Bharat Rakshak

Could be for QC purposes. Its a test drive.

Yes. Tanks batten hatches only in combat. During servicing, engineers/mechanics prefer riding on top to visually validate the engine/chassis/suspension working. Half the Soviet Army rode to combat sitting outside tanks in WW2, and the AC chap's WAGs too ride on top during family days. By the way, WAGs hold the credit for being the first women to ride tanks way before MoD PRO decided to flatter Pratibha Patil by declaring her to be the first.

Combat Vehicles Research & Development Establishment (CVRDE)

MISSION
Design, develop and lead to production tracked armament vehicles and specialist vehicles to meet the needs of the service. Build technological capabilities in critical areas including test and evaluation of Combat system

The above incident is with an vehicle under CVRDE and not ARMY, means some sort of testing or modifications were getting carried out.

The logic put up in your post is illogical, this incident will have no repercussions on Active fleet of T-90's. This incident should lead to following:
- More care n precaution while working with an armored tracked vehicle by scientist's
- re-evaluation of the modifications done if any by cvrde to t-90
- re -evaluation of the steering stick mechanism productionised, if no modifications were carried out.

And please we dont need to bring in Arjun in every incident.

- First of all ARJUN has never been put forward as replacement of T-90 by any one except BRF and DDM's
- Arjun has and is and effort towards indigenous MBT design and production.
- Army never discloses how many numbers it wants to buy, these numbers are speculations based in DRDO, MOD and news publications.
- If we look at most professional army's there is always three type of equipment profile:
-- Obsolete (20 - 30+ yrs old) T-72
-- New / Mainstay (5-10yrs old) T-90
-- Future / Advanced (1-5yrs Old, this platform is used to evaluate new concepts and technology and if successful becomes the next Mainstay equipment) Arjun mk1, Arjun mk2, Arjun Mk3

Arjun was never put up as replacement to T-90, even by BRF or DDM's.
No speculations have been officialy put up by DRDO, MoD and news publications.

Obviously serious technical problems with the T90 was never standing in the way of bulk orders

Does anybody know what these "technical problems" are ?

Sanku,

Hear that. You just got your reply on ordering. Its been debated for past few years that it was MoD which ordered equipment without consulting the forces.

On the technical problem, I'll try to figure out next week.

Sorry ^^^ No need.

I just remembered that Mark 3 comment. So, the technical problem is that they want "mark 2" and then mark 3. This is whats holding up the bulk orders.

Another thing 'bulk order' comment is very fascinating. My estimate of 1200 (+ -) tanks eventually will be correct.

It may sound very dumb asking these questions CJ, but still going ahead with them:
a) So if we get the Mk2 as per the specs, IA will order more Arjuns?
b) Mk3 is more as a logical extension of Mk2, or that IA is OK with Mk2 with the condition of Mk3 coming up?

Have seen enough posts and counterposts on this topic over the years to not be sure of anything... Makes my head spin

^^^ Mk2 is something that Army wants as they say. Mk3 is some more upgrade, but may not be radically different from MK2 in structure, engine power etc. So, MK2 is the standard tank. Mk3 many not require extensive rework.

So, if 300 Mk2's are ordered, then another lot of 500 mk3 may be ordered. The orders may stagger that way. Who knows DRDO might deliver MK3 after 200 tanks.

However, the bulk ordering for say 700 tanks could be placed with mk2 as mk 3 is not radically different.

The bold question of mine has been answered.

The italics has been confirmed that Mod is just indenting and co-ordination with funding, production houses etc. The army applies for purchases. The cabinet approves. The MoD does the ordering on Army's behalf based on Army and Cabinet approvals.

If anyone thought the Eastern lobby was done - well here is proof its alive and kicking





But T 90 was so fantastic that we could bulk order it

I think Surya,that the original buy of T-90s to counter Pak's acquisition of T-80UDs is well accepted.Arjun was not ready at that time,we've had months of debate on this subject.As the report/members say,actual numbers being acquired/required is kept classified by the IA.Once a type is selected,a production/acquisition run is also anticipated,as with the MMRCA,120+ now and another 80+ estimated for which the numbers of T-90s were planned for.

The Q now is further production of Arjun and where if any are the required improvements to be made,which if so serious and need to be rectified/upgraded are affecting the IA decision impinging upon further large-scale production.Here.to clear the "fog of war",so to speak between the IA and DRDO,parliament's all-party standing committee on defence should enter the picture and establish for itself the true situation.This however requires that the MOD must remain objective and impartial.Someone must cut this Gordian knot.

