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
Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1444
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Kersi D »

Will wrote:
SaiK wrote:Every other country's deal with IA is under scanner, except the big two cold-war enemies., especially the ever nexus-ed everything hidden under the scanner 70% market share erstwhile commies. How come? especially dealing with an indic group of well formed and organized to deal with any type of banana transactions?
Well I guess the Ruskies have the dope on all politicians across the Indian political spectrum.Remember during the cold war days the KGB was well embedded into the Indian system Thats why no one dares open their mouth against the Russians= No scandals. :mrgreen: :twisted:

Its the same with Uncle SAM nowdays me thinks. I wouldnt be surprised if most of the allegations that come out against companies of other countries are enginered by the Amrikis and the Ruskies.
:(( :(( :((
sarabpal.s
BRFite
Posts: 348
Joined: 13 Sep 2008 22:04

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by sarabpal.s »

What is the future of BMP2 in Indian army?
Here i find the upgrade of BMP.
Quite nice upgrade though i seen these many moon ago but still IA is not interested in it :arrow: IMHO.
We should look into this type upgrade and must do it to our BMPs because first of all has long Life cycles on the other hand they are formidable in it class . also licensed produced in India.
Russian brought the same BMP 2 concept in DEFexpo2012 albeit a model.but i dont think we need to look toward them for upgraded.we can himself do it (depend on term condition of license)
we can save billions with these upgraded rather than going totally retired them
UPGRADED
Will
BRFite
Posts: 637
Joined: 28 Apr 2011 11:27

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Will »

Wonder if they have evaluated the Israeli Trophy/Windbreaker system for the Arjun-MKII. Thats some cool system. The Israelis do come up with innovative systems to face the threats that they are surrounded with.
jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5727
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by jamwal »

Futuristic Infantry Combat Vehicle: Biggest Indigenous Defence Project]

The nearly $10 billion Indian Army’s Futuristic Infantry Combat Vehicle (FICV) project is already the largest indigenous defence programme. The FICV project has been classified under the "Buy & Make” category mentioned in Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP-2011). The vendors for Indian Army’s FICV project will be shortlisted on the basis of technical, functional and commercial aspects, and only local Indian firms can bid. However, local firms can opt for technology tie-ups with foreign companies. It will help develop a whole eco-system of small and medium sized companies as suppliers to the winners of the contract. The FICV development will provide a big boost to India’s pursuance of self-reliance and indigenisation in the form of a robust domestic defence industrial base.

The backbone of the Indian Army’s infantry combat vehicles is the Russian-designed BMP (‘Sarath’ BMP-II) series which are being made by Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) since its induction in 1980. Approximately, 1900 ICVs BMP-2/2K are in service with the Indian Army and are likely to remain operational till 2017. The Indian Army is worried about its operational capability, particularly in terms of rapid deployment post the 2017 scenario. Thus, the FICV project is a strategic and critical programme which will define Indian Army’s mobility, deployability and lethality in the future to come and its ability to execute its proactive strategy.
The FICV project envisages 70:30 allocations to the winner and the runners up of the contract with an 80:20 funding distribution by the Government and industry respectively. The Army has identified a need of nearly 2600 ICVs over 20 years with the following specifications:

a) Weight of around 20 tonnes so that it can be transported by air and other means
b) Strike power of a 45 tonne Main Battle Tank (MBT) including a rapid fire cannon, a 7.62 mm machine gun, grenade launcher and an anti-tank missile
c) To be operated by a three man crew consisting of the commander, gunner and driver with an additional capacity to carry seven fully equipped infantrymen
d) Fully amphibious and all terrain capability for high mobility to keep pace with armour
e) Buy and Make (Indian) category, open only to domestic firms
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by SaiK »

Why any futuristic machines have to be manned? I think we can utilize the space for more ammunition, and make the whole platform lot more lethal. remote controlled guns are the way to go.. one could fight war on tanks sitting in Bangalore or Ooty hills.
PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by PratikDas »

