Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 26 Nov 2014 01:25

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 ... 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 ... 109  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 28 Feb 2013 20:19 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49
Posts: 4965
I think Austin was the one clamoring for commonality with the T-90's 125mm gun. When the unitary and two-piece ammo problem was pointed out, another demand for T-90 style autoloader was also made IIRC. :mrgreen:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Feb 2013 22:42 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31
Posts: 11587
Two piece round is something even US is considering for future rounds as APFSDS keeps getting longer :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Mar 2013 11:15 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 24 Dec 2007 11:53
Posts: 390
Location: USA
An AMAZING account of the Reforger 1982 exercise in which M1 Abrams (participating for the first time) wiped the floor with Red-force armored forces while being outnumbered!!!.

Quote:
The annual NATO 'Reforger' exercises held across the breadth of Germany each autumn are the main tactical exercises of the NATO tank forces. Fictitious Orange and Blue armies, composed of units from different NATO countries, fight mock battles to test their tactical skills, and the ability of their logistics units to repair and maintain them. 'Reforger '82' was the first time the M I Abrams was involved in such a demanding series of tactical exercises. The battalions of the 64th Armor were committed mainly to the 'Blue' Army.

At dawn on the morning of 13 September 1982 a Canadian 'Orange' task force, consisting of a mechanized infantry company backed by several Leopard I tank companies, began 'attacks' against opposing Blue forces. The main defense line of the Blue 3rd Inf. Div. (US) was met, and 'battle' was joined with elements of the 2/30 Infantry outside Dingolhausen, FRG. About noon a Canadian infantry platoon deep in the rear of the friendly Orange forces began moving forward to assist in clearing out stubborn American resistance at Dingolhausen. While passing through a wooded area far outside the battle area, it stumbled on to a tank battalion hidden in the woods. The tanks were slab-sided, like the later-model Canadian Leopard Is; but more ominously, they carried on the turret fronts the bright blue marker squares that characterized them as 'enemy' Blue Army tanks. The Canadian platoon was quickly 'wiped out'.

The commander of the hidden Blue tanks informed division that his concealed position had been discovered. Although forced to launch its counter-attack prematurely, his ruse had worked. Most of the 'enemy task force' had flowed by without noticing his tanks. Now it was time to take advantage of the Canadian Orange troops' mistake. Lt.Col.John Kelsey ordered his tanks to prepare for action. To the delight of the tankers, their M1s could hardly be heard by the dismounted guards' at the wood's edge due to the quiet turbine engine. More appealing was the tanks' response as the battalion charged out into the open.

One of the M1 companies charged into a
 Canadian mechanized infantry company which
was riding into action on M113 APCs. The
 Canadians were 'wiped out' before they could react.
The second Abrams company was ordered to swing 
further out from the woods to attack the Leopard
 company supporting the infantry. The Leopards
 were caught with their pants down as they were
 refueling at a POL point. Nine Leopards lined up
in a neat row suddenly became victims, with the IR 
rotating amber maneuver beacons signaling wiped out. With two of the M1 companies engaged, the third Abrams company homed in on another Leopard company attacking 2/30 Infantry at Dingolhausen. They struck unexpectedly from the rear; and there were suddenly a lot more static Leopards littering the German plains. For the coup de grace the second M1 company, after bypassing its victims at the POL point, swung behind another Canadian Leopard company attacking towards the Blue force lines. The company commander radioed to supporting AH-1S TOW Cobra attack helicopters lurking in hover behind the tree line of the Steigerwald on the Canadians' right flank. The Cobras popped up and began missile attacks on the Leopards, while the M1s simultaneously attacked them from the rear. The result: Orange Task Force wiped out. One of the Canadian officers later recalled: 'One minute it's quiet, with no contact; the next minute you are overwhelmed - swamped with quick, whispering death.'

