Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 12 Apr 2013 15:52

amit wrote:[
Oh yes the rest of your post, as usual, is bladderdash.
)

Only you amit can post a set of complete junk, and call a set of data points, verifiable, third party as balderdash.

As usual you have been exposed and resort to personal attack and other such tactics more suitable to your style than debate substance.

Amazing!!

I am sure you will come back after a few pages and repeat the same untruths, such as no orders for Arjun.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 12 Apr 2013 16:35

DRDO Chief has made reference to FMBT in recent past and supported its development

in 2012 interview to India Today
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/agni ... 86248.html

What stage is the Future Main Battle Tank (FMBT) project at?

VKS: We are holding discussions with the army for this. We will finalise the specifications of the tank in six to eight months. We are looking at industrial partners for this. We want new technologies for weapons, mobility and signatures for the FMBT. We have to decide on the type of armour to use for it, whether active or passive. The FMBT will be a tank complimentary to the Arjun. It will not replace it. Each tank has its own theatre. The T-90 MBT (used by the Indian army) has its theatre, the Arjun has its own theatre.

More recently in Jan 2013
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/fmbt- ... ef/1055203

" On being asked about FMBT he said, "The idea is to reduce the weight of the tank. Developed nations such as the United States of America and Israel have been working on reducing the weights of battle tanks. Heavy weights of tanks affect their maneuverability. We are therefore looking to reduce the weight of FMBT to 50 tonnes each."

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 Apr 2013 17:09

While we are on the topic of Saraswat's comments:

On Arjun's weight and bridging option:

March 10, 2013 :: Punjab canal bridges too fragile for Arjun tank

In reply to a question related to shortcomings of Arjun tank, Saraswat said that during trials the tank was found better in mobility and accuracy in comparison to Army's mainstay T-90 tanks. "During the trials it was found that canal bridges in Punjab were incapable of carrying its weight," he said.

Saraswat who is also the secretary, department of defence, R&D, added that the problem in Punjab can be tackled with the use of large iron bridges developed by DRDO for smooth transportation of troops in hostile terrain.

He, however, added that the tank was found to be most suitable for deployment in the Thar deserts of Rajasthan. Importantly, Rajasthan and Punjab are strategically very important for the Army as both the states share major portion of boundaries with neighboring Pakistan.

On MK 1 vs. T-90:

April 11, 2013 :: DRDO fires on towards MIRV capability

The Arjun Mark-I has already outperformed the T-90, Saraswat said

Notes:
1) Saraswat did not agree with the Army that the weight was an issue, he in fact provided a solution for what was found during the trails
2) Arjun is better than the T-90

Misraji · Post by **Misraji** » 12 Apr 2013 20:51

rohitvats wrote: The 8 x ATGM Launchers are held by an ATGM platoon under direct control of Battalion HQ. Deployed and allocated as per requirement.

So, we're talking about 8 x 12 = 96 missiles per infantry battalion. Assuming 60% of of 300 odd (this number would actually be higher) infantry battalion are in plains, we're talking about 17,280 missiles in front line service...reserve stocks would be separate as would be holdings by infantry battalions deployed with mountain divisions.

Oh. I see. Thanks, Sirjee.

While on the subject, would you happen to have names-of-book/links on IA's organization and operational art please?
There seems to be tons of literature on western/soviet stuff, but none related to subcontinent ( or Chinese for that matter).

--Added later:
Got a bunch of stuff in BR archives + Wiki on IA organization. Nothing related to "operational art" yet, though

--Ashish

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 12 Apr 2013 21:10

amit wrote:[quote="KrishnaK"
You mean how the Avro hack crash killing all scientists aboard shelved the AEW project ?

Yes. May not have shelved the project but it certainly was a set back. Do you seriously think if, God forbid, even today the Tejas programme suffers a crash, the testing will go on smoothly as was the case for example with Gripen?[/quote]

Avro Hack crash was a significant setback to the project. Domestic AEW effort almost died. Took herculean effort from people to restart the AEW project.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 12 Apr 2013 21:44

20 years from now we will have a news report fo T 90s

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=20043

KrishnaK · Post by **KrishnaK** » 12 Apr 2013 22:29

amit wrote:Yes. May not have shelved the project but it certainly was a set back. Do you seriously think if, God forbid, even today the Tejas programme suffers a crash, the testing will go on smoothly as was the case for example with Gripen?

