Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 01 Sep 2014 12:17

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 4346 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45 ... 109  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 03 Dec 2012 00:04 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Posts: 12460
Location: In a sad place
Ganesh_S wrote:
Pardon my ignorance, I hope no one's suggesting culling Arjun is/was the only option because

1. plant is inefficient producing it
2. Imminent threat perception


No, Arjun MUST be made to succeed. However to do that, any and all reasons which hinder its maturity must be ironed out. However that is beyond Army's power, by far. By a whole huge margin.

It is MoD which must do this, one way could be to move CVRDE and Avadi under IA like Naval shipyards are under Navy.

There should be a consolidated owner for Arjun, spanning the end user, the developer and the manufacturer. The services discpilne and urgency and immediate end user connect will do wonders for the program.

There are of course other steps needed too.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Dec 2012 00:29 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Posts: 5892
Location: Sergeant Major-No.1 Training Battalion, BR Rifles
I had refrained from posting on the yet another round of 'debate' on the T-90 versus Arjun tank because everything has been dealt with in detail and there is practically nothing new to add to the whole saga - except bits and pieces of news item about shenanigans of the IA top brass.

But I can see that you are again peddling the same half truths and blatant lies...inspite of these very points being countered and cleared in previous debate.

Sanku wrote:
It did. Fairly extensive. First set of prelimanry tests in Russia, extensive 2 month summer test and winter tests. I have posted the references many times, I can post it again if needed.


It did extensive trials in India? And you posted links to it? Where?

How come you always keep on forgetting that T-90 was okay-ed for induction by Indian Army after trials in SIBERIA....it was the Price Negotiation Committee which got IA to conduct trials in India. After having given OK for induction of T-90, the results of trials in India were anyone's guess.

Quote:
It did face some minor issues, at extreme end of use case spectrum. No major issues have been seen. For example the parliamentary standing committee and CAG both have NO observations on these. But they have on other systems (for example)


Minor issue -

- like engine seizure during trials in Rajasthan? That one engine failed after having run less than 25% of the proposed life in Kilometers?

- The Russian test certificate rating for the engine is 846/910 HP as against claimed power of 1000 HP - and this de-rates further in desert conditions.

- Smoke generating pipes break-down in all trial tanks?

- That Indian team was NOT ALLOWED to strip and inspect the Night Vision Devices (NVD) and other sights.

- Special Tools and Equipment (STE) were NOT PROVIDED for calibration and testing of NVD and other sights.

- Team from EME in its report said that it cannot comment on the maintainability of NVD as not stripping of sight was allowed.

- Technical literature was NOT MADE AVAILABLE to the Indian team by OEM.


So, the above is how the trials were conducted on Indian soil. Everyone knows about the problems that T-90 is facing with the TI Sights and issue of temperature management. And the comments above are from report on T-90 induction which was hosted as a Case Study on website of College of Defense Management.

Some where you were talking about Arjun facing problem with AUCRT - Now, I have explained this to you earlier as well. AUCRT stands for Accelerated User cum Reliability Trials - the system in question is made to go through its life worth of experience in a short time frame to understand the requirement for spare parts and other aspects.

Guess what happened to T-90 during AUCRT? While engine on one tank seized after 95% of the claimed KMS and Hrs of running, in case of second tank it seized and had to be replaced at less than 50% mark. Some how, this never seems to come in the way of induction of the T-90 tanks.

So, next time you (or Philip) feel the urge to paint lies about Arjun and whitewash issues with T-90, come back and read this post. And refresh your memory - which seems to suffer from selective amnesia.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Dec 2012 02:29 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 09 Mar 2010 06:40
Posts: 131
Location: Parashurama Shristi
Quote:
There should be a consolidated owner for Arjun, spanning the end user, the developer and the manufacturer.The services discpilne and urgency and immediate end user connect will do wonders for the program



I doubt if so. when it comes to technology development things get more complex. on the contrary, Service discpline and urgency as well as a consolidated ownership approach is more likely to deliver Sub-standard products in recent times. level of sophistication to be acheived is much greater to be satisfied by mere nationalist sentiments. Anyways just my opinion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Dec 2012 02:37 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 24569
Location: NowHere
^it makes little sense in these stances of ownership.. if requirements are written down, and the product made to requirements and the tested out successfully, it should proceed to the next progression of using the product. as simple as that!

oh yeah!.. we all are owners of the product, and every product that comes out of gov labs... including people who are vested and against home grown products. sorry [unless, their handle is totally has nothing to do with India, including taxes].


