Arjun thread

Locked
kvraghav
BRFite
Posts: 1136
Joined: 17 Apr 2008 11:47
Location: Some where near the equator

Post by kvraghav »

that is a baseless accusation -- IAs conduct has been exemplary in this regard -- the max it can be accused of is being wedded to T 90 light tank doctrine.
and how could you say shukla is laughing all the way to the bank?
Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1444
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Post by Kersi D »

d_berwal wrote:
Surya wrote:Jagan

Sorry - I mean in a similar ACURT process.

a non stop 2000 or 3000 km run the way .......


during INduction in the first 2 regts the training tanks 3-4 per sqdrn me
every nut and bolt was tested to the extreme by IA then only the follow on order cameup.... the ppl who test these mbt are the ones who will go to battle in them... not the DRDO or AVDHI or BRFits or MoD ppl so ppl cut some slack to the ppl who test them... if they do a mistake they will "DIE"... from my personal experience they will never PLAY with Lives of their TROOPS ever....
Yes They will not play with thier own or tyheir troops' lives.


BUT ARE THEY THE ONES TO DECIDE ? NNNNNOOOOOO


The final decision will be taken by some others considering "the overall picture". Hence the views of the Regiment which has used Arjun and are happy, will be drowned in the bottles of Blue Label (with ice added for winter trials)
Raymond
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 62
Joined: 21 Oct 2006 20:41

Post by Raymond »

Sanku wrote: How do we know the generals have said so -- because Shukla writes so -- So given that this entire debate is only because Shukla said so -- you bet he has everything to do with it.
Forget Shukla.There is some report in some newpaper claiming that.And all this discussion is based on those reported.And thats how online discussion forums work.On the other hnd there is corroborative evidence..remember that quote from Deepak Kapoor.And also those generals keeping on ordering 1000s of T-90s but staying stuck with a measly 124 arjuns particularly when there is a need for 3500 MBTs.
This is not nitpicking this is understanding the complex reality that there is NO procurement brass which is common in Army vs. passing fiats on a mythical body (not your statment BTW)
There are definitely people in the army responsible for visiting a manufacturer evaluating the tank ,making reccomendations and also people of the army passing those recommendations.
BECAUSE YOU DO NOT KNOW IF THE ISSUES ARE BECAUSE OF DESIGN FLAWS OR NOT. IF IT IS YOU WILL FIRST FIX THE DESIGN. YOU DO NOT WISH TO ORDER 500 TANKS WITH EACH HAVING THE SAME PROBLEM. NOTE DESIGN INCLUDES MANUFACTURE PROCESS DESIGN.
The people of army 43rd reg are confident that there is no problem design or otherwise.
Not true -- post a link to substantiate. OTOH YOU HAVE ALREADY POSTED THE SHELLS LINK.
What not true??
Here is one link:http://www.tribuneindia.com/2000/20000519/nation.htm#7

The performance of the T-72 tank was affected and accidents occurred because 770 barrels valued at Rs 45.07 crore were manufactured with defects, the Comptroller and Auditor General has said in its latest report.

Also anothe report (looking for the link).
New Delhi - There have been 26 cases in the past three years of barrel bursts of the Indian Army’s T-72 main battle tank (MBT), parliament was informed Wednesday.

Of these, 14 relate to imported barrels and 12 to indigenous barrels, Minister of State for Defence Production Rao Inderjit Singh said in a written answer in the Rajya Sabha.

‘Cases of premature failure/barrel burst have been thoroughly investigated, and the opinion of Russian experts was also sought by the ministry of defence. The suggested improvements in the manufacturing process has been implemented,’ he added.

And maybe the moon is made of green chesse -- the question is not answered -- why did MoD for 30 years and all the Def Mins not object?
fault of the MoD.
All corrupt -- for 30 years the entire lot ? All except DRDO
Could be who knows.
This is ridiculous you know.
I can give many examples from west bengal itself.Where for 30 years some wrong thing is happening and the people are corrupt and that nothing has changed.SO can be said for other govt institutions.
Then why did DRDO agree to AUCRT.

Because passing the AUCRT is a requirement thats why.
Please that is like saying because a baby passed std 1 tests he should automatically get into IITs :roll:
Not really.AUCRT were to be done and was done.There were some issues(which is natural).
Bull shit (for Shukla) -- the first are 8 years old now -- and the technology has moved on -- secondly -- the upgrades are for T 72. If you note he does not say what exactly -- uses vauge hand waving arguments.
8 years is nothing for a main battle tank whose manufacturing is going to go upto 2020.they are brand new.And the point is that even after evaluation before buying the new tanks why do thay have to be fixed so soon?
There is -- the parliamentary board itself -- thats where all the parties come to bitch. IA did -- what stopped the DRDO?
Maybe DRDO did.AFAIR,the parliamentary board members are reported to be "startled" at the incorrect reporting by the army.The DRDO feedback could have had something to do with that.
Bolloks; this is written in the parliamentary report. No conjecture.
Not that.The conjecture is that the army and DRDo agreed upon whatever baseline.
No a/c because you didnt buy one is a problem :shock: :eek: :rotfl:

this is hilarious.
I dont understand whats so hilarious.The simple point being T-90 still has problems.Thats what Shukla was saying.
Shukla jee is taking all the Injuns for a grand ride and lauging all the way to the bank.
Its way better that the Injuns are being taken for a ride now rather than the Injun jawans.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

kvraghav wrote:
Would it be too much to ask if you could first find a dictionary and check the meanings of assembly and manufacture?
Man,just go to wikipedia and check.ok and its up to you to improve the quality.chack wether its assembly or manufacture.you wont give 2.5 billion to assemble something englis prafesaar.
Your assumptions are not the matter of discussion here. I have already informed you the qualititave differences in T 90 and Arjuns task at Avadi in detail.

Why do you persist on posting one liner as if asking "who is Sita" after the entire Ramayana?
d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

Post by d_berwal »

Kersi D wrote:
d_berwal wrote: Yes They will not play with thier own or tyheir troops' lives.


BUT ARE THEY THE ONES TO DECIDE ? NNNNNOOOOOO


The final decision will be taken by some others considering "the overall picture". Hence the views of the Regiment which has used Arjun and are happy, will be drowned in the bottles of Blue Label (with ice added for winter trials)
not soo simple they cant change the actual comments of users as there is a audit trail kept and if even they wash it with Blue Label they will be caught @ some time....

