to the reasons of delay due to maintenance woes of DRDO (more, specifically service centre department). They have a job to do and that is "Protection of the Country" and they need their weapons to fulfill their obligations. Why should they concern themselves with the intricacies of the service center? whether the spare part had to be repaired in India or sent abroad to there O.E.M for reparation, they should be concerned only with their preparedness.

The actual serviceability or combat readiness could never be revealed to media (public) for obvious reasons. But the matter at hand is very serious. There appears to be many genuine concerns faced by all the parties involved. Our DM, should definitely involve his personal nose in the matter, and address the matters of concern. And for serious aggravators be it from army, or DRDO or any other department......a PINK SLIP would definitely serve as a panacea...

Thanx

So the generals actually wanted the tank to be a failure? It seems the reliability of tank is under question.
 
.
Nothing will change there is too much corruption and bureaucracy in india and one man can not change it.

Still faar better than Pakistan.


On topic : This is R &D it would take time to fully perfect.We wil clear that through regular upgradation.
 
. .
NEW DELHI: The Army is facing major technical issues with its 'indigenous' Arjun tanks, as a significant proportion of its fleet has become inoperable in recent months and are non-serviceable due to continued maintenance problems.

The Army, which reluctantly inducted 124 tanks from 2009, after the UPA government insisted that a token number have to be ordered to keep the tank development programme viable, has of late been having quality problems with the fleet.

The defence minister has been apprised of the issue. Sources said that the Army's opinion is that while a large number of tanks are not operational due to technical defects, the fleet as such is not combat worthy due to reliability issues. "A number of tanks are not operational currently as transfer of technology (ToT) of several imported systems fitted onboard has not been done," an Army official said.

The Army is surprised that quality issues have started arising even though the entire fleet came into service as recently as 2013 when deliveries ended. Given that the tanks are highly dependent on foreign equipment — 60% of the tank is imported — the failure to get maintenance technology means that the systems have to be sent abroad for even minor repairs.

It is believed that a meeting on the low serviceability rate of the Arjun fleet was conducted at South Block recently and Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar is aware of the problems. The Army has identified 96 problems, including 18 major ones. The minister has been keen to increase the efficiency of existing platforms available with the military given that there is a paucity of funds to procure new systems.

In IAF, he has personally intervened to ensure that the availability rate of the Su 30 fleet improves by at least 10%. A similar approach is being taken for the Army too. DRDO is, meanwhile, working on the development of a successor in the form of the Arjun Mk II.



Army's fleet of Arjun tanks face technical issues; major proportion of 124 tanks in service not operational - The Economic Times
When T 34 was introdued it had many flaws but Soviets still inducted it, worked on its flaws and then came T 34/ 85, the tank which evetuallly became work horse of Soviet Tank Armies and played crucial role in battle of Kursk.

Your beloved F 16 too had many issues, but that did not stop USAF from inducting it.

Gradually Designers ironed out its issues and it became success.

India's SLV 3 too had problems. In 1960s India used to launch 10 KG Rockets.

Today Our GSLV MK II can place paylod of 2500 KG in GTO.

Now had Soviets, US give up on T 34, F 16, would they have become a legendary platforms?

If a platform is not upto Mark, induct it and iron out its flaws.

This is what developers around the world do.
ÑONE OF THE ABOVE TOOK 30 YEARS T DESIGN THING AND INDUCT AND IMPROVE IT
 
.
You are indeed a funny man..... take 30more years

No its not.Mk 1 has some problems anfd we cleared it through the Mk 2.Its a learning experience.

And Of Course it will take time ,after all it is indeed a tough job unlike tho so called indigenous system like yours that sourced from rejected Chinese designs.
 
.
During the trials there were many reports of army actively trying to sabotage the project. Number of the tanks ordered by them also underscores the same point.

Major issues at hand appears to be maintenance related and not design or engineering flaws. Problems are not so grave as it sounds, little more planning and coordination could mitigate most of them. For instance ample of extra spares could be stocked and new parts (or sensors) could be installed and the older parts could be repaired ( or sent to there respective vendors overseas for repairing), In this way neither army would suffer from unavailability of tanks and even DRDO (CVRDE) would get more time to iron out the minor operational flaws.

Arjun is new and our first maiden attempt to build a new MBT. Project was undertaken to design Arjun, not because it was easy or simple, but because it was difficult and very much needed. Only a handful of nations have the required engineering or scientific depth to undertake such a arduous journey and we are lucky to be one of those nations. We should not let our critics distract us from our goals. Long term fruits of these endeavors are very good. They will be of immense help our armed forces, our economy, and an entire ecosystem (many companies would prop up with expertise in divergent field) would come into being. Coordinated efforts should iron out flaws and impetus on designing new and improved products and assembly lines etc should be increased.

It reminds me of Steve Martin movie Major Bilko. But on a serious note I agree with the development as a necessity but one should also take into consideration the concerns of endusers in this case armoured divisions when something will directly affect their capability.
 
. .
Back
Top Bottom