SaiK wrote:Why any futuristic machines have to be manned? I think we can utilize the space for more ammunition, and make the whole platform lot more lethal. remote controlled guns are the way to go.. one could fight war on tanks sitting in Bangalore or Ooty hills.
SaiK ji, it would be too easy to jam communications or even disable communications (with EMP) to a remote-controlled vehicle/tank which needs a continuous link for every manoeuvre.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Singha »

at best they can hope for something like CV90, but no way it can take on a MBT in a straight shooting match...the armour will be too thin to even withstand hesh or heat 120mm rounds. I hope one of the domestic contenders ties up with the CV90 makers and offers a incarnation.
sarabpal.s
BRFite
Posts: 348
Joined: 13 Sep 2008 22:04

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by sarabpal.s »

jamwal wrote:Futuristic Infantry Combat Vehicle: Biggest Indigenous Defence Project]

The nearly $10 billion Indian Army’s Futuristic Infantry Combat Vehicle (FICV) project is already the largest indigenous defence programme. The FICV project has been classified under the "Buy & Make” category mentioned in Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP-2011). The vendors for Indian Army’s FICV project will be shortlisted on the basis of technical, functional and commercial aspects, and only local Indian firms can bid. However, local firms can opt for technology tie-ups with foreign companies. It will help develop a whole eco-system of small and medium sized companies as suppliers to the winners of the contract. The FICV development will provide a big boost to India’s pursuance of self-reliance and indigenisation in the form of a robust domestic defence industrial base.

The backbone of the Indian Army’s infantry combat vehicles is the Russian-designed BMP (‘Sarath’ BMP-II) series which are being made by Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) since its induction in 1980. Approximately, 1900 ICVs BMP-2/2K are in service with the Indian Army and are likely to remain operational till 2017. The Indian Army is worried about its operational capability, particularly in terms of rapid deployment post the 2017 scenario. Thus, the FICV project is a strategic and critical programme which will define Indian Army’s mobility, deployability and lethality in the future to come and its ability to execute its proactive strategy.
The FICV project envisages 70:30 allocations to the winner and the runners up of the contract with an 80:20 funding distribution by the Government and industry respectively. The Army has identified a need of nearly 2600 ICVs over 20 years with the following specifications:

a) Weight of around 20 tonnes so that it can be transported by air and other means
b) Strike power of a 45 tonne Main Battle Tank (MBT) including a rapid fire cannon, a 7.62 mm machine gun, grenade launcher and an anti-tank missile
c) To be operated by a three man crew consisting of the commander, gunner and driver with an additional capacity to carry seven fully equipped infantrymen
d) Fully amphibious and all terrain capability for high mobility to keep pace with armour
e) Buy and Make (Indian) category, open only to domestic firms
Why we should not upgrade the BMP 2?
inducted in 80s still have another 20+ year of life.
it is 15 tonnes class more protection can be add locally(kanchan or ERA)
Engine with more power easily compensate wait gain(IA already looking for it)
Turrets can be upgrade with modern fire controls more modern ATGM add to fire power
a amphibious by birth
Already made in India confidently with various varieties.

No ICV really can take the role of MBT OF anyclass only mediums caliber gun can be accommodate on board(many shortcomings with big gun and light ICV)

FICV should be only for wheeled one at present (if any)
Looking at the current budget situation we should use the money wisely more on big guns for now
Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10390
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Yagnasri »

I remember there is some IFV design by name like abhay under development. What happend to that project? I wonder new forign mall with lot of mitai is going to be purchased after lot of develpment of Indian system.

winki uncle link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abhay_IFV

How come this project is not being followed now with finilizing the design and starting a production line.
Last edited by Yagnasri on 21 Nov 2012 13:01, edited 1 time in total.
krishnan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7342
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Location: 13° 04' N , 80° 17' E

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by krishnan »

It became a missile :mrgreen: waiting for its first test flight
Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10390
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Yagnasri »

edited the name yar. It is Abhay
mody
BRFite
Posts: 1362
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by mody »

Returned from trip to North Sikkim on Sunday. The roads in the area are quite poor and to my non-military eyes seemed like deployment of Armour in the sector was near impossible.

