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
Ganesh_S
BRFite
Posts: 223
Joined: 09 Mar 2010 06:40
Location: united kingdom

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Ganesh_S »

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by SaiK »

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.
Ganesh_S
BRFite
Posts: 223
Joined: 09 Mar 2010 06:40
Location: united kingdom

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Ganesh_S »

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by SaiK »

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?
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: 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.
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
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.
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?)
Samay
BRFite
Posts: 1167
Joined: 30 Mar 2009 02:35
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Samay »

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..
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 »

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.
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.
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.
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!!!
Ganesh_S
BRFite
Posts: 223
Joined: 09 Mar 2010 06:40
Location: united kingdom

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Ganesh_S »

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).
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Philip »

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.
Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Katare »

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.
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 »

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by arnab »

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.
abhijitm
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3679
Joined: 08 Jun 2006 15:02
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by abhijitm »

India excels in almost all areas where a foreign alternative is not available but drags behind wherever it is. Any guess... why?
member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by member_22539 »

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Kersi D »

abhijitm wrote:India excels in almost all areas where a foreign alternative is not available but drags behind wherever it is. Any guess... why?
:(( :(( :(( :(( :((
Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1444
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Kersi D »

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.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by NRao »

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.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by NRao »

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. ???
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".
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.
Anand K
BRFite
Posts: 1115
Joined: 19 Aug 2003 11:31
Location: Out.

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Anand K »

Err.... Them Rasputins offered the FROG missile when IGMDP really took off right? IIRC Prithvi matured before Iskander was inducted.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sanku »

I see the usual suspect are flocking to the thread with one liners and personal attacks.

Its funny and obvious. :-)

Facts alone work doods.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sanku »

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sanku »

arnab wrote: 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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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)
Arjun: Avadi is making a good tank badly.
This is correct.
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.
vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by vishvak »

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.
Rajiv Lather
BRFite
Posts: 287
Joined: 20 Sep 1999 11:31
Location: Karnal, Haryana, India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Rajiv Lather »

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by SaiK »

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.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9102
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by nachiket »

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.
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?
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sanku »

nachiket wrote: 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.
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?
putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4665
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by putnanja »

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by arnab »

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.
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:
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.
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 »

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by arnab »

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?
arnab
BRFite
Posts: 1136
Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by arnab »

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.
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 »

Excerpt from 1999-2000 Report of Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defense on T-90:
T-90 Tanks

30. In reply to a question the Ministry of Defence stated that the T-90S Tanks were offered by Russia in December, 1997. A technical delegation was deputed to Russia in 1998 for conducting evaluation of the Tank. The delegation evaluated the Tank in Russian conditions and recommended its acquisition. In December 1998, the Cabinet Committee on Security approved the proposal for acquisition of 124 fully formed Tanks and 186 Semi Knocked Down (SKD) and Completely Knocked Down (CKD) Tanks.

31. The Price Negotiation Committee (PNC) recommended that the Tanks should be tried in Peak summer conditions in India. Three T-90S Tanks were tried in Rajasthan during May-July 1999. Protection trial of the Tanks were also held in Russia during October-November 1999 which were witnessed by technical delegation from India. Based on these trials the Army headquarters prepared a General Staff Evaluation Report and recommended the induction of T-90S Tank into the service. At present PNC is continuing its negotiations with the supplier M/s RVZ of Russia.

There is a reason I've highlighted the part about General Staff Evaluation Report.

As per DPP 2006, the GSER is to be prepared AFTER the Field Evaluation Trials. Read this from DPP 2006:
Staff Evaluation

43. Based on the field evaluation carried out as described in paragraph 37 onwards, the SHQ will carry out a staff evaluation, which gives out the compliance of the demonstrated performance of the equipment vis-à-vis the SQR. The staff evaluation will analyse the field evaluation results and shortlist the equipment recommended for introduction into service. The staff evaluation report will be approved by the Service HQ and forwarded to the Acquisition Wing for acceptance. The Technical Manager would receive the Staff Evaluation Report, and after due examination, submit the report to the Director General (Acquisition) with his recommendations for acceptance or otherwise. In case no vendor meets the SQRs in the field evaluations then the case would be foreclosed on approval of Director General (Acquisition) and a fresh RFP issued after reformulating the SQRs. However, waivers/ amendments to SQRs can be sought only for ‘Make’ projects of DRDO / OFB / DPSUs/ Private Industry which are developmental in nature. In such cases approval of Raksha Mantri would be taken prior to acceptance of Staff Evaluation Report.
And here is the bit about Contract Negotiation:
Contract Negotiation Committee (CNC)

47. The process of commercial negotiations will commence, wherever necessary, after Staff Evaluation Report has been accepted by the Director General (Acquisition) and the TOC Report has been accepted by the Defence Secretary, as applicable. The standard composition of the CNC shall be as indicated at Appendix B to this procedure. Any change in the composition of the CNC may be effected with the approval of Director General (Acquisition). Where considered necessary, a Service officer or any officer other than from the Acquisition Wing of the MoD may be nominated as Chairman of the CNC with the prior approval of Raksha Mantri.

