Small Arms Thread

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1621
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Thakur_B » 22 Oct 2016 18:37

Aditya G wrote:Regarding carbine;

There seem to be 2-3 models floating about:

- amogh (ICG)
- MX-9 (with BSF with poor reviews)
- zittara (CRPF)

None of these have found favour with the army?

Then there are PDWs like P90 with SPG and Uzi with special forces.


1. Why go for a 9 mm carbine when 5.56 guns have now reduced to the size of MP5
2. Side arms are not popular with our army. Special provisions would have to be made for 9 mm carbine.
3. 9 mm carbines are nowadays restricted to support roles and not front line combat.

Regarding Amogh, it's larger and heavier than M4 while firing a weaker cartridge that is having production issues. Why would anyone buy that ?

Its a good thing that our afsars and JCOs fight with regular weapons like regular jawans. That tradition is long gone now. Hence lack of urgency in carbine procurement (except for CQB). As there's no urgency for support roles, probably that's why MILAP/JVPC/MSMC is stuck in trials purgatory.

K Mehta
BRFite
Posts: 959
Joined: 13 Aug 2005 02:41
Location: Bangalore

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby K Mehta » 22 Oct 2016 21:35

From my interaction with some bsf guys on train, they like the storm especially due to the laser dot sight which increases the accuracy.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby shiv » 22 Oct 2016 21:44

Akshay Kapoor wrote:
Any way an ideal LMG should take the standard 30 round box max but also have 50 or 100 round magazine and also be capable of being belt fed. Weight should not be more than 4 -4.5 kgs, range 750 mt, HIGHLY RELIABLE and ACCURRATE.

Is there any weapon that you know of that meets these specs?

ArmenT
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 4239
Joined: 10 Sep 2007 05:57
Location: Loud, Proud, Ugly American

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ArmenT » 23 Oct 2016 04:10

K Mehta wrote:From my interaction with some bsf guys on train, they like the storm especially due to the laser dot sight which increases the accuracy.

Heard the same thing. There was one bad batch of MX-4s delivered (machining marks were visible), but Beretta quickly responded to the complaints and sent a rep and replaced the bad ones and since then, apparently they've been generally happy with them.
Last edited by ArmenT on 23 Oct 2016 04:56, edited 2 times in total.

ArmenT
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 4239
Joined: 10 Sep 2007 05:57
Location: Loud, Proud, Ugly American

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ArmenT » 23 Oct 2016 04:30

shiv wrote:
Akshay Kapoor wrote:
Any way an ideal LMG should take the standard 30 round box max but also have 50 or 100 round magazine and also be capable of being belt fed. Weight should not be more than 4 -4.5 kgs, range 750 mt, HIGHLY RELIABLE and ACCURRATE.

Is there any weapon that you know of that meets these specs?

Stoner 63A is one such example, except for the weight bit in certain configurations. Then again, the Stoner design is from early 1960s, so modern technologies could improve the weight a bit more. The Belgian FN Minimi, the American M249 SAW and Israeli IMI Negev LMG also meet most of those requirements, except for weight.

There's also the Ares Defense Shrike, which also fires 5.56x45 mm. ammo and meets all the above requirements and comes in at around 3.5 kg. It is a more recent development and shares parts with the M16 platform, so you can use an existing M16 lower receiver and replace the upper receiver and barrel with a Shrike kit and be good to go. However, this is a newer development by Ares Defense who also make an improved version of the Stoner 63A design as well.

Akshay Kapoor
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1629
Joined: 03 May 2011 11:15

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Akshay Kapoor » 23 Oct 2016 05:00

Shiv sir, the wt can be relaxed easily...even 6-6.5 kg will do.

vaibhav.n
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 575
Joined: 23 Mar 2010 21:47

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby vaibhav.n » 23 Oct 2016 05:23

Akshay Sir,

If a 7.62mm LMG is the preferred option then it has to be kept in mind that the replacement ie Bren also weighs a good 10 kgs or so. The closest option which is apparent is the NG7 LMG for a very good overall weight and firepower.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7726
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby rohitvats » 23 Oct 2016 10:12

He he he....Shiv Sir just laid the groundwork for next round of discussion on requirements/wishlist versus achievable parameters basis technology levels.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3979
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby deejay » 23 Oct 2016 10:53

vaibhav.n wrote:Akshay Sir,

If a 7.62mm LMG is the preferred option then it has to be kept in mind that the replacement ie Bren also weighs a good 10 kgs or so. The closest option which is apparent is the NG7 LMG for a very good overall weight and firepower.


