Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 21 Apr 2014 17:03

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4280 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 ... 107  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 12:40 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58
Posts: 4315
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 13:05 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31
Posts: 10202
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 13:11 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10
Posts: 2328
^^Oh I see...so it's more like Arjun!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 13:37 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Posts: 12321
Location: In a sad place
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.


Quote:
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.

Quote:
- 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?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 13:37 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31
Posts: 1158
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 !!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 13:44 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Posts: 12321
Location: In a sad place
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)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 13:47 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Posts: 4293
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists
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!

Quote:
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 13:54 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Posts: 12321
Location: In a sad place
vina wrote:
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!


Vina, many half truths in the above ideological pov. For example the issue with Krasonopol was that it was used in a different altitude than designed for. Yet it was for better or for worse the only system. It was purchased during Kargil in a hurry. So net net very different circumstances. It has basically no impact on the current situation.

Furthermore, T 90s were tested, and will be tested, issues will be found and fixed and turned around quickly, as has been the track record so far. Finally manufactured tanks will be seen in IA quickly too.

As of now there is no reason to believe that T 90s will NOT go through the whole 9 yards before a decision is taken, either which way (note no decision yet, only Shook law getting worked up in advance) Just because he has decided to go on his personal vendetta -- does not make is ill informed outpourings true. -- It is not US-MMS pappi jhappi and purchases to justify the "strategic" relationship based on the 123 we are talking about here. UPA has significantly managed to spoil relationships with Russia, despite the institutional closeness, and continuing help, and no political will exists for doing deals with Russia (unlike say US)

The obvious logical fallacy in his article was already pointed to by Rohit -- so I really dont see any reason to take this seriously.


Last edited by Sanku on 27 Nov 2012 00:02, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 13:57 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Posts: 12321
Location: In a sad place
vina wrote:
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.


Vina, dearest, you should actually read, before revealing the combination of ignorance and bias coupled with a foul mouth.

If you did read, you would realize that the above para had nothing to do with the specific version of T 90 but with the overall processes of T 90 induction in IA vs Arjun induction and issues therein.

But of course, I am expecting too much once more am I not?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 14:03 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Posts: 4293
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists
Sanku wrote:
For example the issue with Krasonopol was that it was used in a different altitude than designed for.

Ah. Now I see. T-90 was designed not for the use in the plains of Eastern Europe ,but actually for the Himalayan heights. So , this wont fail like the Kransapol and the Indian Army can just go ahead and induct 400000000 copies of T-90 MS. However, since the Arjun is meant for the plains of Western India, it will fail in the Himalayas definitely and we don't even need to trial it there.
:lol: :lol:

Quote:
Yet it was for better or for worse the only system. It was purchased during Kargil in a hurry. So net net very different circumstances

Indeed. Now since there is no "hurry" and the T-90 MS is designed specifically for the Himalayas, we can go ahead with all speed and buy 400000 of them, and oh, also make sure that we dont let any pesky Arjuns in the Punjab and Jammu theaters as that will cut into our Himalayan optimized T-90 MS purchases.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 14:07 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Posts: 12321
Location: In a sad place
vina wrote:
Sanku wrote:
For example the issue with Krasonopol was that it was used in a different altitude than designed for.

Ah. Now I see. T-90 was designed not for the use in the plains of Eastern Europe ,but actually for the Himalayan heights. So , this wont fail like the Kransapol and the Indian Army can just go ahead and induct 400000000 copies of T-90 MS. However, since the Arjun is meant for the plains of Western India, it will fail in the Himalayas definitely and we don't even need to trial it there.
:lol: :lol:

Quote:
Yet it was for better or for worse the only system. It was purchased during Kargil in a hurry. So net net very different circumstances

Indeed. Now since there is no "hurry" and the T-90 MS is designed specifically for the Himalayas, we can go ahead with all speed and buy 400000 of them, and oh, also make sure that we dont let any pesky Arjuns in the Punjab and Jammu theaters as that will cut into our Himalayan optimized T-90 MS purchases.


I dont think even you have the first clue as to what the above mismash of pet peeves divorced from the real world reality is supposed to mean.

You have been informed about factual inaccuracies in your random posts before, however, instead of choosing to correct the approach you come with with gems like above. Perhaps you forget that this is not a political debate where unfortunately bluster passes for meaningful content.

Till such time you can figure out what you want to say, bye bye.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 14:10 
Online
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13
Posts: 5333
RIP Arjun,

It was nice to have known you.

Congratulations to the IA for buying the next in series of Russian super tank.