The commander of the 3rd Inf. Div. , Maj.Gen. F. K. Mahaffey, summarized his feelings about the M1's performance in 'Reforger '82': 'Operationally the M1 exceeded our expectations during "Reforger". The fighting capability of the system proved to be so much more than previously assumed that it required a new perspective on mounted combat. During the exercise, there was an initial tendency to treat it as "just another improved tank". But all this changed as the exercise evolved and the full potential of the M I became apparent to all. The umpire adjudication process served to highlight a mindset existing among too many that the tactics and employment of the M1 units should conform to the doctrine developed for the much slower, less survivable M60 tanks. In this regard it is important for all to understand that what makes the M I units truly different - by an order of magnitude - is the tank's extraordinary capability to fire while moving at high speeds [30-40 mph] with an accuracy and effectiveness, by day or night, at least equal to that of an M60 firing from a stationary position.

These views were shared by the tankers as well. SFC J. Fields, a platoon leader with 2/64th Armor: 'As we swung and faced the enemy you could see the mass confusion they were in, with the tracks [M113S] and tanks nearly bumping into each other trying to get out of there. They were totally caught by surprise . . . It's just remarkable that you could have four tanks running in pattern with the gun tubes oriented in the right direction and moving at 40 mph.' The commander of I/64th Armor, Lt.Col. J. Quinn: 'The second day was the most devastating. We had two of my companies and the 3/64th Armor attacking on line in Bowling Alley West. That was a magnificent sight. We just completely overwhelmed the Orange forces. There was nothing they could have thrown up there to keep our two battalions from rolling right on through. They absolutely could not react to the speed of that tank no matter how hard they tried. And I know that they tried harder and harder every day to plug their holes, but once we found the hole we were through it and in their rear so fast they just could not react. We kept them disrupted, confused and just generally frustrated for three days.' One tank loader added: 'It seemed like the enemy didn't have a chance, even though they had us outnumbered.


Source: The M1 Abrams Battle Tank (Osprey Publications)

--Ashish


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Mar 2013 12:10 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00
Posts: 2415
And Indian Army wants more T-90s and Apaches rather than combination of Arjuns + LCH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Mar 2013 13:28 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Posts: 12530
Location: In a sad place
vic wrote:
And Indian Army wants more T-90s and Apaches rather than combination of Arjuns + LCH



Err No, there are enough orders for LCH in any case. Even though I agree that 22 Apaches are pointless, given that LCH will dominate (200+?)

This is very different from Arjun + T 90 mix were 1600 T 90s are there in the plan (and the decision was taken about 10 years ago and has NOT changed since) -- the tentative plan calls for something like 1500 Arjuns too, but it is only any body guess when they will come.

So very very different force mix in the two cases.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Mar 2013 13:36 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49
Posts: 4965
Sanku wrote:
This is very different from Arjun + T 90 mix were 1600 T 90s are there in the plan (and the decision was taken about 10 years ago and has NOT changed since) -- the tentative plan calls for something like 1500 Arjuns too, but it is only any body guess when they will come.

Please do share a link where this grand plan is outlined by someone in the IA.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Mar 2013 14:25 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Posts: 12530
Location: In a sad place
nachiket wrote:
Sanku wrote:
This is very different from Arjun + T 90 mix were 1600 T 90s are there in the plan (and the decision was taken about 10 years ago and has NOT changed since) -- the tentative plan calls for something like 1500 Arjuns too, but it is only any body guess when they will come.

Please do share a link where this grand plan is outlined by someone in the IA.


This is based on the statement given by Minister of state for Defence in NDA cabinet, this is also captured in one or two reports of standing committee for defense.

This has always been the grand plan, IFF some one can persuade those making the tanks to actually make them.

It is one thing to plan and want, and another to actually create a working product in enough numbers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Mar 2013 14:29 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25
Posts: 6993
Sanku-> if there were orders the tanks will be made.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Mar 2013 15:09 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Posts: 12530
Location: In a sad place
Aditya_V wrote:
Sanku-> if there were orders the tanks will be made.


That would be true, if they could keep to schedule and quality on the first set of orders. If Mk II order is as per quality and schedule, a new set of order should be coming (assuming that the plan outlay has the money for the same) -- CVRDE needs to demonstrate that they can churn out 50 Arjuns a year (which is their current capacity) -- at the given quality.

Would you ask HAL for a order of say 200 LCAs and plan your fleet around those before you see them deliver the first 20?