Yes I do. Although rudaalis will crawl out of the woodwork and provide a splendid display of wailing and breast beating.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 13 Apr 2013 00:09

Surya wrote:20 years from now we will have a news report fo T 90s

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=20043

Firstly, thanks a bunch for providing YET ANOTHER data point for my regular

exercise.

From the report quoted.

900 T72 tanks are inoperational or unreliable, all because their overhaul is far behind schedule.

So we induct tanks in 70s forget upgd, we cant even OVERHAUL them (thanks to you know who) and we are blaming the tank?

If you use a equipment meant to be phased out in 90s in 2012 and neither overhaul nor upgd them, you should not be complaining about their reliability.

This is no different from breast beating about Mig 21s we had earlier before the Bison upgrade. I am sure IA will be more than happy to replace T 72 by brand new tanks. But Arjuns cant be made, neither can Avadi upgrade or overhaul T 72s, and you guys don't want IA to import -- so quit cribbing about T 72s inducted in 70s and 80s.

It all nice to want a spanking tank fleet. I guess one fine day some one will pull those out of their magic lamp and all will be well.

Misraji · Post by **Misraji** » 13 Apr 2013 01:01

Surya wrote:20 years from now we will have a news report fo T 90s
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=20043

True. And sad part is, it will come out the day after Pakistan announces buying the latest Chinese Tin-can copy.
While the desi FMBT(or whatever new fangled acronym DGMF comes up with) would be in trials as usual.

--Ashish

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 Apr 2013 01:43

Surya wrote:20 years from now we will have a news report fo T 90s

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=20043

India's main battle tank the T72 is in bad shape. TIMES NOW has accessed an internal audit report of the army which says that about 900 T72 tanks are inoperational or unreliable, all because their overhaul is far behind schedule. The security implications are huge because without the T72 tank India's tank regiments find themselves at a great disadvantage.

As a FYI:
The write-up is misleading (that write-up is what is said by the commentator of the TV program).

Please listen to the entire TV program. It seems that someone is sitting on the decision to overhaul these tanks. To me it seems to be someone within the IA !!!

Just to be certain "because their overhaul is far behind schedule.", could point a finger at Avadhi - that is the conclusion a tincanner would naturally reach - "I told you so" conclusion. Not so.

Check it out for yourself.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 13 Apr 2013 01:56

The Arjun Mark-I has already outperformed the T-90, Saraswat said

Yet, the IA will not order more than 124(or 119) Mk1s to replace the T-72s (which in addition to being obsolete are also inoperable now). Add to this, the fact that there is nothing in the Mk2 that makes it impossible to upgrade the Mk1 to Mk2 standard after induction, and you realize why everyone is so angry at the IA's treatment of the Arjun program.
There is nothing stopping the IA from ordering more Mk1's to replace the T-72s besides their own prejudices and preference for tin cans.

Till now, Sanku had the "Shukla has ulterior motives and cannot be trusted" argument to counter with when people posted his article about the Arjun trumping the T-90 in the trials. Now, we find out from Saraswat's statement that Shukla wasn't lying after all and Sanku was just using an ad hominem to counter the fact that the Arjun was better than his beloved Russian tin-can.

Not that we didn't know it earlier, but we have proof now.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 Apr 2013 02:08

Well, here are Saraswat's expectations:

Jan 6, 2013 :: FMBT to focus on weight reduction of battle tanks, says DRDO chief

Talking to the reporters Saraswat said, "The trials of MK-II variant MBT Arjun are expected to be complete within a year after which we will be in a position to produce 300 to 400 units for the Army."

That is MK IIs to be sure. And a month latter a Russian (nonetheless) says India wants 300 more T-90s !!!! Silence from the Indian side.