Philip

its the second order that gets us.
One can understand the first order
but the second order was not necessary because the Arjun had clearedits issues by then

and once again the mysterious technical problems come out in a tank that beats the other tank which in spite of having defects has a huge order placed

IMO, Arjun MK3 will have an indigenous 1,500hp engine. So it may be at least 5 years away. In the meantime, IA should place a bulk order (500 units) for Mk.2 version as it meets it's requirements with 90 upgrades over the Mk.1 variant ... of course once Mk.2 R&D trials are completed that is.

The bold part is correct. The underline part is debatable. Surya is right when he says that we ordered T-90 with all its technical problems (even though the bold part is correct). Only advantage of first 300 order was ready to delivery from Russia.

The DRDO/MoD/Parliamentary committee is very much in picture. The second order was late. The time to deliver the second order is being used to demonstrate MK2. Army has said that it has problem with "bulk orders" and not "piece meal orders."

I will believe Gen VKS.

If there is a issue, trying to not accept it is counter productive.

Obviously mirages are not operated by IA, however IA and IAF have exactly same SoP with MoD.



Well even in your idealized picture, there is a Army request --> MoD proposal --> Cabinet approval --> MoD Order --> Army.

So even in the ideal world Army has a far smaller role in the procurement chain compared to civvies.

Now you are gratuitously assuming that MoD is simple, "army asked and we did" system.

Please, spend more time in South block is what I would say, at the very least.




Oh so all faults is Armys and all the hard work is Babus.

You really are a anti Army guy Chacko --> to put out a opinion which is 180 of reality.

The last Bold part: Thanks.

Army has a smaller role in procurement?

1) Need is given by Army to MoD, which floats RFI.
2) Requirement based on RFI is given to MoD by Army.
3) RFP is floated by MoD and Army evaluates and gives recommendation with preferences.
4) Its evaluated by agencies under MoD.
5) Price evaluation committee
6) Cabinet Nod
7) MoD asks for schedules based on requirements of Army and production houses delivery promises.
8 ) Purchase orders are issued by MoD, followed up.
9) Army gives feedback, which MoD incorporates based on its bureaucratic procedure.

Seems like the T-72 barrel is still remains a major issue , facing challenged yet to indigenous it.

Yes Army has a minuscule role in procurement, the real cycle is as follows.

For example in the above MoD does not float a RFI because Army has given it a need.

Army puts out a need,
first MoD decides whether the need is valid, this takes a few years. It then goes to Cabinet
Then the Cabinet/MoD decides whether the money for need is available (is there money, would this money be better spent on NRGEA, should there be more money asked for), this again take a few years.
Then MoD decides how the need will be best met (should we just buy from US and make everyone happy, or should we actually try and get the best equipment for the need yada yada) this takes another few years.
The acquisition process itself takes a few years.
Then army gets the toy.

So for a non political purchase (like C 17) an aquistion takes anywhere from 3-4 years. Minimum, in case of MRCA 15 years.

In terms of follow up order, the same rinse and repeat is done, but the cycle is shorter since some justification are already made in the past.

Now lets look at your cycle



Sorry there is a basic mistake here. What does "requirements based on RFI is given to MoD" mean?

First requirements come from IA then MoD issues a Request for Information. How can information be saught without knowing what information are you looking for.

This is just incorrect, not only proceduraly, but from a basic logical standpoint. You can ask for something without knowing what that something you are asking for is.

--------------

The following part is fine, however note, I am highlighting MoD and italizing Army



Even in your "ideal" cycle, count the occurrences of MoD and count the occurrences of Army.

Even according to you Army has a small role.

"Seems like the T-72 barrel is still remains a major issue , facing challenged yet to indigenous it."

I doubt it as we have metallurgical capability to indigeniously produce Arjun as well as T-90 barrel. T-72 barrel should not be any issue issue at all. In my opinion the procurement was initialized long ago even before we mastered the tech and govt. kept sitting over it for a long time. I feel that nobody bothered to recheck if the capability is existing inside the nation and the report was sent. It may be a case too that OFB's quality control was too poor.

I remember once my friend who was working in OFB (not is so distant future 2007) told me that a senior officer in OFB scolded his juniors over quality control after a lot was returned by army that "Bomb ka fuse to kaam karma chahiye, kya aap expect karate hain ki seema pe jawan hathora lekar bomb phodenge".

Rightly put. Apart from qulity the other issue which no one wants to speak is cost. There is no requirement for OFB to cut the cost of their " products" and it faces no competition. No wonder a bolt will cost 100 bucks.

Sanku,



cheers

Cheers Chacko!!

