Which manufacturer? HAL? Can HAL make the Super 30?alexis wrote: Sanku, this is a standard process in all countries. We are inducting MKI and will induct MKI even though Super-30 specs already present and accepted as doable by manufacturer .
.
Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
The manufacturer is Sukhoi ; HAL is just an assembler as of now, isnt it?Sanku wrote:Which manufacturer? HAL? Can HAL make the Super 30?alexis wrote: Sanku, this is a standard process in all countries. We are inducting MKI and will induct MKI even though Super-30 specs already present and accepted as doable by manufacturer .
.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
Are you saying about the token induction of 124 tanks? For what purpose?Sanku wrote:There HAD been official reasons for non induction, it was because Arjun was failing basic tests. It is all documented even in parliamentary committee report. Arjun has since then been inducted.alexis wrote: IA has never given any official reason for non-induction as far as i know. There has been a lot of cribbing abt weight.
None of which is cribbing about weight. All this weight this or weight that issue was level of nonsense at Shukla's level of kite flying.
Tons of DDM on Arjun, people need to access the original GoI sources on the tank and see for themselves what the real picture is.
The official discussion is on reduction of weight is through the FMBT. Which will attempt to reduce weight through a variety of ways including a auto-loader, please refer to DRDO's heads own statement on the same.
Why do you think DRDOs head is talking about weight reduction for FMBT?
DRDO's head is talking about weight reduction because army wants a tank which weighs lower but has higher protection. PSQRs mentioned this unobtanium in more detail- thank God it was scrapped.
FMBT (if we go for a clean slate project) is going to be Arjun redux - no doubt as Army/MoD/DRDO has apparently learned nothing from Arjun fiasco (original PSQRs are an indication).
As Shiv pointed out, unless Army stops framing unrealistic GSQRs and DRDO stops agreeing to develop to those specifications, we will reach nowhere in terms of equipping our forces with acceptable indigenous equipment.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
No HAL manufactures Sukhoi 30 MKI. Almost completely. Su 30 MKI is made in India, only some Su's are purchased from Russia for special requirements once in a while.alexis wrote: The manufacturer is Sukhoi ; HAL is just an assembler as of now, isnt it?
Those Su's directly imported are of different standards.
Last edited by Sanku on 11 Mar 2013 13:29, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
I dont get your question? 124 have been inducted because the first batch of working tanks was 124. Any new product is pulled in incrementally. Su 30 when new were only few purchases.alexis wrote: Are you saying about the token induction of 124 tanks? For what purpose?
T 90s were only 310 when brought in 2000.
And so DRDO says yes blindly to what ever IA says? In which everyone should do themselves a favor and scrap DRDO. (this was rhetorical) -- that is not the case, DRDO is not going to work on something which they think is not possible -- or at least they should not (although in the past they have often said yes to back track later)DRDO's head is talking about weight reduction because army wants a tank which weighs lower but has higher protection. PSQRs mentioned this unobtanium in more detail- thank God it was scrapped.
In any case -- the lower weight FMBT is years away and is a R&D futurist project, there is no PSQR or GSQR for it, hence can not be scrapped. Going by Shri Sarawast's comments DRDO is indeed working on it.
In any case that has nothing to do with Arjun. What has to do with Arjun right now is Mk II and how soon it can be made. That is all.
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 355
- Joined: 30 Aug 2004 08:09
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
DRDO would do nation a service if they work on improving the next MK instead of jumping into the FMBT arena with the resources that they have.
While one would agree, that it may be an investment for the future, majority of the efforts must be on present. Having a happy customer who develops confidence on me over a period of time is also a very important investment. Isn't it?
It all boils down to the basics of capacity planning and prioritization which is done all the time across all institutions and industries and is nothing new.
Talk to customer, solicit their feedback, make them understand what is doable now and what can be achieved over say, next five years. There is trust deficit b/w the IA and DRDO which can be bridged only when they start talking frankly with each other.
Going way off topic so, will shut up for now.
While one would agree, that it may be an investment for the future, majority of the efforts must be on present. Having a happy customer who develops confidence on me over a period of time is also a very important investment. Isn't it?
It all boils down to the basics of capacity planning and prioritization which is done all the time across all institutions and industries and is nothing new.
Talk to customer, solicit their feedback, make them understand what is doable now and what can be achieved over say, next five years. There is trust deficit b/w the IA and DRDO which can be bridged only when they start talking frankly with each other.