The IA will be better served if they chose T XYZ for the FMBT. Rather then wasting Indian taxpayer money on developing domestic FMBT.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 14:31 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Posts: 4293
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists
Sanku wrote:
Perhaps you forget that this is not a political debate where unfortunately bluster passes for meaningful content

Ok. Since you are for "meaningful content", can you please explain how/ why a "Correct altitude for Himalayas & cold weather optimized" (your reasons) T-90 has "Strategic Flexibility" , while the Arjun doesn't.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 15:06 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Posts: 12321
Location: In a sad place
vina wrote:
Sanku wrote:
Perhaps you forget that this is not a political debate where unfortunately bluster passes for meaningful content

Ok. Since you are for "meaningful content", can you please explain how/ why a "Correct altitude for Himalayas & cold weather optimized" (your reasons) T-90 has "Strategic Flexibility" , while the Arjun doesn't.


Actually still off the mark. So far I have not even defended the purchase, let alone talk about the specific point.

I think the entire article is bogus -- if T 90s are indeed being purchased for the mountain corps, they can be debated, however not in context of this article, which is full of totally amazing statements like

Quote:
ts “nominal ground pressure ...

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.


Centurion Ground pressure: 0.95kg/sq.cm.
M 48 Patton Ground pressure: 0.88kg/sq.cm.

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/we ... atton.html
http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/we ... urion.html

So perhaps he can tell us how his "ground pressure theory" (which btw is obviously correct :roll: ) is validated by showing a example which goes the other way (or at least are similar best case)

He must have been hoping for a receptive audience tuned to his level of thought process so that he could get away with it.
:rotfl:

In Asal Uttar, the reason why Patton got trapped were because the Indian deliberately broke the canal and made the area slushy and the Paki's were lured in the kill zone. The Indians obviously did not move into the slush and stood back and picked them off.

Let us discuss the tanks for mountain corps as and when we get more info, from more credible sources.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 15:10 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Posts: 12321
Location: In a sad place
Not only does the article has serious logical inconsistencies, a few facts that it offers (apart from those from his ONE special source) -- cant be gotten right.

If we have to dhoti shiver, I at least propose we do it over the photo-shopped pics of Chinese junk. This is of even lower standard.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 15:25 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19
Posts: 3101
Location: छिछला पानी में (In shallow waters)
Another important point is more Arjun MBTs can aid in reinforcing future requirements, made in India, and also from strike corps future all around.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 16:02 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 23419
Location: NowHere
^that is where the problem is .. This is not a small thing on this exposure. Arjun not suitable on lose soil and is built for cold regions is funniest argument any buyer type can say [was t90s peachy on rajasthan trials with no heating problems?]. those who argue for it must hand their heads in shame. It is not about IA uses T90MS.. it is all about ignoring Arjun, and going for wholesale T90... baffling., and exposed!..[more than laughing stock] and now we want the truth, not just the order.

on the same lines, we need CAG to investigate on T90s. need to invoke RTI!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 22:52 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10
Posts: 2328
Sanku wrote:
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)


While I agree with you that OFB needs to step aside, we currently have a superior tank in service which was clearly demonstrated in the competitive trials. It's only logical to induct it in greater numbers and phase out the tin can. Russia isn't particularly well known for its quality. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at by bringing in the example of Russia teaching us how to manufacture it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 26 Nov 2012 23:36 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Posts: 12321
Location: In a sad place
RoyG wrote:
While I agree with you that OFB needs to step aside,\


I am not necessarily saying that OFB has to step aside, that is one solution, but there is also a possibility that OFBs are reformed. (yes I am an optimist) -- basically net net, the need is to realize that the volume manufacturing of defense supplies is part of a puzzle that we don't have have a good solution for, and we need solutions for (multiple solutions exist)

Quote:
we currently have a superior tank in service which was clearly demonstrated in the competitive trials. It's only logical to induct it in greater numbers and phase out the tin can.


How? If we cant manufacture it in greater numbers, how can we induct it? This is the part where it becomes "chicken and egg"

Quote:
Russia isn't particularly well known for its quality. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at by bringing in the example of Russia teaching us how to manufacture it.


That unfortunately is the tragedy, that the Russians who are not known for quality, can still put together an assembly line (with toolings, jigs and fixtures) for a MBT that we, more quality conscious, can not.