Any new equipment which is being manufactured for the first time, will get small orders and only when they are fulfiled in time and quality will new orders come -- that is the standard method.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Mar 2013 15:50 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 11270
Location: India
The head of the ADA has himself admitted in an interview that only 20 (IOC)+20 (FOC) LCAs of MK-1 std. will be delivered by 2018.This endorses other reports about HAL's production rate of only 8 aircraft per year.Therefore hopes of "200 LCAs" by 2015 appears to be farfetched.We may be able to induct about 100 to MK-2 avatar eventually and prolong the upgrades like we've done with the Jaguar.Other more capable aircraft will be the backbone of the IAF in both this and the next decade.

Similarly,if production of Arjuns is just 50 per year and MK-2 arrives by 2015,we will be able to produce between 250-300 only.This will result in only about 10-15% of the IA's tank inventory filled by Arjuns.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 06 Mar 2013 23:34 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 11293
Location: Revive Sanskrit
There was a better source, but this one should do for the time being:

Tejas SP-1 to be handed over to IAF in September

Quote:
HAL on other hand after facing several criticism on failure to set up a production line for Tejas , HAL has promised smooth supply of aircrafts once final IOC of the aircraft has been achieved . it was also informed that once final IOC is achieved HAL in next 3 to 6 months from there onward will be able to produce 8 aircrafts per year , plans are gradually to increase the production to 16 aircrafts per year .


Not the biggest of deals to increase production rate.


nachiket wrote:
Sanku wrote:
This is very different from Arjun + T 90 mix were 1600 T 90s are there in the plan (and the decision was taken about 10 years ago and has NOT changed since) -- the tentative plan calls for something like 1500 Arjuns too, but it is only any body guess when they will come.

Please do share a link where this grand plan is outlined by someone in the IA.


Any links? Looked around, found nothing so far. 1500 does sound good though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Mar 2013 01:55 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 26326
Location: NowHere
arjun may have come late, but for every bhishma, an arjun is a must have. [for myth to bust]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Mar 2013 04:41 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31
Posts: 1646
srai wrote:
uddu wrote:


Well made! Finally a detailed documentary on Arjun MBT.


Why I can't see this video?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Mar 2013 04:49 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Posts: 1517
Location: GSLV++
If you use "https://" in your URL instead of "http://" then the linked images and videos are not shown because they're not secure like the text. In Google Chrome you'll see a silver shield to the right of the URL address bar. Click on the shield and choose "Load anyway".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Mar 2013 07:59 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31
Posts: 1646
No luck, maybe the video has been removed!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Mar 2013 09:30 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Posts: 12530
Location: In a sad place
NRao wrote:
Sanku wrote:
This is very different from Arjun + T 90 mix were 1600 T 90s are there in the plan (and the decision was taken about 10 years ago and has NOT changed since) -- the tentative plan calls for something like 1500 Arjuns too, but it is only any body guess when they will come.


Any links? Looked around, found nothing so far. 1500 does sound good though.



Some of my older posts had the links, am not sure if those links are still alive. This was on the floor of the parliament in 2003-3 timeframe.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Mar 2013 11:01 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Posts: 3853
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3
As far as I remember, there was never any talks of 1500 arjuns. It has always been 124 till the 2nd batch was ordered.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Mar 2013 11:41 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49
Posts: 4965
Sanku wrote:
This is based on the statement given by Minister of state for Defence in NDA cabinet, this is also captured in one or two reports of standing committee for defense.

This has always been the grand plan, IFF some one can persuade those making the tanks to actually make them.

It is one thing to plan and want, and another to actually create a working product in enough numbers.

Uh, make which tanks? The Army ordered only 124 Mk1s. The next batch is for Mk2s, which can't be produced until the definitive Mk2 model is finalized. And yet again, they have ordered only 124 Mk2s with no commitments for any further orders. What a former MoS for Defense said in 2003 makes no difference if the Army keeps talking about 50 tonne FMBTs without saying anything decisive about how many Arjun's they are planning to order. And HVF Avadi can't build production facilities for making 50 tanks a year when they have only 124 orders.

Meanwhile we are happily buying hundreds of foreign tanks which provide no advantages over the Mk1 and which have suffered from their own issues that the Army didn't mind getting fixed after induction.

If the T-90 had been an American tank, you would have said the whole thing stinks to high heaven, which it does.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Mar 2013 12:10 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Posts: 12530
Location: In a sad place
nachiket wrote:
.........