But then again, this is the Indian army we are talking about. If they could take tanks up Zozila pass in 1948, they sure can do much better in 2012.
Don't know if this should be public information or not and hence not sure how much to write.
The facts would be obvious to anyone visiting the place and also one gets to see the large buildup of the IA all along the routes as well.

Will try to post pictures of the roads and the area and give info about the IA in the area once I am sure I am not saying more then I should. Though being from a completely civilian background, not sure whom to ask, to make sure what can and cannot be said !!
krishnan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7342
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Location: 13° 04' N , 80° 17' E

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by krishnan »

When id doubt keep your mouth shut :mrgreen:
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by SaiK »

PratikDas wrote:
SaiK wrote:Why any futuristic machines have to be manned? I think we can utilize the space for more ammunition, and make the whole platform lot more lethal. remote controlled guns are the way to go.. one could fight war on tanks sitting in Bangalore or Ooty hills.
SaiK ji, it would be too easy to jam communications or even disable communications (with EMP) to a remote-controlled vehicle/tank which needs a continuous link for every manoeuvre.
mmm.. we are still thinking old ways.. when I meant remote-controlled, it does not mean the remote vehicle is without intelligence. many countries are R&Ding super duper algorithms, and model checking them currently.

not all communications can be jammed, btw... if we think out of the box, we have ways. just think about building all intelligent remote controlled vehicle sent to mars.. and you have only controls that can reach mars in 2 hours... so the vehicle is all alone for 2 hours without cNc.

another thought, is self-reconfiguration, intelligence to do all normal ops, except for emergencies, etc.

and another thought, is all communication need not be std.. burst mode, with least intercept logic. algorithms can change, and we can use dynamic encrypting mechanisms, with multiple band width spreads data comm.
sarabpal.s
BRFite
Posts: 348
Joined: 13 Sep 2008 22:04

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by sarabpal.s »

SaiK wrote: mmm.. we are still thinking old ways.. when I meant remote-controlled, it does not mean the remote vehicle is without intelligence. many countries are R&Ding super duper algorithms, and model checking them currently.

not all communications can be jammed, btw... if we think out of the box, we have ways. just think about building all intelligent remote controlled vehicle sent to mars.. and you have only controls that can reach mars in 2 hours... so the vehicle is all alone for 2 hours without cNc.

another thought, is self-reconfiguration, intelligence to do all normal ops, except for emergencies, etc.

and another thought, is all communication need not be std.. burst mode, with least intercept logic. algorithms can change, and we can use dynamic encrypting mechanisms, with multiple band width spreads data comm.
What you expect from Antony!
Finance is scarce. this time AI can be research only at private firm, DRDO have some research, but no spare personal or time or money to keep it going IMHO.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by SaiK »

^then drdo is not doing its job correct.. and again the topic is "futuristic".. so, if they are not specified and mandated, let them cancel the project right away. what is the point of planning without funds. what you are saying is out of assumptions and hearsay.. i doubt what you are saying is having truth. that kind of gov programs are not acceptable. this is not for some individual game plans. what we are talking is for the future, and for the nation security.. and i fully believe we have no other way than to advance. we cant just keep looking at china, and relating to them is some manner.

we have to look at other advanced nations, and see how much we can do, where and whats. of course, within certain quarters if you talk, you will be pulled down into thinking for the clouted groups. so, never get influenced when it comes for what we want to do for the future. after all, every such open discussion is what gets into larger game plan of the future.. so it is important, we all share some story line towards what is most acceptable and challenging for the future.
merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by merlin »

krishnan wrote:When id doubt keep your mouth shut :mrgreen:
Yeah, no pics or information when in doubt. Better safe than sorry.
sarabpal.s
BRFite
Posts: 348
Joined: 13 Sep 2008 22:04

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by sarabpal.s »

