” 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.”
Which is what I said, that happened as of 2007. As of 2007 a LSP of Arjun Mk I performed as per specifications. In comparison -- as of 1998-99 T 90s performed as per specifications in summer and winter tests in Rajasthan.alexis wrote: Arjun Mk1 is also similar, sir. It also performs as per specifications, mostly
Note this is a 2006 article.Pls refer T-90 S problems in http://www.india-defence.com/reports/2081
If T-90 S had no problems, i would have welcomed it whole heartedly. I am still ok with T-90S as an interim solution; only the treatment to Arjun Mk1 by the same army is baffling and causes a lot of khujli for me that is untreatable.
Seems one can not trust Shukla to tell the correct time of the day even once a day anymore.Austin wrote:That Ajai Shukla article on FMBT is nonsense and he as usual is not speaking the Truth , The DRDO Chief has stated in June this year that FMBT will be under 50 T
FMBT to focus on weight reduction of battle tanks, says DRDO chief
” 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.”
I am sure that you already know it, but the current process is that once a requirement is raised by the forces, it is given to the committee including members of DRDO to comment on it, i.e. whether it can be made in house, whether it can be acquired, whether a tech import, partnership is better etc.shiv wrote: I really would like to know more about the process.
Yes.I just wonder if there is (or there could be) a process by which all GSQRs are compared with national technical capability. That is to say that when a GSQR is formulated, it is handed to Indian Industry/DRDO and a panel of armed forces and industry experts sit and ask if the GSQR is possible to fulfil given India's national tech resources.
Your description of the state of affairs sounds realistic to me. But it also indicates a degree of national stupidity at the highest levels among armed forces, technocrats and government.Sanku wrote:I am sure that you already know it, but the current process is that once a requirement is raised by the forces, it is given to the committee including members of DRDO to comment on it, i.e. whether it can be made in house, whether it can be acquired, whether a tech import, partnership is better etc.shiv wrote: I really would like to know more about the process.
It is only post that the requirements get made into a formal RFI or project definition for the industry.
I suspect the reason of going with the "best" is because no one wants to take the risk of saying "manage with less", or "we cant do it" for the fear of getting their asses handed back to them if wrong.
Hence everyone, including DRDO says yes, yes to everything and the babu's are happy to pass the buck around, knowing fully well that
delay != failure
in India.
If something is done, and it does not work, its a big problem, but accepting a request and keep dragging on it is fully WIP and demonstration of great and HARD work ethic.
Surely you mean LCH, Sirjee ....Singha wrote:Bahut maar khaya hai bhai...we need the ah56 cheyenne resurrected, get 250 and unleash them in a moving air strike group with top cover.
Comparing the Wiki specs of that thing, the only noticeable difference between Apache and Cheyenne is the speed.Singha wrote:cheyenne >> LCH/apache. its a helicopter only in name...its more like a warthog with VTOL. that meaty 30mm underslung cannon + the minigun in the nose + those big wings to sling ordanance and the speed and agility it is showing lo lo lo is amazing. truly a product well ahead of its time. put in latest avionics and engines and let it rock.
only the KA52 looks like it.
Cheyenne actually lost to the Apache in the follow-on competition.On 17 August 1972, the Army initiated the Advanced Attack Helicopter (AAH) program.[41] AAH sought an attack helicopter based on combat experience in Vietnam, with a lower top speed of 145 kn (167 mph, 269 km/h) and twin engines for improved survivability. Lockheed offered the CL-1700, a modified version of the Cheyenne with two engines and omitted the pusher propeller, without success.[42] The AAH program led to the AH-64 Apache, which entered service in the mid-1980s.
er.. no thanks to the Russian product saar ('cheap' and baest)Sanku wrote: More ill informed comedy, Army decided to spend the scare resource wisely on upgrding the existing fleet (which is yet another saga of Indigenous effort) -- as well as in parallel induct tanks which are not night blind.
How do you think the figure of 100% night blind in 2000 changed to 70% night blind in 2010? Magic?
You are speaking TOTAL NONSENSE Sir.
I'm sure you would have learnt how it 'changed' to 70% and the additional costs involved. Not a wise use of scarce resources at all, but had to be done because continuing to use the Russian product would have continued to leave us 100% night blind.Exactly - and one can very specifically point out that the same army which wants the "best" (often nonexistent) products from DRDO are clearly willing to accept second-best (or even third best products) when imported, actions which are vehemently defended here by some (as TINA)shiv wrote:
Your description of the state of affairs sounds realistic to me. But it also indicates a degree of national stupidity at the highest levels among armed forces, technocrats and government.
I think we observers and taxpayers have a duty to point out national stupidity and denial where it is clearly occurring. If what you say is true (as it seems to be) it is not treason. It is not inefficiency. It is plain stupidity. People at the highest levels are showing hamfisted two left thumb ability at problem solving. Mind you this is not the only example of supreme national stupidity. It occurs in all branches at all levels.
It was revealed by director general, DRDO, V K Saraswat on Friday during his visit to DRDO's Terminal Ballistics Research Laboratory (TBRL) near Chandigarh. 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.