Going way off topic so, will shut up for now.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
Can u pls give a link for complete manufacture by HAL?Sanku wrote:No HAL manufactures Sukhoi 30 MKI. Almost completely. Su 30 MKI is made in India, only some Su's are purchased from Russia for special requirements once in a while.alexis wrote: The manufacturer is Sukhoi ; HAL is just an assembler as of now, isnt it?
Those Su's directly imported are of different standards.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
Gladlyalexis wrote: Can u pls give a link for complete manufacture by HAL?
http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=77406
http://www.hal-india.com/su-30-mki.aspManufacturing of Sukhoi-30 MKI by HAL
The Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) has started manufacturing of Sukhoi-30 MKI fighters in the country. The Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) was concluded on 4th October 2000, between the Governments of Russian Federation and Republic of India for transfer of License and Technical Documentation to India, for production of 140 SU-30 MKI Aircraft, its Engines and Aggregates. The Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) accorded its approval for the Project on 18/12/2000 and the Government sanction was issued in January 2001. As per the sanction, the production capacity envisaged was 12 aircraft per Year.
The government has asked the HAL to speed up their manufacturing of Su-30 MKI fighters. As per the CCS sanction dated 18/12/2000, the project was to commence from the year 2004-05 and be completed by 2017-18. However, in June 2005, Air Headquarters requested HAL, to explore the feasibility of compressing the delivery programme by three years. Accordingly, HAL submitted a Proposal which envisaged compressed delivery of 140 aircraft within 2014-15. CCS accorded its approval for the compressed delivery programme on 31/03/2006. As per the revised sanction, the Production capacity envisaged Was 16 aircraft per Year.
Subsequent to CCS Sanctions, contracts were concluded with IAF for supply of 140 8U-30 MIG aircraft by 2014-15. Further contract for supply of additional 40 SU-30 MKI aircraft was concluded with IAF for completion within 2014-15, along with earlier order of 140 aircraft. Out of the total 180 aircraft, 99 aircraft have been delivered till 2010-11.
The steps taken by HAL for timely manufacturing of such fighters include:
• Commissioning of additional tooling jigs & fixtures in manufacturing and assembly Shops.
• Increased Outsourcing.
• Development of alternate vendors.
• Improvements in manufacturing processes & Operations in order to reduce cycle time.
• Effective monitoring and timely actions through Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP).
• Recruitment/Redeployment of manpower in critical work Centers.
This information was given by Minister of State for Defence Shri MM PallamRaju in written reply to Shri Nand Kumar Sai in Rajya Sabha today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-30MKISU-30 MKI programme on schedule: HAL
This is with reference to various reports that appeared in a section of Press over Sukhoi (Su-30 MKI) production. The reports, quoting a Russian newspaper, are completely incorrect.
It is hereby clarified that the production of Su-30 MKI aircraft continues in HAL. Total technology is getting established in HAL as planned. In order to complete the programme by 2015 instead of 2018, as required by the Indian Air Force, certain components and systems are being procured from Russia. This decision was taken to optimize the investments in HAL.
The programme of indigenous production of Su-30 MKI aircraft in HAL is continuing at an accelerated pace as compared to earlier plan.
Acceptable?HAL also expects that indigenisation of the Su-30MKI program will be completed by 2010. V. Balakrishnan, general manager of the Aircraft Manufacturing Division stated that “HAL will achieve 100 per cent indigenisation of the Sukhoi aircraft – from the production of raw materials to the final plane assembly”.[28]
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
if i remember correctly the county like pakistan rejected M1A1 tank from US because of lesser performance & now this tank is one of the best in the world(at least western media say so).
our brother ARJUN will have its own difficulties but the later product will be fine tuned & will replace the top position in list of Modern Tanks.
just wait & watch we will find the order of 500+ in coming years.(we need a lot of tanks & FMBT is not there for 10+ years)
our brother ARJUN will have its own difficulties but the later product will be fine tuned & will replace the top position in list of Modern Tanks.
