Bharat Rakshak

I absolutely have no interest in debating with you. You know it. Once you even said on BR that "you have no interest in debating with me and you will not do it either." You broke the rule (5th time now) and you got what you deserved. Why ask Jagan for an solution when you yourself are the rule breaker?

guys please we all are still BRfites.for the same reason i said sorry and stopped.please.There are puki lurkers here man

Ok fine.
-----------------
Anyway to keep things in perspective,

all the indignation about the injustices faced by the Arjun stems from the fact that so far the news coming in regularly was that Arjun had made a lot of progress.And also that everything is not so hunky-dory about the T-90.Also brings out the problem with the army..itself calling for comparative trials when the Arjun wasnt ready and chickening out when it was.

As reported by Ajai Shukla from September last year:



[quote]Ajai Shukla: The desert duel that wasn`t

BROADSWORD

Ajai Shukla / New Delhi September 11, 2007

But this long-playing tale has taken a rousing twist comparable with the most unlikely of underdog success stories. Recent technological breakthroughs in the Arjun project appear to have transformed what was an underperforming liability into something close to a world class 60-tonne Main Battle Tank (MBT) that could literally kick sand in the face of the Russian favourites. Army sources reveal that there was apprehension that the DRDO-built Arjun could outperform the Russian-origin tanks in all three determinants of tank ability: mobility, firepower, and protection. Now, the Ministry of Defence (MoD), at the request of the army, has cancelled the comparative trials.

Confirming that comparative trials would no longer be held, the MoD reasoned that it wasn’t possible to compare “a Maruti with a BMWâ€

Sanku

So we have a catch 22.

But that sort of dilemna exists for all systems. The Israelis had issues with the Merkava but nurtured it in phases to make it the tank that it is.

The IA could live with issues galore T 90, but comes up with harsh judgements on the Arjun.

The IA commits to 100s of T90s but cannot commit to even a couple of hundred Arjuns.

It is a very strange army that has not nurtured arty, armour, missiles - nothing - didly squat!!!

Actually more than the Arjun the IAs disinterest in getting its arty right is more worrying.

Has the ARmy ever run the T90 or the T 72 for 2000 or 3000 kms?? If so what are the results?

Raymond -- you do realize that AUCRT and the one-on-one trials that you are talking of have nothing to do with each other? Even even Arjun is a heavier tank and better armored (which it is) the question here is usage and reliability over a long period of operation and ease of use in operational model.

Therefore to be shocked because the previous reports were good and this one is bad is IMHO un warranted -- simply because both can be true -- the Arjun can be everything the previous reports said and at the same time show some deficienes in build quality and/or reliability over sustained operation.

The two are not mutually exclusive and hence no need to worry.

For T-90 they wanted DRDO to fix the airconditioning for its turret heating problem. This problem is going to be surfacing this summer too as the issue has not been fixed yet.

Shukla has a preview post to be revealed on 22nd.

Pinaka? WLR? Pinaka II (in pipe line); INSAS and derivatives?

Even with Arjun -- criticism apart the Army has had a regiment dedicated to nothing but Arjun trial for what 20 years now?

When a Army person is critical of Arjun -- he probably thinks he is doing his country a great service by hoping to improve a system.

I dont think Army sees itself with loggerheads with DRDO as we think it is. A difference in opinion or working friction always exists everywhere does it not.

Igorr a related question what is the SOP of AUCRT for russians -- how do we know there data is correct?

Dear all

May I kindly request you to talk more about what is right and wrong about Arjun, rather than bringing in T90s, T72s and T55s into discussion. Can somebody clarify the following:

1) Arjun has been DRDO's project and production is being handed over to OFB after completion of initial set (30 Tanks). Is the army making so much noise so that DRDO works on the tanks rather than OFB taking correctional measures. Maybe, it has more confidence in DRDO and this is the way of extracting more work out of them. After all, DRDO is full of intellectuals who might have an explanation for everything that goes wrong and also have the capability to address those issues.

2) The whole argument of Arjun Vs T90 is unwarranted because both tanks are going to be used by our own army to protect our nation. Maybe, army has developed a certain comfort level with T series and there needs to be a constant effort to create an awareness rather than blaming them for supporting T90s for bribing.

