No value is maybe what you think but I think as I have already said it clearly indicates the biased position of the army.
I think it is more a reflection of your biases on Army than Armies on Arjun.
The army gives a BS report to the parliamentary committee in such language to deliberately show the arjun in poor light and that doesnâ€™t change anything on the ground??If a army trial report that could have effect on the products future isnt a part of the "ground" then I dont know what is.
The language oh the language; the H&D of the language. Can we get over the "language" and get to the contents -- other than one quote of the Army officer there is no other Army language -- unless the parliamentary scribes are also Army now.
Secondly other than the issue of "engine failure" vs "transmission failure" can you POINT to SINGLE OTHER point which is I your opinion incorrect?
Btw..first you said that the language was probably drafted by a babu and when pointed out that it was the army itself you shift to saying that the language on an official report doesnâ€™t matter?Shifting goalposts?
I am saying its not Army except one sentence -- and in any case language does not matter -- two things. Can you tell me how do you know that other than the quote the language is Army's?
Because you assume so? Anything more definite than your assumptions?
Yes today, that quote was made on Nov 2007.There is nothing as complicated in that quote as wishlist or such stuff as you want to prove.He was talking just and only just about the Arjun plain and simple.Yes I agree the chief cannot be a fanboy,but then again if the quote be put to scrutiny the chief would have a hard time substantiating it.
Well you are taking his statement out of context -- he was talking about the future in context of what we have today.
Secondly; is the Arjun manufacturing world class? Is manufacturing not a part and parcel of tank?
It may have been corrected now but the simple point was that there were very serious problems with the T-90 and the army was more than enthused to bring it upto the mark which is not the case with arjun considering the arjun has more significance and importance to India.
Bah and bah again -- IAs job is to equip itself to fight the war best -- and if it needs weapons that DRDO cant give it in time -- it is more than justified to ask for outside weapons. IAs job is simple and clearly defined -- protecting the borders is its first task -- they will make sure that they do everything to support Arjun but their task first and fore most in defence.
And T 90 is not the same as Arjun irrespective of what you may claim -- even Army says the very same thing.
Not hardly.An import is fine but a faulty import?
What fault import? What are the problems today
And whatever the credentials of the makers be it is the finished product that matters.I can give many examples where an established maker turned up with a lemon and a inexperienced maker turned up with a world class product.
Yes; but they have to prove their credentials; no one takes their word for it.
Whether they are being used successfully is neither for you or me to judge.
Really you are not so eager to be equally leinet with IA for Arjun are you?
Double standards here?
We have just seen it being used.In anycase even if they didnâ€™t have problems they clearly did when they were trialed in the desert some years back.And THAT is the point I am talking about.That problems existed but due to hand holding by the army it was possible to correct them to a large degree.
Well who disagrees; and the point is Army is doing the same with Arjun; how is it not?
Point in favour of IA needing to support indigenization.
But obviously -- however the picture is not 1 or 0; indigneization must happen with right products -- not just for the sake of it get any thing in.
The last report was during ex ashwamedha ,last year.And lets not forget the chief now wants to put a cooling unit in the T-90.How is that even going to fit on the can?
Just like it fits in Russian T 90s whats the big deal. Again you are talking of problems during deployment.
Yes but still a miscalculation by the army for which now they are having to pay.
Well it was never my case that Army is perfect -- the question is that whether what they do is withing acceptable bounds of reason.
No I am comparing the tank which was deployed despite having problems and another one which wasnâ€™t.
Not a valid comparison -- when T 90 was deployed it came from a long line of working tanks with very few problems which were quickly sorted.
Arjun is today where T 90 was in 2000; may be not even that (in terms of being a mature product)
Donâ€™t mix it up.the shell problem was an issue
Shell problem is a Indian problem mostly -- it not working with T 90 was something because of software changes that were needed.
and the army having to buy more 347 tanks due to delayed tech transfer another.
Huh that we know; so imports have this problem this is not a IA testing problems is it
Who knows whether the TI performed according to specs?Who knows how much fuel the T-90s used up?who knows what the temperature was inside the tank?Who knows whether the tank crews suffered from any medical problems because of the heat?who knows whether the munition the T-90 fired would go through any modern ceramic armour?
If you dont know why talk about it? Speculate but keep within bounds then.
The army says it works; if you dont agree post proofs rather than mud slinging. In terms of T 90 mutions. Which tanks is it up against?
There is a wide gulf of difference between â€œwhat is acceptable standard for a productâ€