Actually nachiket, your critisim is not well founded. For example you say we are buying, when the tense is we brought, in 2004. Since then the T 90s are done deal. This is before the Arjun LSP was even ready for a user trial. So repeatedly trying to bring in T 90 is entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

The ONLY question is
Avadi has a line for 100 T 90s a year. It seems to be producing 100 T 90s a year, it can handle upgrades to those as and when they come and the production line does not shut down because a upgrade

OTOH 124 Arjuns were ordered in 1998-99. The Arjuns were in shape to be inducted in any practical sense only by 2007-8. Since then has Avadi been making its 50 tanks a year? Why/why not.

That is question 1.

Question 2 is. If IA has asked for Mk II. Is is fair for Army to ask for Mk II or should it go for Mk I and discard Mk II?

If it is acceptable for IA to want Mk II (Sarawsat is on record accepting that the Mk II is needed) -- how soon can be made ready and manufactured.

I think instead of looking for scapegoats on why things are not happening, the focus should be on making things happen -- the crucial thing is quick development and deployment of Mk II.

Mk II was supposedly tested in 2012 (it was supposed to be and there were reports that it was going to Thar) -- my intrest is more in knowing what became of that -- by all indications -- Mk II is a great looking beast. Did it work as advertised? Is Avadi starting its manufacture?

Why is no body focusing on Mk II tests is the question -- otherwise it will be the same saga -- everybody will blame somebody but net net, there will be no Arjun's ready when they are needed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 07 Mar 2013 21:32 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 26326
Location: NowHere
Has the order for 1600 placed to Russia? That was bad plan and a corrupted one at that, knowing fully our own DRDO is making the best one for IA. I am sorry to say this, I think our defense purchase is actually putting the country at risk. Chippanda club could potentially overrun T90s with their numbers and ukaranaian support. Just orbats alone.

We do need that 1500 Arjuns. yes. make it so, let it come in tranches of 124 and from Mk.2 .. Mk.n... and IA has the option of incremental GSQRs for each tranches.. they will get the best tank in the world., and futuristic as tranches develop and mature.

Let us say, Arjun Mk-n is the FMBT.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Mar 2013 00:32 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Jul 2006 02:38
Posts: 407
Location: MASA Land
Sanku wrote:
nachiket wrote:
.........


Actually nachiket, your critisim is not well founded. For example you say we are buying, when the tense is we brought, in 2004. Since then the T 90s are done deal. This is before the Arjun LSP was even ready for a user trial. So repeatedly trying to bring in T 90 is entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

The ONLY question is
Avadi has a line for 100 T 90s a year. It seems to be producing 100 T 90s a year, it can handle upgrades to those as and when they come and the production line does not shut down because a upgrade

OTOH 124 Arjuns were ordered in 1998-99. The Arjuns were in shape to be inducted in any practical sense only by 2007-8. Since then has Avadi been making its 50 tanks a year? Why/why not.

That is question 1.

Question 2 is. If IA has asked for Mk II. Is is fair for Army to ask for Mk II or should it go for Mk I and discard Mk II?

If it is acceptable for IA to want Mk II (Sarawsat is on record accepting that the Mk II is needed) -- how soon can be made ready and manufactured.

I think instead of looking for scapegoats on why things are not happening, the focus should be on making things happen -- the crucial thing is quick development and deployment of Mk II.

Mk II was supposedly tested in 2012 (it was supposed to be and there were reports that it was going to Thar) -- my intrest is more in knowing what became of that -- by all indications -- Mk II is a great looking beast. Did it work as advertised? Is Avadi starting its manufacture?

Why is no body focusing on Mk II tests is the question -- otherwise it will be the same saga -- everybody will blame somebody but net net, there will be no Arjun's ready when they are needed.

same old questions with same old misinformation. check shukla's blog for answers on the questions you posted.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Mar 2013 04:36 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 11270
Location: India
65T Arjun MK-2 cannot be the FMBT because the specs for that are a 3-man crewed tank weighing about 50T.It should also have a superior main gun,auto-loader,missile firing capability-anti tank and anti-air,the latest self-defence suite,better armour protection,and networked commns.The DRDO initially said that this was "impossible" given the weight constraints,but R&D is certainly taking place.