3) The argument of russia filling up the pockets of army generals sounds very naive because Army is still answerable to the democratic setup that we have. They just cannot do things as they like. There is an audit mechanism, which most of the times would identify these sinister issues.

4) Arjun is still being inducted, right.... Army hasn't cancelled the initial set of 124 tanks. They have to take it and if the tank is good enough, it will hold its own.

5) There is a tendency to project Army as naive force which does not know what it needs in the future. It is all easy for us to say when these guys are the ones who fight at the war fronts. We need to give them some slack rather than blaming them for everything.

6) Arjun is an indigenous effort and an emotional issue. Who better than our army to understand the importance and who better to give constructive criticism. Why are they being questioned for giving such feedback.

And, kindly refrain from in-fighting. It not only sounds ugly and also takes up lot of bandwidth. We have to scroll many pages before we find something new or useful.

Just my thoughts.

Prasad

Execellent post above Prasadha....

regards

If you want to be very formal and strictly define it then yes it should be said that the two are different.But practically there is a lot of relation between the two.For example if an equipment cannot run for a minute one cannot expect it to run for an hour.It is only the running upto the minute that is the maximum which can be gleaned from one on one trials.

However also do note what the developers have to say about the Arjun.They have done numerous kms and fired off numerous shots.And the developers are very confident of it.They are from the army though and for me that speaks quite a lot for the Arjun.Also to be taken into account what Shukla says ....whatever the criticisms about him it has to be granted that being trained in this very thing he will have a feel for it in a short time.So his opinions though sometimes unpalatable do count particluarly when he has personally experienced it.

Sanku- please do not compare Pinaka to the need for 155 mm guns. (qas it is its not going to be in the numbers anyway)


The Army never nurtured and pushed beyond the 105 mm gun. Witht he 155mm guns in trouble you would think some genius would have prepared for contingencies - Yeah they upgraded the 130 mms which are not howitzers and have their limitations


Long ago tiny Singapore decided to try its hand on 155 mm guns. It is not exactly great BUT they have gone with it.

Same with the South Koreans.


A massive army like ours should have been thinking of a local 155 mm gun the day the Bofors mess started. We have a lost almost 2 decades on this.


Yeah - we should be thankful they decided to accept the INSAS (albeit with tons of AK derivatives imported).

But the big ticket items armour,arty, apcs, missiles


Prasadha - BRF is way past believing that the aRmy or any institution is above reproach. The beating the Army is getting here is based on eons of frustrations. We bashed DRDO when the time was right. The Army criticism has started only in the last yr or 2 especially as it seems that the DRDO has got its act together and even the Ajai Shuklas have understood its relevance. So please do nto think we have not given thought to the other side

I dont get you; the issue here is not whether the tank can run for a minute or not; even the army does not say that. While we speculate what they actually meant; I see no coorelation between a overall great tank having few reliability issues in the first test of the sort.



Please note that it is not the developers alone who have done it -- almost all testing by CVDRE was done in conjugation with Army at Mahajan ranges. So even the "army" has been involved in the testing with its Arjun regiment. Its not a developer vs user issue.

The testing that would have been done before and now would of course be different in nature with harsh war like conditions tried only now.

I dont see the dichotomy still -- and Shukla is all right but remember he is human -- he was anti Arjun and he was wrong -- this time he could be anti army and still wrong.

The man needs to find balance -- unfortunately the profession he has chosen survives mostly on witch hunts and sensationalisms -- so he will go for the most sensational spin possible. That he has always done pro or anti Arjun he has always been pro-sensationalism -- I would tone down his "tone" and stick to his data.

Just to clarify the 5.56mm Insas round is being made in india by Ammunition Factory at Khadki. The imports were an stopgap affair due to the increased demand for the 5.56mm round and low production capacity at that point of time.

Phillip, do you really believe that the Army will accept a product made by DRDO (even with IA participation)? There is no way that IA will ever accept an Indian product easily. If TATA/L&T or others (I will not say Reliance ) were to use DRDO's help to build this FMBT then it is a possibility for obvious (or not so obvious) reasons.

