nitin

With a 59 tank order, it would be idiotic to suggest they do otherwise. If the numbers rise, they will indigenise.

Development was hard because of the scale of the ambition. Everything or as much as possible was to be done inhouse to avoid the fiasco that ensued post western sanctions. Those challenges have mostly been overcome, except the lack of availability of a local engine. The current GOI is quite tight fisted regarding expenditure and has not cleared a follow on domestic program to fix the issues with the original program. Most of the engineering changes were made because the IAF rejoined the program late, many were cynical it would even succeed given the complexity and asked for multiple changes at the nth moment. Bar airframe shaping (which would've led to changes across the board, and were pushed off for the Mk2), most of these changes were incorporated on Mk1, and the remaining on Mk1A. Unlike most other aircraft, the Tejas's brake system is also brake by wire. Everything is electric. Similarly it's compact size and high packaging density given it's size mean the fuel lines have to be carefully placed lest they impact other systems if damaged. Also there are multiple systems integration rigs, those weren't the real issue. The Tejas's systems are currently flying on the IAFs Jaguars, Su-30 MKIs and previously on its MiG-27s. As you can discern, that wouldn't have been possible unless the systems were modular and system integration was a challenge the developers had cracked. The IAFs "we want this, this way" changes were and are a key issue. They have a users perspective based off a bunch of different platforms they operate and picking figures from each and expecting the Tejas to meet them is unrealistic, but it is what it is. There is also the issue that the lack of interest of prior Govts, trickle feed funding and the staged Tech demo, prototype vehicle, LSP and SP approach also lead to challenges as the program was stalled due to funding issues at the TD, PV stage till FSED (Full Scale Engg Devpt) was cleared, quite late in the day. The focus in the first two stages was on proving the technologies as versus flying a fully developed combat aircraft. This meant that as FSED, LSP took off, a lot of re-engineering had to be done to accommodate the users perspective. There was also a learning curve involved in moving from airframe to airframe as conservative design limits were gradually relaxed. It was widely accepted that any mishap during that stage would really affect the effort so both the IAFs test pilots, and it's developers took extreme care to check each and every test point and mitigate the risk involved to whatever extent possible. That added time. Next, India's audit agency is notorious for putting out data that doesn't really reconcile with technical development. The CAG report is invariably followed by a Parliamentary Committee Report which acts on the CAG report and clarifies the mistakes of omission and commission therein in the original report. There is no conspiracy involved in not releasing any further reports, more like the program has cleared key hurdles is being ordered, and the CAG will most likely re-visit the topic after the Tejas is in squadron service for a few years. Last, the AESA radar has cleared IAF trials, and is now being prepped for series production. However HAL already has an agreement for the 2052 with Elta and that agreement specifies a minimum number of radars to be made locally. The Uttam AESA is hence most likely slated for the last couple of batches of the Mk1A, retrofitting earlier Mk1s, the follow on Tejas Mk2 and AMCA, and upgrading the sizeable Su-30 MKI fleet. https://delhidefencereview.com/2022/09/05/indigenous-uttam-aesa-radar-ready-doubts-loom-over-initial-order-size/amp/

30 Tejas Mk1 single seaters are already in squadron service. Another 2 to be delivered, followed by 8 trainers. The production shifts thereafter to 73 single seater and 10 twin seater Mk1A variants all of which have already been ordered. So at the very minimum, 6 squadrons, ie 123 Tejas will be in service. Next, the Tejas Mk2 program has also been funded and cleared and is also scheduled for a minimum of 6 squadrons. India's troubled procurement is primarily because it has discovered there is no way it can keep importing budget breaking stuff from abroad. So, finally, the focus is on homegrown programs as long as they meet service quality requirements.

It's far ahead of the T-50 in terms of payload and weapons available, and is gradually catching up to the F-16 in terms of what it has within it, sensors and what's hanging off of it, ie payload diversity in it's Mk1A variant. What it can't match is the fact the F-16 is a larger platform with more fuel, more range, larger size (better supersonic shaping) and more pylons, more payload. The Tejas is a light fighter. 3500kg carried on, 7 pylons. The Tejas Mk2 however is an out and out F-16 equivalent, 6500kgs and 12 pylons.

Typically most of the stuff works. The standard battle rifle INSAS, was an average design but should have done ok but has been let down by poor production quality though and is slated to be replaced. Spikes are now being procured en masse to replace the Milan 2 series. However its not just weapons alone, the number of items taken for granted in western militaries eg BPJs/flak jackets, latest gen NVGs are where the IA is still playing catchup from a decade of slow procurement.