When Russia does a Tech transfer for a product (Su 30, Brahmos, T 90s, pick you fav system etc) -- part of the deal is that they put together a full system for production of the same in India (almost all pieces, some times some critical pieces are not part of contract) -- that assembly/manufacturing line, "works". Further, they also pass the know how for upgrades as and when they happen (for a price)

All this is true, and is a part of "teaching us to manufacture" -- that is why Avadi despite its stellar work ethic, can roll out T 90s, but cant figure out how to manufacture Arjun's effectively. Plus any change in design, nearly cripples the manufacturing system as they figure out how to roll in the design change into the prototype (let alone mass production)

It is not good enough for CVRDE to put together a blue print, blue prints are not what get fielded, we need to fix the manufacturing engineering part of the puzzle.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Nov 2012 00:02 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Posts: 1796
Location: Learning Advanced Tactics in Hindoo Terrorism from Sh. Sushilkumar Shinde
Sanku wrote:
How? If we cant manufacture it in greater numbers, how can we induct it? This is the part where it becomes "chicken and egg"


Where are the big orders saar so that we can manufacture in great numbers and induct them ???

Sanku wrote:
It is not good enough for CVRDE to put together a blue print, blue prints are not what get fielded, we need to fix the manufacturing engineering part of the puzzle.


Production and quality control is a big pain in the a$$ no matter which country although I agree that we can do much better in this area and we will eventually.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Nov 2012 00:14 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Posts: 12321
Location: In a sad place
Sagar G wrote:
Where are the big orders saar so that we can manufacture in great numbers and induct them ???


They have shown immense difficulty in even making small numbers of Arjun, with a multiple slippages and delays and long turn around times for defect rectification, and have shown no indication that they can make the even T series without a lot of help.

Some bigger orders that came their way was for T 72 upg package and overhaul contracts.

Quote:
Production and quality control is a big pain in the a$$ no matter which country although I agree that we can do much better in this area and we will eventually.


Yes, quality manufacturing is a non trivial task, apart from factory management, manufacturing engineering skills are needed aplenty (metallurgy etc) -- I am not saying that this is "trivial" by any means.

However, we are forced to accept that from the destoryers at GRSE, to INSAS to Arjun at Avadi, we are being repeatedly let down by OFBs in a nearly criminal manner.

Also the OFBs can not claim that it is a hard problem and therefore not deliver, other countries do, and even if they don't, it does not matter, since they need to fulfill the services requirement.

In the end, the final issue is that the services dont get what they asked for and is promised to them by the the Mil-Ind complex -- with the promised quality and the promised timelines.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Nov 2012 00:36 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Posts: 1796
Location: Learning Advanced Tactics in Hindoo Terrorism from Sh. Sushilkumar Shinde
Sanku wrote:
They have shown immense difficulty in even making small numbers of Arjun, with a multiple slippages and delays and long turn around times for defect rectification, and have shown no indication that they can make the even T series without a lot of help.

Some bigger orders that came their way was for T 72 upg package and overhaul contracts.


The important thing is that they have delivered on Arjun come what may have been the problem in the beginning and sir T series is not even of Indian origin and it is pretty well documented how hardball Russia played when it came to ToT and didn't IA go to DRDO to deliver on the T90 barrel when Russia was busy arm twisting ??? The article is not clear about why the T 90 manufactured in Avadi is less reliable is the problem with the manufacturing process in Avadi or due to some incomplete ToT. Unless the facts don't come out I don't think it's right to blame Avadi.


Sanku wrote:
However, we are forced to accept that from the destoryers at GRSE, to INSAS to Arjun at Avadi, we are being repeatedly let down by OFBs in a nearly criminal manner.

Also the OFBs can not claim that it is a hard problem and therefore not deliver, other countries do, and even if they don't, it does not matter, since they need to fulfill the services requirement.

In the end, the final issue is that the services dont get what they asked for and is promised to them by the the Mil-Ind complex -- with the promised quality and the promised timelines.


I can offer no hope or explanation to you on these issue till the system which governs our mil ind complex changes. Until that doesn't happen we will keep crawling like this only.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Nov 2012 00:50 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Posts: 12321
Location: In a sad place
Sagar G wrote:
The important thing is that they have delivered on Arjun come what may have been the problem in the beginning


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?

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?

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?

Quote:
The article


Which article? Shukla's? That article is a piece of poorly digested effluence. There is nothing of merit there, a mishmash of innuendo and incorrect facts (such as Patton has higher ground pressure than centurion). The real world data is elsewhere (see below point)

Quote:
Unless the facts don't come out I don't think it's right to blame Avadi.


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.