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Dec 2012 03:02 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 09 Mar 2010 06:40
Posts: 131
Location: Parashurama Shristi
Quote:
it makes little sense in these stances of ownership.. if requirements are written down, and the product made to requirements and the tested out successfully, it should proceed to the next progression of using the product. as simple as that!


I agree, This is where Arjun has triumphed in comparative trials. Considering the problems being at production level, no amount of consolidation will help if the orders being placed are paltry. Components can be outsourced to increase rate of production only if there is a firm and strong commitment or else no suppliers would be keen.


Quote:
oh yeah!.. we all are owners of the product, and every product that comes out of gov labs... including people who are vested and against home grown products. sorry [unless, their handle is totally has nothing to do with India, including taxes].


My apologies, didnt get your point here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Dec 2012 03:15 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 09 Mar 2010 06:40
Posts: 131
Location: Parashurama Shristi
Saik, the below comment of mine was regarding a consolidated approach based on User-developer relationship
Quote:
on the contrary, Service discpline and urgency as well as a consolidated ownership approach is more likely to deliver Sub-standard products in recent times. level of sophistication to be acheived is much greater to be satisfied by mere nationalist sentiments


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Dec 2012 03:27 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 24569
Location: NowHere
Actually speaking, many american super duper projects are jointly done, right from the beginning. From F22 Raptor to comanche. [definition of success differs here however.. but we can take what it has for us to use].

I was earlier saying when it comes ownership, we as Indians own Arjun more than any individual institution or group, be it DRDO or IA. It is pure public money.. everyone is in it!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Dec 2012 03:51 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 09 Mar 2010 06:40
Posts: 131
Location: Parashurama Shristi
So are the chinese. IMO,The difference here is, one being a leader while the other being a follower. A developing team under technology leadership would always be priveleged as equipment acceptence may not be on a comparative perspective rather it would be on specified innovative solution wherein time constrains are relaxed. The level of sophistication here would gradually increase over product maturity. Also on the production front, a technology leader usually benifits from volume sales and patent rights. On the contrary, the chinese may well accept a product even if it doesn't meet all user specification hoping sooner or later the competence might be gained to cope with the challenges, which IMO are the circumstancial pro's and con's of consolidated ownership.


Last edited by Ganesh_S on 03 Dec 2012 04:26, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Dec 2012 04:22 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 24569
Location: NowHere
well, I think we are deviating to more generic cases here.. now, let us take specific projects and compare.. which are identical and safety-critical real time systems. one thing is the offer of T90MS or for example even latest and greatest of leopard 2/merkava/abrhams are say offered to India on equal terms. The user has a choice to make. When it comes to being stakeholder (not a developer), IA has more right to say they need 125mm guns or this much weight etc., but largely these don't come under haphazard ways like user-seller relationship rather more from correcting the GSQR or requirements itself.. in a tranche based development.

IA can get a flying tank too.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Dec 2012 05:18 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 09 Mar 2010 06:40
Posts: 131
Location: Parashurama Shristi
Quote:
largely these don't come under haphazard ways like user-seller relationship rather more from correcting the GSQR or requirements itself.. in a tranche based development.


True, there are more contingent factors when it comes to developing or procuring systems than user-seller relationships. Nevertheless, Arjun (MK2) today perhaps is more close if not on par with contemporary tanks because of non existence of such a relationship.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Dec 2012 08:30 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 24569
Location: NowHere
You are correct on the Arjun, but you are partially or cannot prove that it is because of non-existence of such a relationship.. in the sense, if there was a relationship, we would have seen 400 tanks now, and Arjun-FMBT in the designs... as that is more logical, and provable since the relationship itself drives the process, where it becomes mandatory for satisfying the requirements, and it becomes mandatory to keep IA in the latest tech frame.

okay, you may want to list the conditions here to substantiate your relationship point?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Dec 2012 14:29 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Posts: 12460
Location: In a sad place
rohitvats wrote:
But I can see that you are again peddling the same half truths and blatant lies...inspite of these very points being countered and cleared in previous debate.


Rohit, mind your language. First of all. The above is not correct.

Quote:
It did extensive trials in India? And you posted links to it? Where?


You can search this thread if you want. In any case you also know that, since you yourself are saying below

Quote:
How come you always keep on forgetting that T-90 was okay-ed for induction by Indian Army after trials in SIBERIA....


No it was not okayed for induction. Only for in principle go ahead for further steps.

Quote:
it was the Price Negotiation Committee which got IA to conduct trials in India.


How can induction be okayed before the price negotiating committee has even cleared the purchase?