As Sanku has said,he T-90 deal is about 10 years old.Improved versions of the T-90 are also being assembled/built by Avadi.The Q now is getting the MK-2 into production asap and increasing production rates of the same.As I said earlier,just 50 per year will mean only 500 tanks in one decade! This will give us very roughly an inventory of by 2020-2025, about 1000 upgraded T-72s,2000 T-90s and about 500+ Arjuns.The old T-72s will be replaced in due course by the FMBT which should be entering production around 2020+.
Remember the terrain where Arjun is best based and how many tanks are needed primarily for those sectors,which will gvie one a realistic figure of how many Arjun-MK-2s are required.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Mar 2013 05:18 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Posts: 1456
^^^

We have been over this "chicken-and-egg" question many times over already. If the IA only places 116 Arjun Mk.2 orders then why should Avadi build a factory that will build 200 units/year? It only makes sense for having larger capacity if the IA orders 500-1,000 tanks. Then Avadi will expand its capacity from 50 units/year to 100+ units/year. Simple as that.

Besides Avadi is dependent on couple of hundred private small/medium enterprises supplying various parts. These enterprises, in return, are depended on other suppliers for parts and raw materials. How are they to order raw materials/parts for 1,000 Arjuns if no confirmed orders are there from the IA? Do you expect these companies to go bankrupt?


Last edited by srai on 08 Mar 2013 05:24, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Mar 2013 05:23 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 23556
Location: Confucius say: bell ring as many times as you strike it, else it not ring
Philip wrote:
6DRDO initially said that this was "impossible" given the weight constraints,but R&D is certainly taking place.
.


Philip here is a CAG report on what the army wanted - a demand that turned out to be unrealistic
http://saiindia.gov.in/english/home/Our ... /Chap7.pdf

Quote:
The GSQR envisaged the weapon system to have a
range of 10 Km, rate of fire of 8-
10 bombs per minute, with a burst fire
capability of 12-15 rounds per minute. For portability, the mass of the
equipment was not to exceed 700 kg and the weight of the three main
components required for man/mule packing was not to exceed 450 Kg.
<snip>
The LRM developed by DRDO could not achieve the GSQR parameters as the
desired range and rate of fire or burst
fire capability could not be met with a
low weight Mortar which was an inconsistency in the GSQR framed by the
Army. Director General (DG) Artillery, decided against going ahead with the
project. As a result, DRDO foreclosed the main project from December 2004
after incurring expenditure of
9.29 crore. Subsequently the other project for
Smoke and Illumination ammunition was also foreclosed in December 2005
after incurring an expenditure of
1.08 crore. Army HQ while asking for
foreclosure of the project in Decemb
er 2004 accepted that the range of 10000
meters was not achievable with the low weight stipulations. It was also
accepted that a mortar system with such QRs is not available in the world
market and therefore a fresh GSQR was being initiated.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Mar 2013 07:21 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 24 Dec 2007 11:53
Posts: 390
Location: USA
Philip wrote:
65T Arjun MK-2 cannot be the FMBT because the specs for that are a 3-man crewed tank weighing about 50T.It should also have a superior main gun,auto-loader,missile firing capability-anti tank and anti-air,the latest self-defence suite,better armour protection,and networked commns.The DRDO initially said that this was "impossible" given the weight constraints,but R&D is certainly taking place.

FMBT no more - Broadsword

--Ashish


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Mar 2013 09:26 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49
Posts: 4965
The FMBT was called out as a joke on BRF the moment the specs came out. As Sanku saar likes to say, "BRF ahead of the curve!". 8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Mar 2013 09:51 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Posts: 12530
Location: In a sad place
srai wrote:
^^^

We have been over this "chicken-and-egg" question many times over already. If the IA only places 116 Arjun Mk.2 orders then why should Avadi build a factory that will build 200 units/year?


srai ji lets forget more Arjun's for the moment.

The core issue is can Avadi do what it is supposed to, already. Not some unobtanium. If it cant, then we have a problem dont we?