SaiK wrote:^then drdo is not doing its job correct.. and again the topic is "futuristic".. so, if they are not specified and mandated, let them cancel the project right away. what is the point of planning without funds. what you are saying is out of assumptions and hearsay.. i doubt what you are saying is having truth. that kind of gov programs are not acceptable. this is not for some individual game plans. what we are talking is for the future, and for the nation security.. and i fully believe we have no other way than to advance. we cant just keep looking at china, and relating to them is some manner.

we have to look at other advanced nations, and see how much we can do, where and whats. of course, within certain quarters if you talk, you will be pulled down into thinking for the clouted groups. so, never get influenced when it comes for what we want to do for the future. after all, every such open discussion is what gets into larger game plan of the future.. so it is important, we all share some story line towards what is most acceptable and challenging for the future.
PM->FM->DM->DRDO->scientist->Project->Product->end user Army
Now person in red is where the problem is.
DRDO doing fine but they need To fasten the projects so they keep pace with time for that they need more manpower more budget.
Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Vipul »

Army scuttles Arjun trials to push through T-90 purchase.

Top army generals are undermining India’s Arjun tank to push through a Rs 10,000 crore order for T-90MS tanks from Russia. Senior defence ministry (MoD) sources tell Business Standard that Arjun trials, proposed for the plains of Punjab, are being scuttled to prevent any high-profile Arjun success from jeopardising the import of more T-90s from Russia.

A proposal from the tank directorate for Arjun trials in Punjab has been placed on the backburner after instructions from the Military Operations (MO) Directorate. The powerful MO Directorate, more than any other branch of the army, deals directly with the army chief.

At stake here is the Rs 10,000 crore purchase of 354 new T-90MS tanks for six tank regiments for the China border. Business Standard had first reported the raising of these regiments (Sept 17, 2012, “In a first, Indian tank brigades to defend China border”). In the proposal that the government is considering for two tank brigades and a mountain strike corps, the army has put in the cost of 354 T-90MS tanks.

These new tanks will supplement the 1657 Russian T-90S, and 2414 T-72M tanks already deployed on the Pakistan border. So far, there are just 128 Arjun tanks in service, with an order for another 118 in the pipeline.

The army has denied that the MO Directorate is blocking any trials.

Even as the Arjun tank --- developed in India by the Defence R&D Organisation (DRDO) --- outperforms the T-90 in comparative trials held by the army, support for Russian tanks inexplicably grows. With the Arjun’s performance established, the army is now arguing that the 60-tonne Arjun is too heavy for the soft soil of Punjab and J&K; it must therefore be confined to the deserts of Rajasthan. That would mean that only 4-6 of the army’s 65 tank regiments can operate the Arjun tank.

The DRDO rebuts this logic, as do the tank units that actually operate the Arjun. “The Arjun’s heavier weight is distributed over a larger area because of its larger tracks. Its “nominal ground pressure” is lower than the Russian tanks. So the Arjun can actually move more easily in Punjab,” says S Sundaresh, the DRDO’s Chief Controller of R&D for armoured vehicles.

This is validated by history, says Lieutenant General (Retired) RM Vohra, who won a Mahavir Chakra in the 1971 war while commanding 4 HORSE, a tank regiment equipped with Centurion tanks. He says the 42-tonne Pakistani Patton M-48 tanks got mired in the soft soil of Asal Uttar, in Punjab, while the 51-tonne Centurion moved around that battlefield easily.

The T-90MS, a new, upgraded version of the T-90S that India bought in 2001, is regarded as well suited for the extreme cold of Ladakh, Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh, where the two new armoured brigades will operate. The Arjun, in contrast, is designed to withstand the heat of the Indian plains, where the T-90S has repeatedly malfunctioned in high temperatures. The T-90S now being built under license at the Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi, near Chennai, have proved less reliable than the Russia-built T-90S that were delivered initially.

“The army is justified in wanting the T-90MS for the China border. But it is wrong in scuttling the induction of the Arjun in Punjab and J&K. The Arjun must be given a fair chance. How can a Russian tank be given preference over an Indian one?” says a senior armoured corps general who is still in service.