MoD sits on top of IA officer corps.... MoD can wash it with BLUE LABLE but not IA top brass....
Raymond
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 62
Joined: 21 Oct 2006 20:41

Post by Raymond »

d_berwal wrote: thats also "CLASSIFIED"
So you are telling me you have access to classified data?I would have believed you if I had known you personally.But I dont.
yes they did clear trials but not the USER TRIALS
The trials army carried out was for assesing maint issues.Not performance.OTOH the extensive trials of the Arjun assessed its performance.And the people are satisfied with its performance.
IT is praiseworthy, but it still has problems which need to be rectified before mass induction
WHo says there are problems?The 43rd regiment are happy.
see My point was if 1-vs-1 trials have to be done they can be done without IA involvement also........
Who is asking for these 1-vs-1 trials ? not IA... Then? DRDO/AVDHI/CVRDE

they all have MBT assets with them and can do a 1-vs-1 comparison and send the report... why are they not doing this? what are they afraid of?
I know thay have the assests.thats not the point.the point is that the Army should do the trials because its the army thats ordering them.If the trial shows that arjuns perform better than t-90 the army should order 1000 Arjuns and not 1000 T-90s.
Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1444
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Post by Kersi D »

I have some suggestion

1) Rename Arjun as T XQZW - Axrwjzuqn or some equally unprouncable Russian word

2) Paint a flag with with wploy hite blue and red horizontal stripes on its side

3) Get some unemployed Russian tank men to take the trials.

4) Print the Operation and Maintenece manual in Cyrillic script

5) Remove the words like "indigenous", "DRDO", "Home Made" etc form all press releases

6) Employ Russian salesmen

7) Give a small gift of say US 1.0 MILLION to Russia for every Arjun bought by IA

If none of these work then try and sell Arjun to the Russians. Offer to set up a produtcion plant in Rodina, theirs not ours. It would be welcome for those who fought in Chenchenya with T 72 / 80 / 85 / 87.6 etc,
Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1444
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Post by Kersi D »

I have some suggestion

1) Rename Arjun as T XQZW - Axrwjzuqn or some equally unprouncable Russian word

2) Paint a flag with with wploy hite blue and red horizontal stripes on its side

3) Get some unemployed Russian tank men to take the trials.

4) Print the Operation and Maintenece manual in Cyrillic script

5) Remove the words like "indigenous", "DRDO", "Home Made" etc form all press releases

6) Employ Russian salesmen

7) Give a small gift of say US 1.0 MILLION to Russia for every Arjun bought by IA

If none of these work then try and sell Arjun to the Russians. Offer to set up a produtcion plant in Rodina, theirs not ours. It would be welcome for those who fought in Chenchenya with T 72 / 80 / 85 / 87.6 etc,
kvraghav
BRFite
Posts: 1136
Joined: 17 Apr 2008 11:47
Location: Some where near the equator

Post by kvraghav »

Your assumptions are not the matter of discussion here. I have already informed you the qualititave differences in T 90 and Arjuns task at Avadi in detail.
ok no point discussing here with you.If you think that manufacturing with TOT and assembling is same,i am done here.Thanks sir.
vivek_ahuja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2394
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 16:58

Post by vivek_ahuja »

Man, the discussion quality here is going from bad to worse.

Its now resembling the "your word against mine" kind of arguments.

Is it too much to ask everybody to just back off, take a deep breath and calm down before the quality of the discussion inadvertantly forces the Admins to take action against this thread?

Please don't shoot the messenger :)

-Vivek
d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

Post by d_berwal »

Raymond wrote:
d_berwal wrote: thats also "CLASSIFIED"
So you are telling me you have access to classified data?I would have believed you if I had known you personally.But I dont.
believe what u want to....
yes they did clear trials but not the USER TRIALS
The trials army carried out was for assesing maint issues.Not performance.OTOH the extensive trials of the Arjun assessed its performance.And the people are satisfied with its performance.
extensive trials were for design validity of alllll the systems and techonoly and sub-systems.......... thay were not USER TRIALS........ user TRIALS can only happen on Production MBTs........ products not in PRODUCTION cant go for USER Trials
IT is praiseworthy, but it still has problems which need to be rectified before mass induction
WHo says there are problems?The 43rd regiment are happy.
I am also HAppy any one can be happy.... one dosent buy MBT because one is HAPPY..... IT has to pass the Trials.....
see My point was if 1-vs-1 trials have to be done they can be done without IA involvement also........
Who is asking for these 1-vs-1 trials ? not IA... Then? DRDO/AVDHI/CVRDE

they all have MBT assets with them and can do a 1-vs-1 comparison and send the report... why are they not doing this? what are they afraid of?
I know thay have the assests.thats not the point.the point is that the Army should do the trials because its the army thats ordering them.If the trial shows that arjuns perform better than t-90 the army should order 1000 Arjuns and not 1000 T-90s.
dude IA dosent want to compare 1-vs-1 so who ever wants to negate IA logic and prove them wrong should do it and come up with solid evidence not just paper evidence...
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

Raymond wrote: Forget Shukla.There is some report in some newpaper claiming that.
Some report in some newspaper claiming that Army had some objection about some thing like some engine or something?

This is debate?

Sorry boss BRF had in past usually worked to much higher standards -- not any more I guess.

There are definitely people in the army responsible for visiting a manufacturer evaluating the tank ,making reccomendations and also people of the army passing those recommendations.
So? That is not a fixed unit -- these are people who are rotated between various tasks. The same person is not always used. Almost all the middle to senior brass in Army gets deputed for something like that in their life at different stages.

Where is the procurement division that is being talked off?

The people of army 43rd reg are confident that there is no problem design or otherwise.
Right so now dafadar Saheb Singh will be the official judge of quality right? Perhaps Army should vote to chose a tank in the most democratic manner only.

Or are the process and institution stand for something -- or like the politicians when the results dont agree with what you expect? Change the test?

Did 43 regiment say -- no we dont need AUCRT? How about the folks who are not in the 43rd regiment should they get to test before riding it?
Not true -- post a link to substantiate. OTOH YOU HAVE ALREADY POSTED THE SHELLS LINK.
What not true??
Here is one link:http://www.tribuneindia.com/2000/20000519/nation.htm#7

The performance of the T-72 tank was affected and accidents occurred because 770 barrels valued at Rs 45.07 crore were manufactured with defects, the Comptroller and Auditor General has said in its latest report.
That if you see is a manufacturing problem at Avadi not a design problem with Russian tanks. Which is what you claimed earlier Why are you lumping the two?
Of these, 14 relate to imported barrels and 12 to indigenous barrels, Minister of State for Defence Production Rao Inderjit Singh said in a written answer in the Rajya Sabha.
So 14 imported barrel burst in 2000 deployed tanks. This is being compared against what exactly? Why are standard deployment issues being used for design and induction decision?
And maybe the moon is made of green chesse -- the question is not answered -- why did MoD for 30 years and all the Def Mins not object?
fault of the MoD.
All corrupt -- for 30 years the entire lot ? All except DRDO
Could be who knows.
Yes anything COULD HAPPEN -- IT COULD ALSO BE THAT ALL IN DRDO ARE CORRUPT and have been lying.