just wait & watch we will find the order of 500+ in coming years.(we need a lot of tanks & FMBT is not there for 10+ years)
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
M1A1 is gas turbine propelled MBT
It expensive to run as well as maintain it
It expensive to run as well as maintain it
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
The new version is M1A2 & there is a newer version alsopentaiah wrote:M1A1 is gas turbine propelled MBT
It expensive to run as well as maintain it
the M1A2 is a good tank which has developed from M1A1 . It has depleted uranium plate at the front(US only) which is hardest material used on any Tank
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
Most of the 'Russian Technology transfer' (in critical areas) basically involves assembling Russian made parts (the purchase clause with Russia stipulates that). If there was any real technology absorption, we wouldn't have gone for an american engine for Tejas and a German engine for Arjun.
for Sukhois - the myth and the reality (A few years back we couldn't fly the mkis because the wheels were not coming from Russia). Words like (total indigenisation) "getting established" and "will achieve" are weasel words which have little or no meaning. Even Parliamentary Committees know that but every one plays along:
for Sukhois - the myth and the reality (A few years back we couldn't fly the mkis because the wheels were not coming from Russia). Words like (total indigenisation) "getting established" and "will achieve" are weasel words which have little or no meaning. Even Parliamentary Committees know that but every one plays along:
http://articles.economictimes.indiatime ... eronauticsPTI Feb 26, 2013, 07.04PM IST
Tags:Sukhoi-30 aircraft|Sukhoi spare parts|Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd|aeronautical company(HAL is open to involving…)NASHIK: Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL), a premier state-owned aeronautical company, is open to involving local entrepreneurs for manufacturing spare parts required for Sukhoi aircrafts, a senior official said today.
"Nashik-based entrepreneurs will get an opportunity to produce Sukhoi spare parts, its milling and griding components, electrical circuits, among others, for the HAL," president of Nashik Industries and Manufacturers Association (NIMA) Dhananjay Bele said here today.
"HAL is ready to provide technology to local entrepreneurs," HAL General Manager (Indigenisation) Poonam Srivastav said while interacting with reporters here after an event.
"HAL requires 350 to 400 spare parts for overhauling and repairing work of each Sukhoi-30 aircraft. The spare parts are currently imported from Russia," she said.
"If local entrepreneurs produce these spare parts, they will get business of Rs 10,000 crore," Srivastav added.
Last edited by arnab on 12 Mar 2013 04:43, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
Of course there were 'official reasons' for rejecting the Arjun. This whole thread over the last few years has proved those official reasons to be false and motivated in order to induct an inferior product. Why do you think you are wailing about "expensive" C-17s? It is because the "inferior" argument falls flat .Sanku wrote:There HAD been official reasons for non induction, it was because Arjun was failing basic tests. It is all documented even in parliamentary committee report. Arjun has since then been inducted.
Yes Arjun has been inducted (124 Mk-1s) which beat the crap out of the T-90s, of which 1650 are still being inducted (and we bought 'only' 310 of them in the first iteration )
The next iteration that the army is asking for is a Mk-II. What they ought to be doing is stopping (or reducing) the rate of T-90 induction and replacing it with the 'more suitable for desert' Arjun Mk-I tanks, while upgrading to Mk-II for a second set.
To recall what the costs of acquiring the T-90s were for India:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2444010/postsThe deception stemmed from the army’s determination to push through the T-90 contract despite vocal opposition from sections of Parliament. Former Prime Minister H D Deve Gowda argued — allegedly because a close associate had a commercial interest in continuing with T-72 production — that fitting the T-72 with modern fire control systems and night vision devices would be cheaper than buying the T-90. Deve Gowda correctly pointed out that even Russia’s army had spurned the T-90.
To bypass his opposition, the MoD and the army reached an understanding with Rosvoorouzhenie, Russia’s arms export agency. The T-90 would be priced only marginally higher than the T-72 by removing key T-90 systems; India would procure those through supplementary contracts after the T-90 entered service. Excluded from India’s T-90s was the Shtora active protection system, which protects the T-90 from incoming enemy missiles. This was done knowing well that Pakistan’s anti-tank defences are based heavily on missiles.
Other important systems were also pared. The MoD opted to buy reduced numbers of the INVAR missile, which the T-90 fires. Maintenance vehicles, which are vital to keep the T-90s running, were not included in the contract. All this allowed the government to declare before Parliament that the Russian T-90s cost just Rs 11 crore, while the assembled-in-India T-90s were Rs 12 crore apiece (notice the utility of parliamentary committees).