There are plenty of quotes from him to prove that Arjun should be the tank moving forward. Saraswat does play the game and on occasions say things like that each tank has its own area, etc, etc. But come the lighter FMBT that tune should change.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 13 Apr 2013 02:12

Singha wrote:it all depends on how the new russian tank pgms go. hopefully they will screw up badly like the BMP3 - thats my old fervent hope.

+1

Unfortunately, the intransigence of some in the IA has brought us to this situation where if the Russians fail, we win.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Apr 2013 03:44

T90s will face the same fate as T72s. The fishbone is all pointing at Arjun seeing shikandi. krishna krishna!!! please nudge your toe!

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 13 Apr 2013 04:11

What's so surprising about the T-72 MRO issues ? They are imported products. A license manufacturing capability - even the 'transfer of technology' rider - doesn't bestow the ability to conduct lifecycle MRO work independently, without a lot of time and effort. The designer isn't going to give the customer the ability to independently build and maintain everything themselves. The Russians won't do it. If it was something we created, neither would we.

Chini style reverse engineering enables them to accomplish such work more effectively, because they're essentially duplicating the whole thing to whatever level of refinement they can and then learning how to fine tune from their initial level of refinement, not just putting things together in a licensed production line. While they might lack in originality, they do gain the ability to create it from scratch and maintain it. But that is not within CVRDE's or HVF's ability for the T-xx's, and there would be strictures against doing so in order to avoid pissing off the Russians who can just retaliate by refusing to help, increase support prices, or both.

On a long-EOLed product like the T-72, any kind of MRO support will be hard to obtain, and to the Russians, that would just be a moneymaking opportunity. If I was in their position I'd do the same thing too. HVF Avadi or any other entity is going to have to generate the inhouse design capability of create the thing themselves, not just take apart pieces and put them together. Maintaining and improving what you didn't create is a lot harder than doing the same with what you created yourself; the time, effort and $$ required to accomplish them will be higher than for a product designed at home, with the institutionalized knowledge base of 'why was it built like this, and how can I change/add to something without breaking something else' to turn to.

The T-72 episode will be repeated down the line for the T-90s, upon which the clamor will be to import the T-nnn of the day to make up for the degrading force shortfall. Yesterday's imports are today's MRO liability, and today's imports will be tomorrow's liability. Importing as the solution today doesn't fix anything systemically. However, investing in scaling up Arjun production and ancillary logistics support will ensure that their MRO work can be handled more effectively by CVRDE+HVF than whatever they can currently manage on the T-xx's - because they designed the thing themselves, and will have been continuously tasked with its fine-tuning.

Continue the present approach and BRF will read like this:
circa 2010s: "OMFG! The T-72s are falling apart! HVF can't overhaul them fast enough, the fools. We need to import T-90s!"
circa 2025s: "OMFG! The T-90s are falling apart! HVF can't overhaul them fast enough, the fools. We need to import T-120s!"

There are no easy solutions here; one can pick one option - import - at the cost of perpetuating an existing issue long term, or one can pick another option - transition more painfully to Arjun now with better lifecycle support. Both have different cost structures - the former relatively cheap upfront with higher relative lifecycle costs, the latter relatively costlier upfront with cheaper and more independent lifecycle costs. The entire history of this thread can be summarized as the two camps talking past each other...

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Apr 2013 04:47

Well, at least the 72s and 90s have a story to tell. What is the story for Arjun? we don't want him to be only a myth while his friends and distant uncles enjoy all the tax payer money, especially the middle men and clout gangs. Arjun is a hard working boy. If he can't get a story even in this thread, then that is abuse of freedom and self reliance itself.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 13 Apr 2013 05:56

Surya wrote:20 years from now we will have a news report fo T 90s

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=20043

Chillax man, the solution is simple, import the T 90. Ignore the Arjun and follow it up with the Future Russi tank.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 13 Apr 2013 05:59

People need to learn about the opportunity costs of not doing some thing and then decide if the chosen course of action over the alternative is justified.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 Apr 2013 06:03

They are ignoring the Arjun while it is here. In 20 years there will be none to ignore.

