All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Mihir wrote:
Define "production line". Please. This should be fun to watch.
If you want to troll me, you need to be slightly more sophisticated, even though that is not guranteed to work, as some posters are finding out.
Meanwhile, if you really have newbie questions and the above was not a obvious trolling attempt, apologies, but in that case, do take it to the right thread please.
So sanku if you are at eod arguing that imported or near imported is better because we are hopeless in production then we might as well go and get the Merk.
It is better than the tin can.
after all its no more the discussion of whether arjun is better
since we are importing the best everywhere and elsewhere new piskology is that we have to get th ebest - we should
get the merk - the Israelis will even customise it accordingly
or the Korean one or even the modular Japanese one
all of them are fundamentally modern tank designs vs the tin can
Surya wrote:So sanku if you are at eod arguing that imported or near imported is better because we are hopeless in production then we might as well go and get the Merk.
Two points
1) I am only arguing that there is a real root cause for import dependency, viz our DPSUs are badly under-performing and therefore the focus needs to be there. The only way to stop imports is to push these guys up.
2) As to Merk vs T 90 for imports? That is why I am a big fan of multi-vendor approach, unfortunately it was conceived of much after the T 90 decision, and seems to be already losing support for it in MoD (ex C 17 etc)
Today I would certainly like a Tank match before import. May the best tank win. (and I am partial to Israelis)
Sanku wrote:If you want to troll me, you need to be slightly more sophisticated, even though that is not guranteed to work, as some posters are finding out.
Troll the grand meister himself? Not in my wildest dreams!
Sanku wrote:Meanwhile, if you really have newbie questions and the above was not a obvious trolling attempt, apologies, but in that case, do take it to the right thread please.
Newbie questions? Au contraire, it is you, dear sir, who has displayed a stunning ignorance of how modern production systems work. Hence the questions. Just want to asses exactly how deep the ignorance goes for someone to spout gems such as "an Arjun production line is something that has to be made locally, where as a T 90 production line is something which is imported wholesale"
Arun Menon wrote:^^Sankuji makes contortionists in the circus look like amateurs with his verbal contortion skills.
I concur....as I said sometime back, if spinning arguments on their head were to be an art, Sanku would have been Picasso.
Having said that - this BMP-3 thing is an absolute no-no. That is one heck of a fvcked up design, if there was ever one. No can do. We need something which has been designed today for tomorrow's application - one does not drive forward by looking in the rear view mirror.
Mihir wrote:
Newbie questions? Au contraire, it is you, dear sir, who has displayed a stunning ignorance of how modern production systems work. Hence the questions. Just want to asses exactly how deep the ignorance goes for someone to spout gems such as "an Arjun production line is something that has to be made locally, where as a T 90 production line is something which is imported wholesale"
So how does the system go about current issues?
That might clarify and remove presence of ignorance.
^^Sankuji makes contortionists in the circus look like amateurs with his verbal contortion skills.
there are various folks who try to change the debate - after the Arjun spanked the tin can - this line was expected.
but seriously its no different than the piskology in other thread where its suddenly absolutely OK to import a gazillion rifles for the regional power of tomorrow wholesale because again our production and inhouse ability is shoddy (DPSU)
meanwhile the obvious correction to a gradual shift to more pvt sector is submerged in these contortions and piskology
PS; the BMP 3 is piece of garbage - put together like a frankenstein
the raised floor being the ultimate joke
The beauty of Army GSQRs is that they want 50 ton weight in future tanks with 4 men crew and not 3 men crew, as a 50 ton tank with three men crew may actually be doable.
The Army(or specifically DGMF?) needs to take their thumbs out of their as*es and come to their senses. If they want a "Western Style" 3 man tank with an autoloader and the 120 mm Smooth bore and all the associated ding dongs, they should get a LeClerc or the Korean K2 or Japanese Type 90 and Type 10 and have them over for evaluation. That is about the best you can get with acceptable armor,mobility and firepower balance and yes, that would weigh around 50 to 55 tons , which is what the T-90MS ding dong also does.