The MoD did not mention that these prices would rise when the supplementary contracts were negotiated. Nor did it reveal that India’s pared-down T-90s barely matched the performance of the Pakistan Army’s recently acquired T-80 UD tank, which India had cited as the threat that demanded the T-90.
Worse was to follow when the initial batch of 310 T-90s entered service (124 bought off-the-shelf and 186 as knocked-down kits). It quickly became evident — and that too during Operation Parakram, with India poised for battle against Pakistan — that the T-90s were not battleworthy. The T-90’s thermal imaging (TI) sights, through which the tank aims its 125mm gun, proved unable to function in Indian summer temperatures. And, the INVAR missiles assembled in India simply didn’t work. Since nobody knew why, they were sent back to Russia.
Even more alarmingly, the army discovered that the T-90 sighting systems could not fire Indian tank ammunition, which was falling short of the targets. So, even as a panicked MoD appealed to the DRDO and other research institutions to re-orient the T-90’s fire control computer for firing Indian ammunition, Russian ammunition was bought.
Last edited by arnab on 12 Mar 2013 05:12, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
The "older" model you talked about is better than the T-90 model that the IA is happily inducting right now. It is a 1000 times better than some of the rust buckets that populate many of our Armored regiments today.Sanku wrote: Yes, older models are upgraded once newer specs come out. But never are older model produced afresh when newer specs are already present and accepted as doable by manufacturer. (Remember DRDO has signed this on)
And the Mk2 hasn't been tested and finalized yet. It is still under development. Just because there have been a few tests doesn't mean it's ready, unlike the Mk1 which has undergone even comparative trials with the IA's favorite tincan and come out with flying colors.
Production of older but proven versions and development and testing of newer versions always happens simultaneously. In the Arjun's case the IA keeps wasting precious resources by asking for more and more R&D without committing to buying anything once it's done. The DRDO agrees to it because it has no choice. If it says no, the IA will happily buy more tincans armed with the excuse that DRDO can't deliver.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeywell_AGT1500 Engine output peaks at 1,500 hp (1,120 kW), with 2,750 lb-ft (3,754 N-m) of torque at that peak.[2] The engine can use a variety of fuels, including jet fuel, gasoline, diesel and Marine Diesel.[2]
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
so they expect paki bridges to withstand T90s? not all bridges are made for tanks.. one can't cut their legs to fit shoes. bridge layers are normally used during war, and where needed. or temporary bridge supporting columns can be erected in a jiffy by army, and get the tank cross the river.venku_Raj wrote:Punjab canal bridges too fragile for Arjun tank : DRDO Chief
they (ddm mostly) will go extremes to find reasons not to fight a war, and will go extend to bash home made systems. this is ultimate mockery of GSQR.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
Sorry. No.Sanku wrote: Acceptable?
All those links says "will happen". I have seen them earlier. I was asking for some link which says "happened". I may be taking a strict interpretation, but as long as HAL cant manufacture a Su-30 without intervention from Sukhoi, it is still an assembler. I am not saying HAL has to manufacture all parts; but it should be able to negotiate with all those suppliers (Rus/Indian) directly and be be able to procure them in time to match its schedule.
Anyway this point is OT. My point was simply that Sukhoi is still producing Su-30 MKI/MKA/SM inspite of being able to make Super Su-30 and Su-35. As per your logic only the latest variant should be in production.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
Bullshit.arnab wrote:Most of the 'Russian Technology transfer' (in critical areas) basically involves assembling Russian made parts (the purchase clause with Russia stipulates that).
Unless of course HAL, MOD, etc everyone is lying and you are not.
This is what the LINK YOU POSTED has to say
HAL is purchasing some parts from Russia ONLY to speed up the manufacturing (as mentioned both in the LINK YOU PROVIDED as well as in the HAL PRESS RELEASE I GAVE)"HAL is ready to provide technology to local entrepreneurs," HAL General Manager (Indigenisation) Poonam Srivastav said while interacting with reporters here after an event.
"HAL requires 350 to 400 spare parts for overhauling and repairing work of each Sukhoi-30 aircraft. The spare parts are currently imported from Russia," she said.
"If local entrepreneurs produce these spare parts, they will get business of Rs 10,000 crore," Srivastav added.
SO dear Arnab answer this were you
1) LYING
2) INCAPABLE OF BASIC UNDERSTANDING?