When you are discussing probablities instead of possibilites I give up -- who says you are not a alien -- could be.


This is ridiculous you know.
I can give many examples from west bengal itself.Where for 30 years some wrong thing is happening and the people are corrupt and that nothing has changed.SO can be said for other govt institutions.
Right of course I didnt realize that commie hell hole was the model of India and GoI

:rotfl:

It could be I agree anything is possible.


Please that is like saying because a baby passed std 1 tests he should automatically get into IITs :roll:
Not really.AUCRT were to be done and was done.There were some issues(which is natural).
AND THIS IS EXCATLY WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING FROM POST ONE

OTOH everybody wants to see a mountain where there is mole hill.
Bull shit (for Shukla) -- the first are 8 years old now -- and the technology has moved on -- secondly -- the upgrades are for T 72. If you note he does not say what exactly -- uses vauge hand waving arguments.
8 years is nothing for a main battle tank whose manufacturing is going to go upto 2020
The upgrades are not for the chassis for god sakes; they are for electronics -- and I hope you are aware how fast that changes.

Maybe DRDO did.AFAIR,the parliamentary board members are reported to be "startled" at the incorrect reporting by the army.The DRDO feedback could have had something to do with that.
:rotfl: this is no hights of ridiculous argument -- yeah the moon is green cheese and I have tasted it its cheddar


Not that.The conjecture is that the army and DRDo agreed upon whatever baseline.
And you think DRDO went for LSP without deciding on a baseline :rotfl:

do you really read what written -- this is all covered in the report.
I dont understand whats so hilarious.The simple point being T-90 still has problems.Thats what Shukla was saying.
What problems -- if you dont buy a a/c you will not have a a/c ? Why is this a problem with rest of the tank.

Get a a/c if you want.
Its way better that the Injuns are being taken for a ride now rather than the Injun jawans.
Oh boss and Now Injuns and Injun jawans are different things is it and if all of us are taken for a ride the jawans wont be?

Pity pity.
Raymond
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 62
Joined: 21 Oct 2006 20:41

Post by Raymond »

d_berwal wrote: extensive trials were for design validity of alllll the systems and techonoly and sub-systems.......... thay were not USER TRIALS........ user TRIALS can only happen on Production MBTs........ products not in PRODUCTION cant go for USER Trials
Okay so please do the comparative user trials.
I am also HAppy any one can be happy.... one dosent buy MBT because one is HAPPY..... IT has to pass the Trials.....
Another statement devoid of logic.43rd regiment is happy because there are no problems with the tank which you said it has.

dude IA dosent want to compare 1-vs-1 so who ever wants to negate IA logic and prove them wrong should do it and come up with solid evidence not just paper evidence...
If they dont want to compare them then how would they know which one is the better option?because as an Indian taxpayer I would like the army to spend their money on something good not tincans.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

Raymond wrote: Okay so please do the comparative user trials.
User trials are not comparative -- they are against a absolute standard -- in any case T 90 went through the same user trials and passed in 2000.

WHy redo the exercise -- because you have general khujli?
Another statement devoid of logic.43rd regiment is happy because there are no problems with the tank which you said it has.
How can they say that till they do AUCRT? Are they always generally happy?

Anyway they can be happy with the tank and still ask for improvements can they not? What the problem here.

If they dont want to compare them then how would they know which one is the better option?because as an Indian taxpayer I would like the army to spend their money on something good not tincans.
You seem to have understood and learned nothing. A tank is not bought per piece one on one.

A tank fits into a doctrine a model needs logistics etc etc.

One on one comprasion is childish and immature and suitable only for fan boys - reality makes many more factors.

And what would one on one prove? Why Arjun failed AUCRT? Or if Arjun wins one on one AUCRT is not needed?

This is childish frankly -- IA as asked for 3500 tanks for a particular specs -- when ever the tank meets it it will come simple.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

vivek_ahuja wrote:Man, the discussion quality here is going from bad to worse.

Its now resembling the "your word against mine" kind of arguments.

Is it too much to ask everybody to just back off, take a deep breath and calm down before the quality of the discussion inadvertantly forces the Admins to take action against this thread?

Please don't shoot the messenger :)

-Vivek
Boss I have been begging the Admins to do something on this since yesterday.

This is a free for all -- anything that one gets in ones head is being posted here.
d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

Post by d_berwal »

Raymond wrote:
d_berwal wrote: extensive trials were for design validity of alllll the systems and techonoly and sub-systems.......... thay were not USER TRIALS........ user TRIALS can only happen on Production MBTs........ products not in PRODUCTION cant go for USER Trials
Okay so please do the comparative user trials.
IA dosent do comparative trials ever..... They do USER trials
I am also HAppy any one can be happy.... one dosent buy MBT because one is HAPPY..... IT has to pass the Trials.....
Another statement devoid of logic.43rd regiment is happy because there are no problems with the tank which you said it has.
see 43rd armd operates T-55, T-72, Vijayants and Arjuns....

how do u know 43rd armd Happiness = No problem with Arjun Mbt
dude IA dosent want to compare 1-vs-1 so who ever wants to negate IA logic and prove them wrong should do it and come up with solid evidence not just paper evidence...
If they dont want to compare them then how would they know which one is the better option?because as an Indian taxpayer I would like the army to spend their money on something good not tincans.
They will know because they are doing the trials in reality not on a computer screen....

As a Indian Taxpayer you should ask how come after 8yrs of design clearance given by IA,--- AVDHI/CVRDE comes up with substandard quality product which can risk the life of the troops who are gonna operate them in case of an eventuality ... dont try and push a bad quality product in IA
(i am only saying about production quality not the technology or design etc)
Raymond
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 62
Joined: 21 Oct 2006 20:41

Post by Raymond »

Sanku wrote: Some report in some newspaper claiming that Army had some objection about some thing like some engine or something?

This is debate?