Now this is not too far away from the 58 ton Arjun, which makes you wonder WTF, the cribbing about weight is all about. This is about the best you can get in terms of weight in a 4 man MBT. So if the aim is to have an objective evaluation, you can see what is possible technically in the near term ,however if the real aim is to bed more "Hot Natashas" and handle "Cold Cash" , yeah, this dog and pony show will continue.
And oh, for those who are waiting for the "next leap" in technology, it aint in the horizon. The Japanese Type-10 and Korean KX2 are entering service in 2015/2016 time frame. A pity the Russians came up with a pretty ho hum config for the T-90 replacement . That must have disappointed the Rodina lobby, as they would have salivated for any unproven stuff the Russians came up with and passed it off as the hottest new s*it around and clamored for it.
Understand. I was thinking of starting a BR for the "old". Thought I was the only one.
However, on a more serious note, what is the preference between tracked and wheeled? The Boxer being around 33 tons, with 8 wheels, would -IMHO - be worse than a 50 ton tracked vehicle as far as force exerted on the ground. (Not talking of bridges, trains, etc)
You know the old saying that "quantity has a quality of its own".The IA's problem is that it has a massive "quantity" of 3-crew manned MBTs in the form of the T-72s and T-90s,and the sentiment is to go in for the familiar.A large number-over 1000 T-72 are supposed to be upgraded bringing them upto T-90 std.,and Avadi has its hands full on this plus production of T-90s and Arjun.
However,I'm still waiting for some authentic info/stats on the cost-effectiveness of a 3-man crewed tank vs a 4-man tank,capital costs,MRO and life-cycle,plus the 25% less manpower advantage. In an army short of manpower,this is one crucial aspect that we've not considered,with no disrespect to the performance of either tank. What would it cost to acquire a regt. of either Arjun MK-2 or the T-90 MS? Can we have some debate on this please?
so far the army seems to not prefer wheeled armoured vehicles - apparently bad experience with the eastern block troop transporters of yore.
how it is planning to be a fast moving army to survive the future battlefield with pretty much a lorried force is beyond me
2000 IFVs are not going to cut it
A report in the media describes the critical situ after the Tatra fallout,where even spares purchases have been banned/suspended for the moment are seriously affecting vehicles in service,plus the large number reqd. for the variety of missile carriers,specialised vehicles,etc.,for DRDO weapon systems.
Surya wrote:<SNIP>so far the army seems to not prefer wheeled armoured vehicles - apparently bad experience with the eastern block troop transporters of yore.
how it is planning to be a fast moving army to survive the future battlefield with pretty much a lorried force is beyond me
2000 IFVs are not going to cut it
You had to bring this up....
Infact, I am actually thinking of writing my next post on need for more mechanization in IA...but will require some serious research. As we speak, even the Strike Corps have partial mobility...at least PA has equipped its infantry with M113 knock-offs to provide mobility and keep pace with armored coloumns.
Bmp 2 is sufficient all we need is some upgrade to it Armour and engine to cater extra weight..
We already on tight leash form FM. we should carry on More production of BMP2+.
i got better idea give DRDO or private players on IFV a timeline that they need to achieve certain levels in say 2 years if not BMP3 will enter Indian armed forces.
until we give strict timelines like any other govt. employees they will waste ,time , money & leaving army without any IFV
tushar_m wrote:i got better idea give DRDO or private players on IFV a timeline that they need to achieve certain levels in say 2 years if not BMP3 will enter Indian armed forces.
until we give strict timelines like any other govt. employees they will waste ,time , money & leaving army without any IFV
Even better idea would be to dump the IFCV project and go for the BMP-3 without having to see our industry failing to deliver as you conclude because ultimately any product made by SDRE industry is always of chi chi and thu thu category na.
tushar_m wrote:i got better idea give DRDO or private players on IFV a timeline that they need to achieve certain levels in say 2 years if not BMP3 will enter Indian armed forces.
until we give strict timelines like any other govt. employees they will waste ,time , money & leaving army without any IFV
Even better idea would be to dump the IFCV project and go for the BMP-3 without having to see our industry failing to deliver as you conclude because ultimately any product made by SDRE industry is always of chi chi and thu thu category na.
why would we need retire our BMP2??