Do you try and read back what you type? Try it once.arnab wrote:[
I agree with you Shiv-ji.shiv wrote:Your description of the state of affairs sounds realistic to me. But it also indicates a degree of national stupidity at the highest levels among armed forces, technocrats and government.Sanku wrote:.
The t-90 is the t-72bu. All the Tin-cans should fade away. We have a better tank called the Arjun.Katare wrote:I think we need to look at continuous T-90 upgrades to keep them relevant but it's about time we let T72s fade away into the sunset. They really are out of place in modern battlefield. Arjun can take a stot from it at point blank shot and as for some of the burned tank pictures I have seen over the years I do not think spending money on upgrading these relics is a good investment. T72s could still serve as second line of defense, support vehicles, bridge carriers and good moving targets for practice to MBTs.
We need to put our money on Arjuns for new inductions and upgrades of 1650 T-90s over next decade or so.
To me what is interesting here is that there may well be (among Army people who formulate GSQR) a degree of semi-serious tongue-in-cheek facetiousness in asking for a dazzling unreachable wish list knowing that DRDO can never do it. I wonder why DRDO cannot say up front "balls - we can never do it". But there may always be a foreign brochure making a claim that the army can wave in front of DRDO and say, "See if you cant do it xyz can do it"arnab wrote: Exactly - and one can very specifically point out that the same army which wants the "best" (often nonexistent) products from DRDO are clearly willing to accept second-best
+1. Its a matter of culture. Chinese "pride" (however hollow) is a good thing from this perspective.shiv wrote:--SNIP--
They think that the west will simply "be friendly" with India and give us tech. Indian politicians act like they think that if you behave like good boy, good countries will praise you and bad countries will get scared.
It is high time we learned that we have to manage with low tech Indian rust buckets until our industry learns how to make good stuff in house. And if operational preparedness starts falling - threaten to use nukes, as China did, and as Russia still does.
The government, industry, research and armed forces are in this together. they all have to formulate the best response. But they are all behaving like ill educated stupids who are unable to understand how nations work.
That is not quite true. China would love to be able to buy what they want from Russia or Europe or Israel or the USA.shiv wrote:China solved this problem in the 60s by saying "OK we will use only our own rust buckets but if you fuk with us we will nuke you"
The label "Made in Japan" was a put down, signifying a cheap imitation, this is what I was told was I was a small boy and held that belief when I reach my teen - I know it is kind of hard for anyone to believe given today's status on products from Japan but that was the kind of reaction where people reacted with Japanese's products those days before and after the post war period. Today, Japanese's products is symbolizes with keywords like precision, quality and reliability.
+1pentaiah wrote: The problem and the solution is all in our hands and we are still groping in the woods means our intent is not to get out of woods.
The label "Made in Japan" was a put down, signifying a cheap imitation, this is what I was told was I was a small boy and held that belief when I reach my teen - I know it is kind of hard for anyone to believe given today's status on products from Japan but that was the kind of reaction where people reacted with Japanese's products those days before and after the post war period. Today, Japanese's products is symbolizes with keywords like precision, quality and reliability.
The Lithuanian nobility and gentry were gradually adopting the Polish language and customs. Eventually they began to look upon their Lithuanian origin as a disgrace and called themselves „gentle lituanus natione polonus” (people of Lithuanian stock, Poles by nationality). In mouth of the privileged the word „Lithuanian” was a mere geographic term without any national designation. The nobility and gentry did not speak Lithuanian, they despised the Lithuanian language and customs. The catholic Church was a particularly zealous polonizer for very few priests spoke Lithuanian. Only the peasantry and the petty unprivileged gentry spoke Lithuanian. The alienation of the ruling circles and the privileged gentry from the vernacular, from popular traditions and the people’s culture was a genuine tragedy for the Lithuanian nation as it set back the development of the Lithuanian national culture for the period of several centuries.
look at those nerds!! at Japanese cars and thought that possibility of Japan exporting cars to the US was a joke.IA has never given any official reason for non-induction as far as i know. There has been a lot of cribbing abt weight.Sanku wrote:
I am not aware of Army complaining about the weight as a reason for non-induction? Where did it ever happen. Yes weight did raise additional steps of newer tank carriers, and bridges etc. But of course when a new system is integrated such points will be raised.
At no point of time weight has been a reason to delay the Arjun project (i.e. IA has never asked for another iteration of Arjun design based on weight)
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 .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)alexis wrote: Mk1 can be upgraded to Mk2 or Mk3 when Mk2/Mmk3 are stabilised. That is the standard procedure for any defence forece except IAF16 is the best example. Pls see how many iterations M1 Abrams or Merkeva went through.
Similarly, as Philip pointed out, we are still procuring Su-30 MKI even though Super Sukhoi specifications are decided and upgrade for initial aircrafts will begin soon.
Impossible, for this, the entire Civil-Mil interaction rubric has to change. Starting with upgrades to the protocol status of service officers, their inclusion in decision making and so on and so forth.shiv wrote: The armed forces can no longer afford to behave like the chowkidar who can do his job only when malik provides him with a weapon. .
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.