SOURCE: AFI
Nearly 15 years after its initial proposal, the Indian Army’s ambitious Future Main Battle Tank (FMBT) program remains in limbo, with the General Staff Qualitative Requirements (GSQR)—a critical document outlining the tank’s detailed specifications—yet to be issued. Conceived as a next-generation replacement for the aging fleet of Soviet-era T-72 Main Battle Tanks (MBTs), the FMBT was envisioned to modernize India’s armored forces and bolster its combat capabilities. However, prolonged delays in finalizing requirements have left the project stalled, raising questions about the Army’s preparedness for future conflicts.
The FMBT initiative traces its origins to 2010, following the successful trials of the indigenous Arjun Mk1 tank against the Russian T-90 in Rajasthan. Buoyed by this achievement, the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) proposed the development of a cutting-edge tank to succeed the T-72s, which have been the backbone of India’s armored corps since the 1980s. The Army currently operates around 2,400 T-72s, many of which have exceeded their 30-year service life and are increasingly obsolete in the face of modern warfare’s demands. The FMBT was intended to address these shortcomings, promising advanced features like active protection systems, enhanced mobility, and network-centric capabilities.
The process began with optimism. In December 2010, then-Defence Minister A.K. Antony informed the Lok Sabha that the Preliminary Staff Qualitative Requirements (PSQR) for the FMBT had been formulated by the Army, with DRDO tasked to conduct a feasibility study. The PSQR, a broad outline of desired capabilities, was to be followed by the GSQR, which would specify exact technical and operational parameters—unlocking funding and development timelines. Initial projections aimed for development completion by 2020, with production slated at the Heavy Vehicles Factory (HVF) in Avadi. Yet, as of March 2025, the GSQR remains elusive.
Reports from as early as 2012 highlighted indecision within the Army over critical design choices, such as whether the FMBT should feature a three- or four-person crew. This uncertainty delayed the PSQR’s refinement into a actionable GSQR, stunting progress. DRDO officials have long argued that without the GSQR, they cannot finalize designs or move beyond conceptual stages. “The Army’s technological and combat wish list is essential to kick-start development,” a senior DRDO official remarked in 2011—a sentiment that echoes today.
The delay is particularly pressing given the T-72 fleet’s condition. Over 50% of these tanks are expected to be retired or relegated to storage within the next 7-8 years, as their mechanical lifespans expire. While upgrades—such as new engines and fire control systems—have extended the service of over 1,200 T-72s, these stopgap measures cannot fully address the tanks’ vulnerabilities. The Russia-Ukraine conflict has further complicated maintenance, disrupting spare parts supplies and exposing the T-72’s limitations against modern anti-tank weapons like drones and guided missiles.
The Indian Army’s armored strength, once a formidable force, now risks falling behind regional peers. Pakistan operates a mix of Chinese and indigenous tanks, while China’s Type 99 and Type 15 platforms showcase advanced technology. Without a modern replacement, India’s deterrence along its contested borders could weaken—a concern amplified by ongoing tensions in eastern Ladakh and Jammu & Kashmir.
The FMBT’s stagnation has been compounded by the Army’s parallel pursuit of the Future Ready Combat Vehicle (FRCV) program. Launched in 2015 with a Request for Information (RFI), the FRCV aims to procure 1,770 advanced tanks to replace the T-72s, potentially sidelining the DRDO-led FMBT. Unlike the indigenous FMBT, the FRCV envisions collaboration with global manufacturers under the Strategic Partnership model, with induction targeted for 2030. However, the FRCV too has faced setbacks, with an earlier RFI canceled and the project’s scope broadened to include multiple vehicle variants, further muddying the waters.
Critics argue that the Army’s indecision reflects a lack of clarity on its long-term armored strategy. “The FMBT could have built on the Arjun’s foundation, but instead, we’re chasing multiple tracks without committing to any,” a defense analyst noted. The Arjun Mk1A, an upgraded variant with 118 units on order, has demonstrated potential, yet the Army has capped its induction at a fraction of its 4,000-tank fleet, favoring Russian T-90s and now the FRCV.
The FMBT was envisioned as a 50-tonne tank with a 120mm smoothbore gun, active protection to counter incoming projectiles, and a 1,500 hp indigenous engine—the Bharat Power Pack. Its modular design promised adaptability to future technologies, while features like CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear) defense and network-centric operation aimed to prepare it for 21st-century battlefields. Development costs were estimated at ?5,000 crore (approximately $1.2 billion in 2010), with each tank priced at ?25 crore—a significant investment in India’s self-reliance.
Yet, without the GSQR, this vision remains theoretical. DRDO’s Combat Vehicles Research and Development Establishment (CVRDE) in Chennai stands ready to lead the effort, but the absence of Army direction has left the project dormant. Meanwhile, the FRCV’s global outreach risks overshadowing indigenous efforts, potentially relegating the FMBT to a footnote.
The Indian Army faces a critical juncture. With T-72 retirements looming, it must decide whether to revive the FMBT with a clear GSQR or fully commit to the FRCV—or pursue a hybrid approach leveraging DRDO’s expertise alongside foreign collaboration. Each year of delay widens the capability gap, straining an armored fleet already stretched thin.
NOTE: AFI is a proud outsourced content creator partner of IDRW.ORG. All content created by AFI is the sole property of AFI and is protected by copyright. AFI takes copyright infringement seriously and will pursue all legal options available to protect its content.