The six tank regiments being bought for the China border will be divided between two armoured brigades, one located in Ladakh, and the other one in the north-east. Both sectors have valleys and plateaus in which China could attack with tanks. The new tank formation will safeguard these approaches and also provide a retaliatory capability in case of Chinese attack.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Singha »

DGMO truly seems like a club of russian loyalists for various reasons. seems to have "deep ties" from decades...always anti-arjun in posture.

imo the T90MS being of russi origin should work well in cold weather but not enough of a overmatch against the ZTZ99 and IFV combos coming in via tibet channels.
we need both the T90 and arjun in ladakh for sure, highest chances of a armour vs armour engagement there. backed by strong troop of WSI and LCH.
karan_mc
BRFite
Posts: 704
Joined: 02 Dec 2006 20:53

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by karan_mc »

Arjun is like a Child born out of a wedlock between Indian army and DRDO , India should reverse engineer T-90 or make illegal copy of it and give it to Army has imports they will still love it even if copies are not up to standards .
Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2931
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Vivek K »

Corruption is stifling any chance of India developing into a stronger military power. If GOI cannot tackle this culture corruption then 62 will be repeated again.
vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1658
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by vasu raya »

Chinese for all their posturing against US, ape it to the letter 't', watch the grease monkeys and their antics on the carrier video in the Chinese mil thread, if they build a Abrams sized tank likewise suitable for Tibet then the reactionary IA will probably take notice of Arjun
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 »

While the reaction to the Arjun program is on expected lines, I don't get the logic given by AS on two counts:

1. How is the requirement for Chinese border in North and North-East for new tanks related to the trials of Arjun tank in Punjab or J&K? While I can understand the overall impact on import of new T-90 being questioned with success of Arjun in Punjab/J&K, I cannot understand the specific link-up with 2 x (I) Armored Brigades theory.

2. And what's with it must therefore be confined to the deserts of Rajasthan. That would mean that only 4-6 of the army’s 65 tank regiments can operate the Arjun tank. - this is complete nonsense.

- The whole 31 Armored Division of 21 Corps along with its RAPID and (I) Armored+Mechanized Bde of 12 Corps will fight in the desert. In addition to that, 1 Corps and 10 Corps under SW Command should also be milling around in South Punjab/North Rajasthan+ Central Rajasthan Area - Last I checked, this is eminently tank warfare country.

The whole damn Southern Command can be converted to Arjun if the army wants it to happen.
Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Katare »

rohitvats wrote:While the reaction to the Arjun program is on expected lines, I don't get the logic given by AS on two counts:

1. How is the requirement for Chinese border in North and North-East for new tanks related to the trials of Arjun tank in Punjab or J&K? While I can understand the overall impact on import of new T-90 being questioned with success of Arjun in Punjab/J&K, I cannot understand the specific link-up with 2 x (I) Armored Brigades theory.

2. And what's with it must therefore be confined to the deserts of Rajasthan. That would mean that only 4-6 of the army’s 65 tank regiments can operate the Arjun tank. - this is complete nonsense.

- The whole 31 Armored Division of 21 Corps along with its RAPID and (I) Armored+Mechanized Bde of 12 Corps will fight in the desert. In addition to that, 1 Corps and 10 Corps under SW Command should also be milling around in South Punjab/North Rajasthan+ Central Rajasthan Area - Last I checked, this is eminently tank warfare country.

The whole damn Southern Command can be converted to Arjun if the army wants it to happen.
For Point 1, I think since money is limited that Rs10K corer (or part of it) can be used to buy Arjuns and send some of the existing T90 regiments to China borders. This is a good opportunity to spend money on home grown stuff rather than load up on more of foreign maal.