You may chose as appropriate.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
I am sorry but they do not. They say are happening. Only one said will happen by 2010 (this is 2013) -- that too for remaining few parts.alexis wrote:All those links says "will happen"
No you are not taking a strict interpretation. This is called "hum nahi manegne" (I will not agree)I may be taking a strict interpretation, b
HAL has said that it is the manufacturer, so has GoI. It currently produces Su 30 end to end from raw materials, with few parts outsourced primarily for logistical reasons.
This is in black and white.
You interpretations are irrelevant I am afraid.
Bringing Sukhoi in is irrelevant again, Su may be making the whole range for n different customers, however Su 30 MKI brought by IAF and produced by HAL is the meaningful discussion metric.Anyway this point is OT. My point was simply that Sukhoi is still producing Su-30 MKI/MKA/SM inspite of being able to make Super Su-30 and Su-35. As per your logic only the latest variant should be in production.
IAF purchases HAL made Sukhoi's I am surprised that such a basic point can even be contested.
Last edited by Sanku on 12 Mar 2013 11:58, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
I agree, IA will factor in the weight restrictions on bridges during deployment. It will do so by making sure Arjuns when deployed in Punjab have their own bridges (laying tanks) or are used in Rajsthan area.SaiK wrote: they (ddm mostly) will go extremes to find reasons not to fight a war, and will go extend to bash home made systems. this is ultimate mockery of GSQR.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
The question was simple, do you think that IA should order more MK I or Mk IIs. Its a simple question.nachiket wrote: The "older" model you talked about is better than the T-90 model that the IA is happily inducting right now. It is a 1000 times better than some of the rust buckets that populate many of our Armored regiments today.
.
Do you think that the follow on order should have been for Mk I or should they be for Mk II.
Note DRDO agrees that Mk II should be the next lot. So please tell us why do you think Mk Is should be ordered instead of Mk IIs.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
Didn't I just say why in my earlier post? Because they are better than the foreign tanks we are buying right now. And infinitely better than the laughably obsolete T-55's and T-72s that make up several tank regiments in the IA. And the Mk2 is not ready yet, and once it's ready it'll take time to set up a production line for it, while the Mk1 line is lying dormant.Sanku wrote: So please tell us why do you think Mk Is should be ordered instead of Mk IIs.
As for the DRDO, if you ask them to make a Mk3 with even more modifications, they'll say yes to that as well. It's their job afterall.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
No links show they are happening.Sanku wrote:I am sorry but they do not. They say are happening. Only one said will happen by 2010 (this is 2013) -- that too for remaining few parts.alexis wrote:All those links says "will happen"
My interpretations are relevant for me, atleast.
No you are not taking a strict interpretation. This is called "hum nahi manegne" (I will not agree)
HAL has said that it is the manufacturer, so has GoI. It currently produces Su 30 end to end from raw materials, with few parts outsourced primarily for logistical reasons.
This is in black and white.
You interpretations are irrelevant I am afraid.
alexis wrote:Anyway this point is OT. My point was simply that Sukhoi is still producing Su-30 MKI/MKA/SM inspite of being able to make Super Su-30 and Su-35. As per your logic only the latest variant should be in production.
Sukhoi is making Su 30 SM and Su 35 for RuAF concurrently.Sanku wrote: Bringing Sukhoi in is irrelevant again, Su may be making the whole range for n different customers,
How much is made by HAL is the point of contention. However, that is not relevant for our discussion.however Su 30 MKI brought by IAF and produced by HAL is the meaningful discussion metric. IAF purchases HAL made Sukhoi's I am surprised that such a basic point can even be contested.
Just like Sukhoi is making Su 30 SM and Su 35 for RuAF concurrently, Mk1 can be manufactured as long as it is better than existing tanks. It can be concurrently manufactured if IA wants with Mk2 (if Mk2 is ready now), provided there are 2 seperate assembly lines (which is not there now).
My main contention is Since Mk2 is not ready and wont be ready for some time, Mk1 should be produced at maximum capacity of the assembly line. That is why i bought Typhoon, LA class submarine, Su 30/35 all into discussion to illustrate my point.
It is a folly to allow the Mk1 line to be idle when we are using 40 year old tanks now.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
No Sir they explicitly do.alexis wrote: No links show they are happening.
http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=77406
Had started == current tense == happening.Manufacturing of Sukhoi-30 MKI by HAL
The Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) has started manufacturing of Sukhoi-30 MKI fighters in the country.