That LMG, IIRC, is 9.6 kgs and quite a task carrying on patrols. At 10 Kgs, Bren is no better. At around 6 Kg the LMG becomes as heavy as the old 7.62 SLR which weighed around 5.6 Kgs (again from memory).

In short I would take an LMG between 7 to 8 Kgs happily as an improvement. Anything lesser would be "delight" and at around 4 Kgs it would be "Pure Pleasure". JMT.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby shiv » 23 Oct 2016 11:51

rohitvats wrote:He he he....Shiv Sir just laid the groundwork for next round of discussion on requirements/wishlist versus achievable parameters basis technology levels.

Rohit - I started a whole new thread for it. Will cross post there:

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3422
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Aditya G » 23 Oct 2016 19:35

9 mm carbine is still on army TOEs as Akshay Kapoor said. So that's where the replacement requiment comes from. The carbine should the same ammo as sidearms so its not new from logistics either.

Thakur_B wrote:
Aditya G wrote:Regarding carbine;

There seem to be 2-3 models floating about:

- amogh (ICG)
- MX-9 (with BSF with poor reviews)
- zittara (CRPF)

None of these have found favour with the army?

Then there are PDWs like P90 with SPG and Uzi with special forces.


1. Why go for a 9 mm carbine when 5.56 guns have now reduced to the size of MP5
2. Side arms are not popular with our army. Special provisions would have to be made for 9 mm carbine.
3. 9 mm carbines are nowadays restricted to support roles and not front line combat.

Regarding Amogh, it's larger and heavier than M4 while firing a weaker cartridge that is having production issues. Why would anyone buy that ?

Its a good thing that our afsars and JCOs fight with regular weapons like regular jawans. That tradition is long gone now. Hence lack of urgency in carbine procurement (except for CQB). As there's no urgency for support roles, probably that's why MILAP/JVPC/MSMC is stuck in trials purgatory.

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3282
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Kakkaji » 24 Oct 2016 03:19

So, is the Excalibur dead and buried?

I was really hopeful of its induction after reports came out last year that top Generals in infantry were supporting it and that the firing trials were going very well. If they bury it after all that, the morale of developers is going to take a major hit.

It will take several years for the tender of a new rifle from foreign suppliers to result in a supply contract. Why can't they buy Excaliburs in the meantime for replacing attrition losses of old INSAS in the infantry units?

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7726
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby nachiket » 24 Oct 2016 23:20

Akshay Kapoor, shiv and vaibhav, thank you for all your informative responses. Cleared up several small doubts and questions I had for a long time.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11209
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Gagan » 24 Oct 2016 23:57

Maj Gaurav Arya on twitter talks about using INSAS for a month and then switching over to an AK, just for the 7.62 stopping power and full auto.

Wonder why OFB walas give us a 7.62mm wala excalibur for the forces

A Sharma
BRFite
Posts: 1147
Joined: 20 May 2003 11:31

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby A Sharma » 25 Oct 2016 07:39

Excalibur to hold the fort now


Army plans to induct the assault rifle as stopgap till a better model is procured

Faced with a huge delay in acquiring world-class rifles for its soldiers, the Army is now reluctantly planning to induct the indigenously developed Excalibur, an assault rifle it had initially rejected, though in limited numbers.

The fully automatic rifle, which fires 5.56mm ammunition built by the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB), is an upgraded version of the trouble-prone INSAS (Indian National Small Arms System) inducted in the mid-1990s.

Army sources said that with the procurement delays in mind, the force is looking to induct the Excalibur to replace the INSAS till the time a new rifle joins the force.