For Point 2, He may be thinking of absolute minmum arjuns regiments that army will only deploy at Rajasthan, T90s can be deployed every where. So by that thinking of army, if it is true, they can limit the number of Arjuns to a few regiments and MoD/DRDO will have to buy it. What can through cold water on this sales pitch is "dramatic results from arjun trials at Punjab" which are being blocked by MO to protect T90s procurement interests
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by SaiK »

I think we need a war to prove a point on tanks.
pentaiah
BRFite
Posts: 1671
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by pentaiah »

Arjun is incorrectly named
Should have been names Karna

1 Karna has Kanchn armor built in
2 Karna was born to illegitimate mother out if her wish to have a son like Sun
just like IA wish kunti wish was not legitimate to be like a virgin and yet be Madonna
3 IA never liked DRDO doing nothing but making tall promises
Why do you think DRDO names Advanced?
They will advance the delivery to future date

First make a engine
Be it Tank
Be it aircraft
Be it ship
Then integrate into the welding business
Of chassis
The welding has synergies with a sub building
Welders and or welents not good for Sub building should go tank building
Or tank building

The list can go on and on and on

A proven junk is better than promised junk
Not because of inability to make but the attitudes and management
But importantly commitment and pride are comensurte to see results
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Karan M »

Pentaiah, little point in requesting you to not repeat the same litany of complaints in every topic, I presume? We've read it before sir.

As regards Arjun & T-90, this comment "proven junk better than promised junk", are you aware about the problems being faced by the T-90s in India, and how "proven" they really are as versus the Arjun which outperformed them in trials literally forced down a reluctant DGMF's throat.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by SaiK »

Singha wrote:..
Russian Ambassador to India Alexander M Kadakin broke away from diplomatic protocol to touch Advani's feet when he reach the latter's residence to wish him...
Vodka - T90 special edition perhaps.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=19773
the army is now arguing that the 60-tonne Arjun is too heavy for the soft soil of Punjab and J&K; it must therefore be confined to the deserts of Rajasthan. That would mean that only 4-6 of the army’s 65 tank regiments can operate the Arjun tank.
so punjab is full of slush? Earth can't take 60tonne arjun is a joke! what a load of crap... soft soil of punjab and j&k. broad day light lie.

while m1 abrahams of 70tonne above can perform in loose soils of afpak and middle eastern desserts, but arjuns are complete failure in more stable soil regions of desh.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Austin »

Under the skin the T-90MS is virtually a new tank with true H&K capability and every thing new barring its name ..perhaps its a good idea to upgrade the remaining lic produced T-90S to MS standard then order more ...or may be ordering some number is a prerequisite to lic build the remaining T-90 to new standard
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Karan M »

Apart from the fire control system what else is new in terms of HK capability?
A so called BMS which will have issues in fleet wide deployment because India is deploying its own BMS which is to be integrated with F-INSAS/CIDSS?

The basic TI/FCS on the base T-90S never worked to India's satisfaction and a new fangled system is to be procured for the new T-90s which is yet to be proven in trials? If this is not farce, what is?

Seriously, this keystone farce from the Army is no longer funny. Folks need to be held accountable.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sanku »

rohitvats wrote:While the reaction to the Arjun program is on expected lines, I don't get the logic given by AS on two counts:

The whole damn Southern Command can be converted to Arjun if the army wants it to happen.

.
There is a difference between being pro Arjun and being anti T 90. As you correctly pointed out, there is plenty of space for both. Shook Law here, seems more interested in making sure that the services requirements get stalled (MMRCA, tanks) -- unless the supplier name happens to be a spelt with Capital B, followed by a o, etc, and failing that some where else located in the west. (either full or subsystem)
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 »

