Zorawar: Light tank for Indian army

jmaxwell_ said:
When it was just one wing of the govt speaking to another, the incompetence was simpler to pin on DRDO ( "always late" ) or PSUs ( "lazy/shoddy workmanship "). Seldom the shifting goalposts of the services or the timely MoQ clearances/funds by MoD.
Click to expand...
This incompetence was already identified by various CAG reports and even DM manohar parrikar.

jmaxwell_ said:
And here we are, a tank designed to QR in 19 months and ready to be manufactured, yet barely given an order of 18. I suspect that too, only because L&T probably sent signals they were looking to pull the plug or sue... after all this is not a PSU running a charity here.
Click to expand...
Not true, a minimum order was always assured under development route (secretary mentions that in the clip). Then only L&T committed to the development.

Now, L&T failed to quality under Make 1 route. Thus TASL and Mahindra will competing for the remaining 300 or so.

End of the day, we will have 3-4 private companies who can build any kind of armoured vehicles. Privatisation fixed the incentive part as they wont work without reasonable visibility towards upside and risk sharing. Overall policy changes are a total win for the industry as a whole and a decimation of OFB monopoly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Asterion Moloc and YoungWolf
Ashwin said:
Not true, a minimum order was always assured under development route (secretary mentions that in the clip). Then only L&T committed to the development.
Click to expand...
I am only referring to the DND route - the whole splitting of the orders into multiple projects with separate DND route and two separate designs for the M1 route is itself another clusterf*ck. You can't rush building the MIC after decades of neglect by breaking a project into multiple barely-getting-beak-wet orders. The right path is giving the light tank project to leading company X, the arty project to Y, the IFV to Z and once they mature in their own domains, then cross-pollinate.

For a MoQ of 59 tanks, I would love to look at the L&T financials to see how much above the break even point they even are after all the CapEx. Now even that isn't a complete production run and will be split into two batches with who knows how much additional CapEx...
 
Last edited:
Generally Anurag is very level headed, but here he comes across very defensive in this interview. Here are a few tell tale signs for me that Anurag knows he is defending the indefensible:
  • He is asked not once, but twice -- "Why would the Stanag protection level need to be changed?". Notice both times he does not answer the question.
  • His response is more-or-less that it is difficult to change QRs -- which begs the question why did it need to be changed when it was designed to go up against a tank that was leaked in Chinese online forums back in 2010?
  • He says it took the Chinese T15 tank 8 years -- (note: it was being discussed in chinese online forums in 2010 and started mass production in 2016) as excuse that it is okay for Indian light tank design to take long. NO! After Galwan, did India not have intelligence on even mass produced chinese tanks? And the gall: first complain that imports are needed because India takes too long, and now complain that India does it too fast!!
  • This again goes back to who gave the approval to develop a 750hp, 25t tank when you want it to go up against a 1000hp, 33t tank? Only to later decide you do want Stanag 6 and that will cause it go up to 1000hp, 33t? It is exactly this INDECISIVENESS that will be death knell for Indian MIC.
  • Even Sandeep is confused about DND route and M1 route that Anurag has to keep correcting... and again no answer to why so many different designs need to be made. This again speaks to INDECISIVENESS on backing a design and production partner (see visible confusion on Sandeep's face)
  • There is no explanation given to how India plans to maintain not one, but as of now at least THREE logistics chains, that too at 15000ft! And how long does India take to test even one design? Does anyone believe that THREE designs will be tested in the next 1-2 years? And when these tanks are due for MLU, what is the plan?
  • Comments are turned off which is not normal for this channel -- why? Afraid you will be taken to task?
Let me tell you what I see:
No one in this whole circus has the backbone to fully back a single horse. This way, when the whole thing goes belly up, which eventually it will, everyone can rightly point fingers at one another and no one can be held accountable. What a mess.

IN A MONOPSONY YOU NEED CRITICAL MASS!

😡

 
  • Haha
Reactions: Rune
https://twitter.com/x/status/2109454671912014124

Yes Vishnu, I said NO- Chinese Tank does not have STANAG 6 it has HIGHER level protection; but you presumed since I said NO - it has lower.

I explained in detail that a heavier tank cannot climb slopes and is more vulnerable ie a tank with 36 tons but to cater for 30mm APFSDS - a minimum of STANAG 6 is required.