Just updating... If you think that Army involvement is low in its purchases, after you agreed on the order procedure mentioned after correction. It doesn't mean that I agree with you on that perception, as long as we agree on the fact.

Assuming that the above cycle reflects the reality:

(1)It is OK if MoD + Cabinet need to decide if the Army need is real but why do they take so many years to decide?

(2) It is OK if MoD + Cabinet need to decide whether the money for Army need is available but why do they take so many years to decide?

(3) It is OK if MoD decides how the need will be best met but why do they take so many years to decide?

(4) The acquisition process itself takes a few years – why do they take so many years to acquire?

By the time our army gets its toy it may have become obsolete or price may have gone up X times.

We really need to sharpen our procurement policy. We must ensure that our army

(1)gets the best possible weapons as quickly as possible at cheapest/affordable prices

(2)is well equipped against our adversaries

(3)is supplied with indigenous weapons as part of our self reliance policy

(4)contract sets out clear terms and deadlines and heavy financial penalties for any breach of contract. We need to learn from Admiral Gorshkov fiasco.

^^^^ You are fundamentally right on the need to crank up the acquisition process. If you look at historical perspective; till 2000, we didn't have required resources. So, it may not be "just' the acquisition procedure that's at fault.

Since 2000, Most decisions (except Artillery guns?) have been taken and is under implementation.

Hello Chacko;

These days your posts are getting SaiKsque, perhaps you might want to write when not in a hurry?

Meanwhile, if I understand you, you think that the process does not mean that IAs involvement in acquisition is low. Well all the chief tasks of order management are with MoD, and IA has tasks of threat perception, overall recommendation and trials and tests.

In that sense, yes IA involvement is "low" on power and control, even if high on "number of things they do"

Acquisition of arms is not something that has been a strategic priority, particularly when the Congress goes into the "spread out dole" mode. The eye is taken of the ball. The babus faithfully reflect the vision by being indifferent to it.

It basically comes to political vision.

IMO, All their tasks are cut. As mentioned few posts back, MoD orders as per Army's requirements.

A fact check

1. As per article by Ajai Shukla (Nov 2011) - there are no new indent for T-90s. Lack of ToT from Russia and/or QC issues with local production is causing problems.
2. There are no bulk orders of the Arjun Mk2/Mk3 even through most upgrades are only incremental (low to med risk). This considering the speed at which 90 odd changes for Mk2 been implemented.
3. Arjun productions lines are inactive. Per news on open media, the pre-production activities on Arjun would take 3 years from order date to start of production.

So at present there are no tanks getting added to the inventory.

1. Why is there no hurry shown by IA?
2. Do we have enough numbers as of now, factoring in losses maintenance, cannibalizing for part etc.
3. Is it that we have an overwhelming advantage wrto pakistan and tanks don't have much use in terrains bordering China? Is there no demand?

Its stuck in MoD.

I have never once mentioned the Arjun as a T-90 "replacement" in that post. Neither has anybody else on BRF or in DDM. Please look up the difference between "replacement" and "alternative". I'll give you an example. Say the IAF had been inducting the Gripen. Then the LCA would have been an "alternative" to the Gripen while both would have been "replacements" for the Mig-21.

Also there is this little revision of history being attempted by claiming that Arjun and T-90 compete only on BRF Well - only if one forgets that there was an actual competition between the two tanks a couple of years back, which the army (DGMF) tried its best to prevent from occuring (as a last resort they said one cannot compare a maruti with a mercedes). We all know the outcome of that little competition.

And why did DRDO insist on that competition? Because the DGMF had refused to order more than 124 Arjuns citing the reason that Arjun did not have a role in its 'operational doctrine'. DRDO's point was that how could operational doctrines envisage large scale induction of an inferior tank (relative to what was available)? Well now apparently operational doctrines have been slightly revised.

Now of course we are being told in 'Mandal quota' style - both are good and we will have 50:50 induction of each (of course the original Mandal commission only wanted a 49.5 % reservation )

The tanks are comparable except their roles or deployment patterns,
Its hard to deploy Arjun on East front because, the government has not developed suitable road infrastructure there, which leaves only Air transport as mode of rapid deployment(Road transportation of t-90 will be slow as well).
If we had good roads reaching east borders, we would be comparing the both tanks for sure.

Also if we keep aside the roles and deployment pattern, the tanks as war machines are comparable,, there is no harm in comparing accuracy, maneuverability etc.

That is not different for the T90 too. The East has a lot of places where tank ballets are probable. Maybe some one can come up with a comprehensive list of them.

tank battles with whom in the east?