You are right, no point in repeating the same stuff, again and therefore I shall skip it. But seriously I do not know, where does the myth making about T 90s come from (induction approval by a small team even before the purchase committee has been constitued?)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Dec 2012 15:02 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 30 Mar 2009 02:35
Posts: 1131
Location: India
The most common excuse that is made about Arjun mk1/mk2 is that it is too heavy to be operated along the border areas.
But what about extensive trials being made in all those areas of concern ?, that will filter out where it can operate.
AFAIK , I've never heard of any report that gives any factual reports about its failure that might come if its deployed, all speculations are based upon mere assumptions and there is no data to validate.
Gurus please shed some light on this..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Dec 2012 15:07 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Posts: 5892
Location: Sergeant Major-No.1 Training Battalion, BR Rifles
Sanku wrote:
rohitvats wrote:
But I can see that you are again peddling the same half truths and blatant lies...inspite of these very points being countered and cleared in previous debate.


Rohit, mind your language. First of all. The above is not correct.


Yes, the above is correct. My language is actual description of what you've written and how you've written it. You choose to ignore facts and quote selectively.

Quote:
You can search this thread if you want. In any case you also know that, since you yourself are saying below


No, I do not need to search for it for AFAIK, none exist about extensive trials of T-90 in India. The trials in India were farce as is evident from the points quoted by me.

Quote:
No it was not okayed for induction. Only for in principle go ahead for further steps.


Again, please don't spin the fact because you want to peddle a particular line. Not everyone is wet-behind-the ears when it comes to Arjun and T-90 story.

So, IA recommends acquisition of T-90 after witnessing trials in Russia and you call this in-principle go ahead? CCS approved acquisition of T-90 based on this stamp of approval by IA. Why did not IA ask for trials in India? Why did it take PNC to ask for summer trials in India? As for the trials themselves, well, inspite of what has been documented, if no one saw any problems with the tank, you can guess the results. You don't need Sherlock Holmes for that.

Quote:
How can induction be okay-ed before the price negotiating committee has even cleared the purchase?


Falling for your own rhetoric, is it? It is the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) which cleared the tanks for acquisition based on IA recommendation after witnessing trials in Siberia. PNC was constituted after clearance from CCS. Only thing left to do after PNC has been constituted is haggle over price and terms of contract - and NOT decide on the merit, or otherwise, of the weapon system.

And yet, it was PNC which then asked for summer trials in India - something which IA should have done BEFORE recommending acquisition of T-90 tanks based on winter trials in Siberia.

After all, in case of Arjun, IA has shown great penchant for trials for everything and everywhere - save for the moon!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Dec 2012 16:11 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 09 Mar 2010 06:40
Posts: 131
Location: Parashurama Shristi
Quote:
You are correct on the Arjun, but you are partially or cannot prove that it is because of non-existence of such a relationship


Agreed, the argument could go either ways and still prove irrelevant because i am not aware of anything that prevents IA from pursuing a consolidated Approach(presuming it hasn't).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Dec 2012 22:30 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 10782
Location: India
Arun M is becoming a stale bore with hos personal bashing.Refute by all means objectively,but spare personal insults which are nauseating and reveal the immaturity of the individual.He has yet to trace soundly enough the history of the Arjun/T-90 acquisitions,chronology,which is well established in this thread which has run for years.If he were to study it carefully,he would find what many have said true,that Arjun was not mature enough when the T-90 knee-jerk acquisition was made.Being an improvement on the T-72 design which was in service in large numbers was perhaps one of the the main reasons why the IA bought it/preferred it to an unproven A-1,as it would be easier to induct and fit in with the IA's armour doctrine.The fundamentals are that army chief after army chief over the last decade+ have accepted Arjun reluctantly.To call the whole lot biased and anti-desi ,or on the take,would be ludicrous.

Nevertheless,no one is denying that Arjun was given a very tough trials regime by the IA,perhaps even tougher than the one the T-90 was put through,and that eventually it came out v.well/superior in comparison with the T-90.However,The T-90 deal for large scale procurement was already done and in the pipeline.Apart from the performance,I have often asked and am yet to get a reply from anyone on either side of the fence,the approximate cost-effectiveness of a T-90 vs Arjun (bigger,heavier with a 4-man crew) needs to be weighed in the balance as well as the IA's stance on the matter.The imported content of Arjun is also still a fact and even if Arjun is acquired,firang interests will be rewarded.

Neither is anyone refuting my Q on production figures.I repeat,even if the green light is given for A-1/A-2 production on a "war footing",realistically,how many tanks can we produce by 2020? has the DRDO/CVBRDE given any production figures that would win the IA's confidence?