“The Army has shown interest in a modified form of Excalibur. The exact number and time frame has not yet been intimated by the Army,” the Public Relations Officer of the OFB told The Hindu in response to a query.

The Army has been trying to replace the INSAS and had launched an ambitious global tender for interchangeable barrels capable of firing both 5.56mm and 7.62mm calibre bullets. After extensive trials, the tender was cancelled early this year as none of the contenders could meet the requirements.

The Army has now decided to go for 7.62mm calibre and fresh General Staff Quality Requirements (GSQR) have just been issued.

The Excalibur was comprehensively evaluated at Infantry School, Mhow, in November 2005 and recommended for induction in the Army in due course of time, the PRO said. But the Army later did not show interest in its induction, which has changed in light of the procurement delays.

However before induction, the Army wants to carry out extensive user exploitation trails to validate the rifle.

Sources said that to save time and shorten the process, the Army intended to procure large volume of the guns to carry out simultaneous trials in various locations.

The Rifle Factory, Ishapore, had produced 15 prototypes for user and quality evaluation, and additional features sought by the user are to be incorporated. However, the OFB is yet to receive any communication for large volumes for exploitation trails, sources said.

Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3567
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31
Contact:

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Paul » 25 Oct 2016 09:23

^shows sdres are learning the tricks of import jocks in MOD.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10046
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby sum » 25 Oct 2016 09:36

The Excalibur was comprehensively evaluated at Infantry School, Mhow, in November 2005 and recommended for induction in the Army in due course of time, the PRO said. But the Army later did not show interest in its induction,

And why was this?

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 1621
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Thakur_B » 25 Oct 2016 16:32

A Sharma wrote:Excalibur to hold the fort now


Army plans to induct the assault rifle as stopgap till a better model is procured

Faced with a huge delay in acquiring world-class rifles for its soldiers, the Army is now reluctantly planning to induct the indigenously developed Excalibur, an assault rifle it had initially rejected, though in limited numbers.

The fully automatic rifle, which fires 5.56mm ammunition built by the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB), is an upgraded version of the trouble-prone INSAS (Indian National Small Arms System) inducted in the mid-1990s.

Army sources said that with the procurement delays in mind, the force is looking to induct the Excalibur to replace the INSAS till the time a new rifle joins the force.

“The Army has shown interest in a modified form of Excalibur. The exact number and time frame has not yet been intimated by the Army,” the Public Relations Officer of the OFB told The Hindu in response to a query.

The Army has been trying to replace the INSAS and had launched an ambitious global tender for interchangeable barrels capable of firing both 5.56mm and 7.62mm calibre bullets. After extensive trials, the tender was cancelled early this year as none of the contenders could meet the requirements.

The Army has now decided to go for 7.62mm calibre and fresh General Staff Quality Requirements (GSQR) have just been issued.

The Excalibur was comprehensively evaluated at Infantry School, Mhow, in November 2005 and recommended for induction in the Army in due course of time, the PRO said. But the Army later did not show interest in its induction, which has changed in light of the procurement delays.

However before induction, the Army wants to carry out extensive user exploitation trails to validate the rifle.

Sources said that to save time and shorten the process, the Army intended to procure large volume of the guns to carry out simultaneous trials in various locations.

The Rifle Factory, Ishapore, had produced 15 prototypes for user and quality evaluation, and additional features sought by the user are to be incorporated. However, the OFB is yet to receive any communication for large volumes for exploitation trails, sources said.


Paves way for Excalibur to be inducted in large numbers. Army will eventually realise that Excalibur is just fine and switch to 7.62 NATO isn't that big a deal.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8229
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Pratyush » 25 Oct 2016 17:14

You missed the Sting in the tail. The IA will re evaluate the excalibur before induction. I shudder to think about the opportunities for sabotage of the trials

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 1533
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Gyan » 25 Oct 2016 21:33

No way IA is going to induct Excalibur.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7726
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby nachiket » 26 Oct 2016 00:39

The Army has been trying to replace the INSAS and had launched an ambitious global tender for interchangeable barrels capable of firing both 5.56mm and 7.62mm calibre bullets. After extensive trials, the tender was cancelled early this year as none of the contenders could meet the requirements.

