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 »

Viv S wrote: The T-90 is an Indian tank. I have to admit, I didn't see that one coming.
That is indeed the problem. Lack of perspective.
Saiko wrote:If my dad purchases a vehicle for me, it still does not make it my vehicle per say.. if I had bought it on my own money, yes it does. There is a difference between T90 and Arjun. Should we go that low in logic in this thread?
So Sir jee, a 1700 tank fleet, with equipment sourced from various countries according to IAs specification and our own manufacturing line is like "dad buying you a car?" Who is IA's dad here and which car was purchased.
:roll:

Can we give this silly comedy a rest.

As to whether T 90 is a Indian tank or not, two people will attest to it, one the Indian tank crew using it in war, and two the Paki or Chinese who will be on the other end.

Sure Arjun is home grown Indian tank, and T 90 is a acquired Indian tank, so in that case the difference is obvious. But what is equally obvious is that they are both Indian and server with India.

Funny people dont think twice before calling J 15/xx a chinese plane, but T 90 is not Indian.

Jai ho.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by SaiK »

No, one is solely designed and made in India and made for IA tank. The other is Indian assembled firang tank for IA. There is difference. There is lot of difference. yes, we need to put this silly argument to rest/
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9102
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by nachiket »

Sanku wrote:
Viv S wrote: God forbid. One's a Russian tank and the other's Indian.
As of now, they are both Indian tanks.

T 90s are the mainstay of IA, and will be for quite some time, even when Arjun enters in numbers, they will both be equally important. Furthermore there are more T 90s in Indian service than anywhere, more will be produced by Avadi in India than anywhere.

A small and simple fact that seems to escape many people.
T-90 is an Indian tank now? :rotfl: :rotfl: Sanku, I have to admit. You are willing to go to any length to defend the tin-can.

P.S.: The new Indian 4.5 gen fighter looks awesome. Our aircraft industry is truly world class.

Image
Last edited by nachiket on 28 Nov 2012 04:25, edited 1 time in total.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Indranil »

My "Oh Captain, My Captain" moment.

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2012/11/ ... rence.html
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 »

Once the system is smooth, cost will also drop, and IA will be able to induct more Arjuns at lesser capital outlay
Thank goodness you never ran a business or had to make cap-ex proposals to a board. With logic like that , you would get laughed out of the meeting and maybe kicked out of the organization.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by SaiK »

^holy molly!

The army has more generals than the Government of India has secretaries. But none, from the army chief downwards, has insisted on an armour philosophy, an essential pre-requisite for an India-specific tank. Instead the T-90 tank, designed and built for freezing Russia, is now being air-conditioned (heresy!) so that its electronics can survive the Indian summers. In an incredible moral contortion, those who back the indigenous Arjun are branded anti-national; while the generals who support the Russian T-90 style themselves as patriots!

Crafting an armour philosophy is not an intellectual feat. Three bright armoured corps colonels could do it in a week, given inputs on India’s border geography; war termination objectives; likely adversaries; the army’s manpower profile and India’s industrial capabilities. But generations of armoured corps generals have had better things to do with their time; successive army chiefs, and directors of operations and planning have been too preoccupied, or simply unconcerned, to ask why this is so.

If the army’s entire planning hierarchy has ever questioned the absence of any doctrinal coherence in the strike formations’ equipment, this has not resulted in any remedial action. But our generals believe the road to salvation passes through Moscow; respond to the challenge of indigenisation by buying more T-90s, just as the air marshals buy more and more Sukhoi-30 fighters. Does this point to Russia’s colonisation of our generals’ operational thinking, or it is just apathy and lack of professionalism? Either way, the answer is depressing.
ANS: It points lack of coherency right from GSQR to DDM, including certain logic one finds in this thread.

but my my my.. time to even close this thread of shame.
koti
BRFite
Posts: 1118
Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Location: Hyderabad, India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by koti »

Sanku wrote:
Viv S wrote: Funny people dont think twice before calling J 15/xx a chinese plane, but T 90 is not Indian.
Valid!!!
But the irony here is that J 15/xx is not being inducted at the cost of a better local alternative. And they don't buy it.
sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10195
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by sum »

As of now, they are both Indian tanks.
:rotfl: :rotfl:
Really this thread does see some new logic being introduced daily!
Gurneesh
BRFite
Posts: 465
Joined: 14 Feb 2010 21:21
Location: Troposphere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Gurneesh »

Sanku wrote:
Funny people dont think twice before calling J 15/xx a chinese plane, but T 90 is not Indian.
The difference is that China can make as many J15 as they want without paying any license fee and Russia cannot do shit about it (apart from giving more engines). And India cannot make the entire tank at home even after paying for the technology (e.g. the barrel TOT issue). India cannot even talk to other nations (like Ukraine) for upgrades as this will anger the "Almighty Ruskies".