As for the FMBT,is is absurd to think that A-2 will be the be-all of tank tech for the next decade,2020-2030, and that newer tanks with heavier guns,better missile firepower,etc.,which will outgun A-2, will not make their entry before 2020.Nowhere did I also root for only a Russian JV,as AM has insinuated. I've always said in weapons procurement,"horses for courses".The IA can choose to find its tank tech from anywhere,east or west,pick the best deal tech and cost wise.Some months ago I even posted stats of MBTs from all around the world,their specs and cost to give BR-itons an idea of worldwide developments.I suppose in AM's bias towards Russia,he has ignored the successes of many Indo-Russian procurements and JVs,like the SU-30MKI,Brahmos and Russian tech assistance for the ATV and Akula lease,Talwar class FFGs,etc.,etc.Not all deals are perfect as we've seen with the Vik/Gorshkov,but the positive aspects of the defence relationship far outweigh the negatives.If western nations want to emulate Russian success in the Indian defence market,then let them offer the same level of high-tech,without strings and at reasonable cost,and in recent times,they and the US in particular have won contracts.

However,as far as Arjun is concerned and no disrespect to its capability,I still maintain that the GOI/MOD/IA are lukewarm about large-scale procurement of the tank for their best-known reasons.Unless a miracle happens,as said before,I forsee that the numbers of Arjun Mk-1 and 2 eventually procured will be barely 20% -30% of our future inventory.The ball for numbers for future induction of Arjun and/or an import now rests squarely with Gen.BKS.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Dec 2012 22:43 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31
Posts: 1621
PNC is now negotiating with Dassult on MRCA induction contract, what a scandal it will be if we find out that Rafael was not tested in Indian conditions at all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Dec 2012 22:51 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Posts: 5892
Location: Sergeant Major-No.1 Training Battalion, BR Rifles
Katare wrote:
PNC is now negotiating with Dassult on MRCA induction contract, what a scandal it will be if we find out that Rafael was not tested in Indian conditions at all.


And if it asks IAF to test the aircraft in typical Indian conditions.... :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 03 Dec 2012 23:22 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Posts: 12460
Location: In a sad place
rohitvats wrote:
Yes, the above is correct. My language is actual description of what you've written and how you've written it. You choose to ignore facts and quote selectively.


Not at all Rohit, merely presenting how I think things are, no need to call me names for that. I have always the very highest regards for you and expressed the same openly despite the difference in our views?

Quote:
The trials in India were farce as is evident from the points quoted by me.


So you at least agree that there were trials. Now the question is whether you call it a farce or not.

I do not.

Quote:
Quote:
No it was not okayed for induction. Only for in principle go ahead for further steps.


Again, please don't spin the fact because you want to peddle a particular line. Not everyone is wet-behind-the ears when it comes to Arjun and T-90 story.


That is the the exact procedure. There is no reason to assume malafide apriori where simple "procedure" suffices.

Quote:
So, IA recommends acquisition of T-90 after witnessing trials in Russia and you call this in-principle go ahead?


Yes. Why not? IA can only make a recommendation. A very small step in a very long chain. In any case the services "reccomendations" hardly carry too much weight.

Quote:
As for the trials themselves, well, inspite of what has been documented, if no one saw any problems with the tank, you can guess the results. You don't need Sherlock Holmes for that.


I shall unfortunately believe in the documented points. So let us agree to disagree on this.

But at least you do agree with my broad points. Its just that you are looking beyond, and drawing your views. I think the observed documented matter adequately addresses the situation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Dec 2012 05:30 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08
Posts: 1136
Sanku wrote:
So you at least agree that there were trials. Now the question is whether you call it a farce or not.

***
No it was not okayed for induction. Only for in principle go ahead for further steps

****

IA can only make a recommendation. A very small step in a very long chain. In any case the services "reccomendations" hardly carry too much weight.



This has to be amongst the strangest logic if I've ever heard (even more than the UK english discussion). So the PNC recommends a trial under Indian conditions (which should have been done by the user in the first place - so the deal has already started to stink). The T-90s break down during the trials. IA still recommends 'acquisition' of the T-90s (And your response: 'Well a trial happenned - that is enough. That the tanks failed in the trials is a separate issue and need not be addressed'). What was the point of the trial then? A farce? as Rohitvats noted.

This one is classic (one of your oldie but a goodie): "IA recommended to 'acquire' tanks but not 'induct' them".

What were they planning to do after 'acquring' them? Pay more money to make them worthy of 'induction'? (Note this is what actually happenned) - and the 'inducted' T-90s still got their a$$ handed to them by the Arjun :)

Added later:

So net net wrt to manufacturing at Avadi -

T-90: Avadi is making a bad tank badly.
Arjun: Avadi is making a good tank badly.