The ARDE MCIWS wasn't part of these trials was it? There have been no reasons put forth for why the MCIWS isn't even being considered seriously.

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3282
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Kakkaji » 26 Oct 2016 02:27

Why are they still referring to Excalibur evaluation and rejection in 2005? The current Excalibur is so much better

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7726
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby nachiket » 26 Oct 2016 04:02

Kakkaji wrote:Why are they still referring to Excalibur evaluation and rejection in 2005? The current Excalibur is so much better

That article curiously says that the Excalibur was recommended for induction in 2005, not that it was rejected. There seems to be little transparency over what happened during the trials and why the induction did not proceed.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby shiv » 26 Oct 2016 08:20

Answering my own question asked earlier
All new weapon purchases are the responsibility of the Deputy Chief of Army Staff (Planning and Systems), who reports to the Chief of Army Staff directly.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/in ... z4O9iKDJCR
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

rakall
BRFite
Posts: 798
Joined: 10 May 2005 10:26

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby rakall » 27 Oct 2016 13:02

So just like the Assault Rifles, the Carbine tender for 44500 carbines import + 1.2Lakh to be manufactured by OFB has been scrapped due to single vendor situation..
http://swarajyamag.com/insta/parrikar-s ... or-process


wrote this stuff a week ago..
If Baretta is disqualified, then it becomes single vendor situation. Retendering means another 4-5yr delay. IA wants to disqualify Baretta ARX160 based on a flaw in laser sighting system. The sight is anyway meant to be replaced by indigenous BEL sight for the 1.2Lakh carbines to be manufactured by OFB under ToT. So no point retendering on this issue, if the carbine met parameters. MoD is pushing to proceed with tender, and fit the BEL sight on selected carbine. Win-Win situation. But DGQA doesnt want MoD to delink sight from initial order of 44000 carbines. Which means re-tender; 4-5yrs delay. But DGQA won't budge..It almost seems to be that DGQA wants/prefers Galil ACE. In which case scrap tender, do a G2G deal is option (scam sword hangs on deal). Or RakshaMantri should put his foot down, proceed with existing tender without "sight". Choose winning carbine, add BEL sight to it. Done!

Now it has gone for re tendering.. Big F-up..

Solution was simple - ask both parties to give quote for import of 44500carbine without a sight.. choose L1 vendor.. fit BEL sight.. Get on with it.. But, now tender, trials again - after 3-4years chances of cancellation due to some other reason..

Who to blame?

rakall
BRFite
Posts: 798
Joined: 10 May 2005 10:26

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby rakall » 27 Oct 2016 13:18

Gyan wrote:No way IA is going to induct Excalibur.


Also doesnt make any sense at all.. After having decided to go for a 7.62*51 assault rifle, now suddenly induct some 5.62*45 Excalibur..

WHy start with trials again for Excalibur.. Why not go for GHATAK (Ak47 clone) which is anyway cleared for induction into Paramilitary forces..

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54516
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby ramana » 28 Oct 2016 10:24

Something wrong in Army procurement chsin. Who do they report to ?

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5095
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby jamwal » 28 Oct 2016 11:31

Looks like they report to their hashish dealer only. Procurement of every single item is so screwed up. Ofcourse no disrespect for the jawan, but the excuses of interference by MoD, civilianss, .Martian etc. are getting to look just excuses to hide corruption and incompetence

Akshay Kapoor
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1629
Joined: 03 May 2011 11:15

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Akshay Kapoor » 28 Oct 2016 11:46

^ Jamwal, Based on what do you make these crazy assertions ? The COAS himself wanted a make in India rifle and pushed hard for it. Maybe the weapon has not delivered. Have you fired it ? One or two media reports come and some people start spewing venom. Logic is given a go by. Please read what I have posted in the IAF thread for some idea of what the real processes are in Indian procurement.

Akshay Kapoor
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1629
Joined: 03 May 2011 11:15

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Akshay Kapoor » 28 Oct 2016 11:53

http://203.110.84.90/mod/actsmanualothe ... edure-2016

Read this as a starter to get some sense of what the procurement procedure is. And then comment.