So yes while J15 is a Chinese plane (even if an unlicensed copy), T90 is not an Indian tank (even if it is made under license).
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Austin »

J-15 will always be a Russian Design since the original design and development was done by SDB much like AK-47 copied any where will always be known as russian rifle.

Chinese got the Su-33 via Ukranian they simply managed to do a good job of reverse engineering it due to their 2 decades association with flanker design and lic manufacturing and copying.
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 »

Sanku wrote:Have they? Is the 125 tank order placed in 2000 been met fully yet? Have all the defects and critical improvements identified during the 2007 AUCRT merged in the final Mk 1 tanks?
Army going in for mk2 answers your questions.
Sanku wrote:Have the Arjun Mk 2. Which would have a number of items on the list for a modern MBT (barrel fired missiles) been made ready in production mode and ready for trial?

Production mode will come only after trials and when Army has placed an order for it and given the results of the comparative trials between T90 and Arjun I think it's sufficiently clear which tank is better. So to support indigenization Army needs to place large orders for the same.
Sanku wrote:I am afraid this are not clear at all, based on publicly available information, and therefore I would not say they have yet delivered on Arjun -- Yet. Arjun as it stands is a great tank, but is a fully functional induct-able system ready? Despite everything?
Based on the same publicly available info Arjun trumped T90 so you saying that Arjun not being "fully functional induct-able system" doesn't stand up to scrutiny because if it wasn't then the result of the comparative trials would have been much different.
Sanku wrote:Facts on Avadi? This thread itself has reams of data posted on CVRDE & Avadi and its effectiveness, including reports by parliamentary standing committee on defence. I will not be able to pull out 10 years worth of documents for you, but you should be able to google and find out most of Avadi related issues.
Any manufacturing house has issues with quality, I have yet to come across a report which comes to a conclusion that the problems in Avadi can't be fixed. They are delivering on Arjun and the Arjun regiment seems very pleased from what they have got.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12197
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Pratyush »

The Arjun will never be manufactured in large numbers unless the Army orders then in large numbers. It is simple as that. The real question ought to be. What is the actual reason for the IA's disinterestedness in the Arjun.

One of the reason I can think off is because of the weight and the resulting logistical support requirements. Whereas, the T90 was "supposed" to fit in the IA's logistical setup like a hand in glove. Whether it does or doesn't, I don't know.

But I also understand, that the logistical issues can resolved, if the IA wants to do so. So why is the IA not creating the needed logistical infrastructure (Tank transporters, the railway flat beds, the fuel tankers, the recovery vehicles, etc....)needed to support the Arjun in large numbers.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sanku »

SaiK wrote:No, one is solely designed and made in India and made for IA tank. The other is Indian assembled firang tank for IA. There is difference. There is lot of difference. yes, we need to put this silly argument to rest/
I assume you DONT understand the difference between manufacturing and assembly.

If you did you would not say that.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sanku »

vina wrote:
Once the system is smooth, cost will also drop, and IA will be able to induct more Arjuns at lesser capital outlay
Thank goodness you never ran a business or had to make cap-ex proposals to a board. With logic like that , you would get laughed out of the meeting and maybe kicked out of the organization.
Let me know when you are done clowning around.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sanku »

Sagar G wrote:
Sanku wrote:Have they? Is the 125 tank order placed in 2000 been met fully yet? Have all the defects and critical improvements identified during the 2007 AUCRT merged in the final Mk 1 tanks?
Army going in for mk2 answers your questions.
Your answer is not clear, yes Army is going in for Mk 2. But Mk 2 has to be designed, prototyped, tested, made in LSP and then an order will come, for which production needs to be done at quality.

All this will take time. We are not at step 1. to 2 right now.

An order can be only placed at the end of the above cycle, not before.

I dont know what is so complicated about that.
conclusion that the problems in Avadi can't be fixed.
Cant be fixed and are fixed are too different things. Fixed means, fixed, issues dont exist, that means the above cycle that I laid out is working.