Avadi can learn to make both tanks better - but one tank will continue to be inherently bad - because of design limitations relevant for Indian conditions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Dec 2012 06:40 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 08 Jun 2006 15:02
Posts: 1859
Location: On board Coobsat. Fanatically chasing MOM.
India excels in almost all areas where a foreign alternative is not available but drags behind wherever it is. Any guess... why?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Dec 2012 08:24 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 14 Jan 2012 18:00
Posts: 805
^^Vested interests and useful idiots. Sorry for a one-liner, but it is really that simple. Whatever deficiencies they have in R&D and production, DRDO etc. have overcome them with enough time and funding when foreign alternatives are not available. So, I guess the facts speak for themselves and no amount of contortive arguments or rehashing of the same debates endlessly is going to change that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Dec 2012 13:32 
Online
BRFite

Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31
Posts: 1163
abhijitm wrote:
India excels in almost all areas where a foreign alternative is not available but drags behind wherever it is. Any guess... why?


:(( :(( :(( :(( :((


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Dec 2012 13:37 
Online
BRFite

Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31
Posts: 1163
abhijitm wrote:
India excels in almost all areas where a foreign alternative is not available but drags behind wherever it is. Any guess... why?


Let us thank MTCR or XCDE or GKUYV or BBCCC or WTF you call it

Today in lieu of Prithvi we would have Iskander and maybe Minutemen ICBMs in lieu of Agni 4/5/6/7/8/XX.

We would be having a few SLBMs/SGBMs/ rtdbgtd with Trident.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

K



PS Remember that IA wanted Iskander and Rodina refused to sell it to us. And as soon as Prithvi flew up, Rodina (and pimps) flew to New Delhi. That is called suitcase diplomacy patented by one Mr H Mehta.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Dec 2012 14:17 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 10778
Location: Illini Nation
Quote:
Yes, the above is correct. My language is actual description of what you've written and how you've written it. You choose to ignore facts and quote selectively.


Glad you found that out. Better late than never.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Dec 2012 14:28 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 10778
Location: Illini Nation
Philip wrote:
Guys,how much of Arjun is Indian? Please examine the content,esp. the engine.Even if an Indian MBT is bought do not imagine that babudom will not get its share of loot! Even with other smaller in significance but large in number items sourced from local industry,the ever-present kickback allegedly kicks in.The Tatra scam exposed the tip of the iceberg.


An Indian tank does not mean all components are made in India. There is a cost factor and some components would be cheaper outside the country and should be sourced from there. Perhaps critical components need to be made in India, even at a higher cost. ???

Quote:
What the DRDO/CVRDE need to openly say to the IA/MOD is that they can produce the perfected Arjun MK-2 whatever, that has met IA certification/acceptable std. ,number of tanks and timeframe,along with the cost per unit and then press the govt. for support for production.Even 50 tanks per year will not meet all the IAs requirements.This is a fact staring at us in the face,as I've mentioned before,Avadi has so much of other work,upgrading T-72s,producing /assembling T-90s ,specialised armoured vehicles,etc.,that it needs to have a 100 per year production line for A-2 in place so that we can produce about 700+ tanks by 2020.This number will not be able to even replace older T-72s which cannot be upgraded.


Not an issue if people are serious. And, I suspect people will get serious if there are "sanctions".

Quote:
The second point is from past statements from Army chiefs,etc.,that an FMBT design for the next decade should be lighter,possess a larger main gun, and have a 3-man crew.There are huge tech. obstacles to be overcome.But if that is the way of IA thought and doctrine,then where does a 4-man crew A-2 fit in for the future beyond 2020? Therefore,as I've said,even if A-2 is perfected in reasonable time,and produced ,we will not have more than 500-700 in service before the FMBT/T-90 replacement kicks in.Like B'mos,I would advise that an FMBT design involving the CVRDE and a foreign manufacturer-a JV ,be contemplated for the future, which will ensure enough indigenous effort and content yet be at the cutting edge of tank tech.


As long as Russia is kept out of such a JV (for a tank) it should work out. Only because they have a competitor and are manipulative.

Tech wise nothing India cannot tackle.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Dec 2012 16:03 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 19 Aug 2003 11:31
Posts: 1056
Location: Codename Duchess, ISIS HQ
Err.... Them Rasputins offered the FROG missile when IGMDP really took off right? IIRC Prithvi matured before Iskander was inducted.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Dec 2012 16:57 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Posts: 12460
Location: In a sad place
I see the usual suspect are flocking to the thread with one liners and personal attacks.