Last edited by Sanku on 08 Mar 2013 11:35, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Mar 2013 09:55 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Posts: 12530
Location: In a sad place
nachiket wrote:
The FMBT was called out as a joke on BRF the moment the specs came out. As Sanku saar likes to say, "BRF ahead of the curve!". 8)


Yes, BRF is indeed ahead of the curve. BTW FMBT was never a spec, it was a wish list of a vision statement for expolration. It was certainly doomed to fail.

I believe you will agree that I have always maintained that a FMBT will be Arjun++,or ++++ type platform.

That said, my wish list for future versions of Arjun include a auto-loader, a smooth bore canon, and other viz bangs (a lot like the FMBT schematic posted here)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Mar 2013 10:16 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 11270
Location: India
SR,precisely,well over a year ago,I posted details from an IDR feature on our armour plans and the production problem with so many projects.Why can't BEML,Medak or any other PSU already involved in heavy vehicle manufacture be expanded to produce tanks? Has this idea ever been examined? Even assembling/local production of a T-series tank will require a huge facility.The country needs a facility/facilities which can produce 100 tanks per year-which will be able to replace obsolete tanks at a regular rate,plus the extra specialised versions for missile launchers,mine laying/clearing,anti-air artillery,bridge layers,etc.ICV production is another matter altogether.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Mar 2013 10:43 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08
Posts: 1136
FMBT PSQRs were formulated in 2010 before the army reluctantly realised that it is impossible to be built under the current technology frontiers :) I think the army 'vision' has been to ask for ridiculous product specifications from DRDO and then buy expensive crap from Russia citing inability for DRDO to meet specifications.

It would be amusing, except for the serious repurcussions this has led to; such as - 70% of our armour being night blind.

So effectively the army vision has landed us with an armoured force capable of fighting between 9 am - 5pm (10 am - 5pm in winter) :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Mar 2013 10:56 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Posts: 6056
Location: Sergeant Major-No.1 Training Battalion, BR Rifles
Same Old. Same Old.

It seems the main plank of arguments for T-90 is to repeat a set of lies and misinformation "N" number of times and hope it sticks. We are seeing a rerun of the same again.

Army makes Arjun jump through real and imaginary hoops and then people ask where are Arjuns? IA asks for improvement on Mk-1 without stating why Mk-1 is inadequate in first place - if T-90 with all its warts and pimples can be 'backbone' of the IA, god knows why Arjun cannot be. This when Arjun wiped the floor with T-90 during comparative trials.

Treatment of Arjun program by the army borders on being criminal.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Mar 2013 11:05 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08
Posts: 1136
rohitvats wrote:
Same Old. Same Old.

It seems the main plank of arguments for T-90 is to repeat a set of lies and misinformation "N" number of times and hope it sticks. We are seeing a rerun of the same again.

Army makes Arjun jump through real and imaginary hoops and then people ask where are Arjuns? IA asks for improvement on Mk-1 without stating why Mk-1 is inadequate in first place - if T-90 with all its warts and pimples can be 'backbone' of the IA, god knows why Arjun cannot be. This when Arjun wiped the floor with T-90 during comparative trials.

Treatment of Arjun program by the army borders on being criminal.


I think it is because T-90 requires a 3 men crew and Arjun requires 4. God knows, if one thing the IA is short of - it is men (and that can't be imported from Russia) :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Mar 2013 11:10 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Posts: 12530
Location: In a sad place
rohitvats wrote:
IA asks for improvement on Mk-1 without stating why Mk-1 is inadequate in first place - if T-90 with all its warts and pimples can be 'backbone' of the IA,


Lets cut to the chase, are are you saying that instead of asking for Mk II, more orders for Mk I should be given?

DRDO too agrees that the list of 63 improvements should be rolled in before the Mk II is made in bulk. It is typically common sense that the new batch should be as far upgraded as possible. This has been the case of Indian T 90s as well.

Please answer in yes or no to the above question, since the decision has to come down to yes and no, in the end.

Why do you disagree? Can you list the 63 improvements and mention why you think they are not needed/not present in T 90?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Mar 2013 11:13 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Posts: 12530
Location: In a sad place
arnab wrote:
FMBT PSQRs were formulated in 2010 before the army reluctantly realised that it is impossible to be built under the current technology frontiers :) I think the army 'vision' has been to ask for ridiculous product specifications from DRDO and then buy expensive crap from Russia citing inability for DRDO to meet specifications.

It would be amusing, except for the serious repurcussions this has led to; such as - 70% of our armour being night blind.

So effectively the army vision has landed us with an armoured force capable of fighting between 9 am - 5pm (10 am - 5pm in winter) :)


Thank you for the comic relief, 70% of our armor is night blind because till 30% of that Armor being T 90s and Upg T 72 happened post 2000 -- for 25 years or so no Armor was acquired.

This was not due to Army, IA had been regularly asking for upgrds, this was because
1) There was no money
2) IA was kept waiting for Arjun.

So for 25 years, Indian armor went down the path of obsolesce BECAUSE no new purchases were done despite requests.

Lies can only take you so far.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Mar 2013 11:14 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 13 Oct 2004 22:14
Posts: 354
^@rohitvats
IMHO, there is no border; it is criminal. Else how could u justify a purchase decision outlined as below:

1. frame GSQRs that no one can meet
2. Ask DRDO/OFB to produce a product meeting those GSQRs
3. When they fail, order from outside the products that dont meet the GSQRs saying they are urgent requirement

The same thing is repeated in Arjun, long range mortar etc


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Mar 2013 11:15 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Posts: 6885
Location: Desh ke baarei mei sochna shuru karo. Soch badlo, desh badlega!
if T-90 needs improvement after all these years of developement by an establist county which has been making tanks for ages, wouldnt it be better if we put that money in our own product ???


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Mar 2013 11:18 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 13 Oct 2004 22:14
Posts: 354
Sanku wrote:
rohitvats wrote:
IA asks for improvement on Mk-1 without stating why Mk-1 is inadequate in first place - if T-90 with all its warts and pimples can be 'backbone' of the IA,


Lets cut to the chase, are are you saying that instead of asking for Mk II, more orders for Mk I should be given?

DRDO too agrees that the list of 63 improvements should be rolled in before the Mk II is made in bulk. It is typically common sense that the new batch should be as far upgraded as possible. This has been the case of Indian T 90s as well.

Please answer in yes or no to the above question, since the decision has to come down to yes and no, in the end.

Why do you disagree? Can you list the 63 improvements and mention why you think they are not needed/not present in T 90?


Sanku, why are we continuing to buy T-90S when we know it has a lot of flaws (some of which are corrected in T-90 MS) ? We should stop production of T-90S by the same logic, right?

The step motherly treatment ot Arjun is causing khujli to a lot of posters here. The way IA handled T-90 purchase is to be followed in case of Arjun also.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Mar 2013 11:21 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 13 Oct 2004 22:14
Posts: 354
And yes, Mk1 should be ordered as long as Mk1 is better than the T-55s and T-72s that are in service.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Mar 2013 11:26 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Posts: 12530
Location: In a sad place
alexis wrote:
Sanku, why are we continuing to buy T-90S when we know it has a lot of flaws (some of which are corrected in T-90 MS) ? We should stop production of T-90S by the same logic, right?

The step motherly treatment ot Arjun is causing khujli to a lot of posters here. The way IA handled T-90 purchase is to be followed in case of Arjun also.


There are no "flaws" in T 90, i.e. of the expected set of behavior, it performs as per specifications, mostly. There were flaws in Arjun Mk I, they were cleaned up by 2007 (as in product not working per spec, in fact some failures were dramatic, enough for people to first cry sabotage and then go slinking back when it was demonstrated that it had indeed failed and there was no sabotage)

What there are in T 90 now are improvements -- ditto for Arjun Mk II.

The new T 90s will be S standard. The new Arjun's will be Mk II standard.

There is absolutely no discrepancy. The question here on is only when the two get ready, or more important when does Arjun Mk II get ready. Unless of course, you say that Arjun Mk II should not be made and MkI should continue.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Mar 2013 11:28 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Posts: 12530
Location: In a sad place
alexis wrote:
And yes, Mk1 should be ordered as long as Mk1 is better than the T-55s and T-72s that are in service.


Wont they face the problem of fleet obsolesce again then? What would we have gained? Isnt it better to put the best possible Arjun in mass production?

DRDO also agrees with above btw.


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 ... 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 ... 109  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: darshand, ddkhare, Google [Bot], ugandhar, Yahoo [Bot] and 12 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