In 20 years the Russians will claim they have the IP for the tracks, screws and drivers, etc and lock down DRDO.

amit · Post by **amit** » 13 Apr 2013 07:22

KrishnaK wrote:
amit wrote:Yes. May not have shelved the project but it certainly was a set back. Do you seriously think if, God forbid, even today the Tejas programme suffers a crash, the testing will go on smoothly as was the case for example with Gripen?
Yes I do. Although rudaalis will crawl out of the woodwork and provide a splendid display of wailing and breast beating.

In this case I would hope that nothing happens to test the hypothesis. And if it does then you are right and I am wrong.

amit · Post by **amit** » 13 Apr 2013 07:35

nachiket wrote:Now, we find out from Saraswat's statement that Shukla wasn't lying after all and Sanku was just using an ad hominem to counter the fact that the Arjun was better than his beloved Russian tin-can.

Not that we didn't know it earlier, but we have proof now.

Srijee,

Haven't you been reading the news? Sanku ji has already said Saraswat ji's statement is only "valid in a limited sense".

Next stage will be the Shukla treatment if he persists with his "limited sense" approach.

You can't even make this up!

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 13 Apr 2013 13:17

this thread never fails me!!

Anujan sir,

your contention that the thermals dont work, ofb has to chip in for the barrel, midhani for the armor plate (in spite of TOT and money), tata for the ballistic computer for firing the indian ammo besides a minor fact that the russians themselves consider it as obsolete etc...all that is fine and understood (minor glitches) but you are missing the big picture - T series is 'proven' and is backed by an experienced OEM/MIC!! is that not good enough reason to induct them?? if not, then what is good enough??

besides your own 'valid' apprehensions regarding Arjun's torsion bar issues, zero export orders, sand dune certifications and mihir's IRST queries are still unanswered 'verifiably' by neither the pro arjun brigade here nor the DRDO and DDM out there. so how can it even be imagined that IA will induct Arjuns in numbers?? only based on heresay??

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Apr 2013 14:02

some interesting next gen MBT projects.

turkey ALTAY - they are trying to make arjun - license made L55 120mm from rheinmetall, MTU engine, TOT from Soko K2 black panther program
it will look like the mk2 arjun and weight 65t
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altay_(tank)

meantime looks like cheen is abandoning the T99M3 (weight had crept up to 58t) and going with something called MBT3000 back at a mediocre 52t
inspiration is the leclerc from looks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Battle_Tank_3000

nelson · Post by **nelson** » 13 Apr 2013 14:52

Sometime back when initial reports containing specification of Arjun Mk2 came out, a pertinent question was raised as to why Arjun Mk2 weighs 67 tonne. Forum members offered various reasons but it was inconclusive whether the ERA and ploughs alone would have caused 8.5 tonne gain in weight. I am making a guesstimate of the possible reasons why Mk2 weighs what it weighs and related implications:

A. Additional protection by use of ERA
B. Limitation of the older Renk 304a(60 tonne all up weight of tank) has been overcome with new transmission
C. Mine ploughs have been included
D. Trackwidth has gone up to keep the ground pressure same inspite of increase in weight.
E. The maximum speed has come down from 72 kmph to 58.5 kmph while retaining or increasing the peak acceleration
F. Weight class has gone above MLC 60

Arjun Mk 1 - 58.5 tonne?
1. ERA and other protections - 5.0 tonne
2. Mine Ploughs - 2.0 tonne
3. Additional weight of new power pack - 1.0 tonne
4. Additional electronics/improvements - 0.5 tonne

All up weight Arjun Mk 2 - 67.0 tonne

This blog post(old) carries some details what Mk 2 might be.
http://scienceniranjan.blogspot.in/2012 ... arjun.html

A quote from above link from what Director CVRDE had said during the interview reveals an interesting data point.