Sorry boss BRF had in past usually worked to much higher standards -- not any more I guess.
Dont you show me the standards of BRF since you are using the same standards.What are your opinions based upon if not newspaper reports?There is still Shukla saying Army falsified this and that.Where is your evidence claiming the army was right?Link please.
And what about Shukla huh?Shukla is ten times more informed than you or me..so according to your logic (by which the army cannot be questioned since they know best) we should take Shukla's words as the gospel.
So? That is not a fixed unit -- these are people who are rotated between various tasks. The same person is not always used. Almost all the middle to senior brass in Army gets deputed for something like that in their life at different stages.
There are people who have taken the decision to import T-90s.And there are people in charge now who are not ordering more Arjuns.It doesnt matter if they are a single person or a group or a regiment.there has to be people to take this decisions.Shukla was referring to those.
Where is the procurement division that is being talked off?
That must be your fertile imagination because otherwise you should quote Shukla saying procurement division.
Right so now dafadar Saheb Singh will be the official judge of quality right? Perhaps Army should vote to chose a tank in the most democratic manner only.
Or are the process and institution stand for something -- or like the politicians when the results dont agree with what you expect? Change the test?
Did 43 regiment say -- no we dont need AUCRT? How about the folks who are not in the 43rd regiment should they get to test before riding it?
Thats a twist as usual.Why are you comparing the dafadars opinions as against the need for institutional approval?They have their own places.the dafadars value has its own place and importance because he is a typical end user of the product and that it is HIS life that will depend on how good or bad the Arjun tank is.On the other hand the endusers opinion matter much even in case of the institutional approval.Because whatever decision the instituion takes its efefcts are on the end users only.Here the end users 43rd regiment are very happy with the product.And that itself says quite a lot.
That if you see is a manufacturing problem at Avadi not a design problem with Russian tanks. Which is what you claimed earlier Why are you lumping the two?
Why do you even ask this question when you can clearly see below that 14 russian barrels and 12 indian barrels burst!
So 14 imported barrel burst in 2000 deployed tanks. This is being compared against what exactly? Why are standard deployment issues being used for design and induction decision?
That is besides the point.You claimed that nothing of this sort ever happened and you have been proved wrong.
Deployment issues funny!You cannot buy a lemon and when in deployment it gives bitter juice claim that it is a deployment issue and nothing do do with induction.
When you are discussing probablities instead of possibilites I give up -- who says you are not a alien -- coud be.
You are just going in a roundabout fashion.It has already been said that there was fault of the MoD also.Not only the IA.
Right of course I didnt realize that commie hell hole was the model of India and GoI
This is the place where I list all the corruption issues with the IA to prove that they are not covered by pure white snow.
AND THIS IS EXCATLY WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING FROM POST ONE

OTOH everybody wants to see a mountain where there is mole hill.
When the army gives a false report to the parliament,it IS a mountain and not just a molehill.
The upgrades are not for the chassis for god sakes; they are for electronics -- and I hope you are aware how fast that changes.
Not a twist again.Its not that the tank became outdated due to advancement in electronics.The bloody tank had problems at the time of induction and that is being needed to be fixed even after 8 years of induction.
:rotfl: this is no hights of ridiculous argument -- yeah the moon is green cheese and I have tasted it its cheddar
When I post the original question leading to this comment it will be clear where is the moon and where is the green cheese

Sanku said:Face it folks -- Arjun has been put through paces jointly decided between DRDO and IA. If DRDO thought that IA was being stupid -- it should have said so.

So please tell us about what paces the Arjun was put through since the comparative trials didnt even happen?
And you think DRDO went for LSP without deciding on a baseline :rotfl:
before rotfl ing please first say where the army assessed the arjun so that it compares with the baseline.
do you really read what written -- this is all covered in the report.
See above..the t-72 barrel bursting thing to know who reads what.
:rotfl: First you claim there is no problem and when showed one you ask what is the problem with the rest of the tank?What are you going to do next go system by sytem and continuosly claim ok a so whats the problems with the rest :rotfl:

Well..seeing that people can go to enormous lenghts to support a piece of crap ..makes me indeed wonder.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Post by rohitvats »

during INduction in the first 2 regts the training tanks 3-4 per sqdrn meaning 10-15 per regt ended up doing the complete 11000km in just 4-6 months without any failure....
Did each tank do 11K in the timne period mentioned? Also, what were the problems encountered? These tanks would have had EME support available, correct? What were the conditions? Were these tests done in desert area or in regt/bde trg area? So, can we compare T-90 and Arjun performace in AUCRT Trials? Also, these tanks were used to bring the 2 regts to par on the system and expose them to actuals that might go wrong.And these were done post induction?Another "minor" difference"
In couple of excersises in 2002-03 T-90 strike elements ended up doing 1000+ km in just 8-10 days with just breaks for eating
I have some issue with this calculation. 1000+kms, lets assume 1200 kms in 10 days. That means 120 kms in a day. This @40kms/hour means 3 hours worth of driving/manouvering. So where did this "with just breaks for eating" come from?
The first major war games T-90 took part in the war games finished 24+ hrs before they were scheduled to end as T-90s demonstrated there excellent night fighting capabilities ....
Sirji, how about giving the same opportunity to Arjun and see how much time the Arjun crew takes? And how about the comparative trials to check this very scenario. And as for "Army does not do comparative trials" we do sir. We really do. How about the SPH/Towed howitzer trial. But let me tell you where the real problem is. IA has already inducted T-90. They cannot allow a situation to develop where their favorite toy is shown to be inferior to desi product. Will leave lots of question to be answered. No one is saying, T-90 is not good. I have spoken to guys who man this tank. They say it is good "relative" to what they had earlier-T-72. They are happy with it. Had the IA been so very confident about T-90, they would have gone ahead with it (comparative trials) and not backed out. they know they have chink in their armor and hence, all the feint attacks.
In some of the mock battels single T-90 troop were taking on elitist T-72 sqdrns and winning the battle in just 20-30 min flat @ night @ closed hatches........ the first 2 regts tested the T-90 so brutally that even the russians were surprised how is the MBT still functioning.....
As I said earlier, lets make the 43rd regt guys go up against the T-90 boys.

JMT
d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

HIstory of ARJUN

Post by d_berwal »

http://164.100.24.208/ls/committeeR/PAC/5th.htm

pls go through the complete report.... (PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE 1999 -2000)
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Post by shiv »

Here is an email received by the Webmaster. The email mentions one specific person by name - but I have edited that out because I believe everyone on this thread has a hand in keeping the slanging going.