Its funny and obvious. :-)

Facts alone work doods.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Dec 2012 17:01 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Posts: 12460
Location: In a sad place
abhijitm wrote:
India excels in almost all areas where a foreign alternative is not available but drags behind wherever it is. Any guess... why?


I am not really sure whether that is true. INSAS is a excellent rifle (despite issues discussed in small arms thread) -- LCH certainly is not based on strategic technology but seems to be coming across excellently.

Dhruv is an all around winner.

OTOH despite not having any Israeli equivalent for ages, Trishul could never really work out (options came to fore only much much later) -- to the extent that capital warships were inducted without SHORAD, worrying IN no end. And how about WLR? We can go on and on with examples.

Simplistic takes (which seem to dog BRF ONLY on this thread) -- can not adequately describe reality IMVHO.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Dec 2012 17:18 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Posts: 12460
Location: In a sad place
arnab wrote:
This has to be amongst the strangest logic if I've ever heard (even more than the UK english discussion).


Yes Sir, you have the upper hand in comprehension. I give you that. Sorry, for the SDRE logic at display.

Quote:
So the PNC recommends a trial under Indian conditions (which should have been done by the user in the first place - so the deal has already started to stink).


PNC does not recommend, PNC calls for a trial. Secondly very funny that you make PNC as exclusive to IA. IA also takes part in PNC. So PNC is indeed part user.

Quote:
The T-90s break down during the trials.


No they do not. :mrgreen: Rohit attributes that this is because the trial was a farce, because if they were not he excpeted them to break down. Fine, his wish.

However, the documented evidence says it does not.

Quote:
IA still recommends 'acquisition' of the T-90s (And your response: 'Well a trial happenned - that is enough. That the tanks failed in the trials is a separate issue and need not be addressed'). What was the point of the trial then? A farce? as Rohitvats noted.


I did not say that, it is as usual your superior compherension skills and the upper hand in the matter which lets you attribute thing far beyond I would say.
:mrgreen:

Quote:
This one is classic (one of your oldie but a goodie): "IA recommended to 'acquire' tanks but not 'induct' them".


Firstly IA did not recommend -- one evaluation team of IA asked the IA to move to the next steps.

Quote:
What were they planning to do after 'acquring' them?


They were first planning to recommend that the Govt looks at the tank for purchase, and if found suitable, work a scheme for induction.

In real life there is a huge gap between purchase and induction -- for example the schematics of Bofors 155mm were acquired, but never moved to manufacture place.

Quote:
T-90: Avadi is making a bad tank badly.


Avadi is making a good tank well. NO issues are seen with T 90 lines (issues were seen with T 72 upgds and overhauls)

Quote:
Arjun: Avadi is making a good tank badly.


This is correct.

[quote]
Avadi can learn to make both tanks better -/quote]

It CAN , however the question is not what it CAN do. The question is what it IS doing.

What some of the SDRE folks are saying is how can it move from it IS to what it CAN be.

Cheers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Dec 2012 20:06 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19
Posts: 3343
Location: छिछला पानी में (In shallow waters)
My take: Enough place for Arjun aswell as T-90s. (T-90MS and ++)

Before criticizing Russian/USSR equipments, let us have a standard of what should have been done, and whether such standards are applied elsewhere uniformly for example in the purchase of transport aircrafts from USA. If not, why not?

In fact absence of critique of lack of standards about purchase deals for USA equipments show how selectively standards are not applied, more than do applied, and no criticism is even mentioned. For example what does lack of logical completion of the deal and changing standards after deal is signed, mean effectively in case of transport aircraft from USA.

One of most alarming aspect here is lack of affinity to standards in spite of Indian teams ready to test out and select products, for example indigenous selection process that selected MMRCA fighter for example. Where is the affinity to apply the such selection processes?

What is missed along with it is sincerity with which Russians have been ready to field trials in the first place. Compare it with the purchase deal of transport aircraft from USA, or even questioning MMRCA deal after due selection processes. In fact, it is not even 6 months after transport aircraft deal with USA took shape is it?

Please let us not miss wood for the trees. etc. etc.

What are the issues here and what are suggestions to correct any shortcomings.


Last edited by vishvak on 04 Dec 2012 22:28, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Dec 2012 20:50 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 20 Sep 1999 11:31
Posts: 269
Location: Karnal, Haryana, India
My simplistic view - Arjun is a good tank, it is a better tank than T-72. The Army should have told DRDO to manufacture as many Arjuns it can, as fast as it can. Obviously because the capability to manufacture Arjun is not good enough to provide the required numbers, the purchase of T-90 could not be avoided. Haryanavi common sense says, keep inducting Arjun as fast you can while simultaneously working on its modernization.