Please please please.
These are two different planes altogether. They do not bolster your point.Sukhoi is making Su 30 SM and Su 35 for RuAF concurrently.
Which brings us to a delicious point, are the 124 tanks all delivered? What is the real maximum capacity of the assembly line?Since Mk2 is not ready and wont be ready for some time, Mk1 should be produced at maximum capacity of the assembly line.
Last edited by Sanku on 12 Mar 2013 14:34, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
We should have Mk1 now and Mk2 when it is available. If the assembly line for Mk1 and 2 are different (unlikely), we should have both now.Sanku wrote:
The question was simple, do you think that IA should order more MK I or Mk IIs. Its a simple question.
Do you think that the follow on order should have been for Mk I or should they be for Mk II.
Note DRDO agrees that Mk II should be the next lot. So please tell us why do you think Mk Is should be ordered instead of Mk IIs.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
Sanku, let us leave that point aside. We have different definitions for "manufacturing". It is not relevant for our discussion, anyway. India was reportedly manufacturing T-90s before the ToT for gun barrel was provided by Russia.Sanku wrote:I dont believe this.alexis wrote: No links show they are happening.
http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=77406Had started == current tense == happening.Manufacturing of Sukhoi-30 MKI by HAL
The Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) has started manufacturing of Sukhoi-30 MKI fighters in the country.
Please please please. The sun rises in the east. Please.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
The assembly line would almost certainly need to undergo retooling for Mk II. It would involve down time.alexis wrote:
We should have Mk1 now and Mk2 when it is available. If the assembly line for Mk1 and 2 are different (unlikely), we should have both now.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
Fine, lets ditch the point, however, T 90s were being manufactured ONLY after ToT of the gun. There were explicit articles about first Indian made T 90 roll out in 2007-8 time frame.alexis wrote: Sanku, let us leave that point aside. We have different definitions for "manufacturing". It is not relevant for our discussion, anyway. India was reportedly manufacturing T-90s before the ToT for gun barrel was provided by Russia.
I would strongly distinguish between assembly and manufacture if you please.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
They do, sir. Mk1 and Mk2 are also different products. So are T-90 and Arjun mk1.These are two different planes altogether. They do not bolster your point.Sukhoi is making Su 30 SM and Su 35 for RuAF concurrently.
We can induct all of them together, right? We can decommission equivalent no. of T-55s/Vijayantas/T-72s.
Sir, it has been explained by many people. Nobody is going to put an assembly line which can deliver meaningful number of tanks if the order is 124 (mk 1)+ 114 (mk2).Which brings us to a delicious point, are the 124 tanks all delivered? What is the real maximum capacity of the assembly line?Since Mk2 is not ready and wont be ready for some time, Mk1 should be produced at maximum capacity of the assembly line.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
Seemingly acceptable reason, if it is the actual case. But is it? if all 124 mk1 tanks are not produced till now, that should not be the reason.Sanku wrote:The assembly line would almost certainly need to undergo retooling for Mk II. It would involve down time.alexis wrote:
We should have Mk1 now and Mk2 when it is available. If the assembly line for Mk1 and 2 are different (unlikely), we should have both now.
However, that is also a stupid reason, actually. If we want to maintain 3000 tanks of acceptable quality in our inventory, we need to have a line capacity of 150 tanks/year.
So is not it better to have 2 lines for Arjun tanks and a 3rd one for T-90? When Mk2 is fully developed both lines can produce Mk2.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
Umm, no they certainly are not different products. This is more like T 90S and T 90SM type of picture.alexis wrote:They do, sir. Mk1 and Mk2 are also different products. .quote>>Sukhoi is making Su 30 SM and Su 35 for RuAF concurrently.
These are two different planes altogether. They do not bolster your point.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
we have a line of 100 T 90s which makes 100 T 90s. we have a line of 50 Arjun's whose performance is unclear. I fully agree that the Arjun line needs to be bumped up to 100 as well (at least)alexis wrote: However, that is also a stupid reason, actually. If we want to maintain 3000 tanks of acceptable quality in our inventory, we need to have a line capacity of 150 tanks/year.
.
However -- the issue of making a line while the product is undergoing significant flux, is that the assembly line may be repeatedly reworked for retooling as the product changes.