At present, the army has decided to induct 118 Arjun Mk-2 tanks instead of 124. This is the result of a policy decision that will see the war reserve for all armoured regiments in the future being reduced by three.

amit · Post by **amit** » 13 Apr 2013 16:05

From the link posted above:

Sivakumar told FORCE that “Greater numbers are essential for reducing the price, establishing the process, good quality control mechanisms and continuous consistency in production”. This is also the reason he says that orders are a must.

More importantly it says this:

The Heavy Vehicles Factory (HVF) has not been producing Arjun MBT’s for two years and lot of the know-how is being lost.

IMO this know how being lost comment should be read with Saraswat's categorical comment about Arjun MK1 out performing T90.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 13 Apr 2013 16:26

Indian Army T-90 "Bhishma" Tank unloading and walkaround in Mumbai

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 13 Apr 2013 17:05

Some one has to tell the IA that it must order the Arjun in large numbers. While capping the numbers for the T 90.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Apr 2013 18:38

^it doesn't work that way. some one has to ensure there is no middlemen or agencies or even users as decision makers in buying. users job is to evaluate and tell, which fits. that is all. if the selling nation is the user nation, then a detail process establish to V&V and induct the system is vital. The process of Arjun induction is part and parcel of the program charter. It is not under IA's total hands to wish him goodbye.. that is impossible if IA thinks it can get away from Arjun. They can only make arjun stronger by delaying it.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 13 Apr 2013 20:18

But by delaying the Arjun, they are weakening the themselves by taking on the T 90.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Apr 2013 20:40

they are realizing false positives at the expense of the nation.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 13 Apr 2013 22:48

For people dreaming about Arjun being in service in large numbers need to remember a simple fact - where is the scope for this large number of induction?

- IA has already equipped the Armored Divisions with Strike Corps with T-90 tanks.

- For sake of commonality of logistics, it will equip the (I) Armored bdes of these Strike Corps with T-90 again. Another argument for this would be that operational deployment of these Armored Divisions can be anywhere on the border from Akhnoor to Barmer and hence, a 60+ tank which cannot operate in Punjab cannot be used for these important strike elements.

- Each of these Strike Corps have RAPID Divisions.The same reason of logistical commonality will again be used to equip the RAPID Divisions of these Strike Corps.

It so happens that these 3 x Strike Corps control ~50% of Indian armor strength. And this 50% armor strength will continue to be T-90 and versions thereof.

*** Indian armor strength is assumed to be at 4,000 tanks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- That leaves (I) Armored bdes of Pivot Corps. Here again, you'll see the 'bridges on canal' argument for (I) Armored Bdes of 11 Corps (Jalandhar), 9 Corps (stationed in Yol-responsible for Pathankot-Sambha corridor). After all, they all operate in the same territory where the 'bridges' are weak to allow movement of Arjun tank.

- Even the Armored Regiments of the Infantry Divisions these Corps will be equipped with a 50T tank - most probably the upgraded CIA T-72.

- So, the 3 x Strike Corps and 2 x Pivot Corps control ~72% of Indian Armor - Armor which will be made up of T-XX Tanks in foreseeable future.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- The leaves us with Armor held by 12 Corps (Jodhpur) and 10 Corps (Bhatinda)

- 10 Corps is a wild card but I'm hoping that since 24 RAPID hosted 43 Armored for so long, AOR of 10 Corps would allow a 60+T tank. Between 12 Corps and 10 Corps, there is scope for ~800 odd tanks.

For the love of God, I hope at least these two formations become complete Arjun equipped formations.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 14 Apr 2013 07:16

Those who missed watching the Discovery program on Arjun MBT can watch it here.
http://vimeo.com/63562413
Guys download it and save it and occasionally post it in Youtube.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 14 Apr 2013 11:39

Will the new arms procurement policy requiring the military to prove the item cannot be designed and produced in India affect the Arjun and tincan?

amit · Post by **amit** » 14 Apr 2013 12:44

rohitvats wrote: - The leaves us with Armor held by 12 Corps (Jodhpur) and 10 Corps (Bhatinda)

- 10 Corps is a wild card but I'm hoping that since 24 RAPID hosted 43 Armored for so long, AOR of 10 Corps would allow a 60+T tank. Between 12 Corps and 10 Corps, there is scope for ~800 odd tanks.