The problem is difference in theory and implementation.
result of the comparative trials would have been much different.
Sure, Arjun performed well in comparative trials, no one is doubting that. Similarly no one is saying that the issues identified with build quality and other improvements which were to make it to Mk 2 are not present.

It is not a either or case.

Let CVRDE deliver on Mk 2, in the time lines promised, orders will come. Of course if they want to deliver Mk 2 after 5 years, at 2007 specs, we will get into another iteration of stalling.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sanku »

sum wrote:
As of now, they are both Indian tanks.
:rotfl: :rotfl:
Really this thread does see some new logic being introduced daily!
This basically shows the level of divorce some of the forumers have from the real operatives of the equipment. For IA the T 90 is a Indian tank. The who designed it definitions are not exactly relevant.

It is a Indian tank since it is one of the main stay of IA, manufactured locally, is made with IA's input and IA is the largest operator of the same.

Deal with it.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sanku »

koti wrote:
Sanku wrote: Funny people dont think twice before calling J 15/xx a chinese plane, but T 90 is not Indian.
Valid!!!
But the irony here is that J 15/xx is not being inducted at the cost of a better local alternative. And they don't buy it.
But the second part is not quite correct. Of the 6000 tanks in IA, there are 800 T 90s going on to 1700. There are 4000+ tanks up for replacement.

If Arjun production team can make its commitment, it will be inducted. We dont even know in the Mk 1 order is fully completed yet. And we know that Mk 2 has not been trialed.

There is no Arjun vs T 90 dichotomy expect for the Shukla and here in BRF. Certainly not in the real world.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Viv S »

Sanku wrote:As of now, they are both Indian tanks.

Can we give this silly comedy a rest.
:rotfl:
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sanku »

Viv S wrote:
Sanku wrote:As of now, they are both Indian tanks.

Can we give this silly comedy a rest.
:rotfl:
According to this level of definition, IA has not a single Indian plane in service, IN has only 30% of fleet which is Indian.

And even Arjun is only 50% Indian.

:rotfl:

Indeed.
arnab
BRFite
Posts: 1136
Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by arnab »

Sanku wrote:According to this level of definition, IA has not a single Indian plane in service, IN has only 30% of fleet which is Indian.

And even Arjun is only 50% Indian.

:rotfl:

Indeed.
er.. the solution to this would be to increase the Indian content (which includes India specific design philosophy) into our military products. Rather than changing the definition of what constitutes an 'indian' tank and what is a foreign tank being license built by India :)
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sanku »

arnab wrote:
er.. the solution to this would be to increase the Indian content (which includes India specific design philosophy) into our military products. Rather than changing the definition of what constitutes an 'indian' tank and what is a foreign tank being license built by India :)
First -- Increasing the Indian content is INDEED the solution. Fully agree.

However a nitpick --
The definition of Indian equipment is always the same. A piece owned & operated by Indian armed forces. Period. The Indian refers to the ownership and use, not the % of content that has gone in, and from which country. (Taking that route, nothing belongs to any country, since all countries borrow and buy IPs from each other)

And if a equipment is manufactured in India, by Indians, according to inputs from IA, it primarily used by India over other countries, the claim of ownership is still stronger.

Of course if it was designed in India with more Indian content. Perfect.

That is not to say however that Indian tag is given based on the "root of the constituents of the equipment" etc.
pralay
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 524
Joined: 24 May 2009 23:07
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by pralay »

Sanku wrote:As of now, they are both Indian tanks.
Sanku wrote:And even Arjun is only 50% Indian.
Sanku ji, Good going sanku ji :rotfl:
How many % Indian is the T90 ?
Sanku wrote: The definition of Indian equipment is always the same. A piece owned & operated by Indian armed forces. Period. The Indian refers to the ownership and use, not the % of content that has gone in, and from which country.
So why Arjun is only 50% Indian? It should be 100% Indian as per your definition :P

So by Sanku-Logic all weaponry is 100% Indian, Stop all R&D, Import everything and then everything is Indian.
Last edited by pralay on 28 Nov 2012 11:44, edited 2 times in total.
member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by member_22539 »

^^Watch out you all! Next time you eat some foreign candy, you will be judged as so and so percent foreign and deported. Also, some Natasha will be given Indian citizenship because she filled her belly with samosas.
arnab
BRFite
Posts: 1136
Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by arnab »