One great idea was to make this a separate thread - so it can be locked up and thrown away at short notice.
As a longtime lurker on BRF, I have been finding the forum and website an amazing place to learn from. However, please take note of the absolute debacle that is the Arjun thread, in particular the behaviour
of user **. Insults apart, his entire contribution seems to be making
needlessly aggressive posts and engaging in combative behaviour. A
cursory check under his profile indicates all his posts follow the same
pattern. Could the Admins kindly request him to tone his aggression
down, the thread has just become a slanging match thanks to him and the folks who then reply to his posts.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Post by rohitvats »

d_berwal, That 2000 report is not the answer to the questions i raised.
d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

Post by d_berwal »

rohitvats wrote:
during INduction in the first 2 regts the training tanks 3-4 per sqdrn meaning 10-15 per regt ended up doing the complete 11000km in just 4-6 months without any failure....
Did each tank do 11K in the timne period mentioned? Also, what were the problems encountered? These tanks would have had EME support available, correct? What were the conditions? Were these tests done in desert area or in regt/bde trg area? So, can we compare T-90 and Arjun performace in AUCRT Trials? Also, these tanks were used to bring the 2 regts to par on the system and expose them to actuals that might go wrong.And these were done post induction?Another "minor" difference"
This was about Induction not AUCRT

AUCRT was done on 3 T-90 during 97-98

yes each MBT did that in desert terrain

NO problems with engine, transmission or electronics

dude this is how induction is carried out....
- Crew is trained on NEw equipment in exercise areas... once crew is trained... they go through war worthiness exercise to make sure ... once a regt passes these exercise it is declared "FIT FOR WAR"


we can compare T-90 and ARJUN if ARJUN regt goes through worthiness exercise and is declared FIT FOR WAR other wise no comparison is possible.
In couple of excersises in 2002-03 T-90 strike elements ended up doing 1000+ km in just 8-10 days with just breaks for eating
I have some issue with this calculation. 1000+kms, lets assume 1200 kms in 10 days. That means 120 kms in a day. This @40kms/hour means 3 hours worth of driving/maneuvering. So where did this "with just breaks for eating" come from?
120 km @ per day cannot be calculated as u have done it
-- Time for briefing an debriefing
-- Time for diff maneuvers with diff formations @ defensive and offensive maneuvers ... in regards to Troop level, squdrn level, regt level etc
-- Recc
-- Obstacle crossing
-- static and fire on move maneuvers
-- Missile firing maneuvers
etc...



The first major war games T-90 took part in the war games finished 24+ hrs before they were scheduled to end as T-90s demonstrated there excellent night fighting capabilities ....
Sirji, how about giving the same opportunity to Arjun and see how much time the Arjun crew takes? And how about the comparative trials to check this very scenario. And as for "Army does not do comparative trials" we do sir. We really do. How about the SPH/Towed howitzer trial. But let me tell you where the real problem is. IA has already inducted T-90. They cannot allow a situation to develop where their favorite toy is shown to be inferior to desi product. Will leave lots of question to be answered. No one is saying, T-90 is not good. I have spoken to guys who man this tank. They say it is good "relative" to what they had earlier-T-72. They are happy with it. Had the IA been so very confident about T-90, they would have gone ahead with it (comparative trials) and not backed out. they know they have chink in their armor and hence, all the feint attacks.
In some of the mock battels single T-90 troop were taking on elitist T-72 sqdrns and winning the battle in just 20-30 min flat @ night @ closed hatches........ the first 2 regts tested the T-90 so brutally that even the russians were surprised how is the MBT still functioning.....
As I said earlier, lets make the 43rd regt guys go up against the T-90 boys.

JMT
SPH/Towed howitzer trial --- where is teh RFP for MBT procurment, what was the available products @ 99 for MBT procurment

status of ARJUN @ 99 see the report http://164.100.24.208/ls/committeeR/PAC/5th.htm

Learn about meaning of
- AUCRT
- Induction
- prototypes and
- pre-production series
- Limited Series Production

pls go through the LSP section from above link

Limited Series Production

24.TheAudit Paragraph has brought out that sinceArmy was not satisfied with the performance and maintain ability of pre-productionSeries1 to 14, it was mutually decided between Army and DRDO in March 1996 that no design freeze would be made before commencement of production till a fully integrated PPS 15was made available and successfully evaluated by the Army. The Ministry of Defence (Department of Defence Production & Supplies) sanctioned in August 1996 the manufacture of15 numbers of LSP tanks by Ordnance Factory Board using PPS-15 as reference tank after its successful evaluation by Army at an estimated cost of Rs. 162 crore.The Audit have pointed out that the sanction of Rs. 162 crore for the LSP was accorded without obtaining CCPA approval. However, subsequently in the Steering Committee meeting held on 27 August 1996 it was decided to commence limited series production work using PPS-12 as reference tank in place of PPS-15. The Committee thereforedesired to know the underlying reasons which promptedthe Department of Defence Production and Supplies to go ahead with LSPin the absence of due approval from CCPA.The Ministry in a note explained:

“CCPApaper seeking approvalfor production of 124 tanks had been initiated by the Department of Defence in 1995-96 based on the performance of PPS tanks.Pending CCPAapproval, a decisionwas taken in the 27thSteering Committee Meeting held on 10thApril, 1996 to go ahead with the production of a limited number of 15 tanks, as the first batch of 124 tanks,in order to maintain continuity.

This parallel action was taken to overcome the long lead time required for the planning for bulk production, technology transfer by way of production drawings and documents, floating of enquiries for procurement, training of manpower etc. .

As the Government approval for induction of 124 tanks has now been accorded, all the committed expenditure so far for limited Series Production (LSP) tanks will now be transferred to the sanction for 124 tanks, as 15 LSP tanks is the part of 124 nos.â€
d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

Comparison of ARJUN @ 1999

Post by d_berwal »

ARJUN FACT @ 99

http://www.cag.gov.in/reports/defence/1 ... /chap3.htm

Highlights

*

Main Battle Tank Project sanctioned in may 1974 envisaged bulk production by April 1984. However this time frame was not adhered to and was revised from time to time and bulk production was to commence from 1990 onwards but even the revised time frame could not be adhered to.

(Paragraph 26.6 and 26.7)

*

12 MK-I prototypes based on imported propulsion unit, seven MK-II prototypes with indigenous propulsion were to be delivered by June 1987 and June 1990 respectively; 23 MK-I, PPS tanks by December 1988 and bulk production was to commence from 1990 onwards. As against this, 12 MK-I prototypes with imported propulsion were produced by February 1989 and 15 MK-I PPS tanks upto December 1996. MK-II type prototype were not expected to be ready in the near future on account of the delays in the development of the indigenous engine.