IFCVs only purpose is bring wheeled infantry carrier "that's it"
but government adding tracked wheeled just for common carrier but they quickly come to conclusion that whole IFCV program is to costly for FM, SO instead of focussing on whole project we should stick to wheeled one leave and bmp with future upgrade
sarabpal.s wrote:why would we need retire our BMP2?? IFCVs only purpose is bring wheeled infantry carrier "that's it"
but government adding tracked wheeled just for common carrier but they quickly come to conclusion that whole IFCV program is to costly for FM, SO instead of focussing on whole project we should stick to wheeled one leave and bmp with future upgrade
Not quite so..
The FICV will be a tracked, lightly armoured, off-road vehicle that can zoom over sand dunes or across a river. Operated by a three-man crew --- a commander, a driver and a gunner --- it will also carry seven fully equipped infantrymen into battle protecting them while they are aboard from bullets and shrapnel. The FICV’s strike power --- an anti-tank missile; a rapid-fire cannon; a 7.62 mm machine gun; and a grenade launcher --- will enable it to destroy enemy tanks, ICVs, missile carriers, attack helicopters and infantry.
sarabpal.s wrote:why would we need retire our BMP2?? IFCVs only purpose is bring wheeled infantry carrier "that's it"
but government adding tracked wheeled just for common carrier but they quickly come to conclusion that whole IFCV program is to costly for FM, SO instead of focussing on whole project we should stick to wheeled one leave and bmp with future upgrade
Not quite so..
The FICV will be a tracked, lightly armoured, off-road vehicle that can zoom over sand dunes or across a river. Operated by a three-man crew --- a commander, a driver and a gunner --- it will also carry seven fully equipped infantrymen into battle protecting them while they are aboard from bullets and shrapnel. The FICV’s strike power --- an anti-tank missile; a rapid-fire cannon; a 7.62 mm machine gun; and a grenade launcher --- will enable it to destroy enemy tanks, ICVs, missile carriers, attack helicopters and infantry.
I know that dear but why go for tracked.
as mention by Mr ajay shukla that government want tracked vehicle that ran in desert and can swim across canal without preparation. bmp doing same
but which IFCV offering fully tank fighting capabilities.
just plain backdoor entry for spending money and getting kick back
sarabpal.s we don't want the saga of decreasing fighter's in IAF ->LCA->MMRCA to repeat
we need strict steps to be taken while we have time & replace the aging equipments which bring new technology into play......
IAF can quickly move there assets in few hours(if they need to) ,ARMY can't move there armored vehicles that quick so we need sufficient number of assets on each front & can't rely on older tech.
sarabpal.s wrote:I know that dear but why go for tracked.
as mention by Mr ajay shukla that government want tracked vehicle that ran in desert and can swim across canal without preparation. bmp doing same
Government doesn't decide what the army wants they do that for themselves so the FICV being tracked is the Army's choice not the government's.
sarabpal.s wrote:but which IFCV offering fully tank fighting capabilities.
Gentlemen, how about pulling back a little, taking a deep breadth, putting together some coherent thoughts and then having a go at your keyboards? What good are these one liners bereft of any logic doing?
First things first - IA as asked for a next generation FICV on the lines that are NOW entering service around the globe. And BMP-3 is not that system - considering the influence the Russian lobby has plus the kind of arguments given for T-90 (we already have T-72, commonality etc), it would have been equally easy for the IA to ask for BMP-3. MOD could have organized a dog-and-pony show for multi-vendor requirement and BMP-3 would have been the winner. But the same has not happened.
IA is instead working with DRDO on upgrading the BMP-2 - and MOD announced the FICV contest in "make and buy" category.
Coming to role of the FICV - well, the AFV/ICV have gone a tremendous change the world over. They began as true battle taxis like your M113 and evolved into BMP-2 and Bradley IFV. While at one point in time USSR and USA were the main developers in this field, today, the new examples are coming from countries in Europe - as they seek to replace their older versions.