Sanku wrote:
However a nitpick --
The definition of Indian equipment is always the same. A piece owned & operated by Indian armed forces. Period. The Indian refers to the ownership and use, not the % of content that has gone in, and from which country. (Taking that route, nothing belongs to any country, since all countries borrow and buy IPs from each other)
Then we should call it the 'Indian army's' tank (by virtue of having paid for it) not an 'Indian tank'. For e.g if I own a Honda Accord (it does become mine because I paid for it) - but I don't have ownership of the Honda Accord brand.
sarabpal.s
BRFite
Posts: 348
Joined: 13 Sep 2008 22:04

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by sarabpal.s »

This whole thread is turn out to be mine is bigger than you thread. don't hijack the thread with silly personal brick biting.
People under stand that Ministry of Def. is under knife of MoF for budget.

What should we discuss here is the side affect of it
what should army choose now under the budget cuts and leave some for future.
FICV should be shelved Upgrade BMPs
more Pinaka Brigade
Shelved INSAS replacement
More mountains division With Namica and Upgraded BMPs and Arjuna or Karna (need this beast In mountains or best Arjuns)
Get Rudra with Helina + LCH
More OFB artillery Light & heavy
Better communication equipment
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9102
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by nachiket »

Sanku wrote:The definition of Indian equipment is always the same. A piece owned & operated by Indian armed forces. Period.
Awesome. The C-17 will soon become an Indian aircraft. I hope Sanku saar ends all his opposition to it then and welcomes more orders. :mrgreen:
Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7808
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Anujan »

I humbly submit that ferrari is an Indian car because Sachin tendulkar owns one :mrgreen:
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sanku »

nachiket wrote:
Sanku wrote:The definition of Indian equipment is always the same. A piece owned & operated by Indian armed forces. Period.
Awesome. The C-17 will soon become an Indian aircraft. I hope Sanku saar ends all his opposition to it then and welcomes more orders. :mrgreen:
It will be, unfortunately. So my R&D will stop after it becomes one, sadly.
:((
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sanku »

arnab wrote: Then we should call it the 'Indian army's' tank (by virtue of having paid for it) not an 'Indian tank'. For e.g if I own a Honda Accord (it does become mine because I paid for it) - but I don't have ownership of the Honda Accord brand.
Well Indian Army did not pay for it, GoI did. Which right now represents India, so yes, Indian.

We are not talking of ownership of the brand here, btw.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sanku »

Anujan wrote:I humbly submit that ferrari is an Indian car because Sachin tendulkar owns one :mrgreen:
If Sachin Tendulkar owned 800 Ferrari's, churning them out from his garage, and was headed for a figure of 1700 Ferrari's -- heck even Ferrari would be too happy to say its a Indian car.

:mrgreen:
Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7808
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Anujan »

Sanku wrote:
Anujan wrote:I humbly submit that ferrari is an Indian car because Sachin tendulkar owns one :mrgreen:
If Sachin Tendulkar owned 800 Ferrari's, churning them out from his garage, and was headed for a figure of 1700 Ferrari's -- heck even Ferrari would be too happy to say its a Indian car.

:mrgreen:
Yes, and ferrari would laugh its way to the bank, convince every Indian that ferrari is an Indian car and India does not need an indigenous car program because they already have an Indian car. 8)
member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by member_22539 »

Sanku wrote:
Anujan wrote:I humbly submit that ferrari is an Indian car because Sachin tendulkar owns one :mrgreen:
If Sachin Tendulkar owned 800 Ferrari's, churning them out from his garage, and was headed for a figure of 1700 Ferrari's -- heck even Ferrari would be too happy to say its a Indian car.

:mrgreen:

Just like the VW Beetle was a Mexican car right? Building that old hunk of junk really helped the Mexican car industry. They are fully capable of doing R&D in automobiles and is now making cars under their own brand names, utterly independent of foreign hand holding. Wow, u really opened my eyes.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sanku »

Anujan wrote: Yes, and ferrari would laugh its way to the bank, convince every Indian that ferrari is an Indian car and India does not need an indigenous car program because they already have an Indian car. 8)
Yes, they would certainly try and do that. Fully agree.

On the part of Sachin T, he should use that leverage of money paid, to buy into Ferrari, have them dance to his tune, while using the know how of Ferrai to set up a parallel shop which would make a brand new car better than Ferrari.

That part is also true.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sanku »

Arun Menon wrote: Just like the VW Beetle was a Mexican car right? Building that old hunk of junk really helped the Mexican car industry. They are fully capable of doing R&D in automobiles and is now making cars under their own brand names, utterly independent of foreign hand holding. Wow, u really opened my eyes.
Cant talk about the mexicans, but the Indian car industry did indeed take the route.