The concerned organisations/ agencies should ensure that their representatives in the CNC have adequate background and authority to take a decision without any need to refer back to their organisation/agency. The CNC would carry out all processes from opening of commercial bids till conclusion of contract. The sealed commercial offers of the technically accepted vendors shall be opened by the CNC at a predetermined date and time under intimation to vendors, permitting such vendors or their authorised representatives to be present. The bids of the competing firms shall be read out to all present and signed by all members of the CNC.
STANDARD CNC COMPOSITION

1. Acquisition Manager - Chairman.
2. Technical Manager.
3. Finance Manager.
4. Advisor Cost / Director (Cost).
5. DGQA Representative.
6. Procurement Agency Representative.
7. User Representative.
8. Representative of Contract Management Branch at SHQ.
9. Repair Agency Representative (If required).
10. Under Secretary concerned.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by NRao »

^^^^^

Those are reports, not documentation.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sanku »

putnanja wrote:
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.
Supposed by who? There is no such supposition, especially in 98-99. What "tests" did Su 30 go through in Indian context even before the purchase decision?

The current well laid out process only came about in 2004 and even then seems to get flouted more often than not (esp if US is involved)

http://newindianexpress.com/thesundayst ... 363163.ece
Was Defence Minister AK Antony party to his ministry’s decision to waive rules in favour of US aerospace major Boeing to escape its obligation to plough back $1.74 billion as offset into the Indian defence and aerospace industry? India’s Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has put the defence ministry on the mat over the $4.1-billion deal with Boeing to supply 10 C-17 Globemaster heavy lift cargo planes for the Indian Air Force (IAF) and eight P-8I Poseidon long-range maritime reconnaissance aircraft for the Indian Navy.
BRF is ahead of the curve as before. :mrgreen:
Last edited by Sanku on 05 Dec 2012 08:15, edited 1 time in total.
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:Excerpt from 1999-2000 Report of Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defense on T-90:

As per DPP 2006, the GSER is to be prepared AFTER the Field Evaluation Trials. Read this from DPP 2006:
Thank you so much Rohit. I have been trying to say this for such a long time now. Glad we are on the same page.
:mrgreen:
arnab
BRFite
Posts: 1136
Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by arnab »

Sanku wrote:
rohitvats wrote:Excerpt from 1999-2000 Report of Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defense on T-90:

As per DPP 2006, the GSER is to be prepared AFTER the Field Evaluation Trials. Read this from DPP 2006:
Thank you so much Rohit. I have been trying to say this for such a long time now. Glad we are on the same page.
:mrgreen:
So what Sanku ji is saying that army corruption in procurement before 2006 could not be called 'corruption' because a 'committee' did not codify what constituted corruption. So anything could go..and went, because by the order of the commissar - the army wasn't allowed to think before buying. Well..well :)

I hope you will be equally understanding of all other past trangressions committed by the INC :)

And we learn something new every day - Now MKIsation and buying off the shelf are the same thing apparently :)
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by Sanku »

arnab wrote: So what Sanku ji is saying that army corruption in procurement before 2006 could not be called 'corruption' because a 'committee' did not codify what constituted corruption. So anything could go..and went, because by the order of the commissar - the army wasn't allowed to think before buying. Well..well :)
)
No dear Arnab, I am saying that you are talking rot, you use personal attack, innuendo and making statements on my behalf (very shamelessly if I may add --I do not remember appointing you as my interpreter for BRF)

I am saying that hard as it may be, instead of trying to interpret what others have said in colorful and ways which are 180* from reality, speak for yourself. I understand that is tough since speaking for yourself involves coming up with meaningful content.

Chamka kya? (Did you understand?)
arnab
BRFite
Posts: 1136
Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - Jan 12, 2012

Post by arnab »

Sanku wrote:No dear Arnab, I am saying that you are talking rot, you use personal attack, innuendo and making statements on my behalf (very shamelessly if I may add --I do not remember appointing you as my interpreter for BRF)

I am saying that hard as it may be, instead of trying to interpret what others have said in colorful and ways which are 180* from reality, speak for yourself. I understand that is tough since speaking for yourself involves coming up with meaningful content.

Chamka kya? (Did you understand?)
In other words - the Bofors purchase (an excellent gun btw, which underwent extensive tests in Indian conditions. This was before the T-90 purchase) could not be a case of corruption, since there was no DPP at the time which specified that middle men couldn't be used to seal a deal :)
Post Reply