However, one needs to understand that these countries are coming out with systems to suit their requirement - their mechanized forces are small and they try to pack maximum onto a single system - the major portion of the price tag comes from sensors and communication gear. And they are implementing a modular approach - where the same vehicle base can be used for different mission types. Also, these countries have learned the drawbacks of other designs and come out with better vehicles with more chances of survival. So, where the earlier BMP-2 weighed around 14 tonnes, the BOXER (from Germany) weighs 18+ tonnes empty (w/o Combat load).
We need something on the lines of BOXER IFV - IA prefers tracked given our terrain, so tracked it is going to be. To be able to swim across water obstacles is a must - the western border is lined with canals and rivers which will require crossing.
OK. Now to my pet peeve - IA also needs a relatively cheap IFV on the lines of Stryker for its infantry - apart from Mechanized Infantry/Guards Regiment.
sarabpal.s wrote:^^Just one nitpick Stryker is neither cheap nor good IFV
I will post a pics one upgrade of BMP3 i think we can do it better with add on Armour now on BMP2.
Pics tomm. eve. gudnight
As I said earlier, if you try and load communication gear and sensors like the Khan or Europeans, the per unit cost will rise. And that is the case with Stryker in US Army.
The base vehicle without any gizmos is going to be affordable - and when I spoke of Stryker for IA, I spoke in terms of larger mechanization away from BMP-2 or FICV. Those 2.600 odd FICVs will equip the mechanized regiment/Regiment of Guards Battalions - but we are woefully inadequate in terms of overall mechanization. Today, a Strike Corps consists of Armored Division (full mechanization) + RAPID (partial mechanization) + Infantry Division (no mechanization). The Strike Corps cannot move as a single entity. We need Stryker kind of platforms to equip the infantry battalions in RAPID and Infantry Divisions. Give them mobility and firepower.
Well fulminating against me is not going to fix the core of the problem -- that our MIC is so broken that it can not meet our needs.
Blaming IA is not going to fix it either, they do not own the DPSUs are in any case support them far beyond a rational cause. IA should have clear cut deadlines along with clear cut orders.
You don't make the dead line, wind the project up. Excuses, delays, excuses is a cycle which has a limit. If IA has to be overruled, let some babu overrule IA and explicitly say that "IA will work with what DRDO gives period" and let what happens, happen, at least take a stand -- here no one wants to take responsibilities from the civvy side, neither the baby, nor DRDO, nor OFB. The matter spins around in the happy circus of seat warmers.
Its only because the services are professional enough and seem to want to do the right things and get the right tools for that, that something gets done and we are not yet completely lost.
IA should learn to fight with muskets, that is what the country can give it, why bother and ask for more? When time comes for war, they can also offer the same excuses as everyone else "Sorry saar too complicated" "Never saw this before" do you think this is "UDIPI rest., you want results you should give us a 10000000 year warning that we will need to fight in 1000000 years"
Services(including IA) needs to invole more in the system design and development as a matter of policy. They are not British Indian army now. As for as Arjun goes at every turn they have tried to reject it even after the test proved it better than Tin-Cans. This rejection is so horriblly fixed that DRDO has even complain that the tests are even subataged. We need to understand that we can not depend with foreirn mal with malai eatting by IA procurement people and Babus in MOD perpetually. One simple question is when Paki land got nothing to fight the Arjun with (nor Lizard) in near future, why not have a home grown product which anyway better than the alternative Tincan???. If IA wants a faster production and greater production quality it can always say so. But NO. It does not want Arjun period. We hear about the war schemes and stratagies and how Tincans fit the requirements properly. No one seems to know them???
We need to force the IA out of their jobs and save the nation from killing national defence needs. Complution may be the need of the hour.
The Russians have been instrumental in making sure Indian MICs do not progress. Perhaps that is the DNA of this system, nonetheless, that is a fact. Putin is - without any doubt - recreating the Tincan vs. Arjun scenario when it comes to the BMP-3. In fact he has gone one step ahead and even suggested that India wind down her local efforts. How low can one get?