So did parts of Indian aero industry. So did ISRO with Cryo tech.

This model could work or fail depending on many factors, there is no one solution.
member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by member_22539 »

^^After license building, the Indian auto industry created its own brands and thus is self-sufficient today. Besides, these are not cars we are talking about. Tanks are part of the strategic MIL-IND complex, where self-sufficiency is paramount. You would have us use ambassador cars and its iterations for eternity, while the latest Indica is out and ready for use.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sanku »

Arun Menon wrote:Besides, these are not cars we are talking about.
I did not get cars into the picture SakiO mamaji did, following which, others picked it up.

I am all for home grown Mil-Ind complex -- however that does mean being critical of the parts that do not work and asking for their improvement coupled with solid support.
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 »

Sanku wrote:Your answer is not clear, yes Army is going in for Mk 2. But Mk 2 has to be designed, prototyped, tested, made in LSP and then an order will come, for which production needs to be done at quality.

All this will take time. We are not at step 1. to 2 right now.

An order can be only placed at the end of the above cycle, not before.

I dont know what is so complicated about that.
The cycle for Mk 1 is complete and yet Army didn't give a big order for it, this is the reason for grouse among many.
Sanku wrote:Cant be fixed and are fixed are too different things. Fixed means, fixed, issues dont exist, that means the above cycle that I laid out is working.
The above cycle that you laid out worked, that's why Arjun came on top in competitive trials.
Sanku wrote:The problem is difference in theory and implementation.
The problem now is even when difference between theory and implementation has been bridged by and large still the Army seems reluctant to go for Arjun.
Sanku wrote:Sure, Arjun performed well in comparative trials, no one is doubting that. Similarly no one is saying that the issues identified with build quality and other improvements which were to make it to Mk 2 are not present.

It is not a either or case.
Who told you that the improvements are not there in mk 2 ??? News reports suggest otherwise than what you say.
If t90 is perfect why it still has issues ??? Why was it beaten by a poorly manufactured (as you believe) Arjun ???
Sanku wrote:Let CVRDE deliver on Mk 2, in the time lines promised, orders will come. Of course if they want to deliver Mk 2 after 5 years, at 2007 specs, we will get into another iteration of stalling.
AFAIK timelines are being kept to for mk 2 and even if there is a slippage of a couple of months the Army should be patient and support it to the hilt otherwise like always it will be susceptible to arm twisting by foreign arms manufacturers and no amount of ToT can solve this as has been convincingly proved in case of T 90.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sanku »

Sagar G wrote:
The cycle for Mk 1 is complete and yet Army didn't give a big order for it, this is the reason for grouse among many.
Are the 125 tanks that were ordered, have been all delivered with all the fixes identified in AUCRT?

Furthermore, after 125 Mk1, it makes sense to induct Mk2 with all the missing features in Mk1 incorporated (IA had given a list of 84+ necessary improvements)

Let us get this one thing straight, before we discuss anything. Any open source link corroborating the same will be welcome.
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 »

Sanku wrote:Are the 125 tanks that were ordered, have been all delivered with all the fixes identified in AUCRT?

Furthermore, after 125 Mk1, it makes sense to induct Mk2 with all the missing features in Mk1 incorporated (IA had given a list of 84+ necessary improvements)

Let us get this one thing straight, before we discuss anything. Any open source link corroborating the same will be welcome.
Don't get too much fixed about the "fixes", Arjun has proved its mettle in the comparative trials so all "improvements" now what the Army wants is being done on the mk 2. Regarding the no. of mk 1 delivered to Army here are links

http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/techfocus/2 ... ne2011.pdf

Broadsword tells the no as 110

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2011/11/l ... -tank.html

about mk 2

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2011/11/h ... oised.html

Read both the articles as they have lot of info and why it is necessary for Army to put a big order.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by SaiK »

Sanku wrote:
SaiK wrote:No, one is solely designed and made in India and made for IA tank. The other is Indian assembled firang tank for IA. There is difference. There is lot of difference. yes, we need to put this silly argument to rest/
I assume you DONT understand the difference between manufacturing and assembly.

If you did you would not say that.
Initially I thought of ignoring you,but heck.. this need to be told for the better health of the thread.

assembly is a "proper subset" of manufacturing. clear?

/OT
Post Reply