This round was developed in the mid-80s and went into production in the early 90's... it was India's first 120mm round.. development of further rounds stalled as the basic platform was in doubt. Now, a quick fix Mk2 is slated for production equivalent to 125mm imports which we got with our T-90s (IMI 125mm round equivalents), based off a 125mm Mk2 design which was developed but not fielded. That round should be equivalent to the IMI CL3254s which we used to get. A new 125mm Mk2+ round is in development which should be more modern than the earlier rounds and hence even the 120mm round will see further advancement, more in line with contemporary rounds. Of course even the gun may have to be modernized further to handle stronger rounds but it seems doubtful IA will ask for it, since the plan is to also field long range LAHAT style ATGMs which should have the penetration to take out even highly armored targets.

You gotta understand...Desi mentality...if they copy something, even if it's substandard to the original product...it automatically becomes cutting edge. Oh please...stick to something sensible as versus projecting your own theories about countries you don't understand and intentionally misrepresent.

That round dates from the mid-80s, when it was designed (India's second FSAPDS round after its 105mm round) and hasn't been updated since the tank itself was in endless trials. Today, tomorrow, its a different story.

This is Arjun MK1 in English from 2012, 22 min documentary.

Thanti TV IIRC is a local TV channel from Tamil Nadu, an Indian state. The interview is here: Credit to ArmenT for translation. For those who want to just see the visuals - no subtitles available. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cA-DGn3M-NI

Thanks.

Its just an interim step to cover the near crippling lack of proper mobile artillery thanks to the MODs screwed up procurement. The IA dusted off its old Catapults and requested DRDO to put them on new chassis. There are a variety of other options available - local and international, but things wont get resolved till the current admin goes (history of the Bofors scam) and a new one starts the procurement process for 155mm arty.

It may change more. Some of the systems on the tank are apparently used to validate concepts and may be changed. For instance, there is a tender out for a new RCWS. One being used currently is the one available OTS in India but is quite large and bulky.

I actually didnt even bother replying to your post given your general arrogance & overweening sense of smug superiority in your posts, but hey, I was visiting the forum after ages. So will waste my time. Won't bother again. What ammunition was used in trails? This is the basic mistake Arjun supporters from India make, they see claims that Arjun survived hit from x range but they do not ask more questions what actually was fired at what angle, and at what angle hit armor inclined at what angle. --- Yes, Arjun supporters from India lack the evolved sense of intelligence that you possess, and we don't ask any questions or any other thing. Of course, it couldn't be that , intellectual masturbation on the net, discussing operational issues and ammunition types is unlikely to be looked kindly upon & is stupid given the unit is going to be used for combat. If you were not so full of yourself, you'd do some research yourself, investigate what kinds of ammunition are in service in India but hey, that'd be too much. Do You even understand working mechanism of ERA? Even if ERA will work properly, main armor will still need to stop what is left from penetrator or shaped charge jet, thus will have some damage. ERA is to improve protection, not to make main armor suddenly completely impenetrable. ----- Thanks so much for telling me how ERA works. Of course, I was born yesterday and this website and the entire internet did nothing to tell me about the function of ERA. If the ERA degrades the attacking ammuniton to the extent that damage to the main armor is relatively less, and can be again covered with more ERA on the field, its still better than having only the composite armor that needs the entire tank to be shipped off back to a base repair workshop or the factory after a few strikes. And of course, the fact that an ALWCS is being added to have the ERA act as a necessary backup also tells us nothing, nor does the fact that extensive public literature exists from almost a decade back on the IA wanting protection from the evolving missile threat. Its all "Indian" and hence liable to be discounted. Using most probably outdated ammunition as indicator of protection is rather proof of ignorance, not proof of protection level offered by discussed armor design. ------- Most probably outdated ammunition, wonderful, so the developers called you up and informed you correct? How wonderful it must be for you, to combine your sparkling wit, amazing intelligence (wherein everyone else is ignorant) and incredible contacts (wherein you know everything about a nation that you'd probably struggle to locate on a map). Never mind that the developers and users could have used ammuniton that represented what the Arjun was likely to face locally. Ah, impossible. They didn't have Damian the worthy with his decades of armor experience and hands on application to inform them likewise. Which means that neither You, neither them (if Your claim is true) understand what frontal arc protection means. For example I recommend You to akcnowledge yourself with Russian term of "safe manouvering angles". In short frontal arc protection is provided by both frontal and side armor. Side armor needs to be good enough to protect against hits at approx 15-35 degrees from the turret longitudinal axis. ------ Mores the pity that they and nor the developers really care or understand what your interpretation is and how the users intend to fight with the tank based on likely threats to be seen in the local theaters of war. Tell you what knock yourself out with your sense of smug superiority. Its rare that I respond to anyone like this, but talking to the likes of you does remind me why I spend less time on these chats. Time was that we had some good folks contribute. Now we have the likes of you.

They are supposed to be the new ERA that will replace/supplant K-5 ERA on all tanks going forward. Specs released so far are fairly decent, with huge reduction in performance of tandem warhead, and slightly lesser for FSAPDS (but still substantial).