With the Arjun’s performance established, the army is now arguing that the 60-tonne Arjun is too heavy for the soft soil of Punjab and J&K; it must therefore be confined to the deserts of Rajasthan. That would mean that only 4-6 of the army’s 65 tank regiments can operate the Arjun tank.
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: .
So proof of pudding is eating innit ? Put both the tanks on mobility trials with a neutral overseer /umpire for the trial (get an IAF /IN observer to oversee the trials along with MoD folks, dont trust the IA on this at all after the previous sabotage!) . Fully loaded TinCans and Fully loaded Arjuns (max weights confirmed by going on the nearest highway weigh scale closeby and print outs taken, then top up all tanks) and let them run around in the flooded fields and marsh of the Punjab Doab and also the riverine areas of Jammu. Then after the A** whopping the Tincans will get, the army will invent more "reasons" like the one below!
The T-90MS, a new, upgraded version of the T-90S that India bought in 2001, is regarded as well suited for the extreme cold of Ladakh, Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh, where the two new armoured brigades will operate. The Arjun, in contrast, is designed to withstand the heat of the Indian plains, where the T-90S has repeatedly malfunctioned in high temperatures.
:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
You've got to hand it to the fertile imagination of the Natashas and their shamefaced double standards. All along they were bashing the Arjun saying that it lacked "strategic flexibility" (whatever that means), but with the C-17 buy, the Arjun+ C-17 combo is lot lot more "strategically flexible" than the Tincan + IL-76 combo will EVER be. Now that canard has been laid to rest, then they start off on another one ( about how Tincan is allegedly "better" suited for cold weather.. as if a cold weather pack for the Arjun is out of the world to procure and fit in a jiffy from Unkil or the Oieroes or to do it ourselves)

But the sheer brazenness of the Natashas take the cake. Now the Tin cans if you go by the "logic" perform well only in cold weather , but fail repeated in the hot plains. So where is the "Strategic Flexibility" of the Tincans ?

What is Sauce for the Goose is Sauce for the Gander onree no ? So how come no one talks of "Strategic Flexibility" of the Tincans that if they spend their entire life sitting in the high himalayas are a terrible waste and will crimp flexibility and force planning overall.. If the Tincans are useless in the plains and if we get into a shooting match with the Pakis, you cant pull those out of the mountains and deploy them in the plains!
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Karan M »

Sanku wrote:There is a difference between being pro Arjun and being anti T 90. As you correctly pointed out, there is plenty of space for both. Shook Law here, seems more interested in making sure that the services requirements get stalled (MMRCA, tanks) -- unless the supplier name happens to be a spelt with Capital B, followed by a o, etc, and failing that some where else located in the west. (either full or subsystem)
Given there is no company with a B followed by an O etc competing for the T-90 replacement, what you have posted is not factual as far as the tanks are concerned.
As regards the MMRCA, he is not the only one to hold the view that the IAF should have held out with more Sukhois, upgrades, LCA and then directly jumped onto an all 5G bandwagon with the JSF, FGFA and AMCA.
Like it or not, the JSF is likely to have the Eurocanards (and the Chinese aircraft in development today) for lunch - if it comes anywhere near specs. Only issue though, and one on which Shukla can justifiably be called on - is whether the JSF would be available anywhere near the timelines India needs for urgent acquisition.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Austin »

Karan M wrote:Apart from the fire control system what else is new in terms of HK capability?
A so called BMS which will have issues in fleet wide deployment because India is deploying its own BMS which is to be integrated with F-INSAS/CIDSS?
Armour Relitk which is many time stronger then K-5 , New FCS Kalina with very high kill probabilty , Catherine FC & Catherine XP TI , More powerful engine , new transmission , BMS , 360 * protection , Newer Gun 2A46M5 ( Indian T-90S uses 2A46M1/2 same as T-72 ) older guns cant fire newer 3BM59/3BM60 rounds , Isolation of Crew from open Ammo , MRS

T-90MS is virtually a new tanks under older name....Much like Mig-35 is as different from Mig-29
RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5620
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by RoyG »

^^Oh I see...so it's more like Arjun!
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sanku »

Karan M wrote: Given there is no company with a B followed by an O etc competing for the T-90 replacement, what you have posted is not factual as far as the tanks are concerned.
The overall pitch is clear, T 90 and Arjun are entirely a "collateral damage" to this exercise. Once the direction is set, the other things align.

I think there is misplaced belief by some posters that Arjun is being written about because there is concern for Arjun. Something needs to be written at all times, and the writings need overall alignment with a world view.