A Chief of Army Staff cannot used his sanctioned revenue budget for items which are fully approved by 10 different layers because a Joint Secy position is not filled for a year - Gen VK Singh. That is just one minute example of how the system works.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5095
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby jamwal » 28 Oct 2016 12:15

Akshay Kapoor wrote:^ Jamwal, Based on what do you make these crazy assertions ? The COAS himself wanted a make in India rifle and pushed hard for it. Maybe the weapon has not delivered. Have you fired it ? One or two media reports come and some people start spewing venom. Logic is given a go by. Please read what I have posted in the IAF thread for some idea of what the real processes are in Indian procurement.


Apologies if it sounds rude, but this whole tamasha of endless trials, delays, blame game repeats itself so often again and again that all of it just sounds like excuses. I had read your posts and as an outsider, I do think you're right. Civilian babus are a big part of problem and lack of purchasing power in hands of army command is an issue. But this whole drama even with basic and absolutely essential fighting gear is frustrating to put it politely.
Why do armed forces play only the victims in this power struggle ? Are they too meek to fight for their rights ? At the same time it is really hard to believe that all the babooze are incompetent fools too.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3979
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby deejay » 28 Oct 2016 13:22

jamwal wrote:Looks like they report to their hashish dealer only. Procurement of every single item is so screwed up. Ofcourse no disrespect for the jawan, but the excuses of interference by MoD, civilianss, .Martian etc. are getting to look just excuses to hide corruption and incompetence


This is one of the stupidest things I have seen here.

Sirjee, fauj cannot decide how it moves its units, it has no authority to sit on pay commissions, it cannot fire back on Pakis without permission but when there is a blame to made - Gaali do Army ko. It must be the army's fault.

MOD ke IAS babu toh doodh ke dhule hue hain - they only worry about the soldiers - it is the generals who do not care. The babus were never forced by George Fernandes to spend time on frontline because they were so concerned about fauj. It is the Generals who do not care.

What a situation - Even calling out outright failures of Babus is wrong but Army guys can be called "Hashish Dealers" - Waah! In this country within the decision making chain the Army is meek - accept it. If the General's protest or disagree they are shown their place - ask Gen V K Singh. Nahin toh "coup" ki stories bhi circulate kar denge.

Your ignorance is amazing.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5095
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby jamwal » 28 Oct 2016 13:24

Oh right. I forgot that there is no corruption or incompetence in armed forces ! Sorry.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3979
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby deejay » 28 Oct 2016 13:57

jamwal wrote:Oh right. I forgot that there is no corruption or incompetence in armed forces ! Sorry.


No I am sorry. I forgot that everyone other than fauj is perfect.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Viv S » 28 Oct 2016 14:51

deejay wrote:Sirjee, fauj cannot decide how it moves its units, it has no authority to sit on pay commissions, it cannot fire back on Pakis without permission but when there is a blame to made - Gaali do Army ko. It must be the army's fault.

With respect sir, as far as the issue at hand is concerned, it was the Army that issued a ridiculous GSQR for a multi-calibre with requirements so steep that no manufacturer in the world could meet. The bureaucrats did not tie the brass' hands down.

Similarly, it is the Army that is the biggest barrier to the MCIWS program and it was the Army that crippled the Arjun project. That one's not on the bureaucracy or political class either.

The functioning of the Navy provides an ideal contrast, by managing to promote indigenization while still operating within the same framework as the Army.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3979
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby deejay » 28 Oct 2016 16:12

Viv S wrote:...
With respect sir, as far as the issue at hand is concerned, it was the Army that issued a ridiculous GSQR for a multi-calibre with requirements so steep that no manufacturer in the world could meet. The bureaucrats did not tie the brass' hands down.

Similarly, it is the Army that is the biggest barrier to the MCIWS program and it was the Army that crippled the Arjun project. That one's not on the bureaucracy or political class either.

The functioning of the Navy provides an ideal contrast, by managing to promote indigenization while still operating within the same framework as the Army.


