Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

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.
Post Reply
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sanku »

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.
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Surya »

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
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sanku »

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)
Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 884
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Mihir »

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! :shock:
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"
member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by member_22539 »

^^Sankuji makes contortionists in the circus look like amateurs with his verbal contortion skills.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by rohitvats »

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.
vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by vishvak »

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.

The least can be to state that it is secret.
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Surya »

^^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

If we are going in for a import - get the Boxer
vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by vic »

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.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by NRao »

This thread is a blast. Based on what I am not too sure.

BTW, Boxer is good, how about Namer?
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Surya »

they cannot accept a 60 plus ton Arjun

would be funny if they want the Namer :)
vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by vina »

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.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by NRao »

Surya wrote:they cannot accept a 60 plus ton Arjun

would be funny if they want the Namer :)
An import trumps weight, for that matter anything else.

Which is why the T-90 won over the Arjun, if you are not aware. If the T-90 weighed 80 tons it would have worked anywhere in India.
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Surya »

aha Nrao

sorry old age causes me to forget these things :)
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by NRao »

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)
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Philip »

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?
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Surya »

In an army short of manpower,
its not

its only short on officers



Nrao

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
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Philip »

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.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by rohitvats »

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
:cry: :cry: :cry:

You had to bring this up.... :cry:

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.
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Surya »

actually I was going to suggest that as the next article for your blog.

if not you then who :)

in fact I had written it but got distracted by something else
tushar_m

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by tushar_m »

there is some news about Putin offering BMP3 production to india with full tech transfer on his visit...........

this will provide replacement for bmp2 in Indian army as Abhay IFV will take another 5-6 years (maybe more)

http://www.armyrecognition.com/december ... 12123.html
sarabpal.s
BRFite
Posts: 348
Joined: 13 Sep 2008 22:04

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by sarabpal.s »

tushar_m wrote:there is some news about Putin offering BMP3 production to india with full tech transfer on his visit...........

this will provide replacement for bmp2 in Indian army as Abhay IFV will take another 5-6 years (maybe more)

http://www.armyrecognition.com/december ... 12123.html
strictly NO NO.

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+.
tushar_m

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by tushar_m »

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
Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sagar G »

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.
sarabpal.s
BRFite
Posts: 348
Joined: 13 Sep 2008 22:04

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by sarabpal.s »

Sagar G wrote:
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
Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sagar G »

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.
Source
sarabpal.s
BRFite
Posts: 348
Joined: 13 Sep 2008 22:04

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by sarabpal.s »

Sagar G wrote:
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.
Source
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
tushar_m

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by tushar_m »

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.
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Surya »

you want to kill our soldiers more surely than putting them in a tin can tank- put them in aBMP3

the moronic interior layout is just a killer

oh course rhe russians will do anything to sell this garbage

get more bmp 2 s with some improvements
Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sagar G »

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.
I doubt this.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by rohitvats »

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
BRFite
Posts: 348
Joined: 13 Sep 2008 22:04

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by sarabpal.s »

^^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
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by rohitvats »

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.
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Surya »

I personally would prefer the Boxer or the Piranha as a baseline - The Germans have a long history and better understanding of this type of vehicle

Stryker is basically a Americanised Piranha

Preference for the Boxer stems from its better protection and modularity
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by NRao »

Putin needs to postpone his trip again. He seems to be pushing his weight on the this BPM-3 topic.

I was under the impression that the IA was impressed with the Stryker. No?
d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by d_berwal »

BMP 3 was rejected by IA as it failed the flotation trials long time back, the news seems more of a DDM stuff than reality.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sanku »

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"
Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10390
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Yagnasri »

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.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by NRao »

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?
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Surya »

Flotation onleee :eek:

the idiotic raised floor did not ring any alarm bells !! :P
Post Reply