(Paragraph 26.6)

*

The automotive trials of two prototypes carried out by Army during 1988-89 revealed major deficiencies. The Army, therefore, on 26 July 1989 wanted these deficiencies to be sorted out before commencement of production of pre-production series (PPS). However, on 31 July 1989 Ministry decided to place orders for the production of PPS tanks. Two fully integrated prototypes were given to the Army for full fledged evaluation only in March 1990 after the commencement of production of PPS tanks. The evaluation trials of the prototypes also revealed major deficiencies. Subsequent trials were conducted on PPS tanks. Till July 1997, 15 pre-production series tanks which were subjected to extensive user and troop trials failed to meet fully even the bottom line parameters of the user.

(Paragraph 26.6 and 26.7)

*

MBT Arjun is designed around a fire control system of a foreign country and its performance was far short of the user requirement. While the Army was of the view that the design was no longer responsive to any technical inputs and its performance was at its saturation level, DRDO stated that they had removed the causes for erratic firing.

(Paragraph 26.8)

*

The imported transmission system of MBT Arjun had been designed to cater upto 60 tonne load where as the all-up weight of MBT Arjun is over 61.5 tonne. This had created a mismatch between engine and transmission resulting in premature failure of six transmission units and frequent overheating of transmission oil. DRDO have however stated that they will not allow the all up weight of the MBT to go beyond 60 tonne.

(Paragraph 26.9)

*

According to the Army the overall reliability of MBT Arjun was far from satisfactory as it had failed to fully meet even the bottom line parameters. DRDO while contending that the summer trials of 1997 clearly met eight out of the ten bottom line parameters have agreed to make efforts for changes/requirements which can then be incorporated in due course in the limited series production. Despite the Army’s reservations regarding the MBT - Arjun in its present form and even though a fully integrated PPS-15 tank (reference tank for bulk production) was yet to be successfully evaluated by the Army, the Ministry in August 1996 sanctioned the manufacture of 15 numbers of Limited Series Production tanks by Ordnance Factory Board at an estimated cost of Rs 162 crore without CCPA’s approval and decided to commence Limited Series Production work using PPS-12 as reference tank. Clearance for bulk production of MBT was yet to be given by the Army as of November 1997.

(Paragraph 26.7 and 26.10)
*

A state-of-art modern battle tank ensures its design superiority through more efficient systems, less maintenance and manpower requirements. However, MBT Arjun configured around the present design would require 16 additional three tonne vehicles and 45 personnel per regiment to sustain its operational mobility.

(Paragraph 26.11)

*

In view of MBT Arjun’s large size and weight a suitable wagon for its rail transportation and a trailer for its transportation by road were required to be developed. Three prototypes of special wagons being designed by RITES at an estimated cost of Rs 1.65 crore are expected to be delivered by January 1999. Use of the special wagons will entail payment of 150 percent more than the normal charges even for the transportation of empty wagons.

(Paragraph 26.11)

*

The initial cost of the project estimated at Rs 15.50 crore in 1974 was revised to Rs 56.55 crore in 1980 and to Rs 280.80 crore in 1987. The actual expenditure however was Rs 307.48 crore at the time of closure of the project despite the fact that there was a shortfall in the production of 10 prototypes/pre-production series tanks.

(Paragraph 26.12)
*

Two supplementary projects costing Rs 41.98 crore were sanctioned by the Ministry in September 1995 and January 1997 for product support and modifications to MBT without CCPA’s approval. This would also result in underwriting the project cost of MBT Arjun to the extent of Rs 41.98 crore.

(Paragraph 26.13)
*

Power Pack, Gun control and Fire Control Systems of MBT Arjun are based on imported technology. Cost estimates made in December 1995 indicated that nearly 60 per cent of the cost related to imported supplies.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

Raymond wrote: Dont you show me the standards of BRF since you are using the same standards.What are your opinions based upon if not newspaper reports?There is still Shukla saying Army falsified this and that.Where is your evidence claiming the army was right?Link please.
Well considering that Shukla is the one casting aspersions the onus is on him to provide details and evidence. If I say on a blog that "DRDO is in pay or Renk and is therefore pushing Arjun even if its faulty" The onus will lie on me to justify the claim rather than the person who asks me to substantiate my wild claims.

Now coming to what IA says vs Shukla -- IA has a documented process -- it has checks and balances in forms of MoD; CAG and ancillary agencies. It is a institution

What are Shukla's checks and balances? If he is taking money and stirring the pot who will know; if he turns out to be wrong; what is the penalty will he pay? -- The answer is NONE.

How can you compare Shukla and IA.

And newspaper report quoting facts sources and GoI reports are very different from one persons op ed -- what are Shukla's sources? On what basis does he claim what he does?

Is it now ok to say whatever without details and proof? What kind of low world we have sunk in.
So 14 imported barrel burst in 2000 deployed tanks. This is being compared against what exactly? Why are standard deployment issues being used for design and induction decision?
That is besides the point.You claimed that nothing of this sort ever happened and you have been proved wrong.
That is indeed the point -- my point was Shri Shukla was painting doom and gloom and faulty induction of T 72 and army unhappiness based on this.

Is this the picture clearly not -- Why is spinning?
Deployment issues funny!You cannot buy a lemon and when in deployment it gives bitter juice claim that it is a deployment issue and nothing do do with induction.
Really and this is the only product ever in the world to have such a fail rate is it? Can you show why this is a lemon? You can compare other tanks in the world and show the barrel bursting rate and other problems.

Every product has some problems after induction -- all are lemon? Please
You are just going in a roundabout fashion.It has already been said that there was fault of the MoD also.Not only the IA.
This is the first time you have said that. So far you have just been casting aspersions on IA.

And coming to blame CVDRE and Avadi have their share of blame too.
This is the place where I list all the corruption issues with the IA to prove that they are not covered by pure white snow.
Irrelevant -- when casting aspersion on a particular topic stay in that context -- other wise its general -- because say I know my father was corrupt does it mean all fathers were corrupt?

Dont extrapolate needlessly.
When the army gives a false report to the parliament,it IS a mountain and not just a molehill.
You yourself accepted that we dont know its true or false yet to say the same thing?

That is casting aspersions and nothing else.


Sanku said:Face it folks -- Arjun has been put through paces jointly decided between DRDO and IA. If DRDO thought that IA was being stupid -- it should have said so.