For the love of God, I hope at least these two formations become complete Arjun equipped formations.

Rohit,

I hope what you say comes to pass. Who knows a 800 odd Arjun force may be just the medication required to cleanse the Army of its tin can fascination.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 14 Apr 2013 13:41

Suraj wrote:What's so surprising about the T-72 MRO issues ? They are imported products.

Pretty much everything that we have is imported, is that the case that MRO is completely non feasible for a imported product?

I am afraid I just dont see where that comes up. Avadi needs to have figured out the need for MRO, either developed the competency inhouse, or acquired it through purchase.

Just because we have imported products therefore we will not do anything to them but look at them, is IMVHO not a meaningful stance.

And yes, Avadi is guilty, unless of course the current stance for showing your love to Indian products is to claim that Arjuns should have been inducted in 1970s instead of T 72s

(I would not be surprised if some made that claim either)

It is clearly the fault of Avadi+people responsible for Avadi in MoD. Plain and simple -- they had 30 years for this.

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 14 Apr 2013 15:36

either developed the competency inhouse,

I.e. photochor the design like the Chinese do ? Unless any domestic entity builds the competence to replace *any* part of the product themselves, they're going to have to turn to the country it was imported from.

or acquired it through purchase.

Which is what India already does when it comes to significant MRO of any Russian product, repeatedly leaving us at the mercy of any action the Russians choose. If the product is sufficiently old (e.g. MiG-21s or T-72s), the Russians will simply make a deal, use our money to figure out what they long forgot or lost blueprints for themselves.

Blaming HVF or any other domestic entity for being unable to conduct independent MRO work on a product they at most helped assemble under license, is a poor argument. Their 'figuring it out' involves breaking the terms of their license. No designer wants to be left out in the cold by a customer with the ability to independently remake and service his products. It's a Russian product, and significant MRO work will require Russian input, which has repeatedly proven to be a gravy train for them. It serves us no purpose to bleed cash in this manner. Money expended on domestic products at least goes into the domestic economy.

Lobbying for more urgent imports just guarantees that the status quo will remain unchanged well into the distant future. Getting around that involves biting the bullet now and making the painful transition toward domestic products, that will at minimum take a couple of decades to implement fully, as the T-90s are phased out, in this case.

PS: knock off the constant bolding of entire sentences. I'm not the first person who sees that as yelling, when done in practically every post in this thread.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 Apr 2013 16:40

I am not sure why MRO for T-72 should be a big issue for Avadi , since they did a much bigger task of CIA upgrade on T-72 plus MRO for 600 plus tank.

The only reason why they didnt do it is perhaps both IA just continued without the periodic MRO on the tank to be done later which never came or OFB was just too busy with other task , to me it look more like the former.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 14 Apr 2013 18:15

I've been saying for years that we should have at least two facilities for production of armoured vehicles.Depending entirely upon Avadi ,which has failed to meet targets many a time,is why we are in the mess we are today,where upgrades,new production under licence and homegrown systems are all floundering from a lesser to greater to lesser extent.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Apr 2013 18:31

Avadhi, at best, is only part of the problem.

As evidenced in the video (above) there are other contributing factors, including the corrupt Army. And the MoD. And the politicians. And a Russian component too.

Blaming Avadhi seems to have been based on a small set of data points and incomplete analysis.

amit · Post by **amit** » 14 Apr 2013 19:28

NRao wrote:Blaming Avadhi seems to have been based on a small set of data points and incomplete analysis.

+100

A quote from one of my posts earlier:

Sivakumar told FORCE that “Greater numbers are essential for reducing the price, establishing the process, good quality control mechanisms and continuous consistency in production”. This is also the reason he says that orders are a must.

HVF is a convenient whipping boy for folks who don't look into a problem in depth. This is not to say there are no problems. The point is the Army is both the problem as well as the solution for all of Avadi's problems.