Sanku wrote:
I can offer no hope or explanation to you on these issue till the system which governs our mil ind complex changes. Until that doesn't happen we will keep crawling like this only.


That is precisely the problem -- at least we on BRF should know what the real issues are.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Nov 2012 01:12 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10
Posts: 2328
Quote:
Quote:
we currently have a superior tank in service which was clearly demonstrated in the competitive trials. It's only logical to induct it in greater numbers and phase out the tin can.


How? If we cant manufacture it in greater numbers, how can we induct it? This is the part where it becomes "chicken and egg"


Why would OFB expand infra if they aren't guaranteed orders? "Chicken and the egg" makes no sense.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Nov 2012 06:57 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 30602
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
we can outsource the manufacture of Arjuns to T90 factory in Russia if scaling is a concern here. for a order like 1000+ which T90 is blessed with from birth , even a pvt automotive player would be willing to create a assembly line and supply complete modules for OFB to bolt together and slap on the "made in OFB" sticker.

T90 is like the Yuvaraj - blessed with no job, but high support and SPG cover from birth!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Nov 2012 08:30 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 24 May 2009 23:07
Posts: 333
Bad news for Natasha Lobby if this is going to be true :rotfl:
Army proposes to scrap Future Main Battle Tank: instead build successive models of the Arjun
Quote:
The indigenous project to build a Future Main Battle Tank (FMBT) is being quietly buried by the army. Instead, the army’s tank directorate has proposed keeping faith with the home grown Arjun tank, while incrementally improving it into the future backbone of the army’s strike forces.

Senior army sources tell Business Standard that the Directorate General of Mechanised Forces (DGMF), which oversees the army’s tank force, has formally proposed that the Arjun be gradually improved through successive models --- Mark II, Mark III, Mark IV and so on --- rather than attempting a major technological leap into the unknown, which is what the FMBT would be.

On Dec 06, 2010, Defence Minister AK Antony had informed parliament that the “FMBT is likely to be developed by the year 2020.” He said the army had already conceptualised its requirements and the DRDO was carrying out a feasibility study.

Now, by consensus between the DRDO and the DGMF, the future of indigenous tank building is to flow from the Arjun. Two Arjun regiments, consisting of 128 tanks, are already in frontline service. And a Mark II version of the Arjun is undergoing trials in Rajasthan. The army has committed to buying 118 Arjun Mark II tanks after trials are successfully concluded.

These orders for just 246 Arjuns are insignificant, complains a senior DRDO official, given that the army fields about 4000 tanks. To evolve the Arjun through successive models, the army would have to operate the tank in larger numbers and cooperate closely with the DRDO. This, says the DRDO official, would require a mindshift amongst senior army generals who tend to favour imports.

Three important realizations drive the DGMF’s new proposal. Firstly, there is growing acceptance of the Arjun, after its strong performance in field trials. Secondly, the need for an industrial “eco-structure” for providing spares and maintenance backup for the Arjuns that are already operating. This would come up only if a viable number of tanks are in service. Finally, the DGMF believes that there are no recent breakthrough technologies in armoured vehicle design, which eliminates the logic for building an entirely new tank.

This DGMF decision not to develop an FMBT stems from the difficulty it faced in drawing up specifications for the new tank. A key hurdle was in reconciling the need for a four-man tank crew (like the Arjun, and unlike Russian tanks that have a three-man crew) with the simultaneous wish for a lighter tank that weighed not more than 50-tonnes. The 60-tonne-plus Arjun has been criticised as too heavy.

Says a key general: “All contemporary three-man-crew tanks weigh 50-tonnes, like those being built by South Korea, Turkey and Japan. Adding a fourth crew member also adds roughly 10-tonnes of weight, due to increase in the tank size and weight of armour. But we were asking for a 50-tonne FMBT that would have a four-man crew. It just didn’t add up.”

Meanwhile, Israel Military Industries (IMI), which provides consultancy to the DRDO on tank design, has advised that the Arjun could be gradually pared down to below 60 tonnes, from the 65 tonnes of the current Arjun Mark II.

In a 2008 seminar, organized by the DGMF, Israeli Major General Yossi Ben-Hanan --- an acclaimed tank designer who fathered Israel’s successful Merkava tank --- told an attentive audience that tank design is evolutionary, each design building upon the previous one. The Israelis began designing their Merkava Mark-1 MBT in 1970; today they have the world class Merkava Mark-4.