No Sir and no need for unnecessary formalities.

You know what, Navy's procurement is just as flawed if the same yard sticks of measurement are applied on the Navy - and I have a theory why they are not applied. But that is another matter.

You see the IN is yet to place any order for NLCA, Naval Dhruv, their procurement of minesweepers is long pending, the orders for additional submarines were needed yesterday, the new orders to Russia for ships which could be made in India, the delayed equipping of INS Vikramiditya, the delay in construction of INS Vikrant.

The IAF of course has its orders and procurement screwed.

Guess what is common between the three services and procurement - MOD.

These three Services have prided themselves in peace time ops (Disaster, aid to civilian authorities, International relief - Yemen), military ops, sports and have stood as epitome of standards in discipline.

There are bad apples and the Services have individually taken up the rotten apples, tried them and punished them if found guilty. The only place this efficiency is not visible is Procurement.

Let me ask you then - is it coincidence?

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Viv S » 28 Oct 2016 16:49

deejay wrote:You know what, Navy's procurement is just as flawed if the same yard sticks of measurement are applied on the Navy - and I have a theory why they are not applied. But that is another matter.

You see the IN is yet to place any order for NLCA, Naval Dhruv, their procurement of minesweepers is long pending, the orders for additional submarines were needed yesterday, the new orders to Russia for ships which could be made in India, the delayed equipping of INS Vikramiditya, the delay in construction of INS Vikrant.

Well, the N-LCA doesn't exist at the moment. (The NP-1 & NP-2 are tech demonstrators/dev. aircraft.) All the same, the Navy has still provided strong support to the program; naval support is all the Mk2 has going for it, at the moment.

The Naval Dhruv couldn't demonstrate auto-folding of rotors and that is a critical requirement for the IN (and one can see why that would be so). Yet the IN has still ordered them for shore-based roles and are looking to acquire 20 units of the Mk4 Rudra.

Delays in the Vikramaditya & Vikrant programs are down to the respective shipyards. Orders for the minesweepers & submarines have been bogged down in South Block. With the Krivak order yes, the Navy might have some responsibility for letting it happen. Or maybe.. the PMO & MEA pushed it through in the same manner as the Rafale deal was done.

There are bad apples and the Services have individually taken up the rotten apples, tried them and punished them if found guilty. The only place this efficiency is not visible is Procurement.

Let me ask you then - is it coincidence?

The MoD's issues, and its issues are legion, do not absolve the IA of its mode of functioning or judgement. The screw-up with the rifle program wasn't down to some 'bad apples'. It was incompetence, plain and simple. As blunt as we are with respect to the MoD, we're are often reluctant to call a spade a spade when it comes to the services.

The IA's treatment of the Arjun program, in contrast, isn't down to a few 'bad apples' or mere incompetence (if the results of the comparative trials were evident to me, they were evident to the brass). The problem is institutional. And its exacerbated by the fact that unlike the Navy, and to a lesser extent the IAF, the IA is a rather insular organisation and less capable of self-correction.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3979
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby deejay » 28 Oct 2016 17:13

So you see, this is the build up.

Navy cannot order NLCA because it is a tech demonstrator, though it has now taken off from STBF. It is also a programme exclusively for Navy. A lot of the systems on the aircraft have already been certified. IAF had placed its orders before IOC 1 (20+20) in 2009, I believe. But Navy can't.

Yet the same Navy can order and accept Mig 29Ks which cannot take off on single engines from a Ship Deck.

The limitation of rotors not folding on Dhruv justifies IN in not ordering the helicopter. Yet on another thread, the LCH which is just a tech demonstrator should get orders from IA and IAF.

Navy looking to acquire 20 Dhruv Mk 4's is acceptable but IAF Chief saying more LCAs (80 or 100) will be purchased is not good enough.

The delay in ships that IN is ordering is because of shipyards, PMO and MEA but not the Navy. Come on at least you could have added the MOD.

Anyway, go back in time - remember - the 02 sailors who died due to battery explosion on a sub. Why really was there a delay in procuring the batteries locally available - Navy had raised repeated requirements - why were they stalled - MOD?