So please tell us about what paces the Arjun was put through since the comparative trials didnt even happen?
My dear are the comparative trial the only paces you can think of you have been running around claiming that hazar tests have been done -- they were done jointly -- are they not putting through paces?

They are all linked on this thread.

Puhleezzeee

before rotfl ing please first say where the army assessed the arjun so that it compares with the baseline.
Oh dear -- when the LSPs were decided - that is the order for 124 tank a baseline acceptance was made. Why don't you read that.
do you really read what written -- this is all covered in the report.
See above..the t-72 barrel bursting thing to know who reads what.
[/quote]

Precisely look how barrel bursting is taken way out of context -- when the main problem has been manufacturing at Avadi.
:rotfl: First you claim there is no problem and when showed one you ask what is the problem with the rest of the tank?What are you going to do next go system by sytem and continuosly claim ok a so whats the problems with the rest :rotfl:
What problem? Which one problem exists today? Not having the a/c was IAs choice; how can that be a problem? You are beating about the bush and attacking me instead of answering the question.
Well..seeing that people can go to enormous lenghts to support a piece of crap ..makes me indeed wonder.
Look boss dont make offensive statements such as that. You are hardly the judge of what is what. You hardly are the person to pass strictures.

I can say a lot of the same about you -- but I desist. I can also equally claim that Arjun is a piece of crap if I was to take a biased view as yours will that help. NO so be civil.
Last edited by Sanku on 22 Apr 2008 15:31, edited 1 time in total.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Post by rohitvats »

d_berwal Before you post any further "facts @history" lets clear two things:

1. Problem that everyone has (including me) is not what happened in the past wrt induction of T-90 but what is happening today wrt Arjun. If the Army cuts half as much slack for Arjun it did and does for T-90, Arjun will be in service.
2. And as for the problems you have mentioned in the 99-00 report, most of them have been sorted out. And to such an extent, that it is admitted in the parliament that Arjun is superior to other weapon systems (T-72/90) in certain areas.

Some of the points you have highlighted are hilarious and goes to show the shortsightedness of the IA then any thing else. So the additional manpower (45 number, i assume to compensate for 4 man crew) and 16 3-ton vehicle is the strategic argument against an MBT? That means 45@63 regt=2,835 and 1008 additional manpower and vehicles. So, apart from Russians everyone is a dud who has a 4-man crew?

And the non-availability of wagons is another logic? I think we are the only country which would finalize their req for something like MBT because of such arguments. I'm aurprised, you did not add the load bearing capacity of the bridges to it?

Gimme some time, I'll dig up the improvements in the Arjun for all the complaints Army threw at it and everything that has gone wrong with T-90.

Don't view what lies ahead by looking into the rear view mirror.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

rohitvats wrote:d_berwal Before you post any further "facts @history" lets clear two things:

1. Problem that everyone has (including me) is not what happened in the past wrt induction of T-90 but what is happening today wrt Arjun. If the Army cuts half as much slack for Arjun it did and does for T-90, Arjun will be in service.
Can you please compare the slack that Army cut T 90 when it was being inducted and the slack its not cutting Arjun today? Also compare similar features -- for example if Arjun has reliability issues w.r.t. suspension (say)you can not say that T 90s Belorussian TI unit failed. Since the Belorussian unit was never inducted and French unit though new was made to work. OTOH suspension is a design issue with the tank where as the TI was a integration issue and did not require tank redesign.

This statement needs to be debated before it is accepted as truth IMVHO.
d_berwal
BRFite
Posts: 513
Joined: 08 Dec 2006 14:08
Location: Jhonesburg

Post by d_berwal »

rohitvats wrote:d_berwal Before you post any further "facts @history" lets clear two things:

1. Problem that everyone has (including me) is not what happened in the past wrt induction of T-90 but what is happening today wrt Arjun. If the Army cuts half as much slack for Arjun it did and does for T-90, Arjun will be in service.
if you dont understand how much slak IA has given ARJUN over 30+ yrs then you dont understand anything

IA has given 1000% more slack for ARJUN than any other system
2. And as for the problems you have mentioned in the 99-00 report, most of them have been sorted out. And to such an extent, that it is admitted in the parliament that Arjun is superior to other weapon systems (T-72/90) in certain areas.
when in the same parliament ARJUN's defects are raised and IA wants assurance u take other view point and piont fingers at IA

again read :

When PPS 1 to 14 was not found satisfactory as per performance and maintenance parameters by the Army, the Committee enquired on what basis the Steering Committeehad selected PPS-12 as reference tank before commencement of limited series production.The Ministry in a note stated that in a Steering Committee meeting held in August, 1996, it was suggested by DRDO that pending physical showing of PPS-15, PPS-12that had undergone evaluation might be taken as a reference tank for limited series production tanks, features to be additionally provided in PPS-15 could be added on after certification.This suggestion was made as there was no change in the major systems between PPS-12 and PPS-15.According to the Ministry, the Users later sent a note insisting that PPS-15 only be the reference tank for manufacture and this was accepted..

26.On being-enquired further as to when a fully integrated PPS-15 was evaluated by Army, the Ministry stated that PPS-15 with all additional features was evaluated by the Army during 1997 and the same has now become the reference tank for manufacture.

27.Asked whether it was a correct practice to go ahead with LSP even before reference tank meeting the bottom-line parameters, the Ministry in a note explained that it is quite usual in a major engineering Project like MBT Arjun that User’s relevant observations are resolved in the course of stabilised production or upgrades. The DRDO agreed to incorporate the User’s observations and suggestions as per the time bound Joint Action Plan.According to the Ministry, the PPS-15had been cleared by the users as the reference tank through the process of implementing Joint Action Plan points.The Committee have been informed that Army Headquarter has given clearance for manufacture of LSP tanks as per JAP in January1998.