Well what exactly did you want the Army to do which it did not? Nuture is fine -- but even if you look at the book d-berwal posted -- as a matter of prinicple Army has been asking for domestic equipment for ages.

Not all DRDOs failure are because of Army; and please lets not bash any just because some (not me) bashed DRDO before and DRDO is ok now it does not mean that we should bash Army.

Bashing in general serves no purpose -- we need to have a sense of balance and seek to understand rather than bash. Critism and bashing are very different things. Lets critisie without bashing

To quote Shukla:



Well the issue is to test the tank for an extended period of time/distance etc. to assess the reliablity of the tank as a system for sustained operation as well as to formulate the logistics required for such an operation.



Exactly and also note that since the army was also involved and the people were confident enough that they could invite the army for a comparative trial in war conditions.So clearly according to their evaluation the tank was ready for not only operating under harsh conditions but also along with it to compete with the other tanks.Naturally it is surprisng to say the least when it fails"very poorly".


Yes all of this are a given.

Given that it has already done so for many products there is no reason why there is no reason why it will not do so in future too. Even with Arjun IA has stayed engaged through the torturous path and at no time said it will give up on it.

It seems to be fashionable to bash IA these days; for all ills which are MoDs as well as in general in India -- but I cant think what should have IA done for Arjun which was greater -- remember IA is also going through a learning exercise.

If the army officer who said these words knew how much strum and drang will be caused by the choice of his words -- he would be shocked to say the least. I dont think any one outside a bored typist would have ever heard him

Anyway -- I think the running non stop might have created new issues not seen before trust the Tank boys to put a bombastic spin on it.

Let us wait -- I dont think the tank performed very poorly -- or at least my very poorly is very different from that tank mans.

Sanku,

Please face the harsh reality. And do not parrot the same old line - "fashionable to bash Army". No one likes to do that. Our comments are restricted to the procurement wing and not the operational wing of the army. We all hold the Indian fighting soldier in high regard and have our heroes amongst them.

JCage has provided 1000s of pages of how the Arjun "has been" ready to fight. Yet the army does not accept the Arjun. Has the IA accepted the five tanks that were supplied to them from the production lot?

I dont know who put a spin on what.Lets face it the tank had some problems during the run.And if we grant the army two things for a moment namely:
1>That they tested the Arjun according to standard protocol for the AUCRT(i.e. the playing field was level)
2>Forgetting the incorrect reporting for a while ,

it could have been said that the tank was "high maintenance" which is very innocuous.Infact there are a lot of equipment which are high maint...and there would be no controversy.As I see it the army for whatever reason has messed it all up to its own detriment.

Vivek funny you invoke JC; JC has never said that Army was wrong in its policies or what not -- what his contention was that DRDO was being bashed unfairly -- did he say that Arjun was ready to fight? Well the Army accepted that in 2000 didnt it. Never ever did he BASH the army; he was irritated but sympathetic to Armies needs too.

What it is saying now has no bearing on Arjun induction -- its a reliability trial -- and is a slightly different thing.

Its possible was that he was told a certain reliablity criteria would be met by the designers compared to which he said very poor -- if the tank is per design "high maintenance" thats a different thing but if it turns out lower than what people were led to believe would be (by either the designer or by req specs) he cant say high maintenance can he.

Sanku - ok we are not going to get anywhere if we start saying "what can the Army do??" or "army bashing".

It is army procurement bashing and very deservedly too.


We (especially JCage) has beenthrough for a long time.

The Army cannot just ask for domestic equipment - it has to like theNavy be involved wiht it. I do nto want to rehash the changes in specs etc again.
Again there are examples of how other Armies have gone through this.




Again I am curious to see the comparitive results of the T 90 doing the same 2000 KM run.

I want the Army brass hauled up and asked these questions.

But maintainability is what should be tested in this trial isnt it?Which areas are a problem and what logistics are required to maintain it at the usable level.Apart from that the rest is conjecture.And there is where the earlier issue comes in that the people associated with it were very confident.

Anyway!

Absolutely!! The question is maintainability w.r.t. what specs? If its no specs then its high maintenance or low; if w.r.t. to spec then its either on mark or poor or better.