The DGMF’s proposal to scrap the FMBT indicates that it has bought into the concept of evolutionary development. The Arjun Mark II, which is currently undergoing field trials in Rajasthan, has 79 improvements over the Mark I that is in service. These include: the ability to fire an anti-tank guided missile (ATGM); a panoramic electro-optical sight for the commander; an improved suspension; and an auxiliary generator for powering the Arjun’s electricals when the main engine is not running.

The army has not responded to an emailed request for comments for this article.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Nov 2012 10:29 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 07 Jun 2012 20:26
Posts: 1735
Location: Chaprasi and Bawarchi third gilass, South East corner, aka Agneya
I am perplexed by the above
It just means instead o starting from scratch afresh
Arjun variants are to be made

Natasha only gets strengthend wit this
Because the need is now an derivatives may arrive in future
So lets buy now and make them later

A new joint sector plant under new management with fixed budget and firm date to start
Delivery should be one option

It does not men end of abandon but competition

Arjun is a patch work of multiple sources of subsystems and material sources
Like MTU for engine
Gun barrel from Russia
Transmission from Germany

Armor from Midhami
Etc
Etc


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Nov 2012 11:27 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58
Posts: 4315
pentaiah wrote:
Arjun is a patch work of multiple sources of subsystems and material sources
Like MTU for engine
Gun barrel from Russia
Transmission from Germany


Sir, why are you posting such claims? When and where did the Arjun barrel come from Russia? The gun was entirely developed in India & is being made in India.

Second, most tanks WW are "a patchwork of multiple sources of subsysems and material systems", what is so unique about the Arjun for it to be mentioned as such?

The US, where you hail from, used the British to give it Chobham Armor for its Abrams tanks, plus the FRG's Rheinmetall for its 120mm gun.

The Israelis use an American made, German engine for their Merkavas.

Even the Russians now rely on the west for thermal imagers & optronics for their latest fire control systems..

All that matters is whether India can make these items locally for which sufficient orders need to be placed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Nov 2012 11:48 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 24 May 2009 23:07
Posts: 333
pentaiah wrote:
I am perplexed by the above
It just means instead o starting from scratch afresh
Arjun variants are to be made

Natasha only gets strengthend wit this
Because the need is now an derivatives may arrive in future
So lets buy now and make them later

Mate, you are assuming that t90 is better than Arjun :rotfl: Your assumption is a proven wrong in comparative trials mate :)

pentaiah wrote:
It does not men end of abandon but competition
We welcome the competition :D As we know the outcome and even the Army :rotfl:

pentaiah wrote:
Arjun is a patch work of multiple sources of subsystems and material sources
Do you mean that each and every part of T-90 is made by only one Russian company?
pentaiah wrote:
Like MTU for engine
Gun barrel from Russia
Transmission from Germany
Armor from Midhami
Etc
Etc
Mate, you seem to have deep knowledge about Arjun tank.
All these years I was thinking the gun(Gandiva) on Arjun is made in India. And even indian built t-90 have their gun made by DRDO.
And what is Midhami(Or Midhani?) is it some foreign/European defense firm?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Nov 2012 12:14 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49
Posts: 4678
Quote:
Senior army sources tell Business Standard that the Directorate General of Mechanised Forces (DGMF), which oversees the army’s tank force, has formally proposed that the Arjun be gradually improved through successive models --- Mark II, Mark III, Mark IV and so on --- rather than attempting a major technological leap into the unknown, which is what the FMBT would be.

Is light finally dawning on the DGMF? Hope they realize that the Army has to order significant numbers of the MkII at least for any subsequent version to be developed. They can't keep ordering the DRDO to develop new versions without buying any of them. The country does not have such money to waste.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Nov 2012 12:19 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 30602
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
allah be praised if sense has finally dawned (belatedly) on the DGMF. they might not take it from DRDO but perhaps just perhaps if the merkava designers and other israeli celebs say it and show their pics of merk1,2,3,4,Namer etc they might have listened.

the FMBT specs being vaporware was evident 5 mins after its specs were posted :rotfl:

another howler is probably the "light tank FICV" thing which is supposed to have weight of a BMP++ but slay a ZTZ99 at standoff range like a heavy MBT will.
a reasonable proposal would be get some techs from Anders or CV90 as a starting point and modify that to our needs with 90% local manufacture.

infact jmho decouple the whole troop carrier and ICV thing.
troop carrier - go for a heavy design like Namer based off arjun chassis thick hide, relocated smaller 750hp engine to front, a remote weapons station and ATGM launcher and a full size rear cabin with air conditioning, class N mine protection, ability to withstand 120mm hits and comfort factors like able to stand upright.
ICV - a 40mm cannon, coax HMG, commanders remotely controlled weapon station, 4xready tube ATGM, a rear compartment used to store ATGM reloads and extra ammo - a light fast "raiding tank" to dislocate and harass the enemy lines. keep a 3 man javelin ATGM team in the back and unleash them if need be for untethered ops.