There is a huge number of tanks T-55, Vijayants and early production T-72 waiting to be replaced, in addition to the new raisings.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Dec 2012 21:36 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 24569
Location: NowHere
vishvak wrote:
My take: Enough place for Arjun aswell as T-90s..
you meant MS perhaps or later++ version. Arjun III or a future version spec should begin now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 04 Dec 2012 22:37 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49
Posts: 4789
Quote:
They were first planning to recommend that the Govt looks at the tank for purchase, and if found suitable, work a scheme for induction.

How is the government supposed to figure out whether the tank is suitable? Isn't the Army supposed to tell the government that the tank is suitable, so they can figure out the financial details? In fact, this is exactly what happened. That is how the deal reached the PNC without any trials in Indian conditions. It was IA's responsibility to carry them out before the financial negotiations started. They didn't. Luckily there were some bright people in the PNC who saw that.

Quote:
In real life there is a huge gap between purchase and induction -- for example the schematics of Bofors 155mm were acquired, but never moved to manufacture place.

The Bofors guns were purchased and inducted like they were intended to be. That we never manufactured them is not IA's fault. The Bofors scandal reached right upto the level of the PM as we know. And that shut everything down. What similarity does this have to the T-90 purchase?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Dec 2012 01:00 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Posts: 12460
Location: In a sad place
nachiket wrote:
How is the government supposed to figure out whether the tank is suitable? Isn't the Army supposed to tell the government that the tank is suitable, so they can figure out the financial details?


Govt being MoD and CCS in this case, fortunately or unfortunately gets to decide along with with some members of IA whether the tank is suitable. The suitability, goes far beyond simple "matching equipment for use" and goes to strategic fit with other branches of Govt and so on.

Whether or not it is a good practice or not, this is what actually happens in India. IA itself has limited powers. In any case as I never tire of pointing out, the recommendation for further action was by one team of IA, and the PNC itself included some IA and some MoD. Post which the matter would go to MoD purchase committee (all babus) and then to CCS. It would then be overseen by standing committee on defense in the parliament.

Quote:
The Bofors guns were purchased and inducted like they were intended to be. That we never manufactured them is not IA's fault. The Bofors scandal reached right upto the level of the PM as we know. And that shut everything down. What similarity does this have to the T-90 purchase?


The process for both of them were exactly the same. This too goes to CCS and hence the PM. Why stop at IA for T 90 if bofors decision goes up to PM?

If the non making of Bofors is not IAs fault, why is poor manufacturing of any system IAs fault?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Dec 2012 01:27 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Posts: 3805
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3
Sanku wrote:
Whether or not it is a good practice or not, this is what actually happens in India. IA itself has limited powers. In any case as I never tire of pointing out, the recommendation for further action was by one team of IA, and the PNC itself included some IA and some MoD. Post which the matter would go to MoD purchase committee (all babus) and then to CCS. It would then be overseen by standing committee on defense in the parliament.



The initial IA team is supposed to have done full trials and accorded approval so that it can go to PNC. Just because there are IA members in PNC doesn't mean that PNC ordering trials in India is the norm. The PNC for IAF MRCA contract has IAF personnel too. They get involved after the IAF had shortlisted the candidates by conducting trials. If one were to go by your logic, it would be analogous to the IAF asking for rafale after witnessing trials in France, US etc for different contenders, and the MRCA PNC team asking them to actually try out Rafale in Indian conditions before proceeding.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Dec 2012 03:50 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08
Posts: 1136
Sanku wrote:
arnab wrote:
This has to be amongst the strangest logic if I've ever heard (even more than the UK english discussion).


Yes Sir, you have the upper hand in comprehension. I give you that. Sorry, for the SDRE logic at display.

Quote:
So the PNC recommends a trial under Indian conditions (which should have been done by the user in the first place - so the deal has already started to stink).


PNC does not recommend, PNC calls for a trial. Secondly very funny that you make PNC as exclusive to IA. IA also takes part in PNC. So PNC is indeed part user.



Saar - PNC is the 'Price (or Contract in its current form). Negotiation. Committee' - which means its role is to negotiate an appropriate price. The fact that it had to force the user to conduct India based trials - means it saw something stinking :)
Why do you start making up things about what the roles of different committees are when clearly you have no idea about how things work in the government.

Now apparently a Committee is a 'user' of T-90 tanks :) Gosh - now he has to be told what a 'user' means.