33.Keeping in view the fact that two out of ten imperatives were yet to be fulfilled by DRDO, the Committee during evidence specifically desired to know from the User’s representatives whether they are fully satisfied with the tanks which are now going to be produced and handed over to them as per sanction accorded by CCS.In response, the representative of the User Service inter-aliastated:

“The Army’s concurrence to production of tanks was conditional, the DRDO is being able to achieve what we jointly agreed and called `Joint Action Plan’, which included ten imperatives.The DRDO has committed to us that the tank that is fielded for us will not have any of the reservations that we have expressed in the Joint Action Plan…..â€
Raymond
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 62
Joined: 21 Oct 2006 20:41

Post by Raymond »

Sanku,
you know what inspite of so many messages it seems that the point has not been put across.And it must be due to my fault for not puting the message appropriately or the fault of the recipient or both.In anycase its not worth the time and effort anymore.Also posting ten messages in ten minutes surely decreases the quality of the messages.So I decline and let others voice their opinions.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

Raymond wrote:Sanku,
you know what inspite of so many messages it seems that the point has not been put across.And it must be due to my fault for not puting the message appropriately or the fault of the recipient or both.In anycase its not worth the time and effort anymore.Also posting ten messages in ten minutes surely decreases the quality of the messages.So I decline and let others voice their opinions.
I am in complete agreement; what you say I feel the same from my perspective too. Let it be.
AnantD
BRFite
Posts: 194
Joined: 04 Mar 2001 12:31
Location: Aurora, Illinois, USA

Post by AnantD »

Based on an earlier brief discussion with a very senior retired IA Officer, the problem lies mainly with doctrine.

The IA wants a highly manoueverable fast tank with a large accurate gun.

Survivability and crew comfort being secondary since the generals don't drive the tanks very often in battle.

The Arjun got its priorities not in liking with the brass, thats why we started seeing tank-X, the T-72 with Arjun's turret.

Bottom line, there needs to be a joint understanding that IA and DRDO must work together and make things work.

The M1 Abrams is also an 80's tank, so all this BS is totally irrational. The V-22 Osprey is something that would never be flying in Iraq had it not been for the joint efforts of both the Manuf and the end user. At one time, the IA even opposed combat helicopters, because of US experiences in Nam! Now its all changed.

IA doctrine does not envisage long drawn out campaigns, just short thrusts and drives. We still believe we are living in 1965. Hence the priorities as above. You can't get a service like IA where thinking generals are weaned out and every one is used to saluting an order to start suddenly thinking on its feet.

I'm very sad.
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Post by Surya »

ANyway I am conversing with one of the few T 72 guys who has been in action - waiting for his take on things.

The interesting thing is that less than a dozen officers have taken a T 72 in action.

Wonder how many of these officers were involved with the selection process or Specs?
Last edited by Surya on 22 Apr 2008 17:45, edited 1 time in total.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

d_berwal wrote: There should be a direction to go ahead.. one should not close EYES and move ahead
The parliamentary reports are very telling d-berwal--

The army has done a sterling job in terms of staying engaged with DRDO in a very balanced manner -- at no time did it either throw in towel and accept the pressure to take in Arjun in any shape and neither did it throw out the Arjun completely and say that it wont work.

A lot of IAs time and hard work has gone into providing critical inputs for Arjun -- what has made it it is now which for some reason is being seen only as CVRDE baby.
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Post by Surya »

Oh I love these T 90s took out T 72 stories and Blue forces ran rings around red forces stuff.

Then finally when we near Lahore, they will go up like tin cans with turrets flying all over the place. Oh buthey performed great in sand models and exercises. :eek:


Meanwhile I have been corrected - it seems only 6 officers have crewed a T 72 in combat -

I pray that at least 1 was involved in the Arjun \ T 90 process.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

Surya wrote: Then finally when we near Lahore, they will go up like tin cans with turrets flying all over the place. Oh buthey performed great in sand models and exercises. :eek:
Against what? T 80s? RPGs? ATGMs in a urban ghetto? IA will take T 90s inside Lahore in a urban ghetto without infantry support?

/sarc on
I assume what we need for that are actually the flying Merks who have a lot of experience at single handedly clearing urban strongholds.
/sarc off

BTW the 6 who have had tea in the battle; where was that -- Op - Pawan?
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Post by Surya »

You can keep sarc on all the time Sanku. Its your right. :D


Anyway this thread has reached its limit barring some notes I am expecting from this veteran.
munna
BRFite
Posts: 1392
Joined: 18 Nov 2007 05:03
Location: Pee Arr Eff's resident Constitution Compliance Strategist (Phd, with upper hand)

Post by munna »

The debate offlate has focussed upon the superiority of Arjun vs T90. However the question here is not of superiority but of indigenous technology. Merely stating that Russia has been producing tanks for years and hence that guarantees their quality is as good as saying that Ford cars should by default be better than Japanese cars but the world knows the truth. Regarding the Operational doctrine format I can only say that ctrl+c of Soviet military doctrine is very imaginative on part of the our leadership(military). :lol: . Arjun maybe realiable or not it DOES NOT matter what matters is HOW TO MAKE it reliable? The statement of IA to the parliament seems to be of a whining nay sayer and not a constructive partner quite similar to some bandying about a year 2000 report as the ultimate gospel about Arjun. The truth is IA deserves wholehearted and vociferous critcism as that is the bderock of any democracy and if the PM of the land is not above it then how can IA leadership be. I hope my message is loud and clear.
Rampy
BRFite
Posts: 317
Joined: 25 Mar 2003 12:31

Re: Comparison of ARJUN @ 1999

Post by Rampy »

Sir

pardon me but all the report that u quote are 95-00. No one is denying the fact that Arjun was not upto the mark way back in 2000. But we are talking about 2007-08
We have news report that T-90 had problems even in 06'

Show us one CAG report about arjun between 2004-2007
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

If we have reports on T90s having problems, how are they handled by IA. Why nothing being administered by shooklaws and erroors in the print media? Perhaps, its hightime they dig into these issues as well.

Bad luck.. IA and DRDO's candid disclosures of tit-tat behavior, would lead to disection of such defence related news in ddm media. I guess, it was deliberated, and no other point i could see as the motivations to project these issues in this manner.

Arjun, must correct the defects if any found. No questions asked. Nevetheless, ensure T90s defects are hammered that its a straight deal that the agents money should never get paid, and clauses invoked to not to pay for the bad parts, if any.

I am sure, T90 production line fears of having runover by Arjun sales to IA, and they suffer loss and job loss for the russians.
k prasad
BRFite
Posts: 962
Joined: 21 Oct 2007 17:38
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Contact:

Post by k prasad »

This thread doesn't deserve a place in BRF... look at the way its going. Firstly, stop the fisking.. single line quote-single line rebuttals only make the whole thing unreadable. My eyes fogged over after 3 lines.

Second, its very interesting to see how the whole discussion has suddenly gone from anti-T-90 pro Arjun to somewhere on the opposite shore. Looks like Shuklaji is always on the wrong side of BRF...
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Post by Surya »

Sorry Sanku

Missed your question on the battle. (btw - tea?? -)

Yes I think so. At least 3 of them.
Locked