Last edited by Singha on 27 Nov 2012 12:31, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Nov 2012 12:26 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14
Posts: 2405
Singhaji what if they indeed believed the israelis and asked for Merkava4? :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Nov 2012 12:40 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 30602
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
if AKA was able to make this happen, I am going to booth capture and vote 10,000times for him :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Nov 2012 12:51 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49
Posts: 4678
This is just one article by Shukla. Lets not start dancing in our lungis just yet. :mrgreen:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Nov 2012 13:04 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31
Posts: 1158
[quote="pentaiah"
Arjun is a patch work of multiple sources of subsystems and material sources
Like MTU for engine
Gun barrel from Russia
Transmission from Germany

Armor from Midhami
Etc
Etc[/quote]

Which diesel engine manufacturer makes armour plating ?

Which gun barrel manufacturer makes transmission ?

Which transmission manufacturer makes armour ?

It is obvious that these and many other items are made by specialist companies

So every aircraft, tank, warship etc is a "patch work of multiple sources of subsystems and material sources"

Which car manufacturer makes 100% of the car ?

ALL

But a large number of items are out sourced

K


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Nov 2012 13:20 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Posts: 12321
Location: In a sad place
nachiket wrote:
This is just one article by Shukla. Lets not start dancing in our lungis just yet. :mrgreen:


Yes, especially since he writes one article everyday and changes his tune with every article.

:)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Nov 2012 13:26 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Posts: 12321
Location: In a sad place
RoyG wrote:
Why would OFB expand infra if they aren't guaranteed orders? "Chicken and the egg" makes no sense.


The issues are
1) To show that when in the past they were given large orders for domestic work (such as T 72 Upg) and overhaul they were able to expand infra to do that, esp considering that they have been doing T 72 for donkey's years
2) To show the prototype infra for LSP works as advertised before it can be scaled, there would be no point in scaling a system which does not work will it? So the LSP line for Arjun has to deliver (time, quality, responsiveness) before any one can plan to extending it.

The issues at Avadi are not merely limited to Arjun, they are institutionalized over a large range of product.

The Avadi upg/overhauled T 72s have had accidents like barrel bursts (leading to death of tank crew, including officers)
The Parliamentary committee had come down heavily for the quality culture (in 2004-6 time frame, they would show "ready" Arjun to visiting delegation and as soon as the show was done, pull it back in since the tanks were not working in reality)

These issues need to be fixed. Period.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Nov 2012 13:27 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Posts: 12321
Location: In a sad place
Singha wrote:
even a pvt automotive player would be willing to create a assembly line and supply complete modules for OFB to bolt together and slap on the "made in OFB" sticker.


Like the Tatra you mean? :wink:

:P


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Nov 2012 13:30 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 24 Dec 2007 11:53
Posts: 373
Location: USA
Sanku wrote:
The issues are
1) To show that when in the past they were given large orders for domestic work (such as T 72 Upg) and overhaul they were able to expand infra to do that, esp considering that they have been doing T 72 for donkey's years
2) To show the prototype infra for LSP works as advertised before it can be scaled, there would be no point in scaling a system which does not work will it? So the LSP line for Arjun has to deliver (time, quality, responsiveness) before any one can plan to extending it.

The issues at Avadi are not merely limited to Arjun, they are institutionalized over a large range of product.

The Avadi upg/overhauled T 72s have had accidents like barrel bursts (leading to death of tank crew, including officers)
The Parliamentary committee had come down heavily for the quality culture (in 2004-6 time frame, they would show "ready" Arjun to visiting delegation and as soon as the show was done, pull it back in since the tanks were not working in reality)

These issues need to be fixed. Period.


The same factory makes the T90.
So I presume your point is that we should import MBTs from Mother Russia for eternity ... :evil:

--Ashish


Last edited by Misraji on 27 Nov 2012 13:36, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 27 Nov 2012 13:33 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Posts: 12321
Location: In a sad place
Misraji wrote:

The same factory makes the T90.... Whats your point? ... :roll:

--Ashish


Right now my point is that you do not understand the difference between having some one setup an assembly line which you only operate and setting one up by yourself.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4280 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 ... 107  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: kvraghav, Pratyush, Siddhu and 16 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group