That had been the case for Mk1 line. It had been sanctioned in 1999, but no one knows if it is still ready to produce 50 tanks a year, after the Mk I design stablized in 2007-8 timeframe.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
Semantics, again. Why do you focus on these points? T-90 SM can be freshly made or made from an existing T-90 S. So a freshly made T-90SM is a different product compared to a freshly made T-90S.Sanku wrote:
Umm, no they certainly are not different products. This is more like T 90S and T 90SM type of picture.
But that is not the point. Induction of Mk1 would make sense whether Mk2 is an upgraded Mk1 or a different product (as long as we continue to operate T-55/T 72/Vijayanta) and we have an existing assembly line set up for Mk1. If there was a choice of Mk1 or Mk2 available right now, we could have chosen to produce only Mk2. But that is not the case.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
T-90 also faced problems during induction which may have been resolved now. That does not seem to have created as many problems in assembly. T-90 is rolling out relatively smoothly. My inference is that the paltry order is the main issue and not changes in product.Sanku wrote:
However -- the issue of making a line while the product is undergoing significant flux, is that the assembly line may be repeatedly reworked for retooling as the product changes.
That had been the case for Mk1 line. It had been sanctioned in 1999, but no one knows if it is still ready to produce 50 tanks a year, after the Mk I design stablized in 2007-8 timeframe.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
Certainly not semantics, it is not a trivial job to bring back Mk1 or older versions and upgrd them. The choice between do we wait a little before we make Mk2 or make Mk1 and then bring them back to turn them again into Mk2 at the cost of considerably higher work (ship them out, bring them back remove old parts, fit new parts) compared to a new one is certainly not trivial.alexis wrote: Semantics, again.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
Depends on the degree of change, one can not make such a statement without knowing just what changed.alexis wrote: T-90 also faced problems during induction which may have been resolved now. That does not seem to have created as many problems in assembly. T-90 is rolling out relatively smoothly. My inference is that the paltry order is the main issue and not changes in product.
Also the T 90 line is a ready line from Russia, with changes also coming in from a far more established tank manufacturer. In case of Arjun the home grown production line also is a full fledged manufacturing R&D task associated with it, the level of maturity and experience of production R&D also counts.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
Upgrades are part and parcel of any equipment. Mk1 can easily serve 15+ years before getting upgraded (my estimate: upgraded T72 should be in service till that period). Mk1 can then be upgraded to Mk3 or 4 directly. There is a cost; but it many not as costly as upgrading a T72 which will last for 10 more years and has to be discarded then.Sanku wrote:Certainly not semantics, it is not a trivial job to bring back Mk1 or older versions and upgrd them. The choice between do we wait a little before we make Mk2 or make Mk1 and then bring them back to turn them again into Mk2 at the cost of considerably higher work (ship them out, bring them back remove old parts, fit new parts) compared to a new one is certainly not trivial.alexis wrote: Semantics, again.
As mentioned earlier, typhoon manufacturingis following this model.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
from 1970s - 1980s I have watched Indian army regularly exercising the bridge laying tactics and crossing the armored brigades onIt will do so by making sure Arjuns when deployed in Punjab have their own bridges (laying tanks) or are used in Rajsthan area.
1. full flowing canals and rivers (over 5 meters deep)
2. empty canals and rivers with and without bridges.
3. partial flowing canals and rivers with and without bridges.
Have watched many times how the soldiers first go across the river in small boats and establish a bridge head and then engineers follow them to create a bridge big enough for Vijyanta and T72 tanks (not sure about Arjun or T90 though) and their COs timing the whole effort.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012
To make a accurate assesment on this we need two firm factoidsalexis wrote: Upgrades are part and parcel of any equipment. Mk1 can easily serve 15+ years before getting upgraded (my estimate: upgraded T72 should be in service till that period). Mk1 can then be upgraded to Mk3 or 4 directly. There is a cost; but it many not as costly as upgrading a T72 which will last for 10 more years and has to be discarded then.
As mentioned earlier, typhoon manufacturingis following this model.
1) How many Mk Is are actually being made per year.
2) If the line is going to stay empty before Mk II
3) What is the current status of Ml II
I am afraid we can not conclude in any manner that ordering Mk Is right now is better without that information -- since both DRDO/Avadi and IA seem to jointly agree that going to Mk II is better --> my take away is that it is not worthwhile to produce more Mk Is at this juncture.