Added later:

Quote:
Avadi is making a good tank well. NO issues are seen with T 90 lines (issues were seen with T 72 upgds and overhauls)


I'll bet :) so a badly made Arjun beat the crap out of the 'no-issues' T-90 (which is night blind and in the face-off with Arjun could hit only 70 per cent of the targets while moving). Thank god these are non-issues.


Last edited by arnab on 05 Dec 2012 06:36, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Dec 2012 03:55 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Posts: 5892
Location: Sergeant Major-No.1 Training Battalion, BR Rifles
Sanku wrote:
Govt being MoD and CCS in this case, fortunately or unfortunately gets to decide along with with some members of IA whether the tank is suitable. The suitability, goes far beyond simple "matching equipment for use" and goes to strategic fit with other branches of Govt and so on.

Whether or not it is a good practice or not, this is what actually happens in India. IA itself has limited powers. In any case as I never tire of pointing out, the recommendation for further action was by one team of IA, and the PNC itself included some IA and some MoD. Post which the matter would go to MoD purchase committee (all babus) and then to CCS. It would then be overseen by standing committee on defense in the parliament. The process for both of them were exactly the same. This too goes to CCS and hence the PM. Why stop at IA for T 90 if bofors decision goes up to PM? If the non making of Bofors is not IAs fault, why is poor manufacturing of any system IAs fault?


If sheer ridiculousness and spinning of facts were to be an art, you would surely get the top honors for it.

Read this slowly so that you don't put out such nonsensical explanations next time -

- IA/Services decides on both the requirement and the suitability of the equipment for use in India. Same thing happened in case of T-90.

- IA conducted the trials in Russia and recommended the acquisition of tanks.

- Based on this recommendation, the CCS authorized purchase of tanks from Russia.

- A PNC was formulated to negotiate the commercial terms of the contract. However, contrary to norm, it was PNC which asked for trials in India.

So, please stop this polemic and hair-splitting exercise of 'acquisition and induction'. You don't hold separate trials to test whether a weapon system is good for "Acquisition" and "Induction". A weapon system which is deemed fit for acquisition will automatically be deemed fit for induction - save for issues with quality of units imported AFTER the deal has been done.

In which country is a weapon system trialed after opening commercial negotiations with the vendor?

So, that you get this even more clear - here are the steps for "BUY" category as per DPP 2006.

I. Services Qualitative Requirements (SQRs).
II. Acceptance of Necessity (AoN).
III. Solicitation of offers.
IV. Evaluation of Technical offers by Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC).
V. Field Evaluation.
VI. Staff Evaluation.
VII. Oversight by Technical Oversight Committee (TOC) for Acquisitions above Rs 300 Crs
.
VIII. Commercial negotiations by Contract Negotiation Committee (CNC). (You see any trials after formulation of PNC written here?)
IX. Approval of Competent Financial Authority (CFA).
X. Award of contract / Supply Order (SO).
XI. Contract Administration and Post-Contract Management.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Dec 2012 03:57 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08
Posts: 1136
Sanku wrote:
Govt being MoD and CCS in this case, fortunately or unfortunately gets to decide along with with some members of IA whether the tank is suitable. The suitability, goes far beyond simple "matching equipment for use" and goes to strategic fit with other branches of Govt and so on.



What does this BS actually mean? :) Would the PNC for instance consult with the Committee on Agricultural Costs and Prices to see whether it is strategically aligned with the price the farmers would have to be paid if the T-90s ran over their agricultural fields?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 05 Dec 2012 04:04 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08
Posts: 1136
rohitvats wrote:
So, that you get this even more clear - here are the steps for "BUY" category as per DPP 2006.

I. Services Qualitative Requirements (SQRs).
II. Acceptance of Necessity (AoN).
III. Solicitation of offers.
IV. Evaluation of Technical offers by Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC).
V. Field Evaluation.
VI. Staff Evaluation.
VII. Oversight by Technical Oversight Committee (TOC) for Acquisitions above Rs 300 Crs
.
VIII. Commercial negotiations by Contract Negotiation Committee (CNC). (You see any trials after formulation of PNC written here?)
IX. Approval of Competent Financial Authority (CFA).
X. Award of contract / Supply Order (SO).
XI. Contract Administration and Post-Contract Management.


Rohitvats,

We went over this earlier I believe :) The DPP is for 2006 according to our herrow here - hence presumably prior to that it was all a random walk. Any step could happen at any time - because the babus and govt of the time were twits who had no clue how to purchase arms before it became codified in 2006.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 4346 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45 ... 109  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: anupamd, darshand, Google Feedfetcher, Kersi D, P Chitkara and 20 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