STANAG 6 was part of initial QR with weight given as 25 Tons plus/minus 10%. So to increase the protection from current STANAG 4 to STANAG 6, the weight penalty is only 2 ton which does not impact any operational capability.

Areal density - For 7 m² - frontal arc

STANAG 4~100–150 kg/m² x 7 = 0.70–1.05 t
STANAG 6~350–450 kg/m²x 7 = 2.45–3.15 t
Increment= +1.4–2.45 t

And this is PSQR (prelim SQR) not final SQR which is GSQR. Though STANAG 6 is achievable with 25+2.5 tons, but if it cannot be achieved - the User will/can accept STANAG 6 minus as MARK 1.

This is why chose MAKE-1 which is design and development and not a PROCUREMENT.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: YoungWolf
Although the PSQR is claimed to specify the STANAG 6 requirement, the RFI certainly did not, while being very clear on the weight limitation:
HTlqtp5WAAAQU9N.jpg
 
I have labelled the KSSL turret:
1792604011912.png
For a 1st time effort not bad at all. The turret will probably have an autoloader given the size of the bustle & the lower basket. This is not a crewed turret. I don't see any smoke cans/ATGM launchers/APS. Plenty of space for those, maybe they will come with time. Would have preferred if it had STANAG Level 4 all around protection, instead of the level 3, like the 3105 turret.

Also cannon launched ATGM/LM is a new for this category. We don't have a 105 mm CLGM, Arjun's CLGM is made for 120mm cannons. Maybe we will see a scaled down version of that missile. Would that mean there would be no externally carried ATGM launchers? We will see.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gosu, Shan, Ashwin and 2 others
Gautam said:
I have labelled the KSSL turret:
View attachment 54474
For a 1st time effort not bad at all. The turret will probably have an autoloader given the size of the bustle & the lower basket. This is not a crewed turret. I don't see any smoke cans/ATGM launchers/APS. Plenty of space for those, maybe they will come with time. Would have preferred if it had STANAG Level 4 all around protection, instead of the level 3, like the 3105 turret.

Also cannon launched ATGM/LM is a new for this category. We don't have a 105 mm CLGM, Arjun's CLGM is made for 120mm cannons. Maybe we will see a scaled down version of that missile. Would that mean there would be no externally carried ATGM launchers? We will see.
Click to expand...
Why we see rifled gun on light tanks(105mm ) ?

I remember people criticizing Arjun for its rifled gun due to nagative effects on APFSDS rouds and more wear and tear.

Are those problem not a priority for light tanks ??

Or we intended them to use for indirect fire also ? Hence rifled make more sense due to more Accuracy.

But it also has very poor elevation angles compared to belgian gun, hence unsuitable for indirect fire role in mountains.
 
Gautam said:
I have labelled the KSSL turret:
View attachment 54474
For a 1st time effort not bad at all. The turret will probably have an autoloader given the size of the bustle & the lower basket. This is not a crewed turret. I don't see any smoke cans/ATGM launchers/APS. Plenty of space for those, maybe they will come with time. Would have preferred if it had STANAG Level 4 all around protection, instead of the level 3, like the 3105 turret.

Also cannon launched ATGM/LM is a new for this category. We don't have a 105 mm CLGM, Arjun's CLGM is made for 120mm cannons. Maybe we will see a scaled down version of that missile. Would that mean there would be no externally carried ATGM launchers? We will see.
Click to expand...
IIRC, the presentation in the Chakra episode had shown a low profile crew seating. So it is still manned, but the fighting compartment is deeply recessed within the basket.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: mu5ing and Gautam
Photon Vish said:
Why we see rifled gun on light tanks(105mm ) ?

I remember people criticizing Arjun for its rifled gun due to nagative effects on APFSDS rouds and more wear and tear.

Are those problem not a priority for light tanks ??
Click to expand...
For MBTs, SB guns are better for APFSDS rounds. Rifled grooves can cause APFSDS rounds to have lower muzzle velocity & thus lower KE.

I think it will probably be rifled. If LTs are used against other LTs/APCs/IFVs, APFSDS rounds would still remain lethal despite the performance drop.

Photon Vish said:
Or we intended them to use for indirect fire also ? Hence rifled make more sense due to more Accuracy.
Click to expand...
Yes, indirect fire will be an important component.

Photon Vish said:
But it also has very poor elevation angles compared to belgian gun, hence unsuitable for indirect fire role in mountains.
Click to expand...
Yeah. 10 deg less in the positive direction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gosu and Photon Vish
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom