Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 20 Dec 2014 12:45

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: 06 Mar 2013 14:29 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25
Posts: 7100
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: 11352
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: 11367
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: 26831
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: 1651
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: 1528
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: 1651
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: 3854
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: 5046
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: 26831
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: 413
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: 11352
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: 1495
^^^

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: 23785
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: 5046
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: 11352
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: 6114
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: 358
^@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: 7090
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: 358
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: 358
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  
 
PostPosted: 08 Mar 2013 11:28 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 11352
Location: India
Same way we are buying more SU-30MKIs when the "Super Sukhoi" upgrade of all MKIs is planned for the future.
At some point in a contract a decision has to be made.Upgrades,"extras" are always options.In the 10 years after acquiring the T-90,improvements have been developed as would be with any weapon system,east or west.Components acquired earlier for local production cannot just be junked.Every military has earlier versions of tanks,aircraft,warships, subs in its inventory which are regularly upgraded/modernised usually at their mid-life stage/refit.

However,with the T-72s ,we have a v. large number in service with lots of life left in them.They can take only a certain level of modernisation/upgrade because of their legacy design.Strategy,similar upgrade policy as with our limited upgrade of Sea Harriers (LUSH).makes for sound practical and economic sense.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Mar 2013 11:30 
Offline
BRF Oldie

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


Which GSQR ? Long range mortar yes. No such difficult GSQRs for Arjun. The important point to note was the there was NO GSQR for FMBT EVER. Some vision documents, some ideas and some Track II Shukla's insinuations. That is all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Mar 2013 11:47 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 13 Oct 2004 22:14
Posts: 358
Sanku wrote:
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.


Mk1 can be upgraded to Mk2 or Mk3 when Mk2/Mmk3 are stabilised. That is the standard procedure for any defence forece except IA :( F16 is the best example. Pls see how many iterations M1 Abrams or Merkeva went through.

Similarly, as Philip pointed out, we are still procuring Su-30 MKI even though Super Sukhoi specifications are decided and upgrade for initial aircrafts will begin soon.


Last edited by alexis on 08 Mar 2013 12:14, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Mar 2013 11:50 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 13 Oct 2004 22:14
Posts: 358
Sanku wrote:
alexis wrote:
^@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


Which GSQR ? Long range mortar yes. No such difficult GSQRs for Arjun. The important point to note was the there was NO GSQR for FMBT EVER. Some vision documents, some ideas and some Track II Shukla's insinuations. That is all.


I didnt mention anything about GSQRs for FMBT.
Arjun GSQRs were difficult to be met by a 50T tank. So IA should not have complained about the weight later.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Mar 2013 11:55 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 13 Oct 2004 22:14
Posts: 358
Philip wrote:
Same way we are buying more SU-30MKIs when the "Super Sukhoi" upgrade of all MKIs is planned for the future.
At some point in a contract a decision has to be made.Upgrades,"extras" are always options.In the 10 years after acquiring the T-90,improvements have been developed as would be with any weapon system,east or west.Components acquired earlier for local production cannot just be junked.Every military has earlier versions of tanks,aircraft,warships, subs in its inventory which are regularly upgraded/modernised usually at their mid-life stage/refit.

However,with the T-72s ,we have a v. large number in service with lots of life left in them.They can take only a certain level of modernisation/upgrade because of their legacy design.Strategy,similar upgrade policy as with our limited upgrade of Sea Harriers (LUSH).makes for sound practical and economic sense.


nothing to comment on this aspect other than why is Arjun Mk1 not procured to the same effect?

If IA has decided to have Mk2 tanks in inventory, it makes sense to induct Mk1 for training and familiarisation purpose. Pls see how Typhoon is getting inducted. Nobody is waiting for definitive Tranche 3. Everybody inducted Tranche 1 inspite of the fact that T1 (not all but many) cant be upgraded to T3 standard.


Last edited by alexis on 08 Mar 2013 12:07, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Mar 2013 12:03 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08
Posts: 1136
Sanku wrote:
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)


Saar - lies seem to be getting you far ahead of the curve :) so far up the curve that your head is pushing up your posterior :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Mar 2013 12:04 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 13 Oct 2004 22:14
Posts: 358
Sanku wrote:
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.


Arjun Mk1 is also similar, sir. It also performs as per specifications, mostly

Pls refer T-90 S problems in http://www.india-defence.com/reports/2081
If T-90 S had no problems, i would have welcomed it whole heartedly. I am still ok with T-90S as an interim solution; only the treatment to Arjun Mk1 by the same army is baffling and causes a lot of khujli for me that is untreatable.


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: Google Feedfetcher, rkhanna and 24 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