As regards the MMRCA, he is not the only one to hold the view that the IAF should have held out with more Sukhois, upgrades, LCA and then directly jumped onto an all 5G bandwagon with the JSF, FGFA and AMCA.
True, except that in his case tune changed immediately AFTER the teens were thrown out, humiliatingly. Not before.
- is whether the JSF would be available anywhere near the timelines India needs for urgent acquisition.
That is one facet, the other facet is the way he changed his tune. There are other issues, yet uncertain, of weapons purchases from US in general, with the alphabet soup treaties and such like (bad enough for support equipment -- but for the main stay of cutting edge?) -- let us proceed with the Apaches, and see whether that works out before we bet the barn, shouldnt we?
Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1444
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Kersi D »

Austin wrote:
Karan M wrote:Apart from the fire control system what else is new in terms of HK capability?
A so called BMS which will have issues in fleet wide deployment because India is deploying its own BMS which is to be integrated with F-INSAS/CIDSS?
Armour Relitk which is many time stronger then K-5 , New FCS Kalina with very high kill probabilty , Catherine FC & Catherine XP TI , More powerful engine , new transmission , BMS , 360 * protection , Newer Gun 2A46M5 ( Indian T-90S uses 2A46M1/2 same as T-72 ) older guns cant fire newer 3BM59/3BM60 rounds , Isolation of Crew from open Ammo , MRS

T-90MS is virtually a new tanks under older name....Much like Mig-35 is as different from Mig-29
T-90MS is virtually a new tank,

So T 90 was something souped up ???

When did Russia develop T-90MS ? It appears that T-90MS appeared as soon as Arjun Mk 2 came on the scene.

Coincidence ? B@#%%^S !!
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sanku »

RoyG wrote:^^Oh I see...so it's more like Arjun!
Yes except that the Russian also teach Avadi how to manufacture it and therefore a working product is in IA service.

This is not unlike the INSAS saga being discussed in the small arms thread.

If we cant get the OFBs to robustly manufacture small arms, given that ALL the pieces are available, isnt tanks a stretch (rhetorically speaking)? Isnt there a fundamental reason for the Tatra "indgenisation" saga? The Brahmos manufacturing units have their own issues in the setup.

These are all linked. And can not be solved by blaming IA. Unless of course, these are handed over to IA directly, some what like Naval shipyards, and even then, despite being better, their delivery records are not quite stellar.

Unless some one has a fix for a working manufacturing establishment, which coupled with a design department which is responsive, churns out prototypes and final products at a rapid clip, with changes being incorporated quickly, there is no point asking the forces to use Indian products.

Today, if IA wants a small change, this seems to become a reason to spend 5 more years on the drawing board, 5 more years to make the prototype and 5 further years to actually get it working in a LSP.

By which time of course a guaranteed order of 1000 units is must, and no changes will be entertained.

This really can not continue, it is simply unacceptable (irrespective of whose fault it is)
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 »

Sanku wrote:There is a difference between being pro Arjun and being anti T 90.
But , Maharaj Ji, where is the actual testing of the Tincan 90 MS in the conditions of Ladhak, Sikkim etc, in the extreme cold and summers.

You just take the brochuritis that it actually works (just because it is cold in Russia as well), Krasnapol for eg, failed miserably in the Himalayas (it may work in Russia). So, where and when did the T-90 MS go through all the testing and hoops and loops that the Arjun will be made to run through for "proof" that it works at Ladhak and Sikkim.

Or is the answer really really very simple. All that the DRDO can offer the brass is a poori bhaji /idli sambar out of their canteens on a visit, while the Natashas offer cold cash and warm cuddly Natashas (case in point Vik Ad) . Maybe, the DRDO should appoint their "agents" to deal with the brass and all deals will be closed just as promptly as it is done with the Natashas!
Yes except that the Russian also teach Avadi how to manufacture it and therefore a working product is in IA service.
Huh ? :shock: This MS (mega sh*t) is in no one's service, including the Russians. Now Sanku Maharaj Ji has decided that it is a "working product" in IA service ? All it exists now is in some untested and unproven form waiting for sucker to buy it and become a guinea pig.
Post Reply