About accelerated usage cum reliability trial: it's some standard procedure, that require for determinate the alowed mileage before overall. If I did mistake, please correct. So for T-90 these data are 11 thousand km OR 500 hours of engine work. If I helped to answer for your question, I'm glad.



The only limitations are appear when it's about NATO's countries or the countries wish to enter the block, becaus of political unrelaiableness of such deals... But even in this circumstance Russia is willing to do exception (like for France). For example, now all Klimov's helo engines are outsourced in Ukraine on 80-100% due to low labor cost there. If the buiseness is going as it's going now, I dont see why the Klimovs RD-33 fighter engines for foreign castomers and Russia itself of the figters and UCAVs will not be at least partially manufactured in India. After ToT for Klimov's RD-33 India is indeed became a part of Russia/Ukraine gas-turbine building technologic chain.

And thats why the niggling doubts about sabotage when reliable systems begin to fail.Also remember that some of the systems were clearly over their time so cannot be really considered as failures.

Anyway i think we have exhausted whatever issues were there to discuss.So will wait for further information.

This trial was about maintanability and logistics. Its user trials. The maintainability has not been quetioned by Army because, if they do, it will show that Army lacks prepardness when all support structure and logistics are ready with various agencies like BAFTA wagons, spares etc. Army has not questioned maintainability and and has mislead parliament on "engine failures." With the costs of Arjun and T-90 comming close to each other, Army cannot crib on over all maintainence cost. Then there are issues like, if issues crop up with Arjun, they have a support in India. Last time, Russians were asking for additional costs for rectification, which, dragged the T-90 problems.

I think there is some confusion about what was actually being tested and what was reported -- let us wait for more data -- as it happens one way or the other (even per Shukla) the tank has problem -- lets hope DRDO fixes the design issues (for reliability) and Avadi actually makes the damn thing per quality.

Thanks Igorr; however I am sorry to say that I did not understand -- could you please try and rephrase your answer? This is for my clarification only.

Sorry for the trouble and thanks again.

T-90 power pack has resourse of 11 000 km or 500 hours of engine work. These numbers are determined during intensive tests in Russia. When they came to Rajasthan, they put one tank for even more extremal trial. This tank run without stopping, it's against all rules, that require periodically stoping and rest after some hundred km. This trial followed till the T-90's engine have been dead. Than, the engine exchange was demonstrated for Indians in field conditions. I saw good video about this.

Errr..! Can you share the joke??



Sanku, therein lies the key to my post!


And the procurement brass also said that the Arjun failed the reliability trial. So what does it mean? Has the army accepted the 5 Arjuns delivered to it?

Posting in full:

Ajai Shukla: Friendly fire damages the Arjun

BROADSWORD

Ajai Shukla / New Delhi April 22, 2008

The Arjun tank is in pitched battle even before fully entering service with the Indian Army. Ironically, the most hostile fire is coming from the men who will eventually ride the tank into war: the army’s mechanised forces. These experts, it now emerges, have rubbished the tank before Parliament’s Standing Committee on Defence; they say they will not accept the Arjun unless it improves considerably. What benchmarks it must meet remain undefined.

The Arjun saga encapsulates the pitfalls in any attempt to build a complex weapons system. It all began in 1974, when the Defence R&D Organisation (DRDO) undertook to build India’s own Main Battle Tank (MBT). The euphoria gradually waned as the DRDO missed deadline after deadline, eventually losing the army’s trust with unfulfilled promises that the tank was just around the corner. The army undermined the project in equal measure, periodically “updatingâ€

they would have.

Every Armoured Squadron with 14 tanks would have 3-4 designated training tanks. The entire squadron do their training on these tanks and do not use their actual equipment - the result being while most of the tanks ahve 200-300km on the clock, the 'training tanks' have in excess of 3000km on their logs. And I am talking about figures from a T-72 squadron in 1993.

Jagan

Sorry - I mean in a similar ACURT process.

a non stop 2000 or 3000 km run the way they ran the ARjun.

Something really revealing by who shook-law ed earlier ddm reports. Perhaps he read into BR posts or lurking here perhaps.

Good, that IA needs new approaches now.. and at the same time, its good to rework on Arjun-Mk2, and get the issues solved. Also, IA should agree to trials with T90s.