There is a problem in defence procurements - IA, IAF and IN. There is a common point to all three services for procurement and there IAS officers do out rank their nearest military peers (peer to peer basis only).

Viv S, my point is with your lenses, nothing I say or write will make you see any different. You have different yard sticks. You will find it easier to whack the IA then check on what really is ailing the system.

Akshay Kapoor
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1629
Joined: 03 May 2011 11:15

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Akshay Kapoor » 28 Oct 2016 17:32

Feels like being Vidur speaking to Dhristhrashtra here. No amount of evidence will convince them because they wont read it. I have posted several examples and links but the Viv S of this world will have to spend a few hours reading and then understanding. But its much simpler to talk bullshit and satisfy your ego. takes 5 mins. It has happened for centuries and will keep happening. We speak of DDM but amount of fact free (like gluten free) pindi chana nonsense on this forum is truly amazing.

Why was the Army given a kick in the pants when DG Arty requested Commadant Arty School to provide facilities for testing Bharat Forge L52. Why is it that Baba Kalyani makes 50% of the forgings for tanks but is not allowed to test a gun which is ready ...made at his own expense.

You talk about Navy - you should hear some Navy officers talk about our processes. I posted about a dear friend who was threatened to sign off on faulty systems on the Kolkata. Capt (IN) IS Lohana one of the pioneers of DND and Mazgaon Docks says in the navy we managed some progress because we kept the babus and PSUs as far away as possible. Admiral Joshi had to resign because he could not buy batteries for his submarines. TSarkar sir is form the IN I believe . Let him comment. Our subs are sailing without torpedos, our anti sub vessels without sonars or helicopters and we have hardly any mine sweepers left. what kind of la la land are some of you living in?

Why is it that my own family member fro the MES (civilian) uses INS Hamla facilities (full 6 rooms) or (anyhwere in the netire pensinular India he feels like ) when Naval officers from deployment and my own course mate coming from filed area is not allowed to use INS Hamla. MES lives in army areas, uses all facilities and treats jawans (and officers behind their backs) like shit. But they get better paid than the army and never ever have to face fire in their entire life. And now we read that to make the humiliation worse they are to become even bigger. God save India.

What to say of BR ? I see things in my own family that shame me.

We are a society and culture that has rapidly become self serving and hugely egoistical. We will debate a 5% part of the problem to infinity but do not have the wisdom to see that no amount of correction in that 5 % will solve the 95%.

Above all we will not do anything but will satisfy our egos by screaming and shouting. Surely the path to Moksha.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Small Arms Thread

Postby Viv S » 28 Oct 2016 18:35

deejay wrote:So you see, this is the build up.

Navy cannot order NLCA because it is a tech demonstrator, though it has now taken off from STBF. It is also a programme exclusively for Navy. A lot of the systems on the aircraft have already been certified. IAF had placed its orders before IOC 1 (20+20) in 2009, I believe. But Navy can't.

Yet the same Navy can order and accept Mig 29Ks which cannot take off on single engines from a Ship Deck.

The limitation of rotors not folding on Dhruv justifies IN in not ordering the helicopter. Yet on another thread, the LCH which is just a tech demonstrator should get orders from IA and IAF.

Navy looking to acquire 20 Dhruv Mk 4's is acceptable but IAF Chief saying more LCAs (80 or 100) will be purchased is not good enough.

Some corrections -

1. The NP-1 & NP-2 are tech demonstrators. Taking off from STBF doesn't change that.
2. When the N-LCA nears production, the IN will place orders as well.
3. The LCH may have a TD-nomenclature, but it is a prototype vehicle. The TD-4 being a production-representative unit, justifies the start of serial production.
4. The IAF is the one that's short of its stated 42/45/50/55 squadron objective, not the IN. So yes 80 or 100 units are not good enough.

The delay in ships that IN is ordering is because of shipyards, PMO and MEA but not the Navy. Come on at least you could have added the MOD.

Please read my post again. South Block clears refers to the MoD. At no point, have I tried to gloss over the MoD's failings. But its failings in way absolve the IA.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests