Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
I strongly feel its Army's fault to make a GSQR for HEAVY tank in old days.
If the bridges today can't take 60ton Arjun tank, Then in old days when GSQR was made, it would surely not allow 60ton tank on their bridges.
It means Army or whoever made the GSQR failed to note that the tank will be over weighted.
Also it raises another question, why didn't they made any effort to improve the bridges in these past 3-4 decades? They knew they want heavy tank, then why sleep till the tank is near the bridge?
If the bridges today can't take 60ton Arjun tank, Then in old days when GSQR was made, it would surely not allow 60ton tank on their bridges.
It means Army or whoever made the GSQR failed to note that the tank will be over weighted.
Also it raises another question, why didn't they made any effort to improve the bridges in these past 3-4 decades? They knew they want heavy tank, then why sleep till the tank is near the bridge?
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
I am all for indigenous military industry since then we shall not be puppets on a string.Anabhaya wrote:Ray,I am not against the Arjun if it meets the bill, but I am sure against those who state we must support the indigenous industry even if it means we sacrifice our lives.
How hard is it to see that the continued obsession with T-series IA is needlessly endangering the lives of thousands of its personnel?
But I am against substandard and half cocked stuff purveyed as world class.
DRDO is a bureaucratic and sloppy organisation. Most are time servers. Check their budget and work culture if you have the opportunity. I had. At the same time, I will be the first to admit, in certain areas they have excelled!
As far as the T series is concerned, if the IA feels that it is suitable for the threat perception and comparative weapon array, I am hardly in a position to state that the IA brass is crazy.
If they fail, then they will answer the Nation and I am sure that it is such an onerous responsibility, none in his senses would overrule it!
Ever heard of Gen Thapar of 1962 ignominy talking thereafter?
Yet, Gen Jacob talks! Has good reasons to do so, right?
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 13112
- Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
- Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
Brigadier RayC my pet peeve with IA is with regards to its procurement process and seemingly agnostic stance on MoD's indifference/callousness when it comes to closing the deals in time or sanctioning funds for a project. Reason why Arjun comes up is it is a matured product already in service with IA so questioning its abilities or effectiveness as a platform somehow does not make sense to me unless IA accepted those 124 for the heck of it and not since it met its GSQRs.
You say 30 years of development (I guess GSQR came in early 70's , 1972 ?) well do we have a date for original GSQR for the ARTY tender for sake of comparasion , at least Arjun today can be built/maintained/upgraded on demand as per IA's reqs but it struggles to even upgrade FH-77 guns to 52 cal barrels and new sights . And god forbid tomorrow if someone pulls up a bofors on Rosonboronexport then IA will have to wait for their MBTs until eternity .
Also if you look at similar MBT programmes they have taken more or less similar time for development and final acceptance by the user and in most of the cases the military brass and political establishment in those countries was supportive of home grown MBT infact foreign tank was never an option . M1 Abrams and Leo2 A1 entered service with L7 105mm guns it was only after the 73's Yom Kippur war that NATO forces pursued a larger caliber gun ; the British Chally 2 despite being the most massive in its class had a rifled gun and powered by a 1200HP engine until recently.
My point was Arjun's development and growth as a MBT would have been faster had IA been more supportive of the programme specially when the initial batch of 6 was inducted as early as in 1996 .
You say 30 years of development (I guess GSQR came in early 70's , 1972 ?) well do we have a date for original GSQR for the ARTY tender for sake of comparasion , at least Arjun today can be built/maintained/upgraded on demand as per IA's reqs but it struggles to even upgrade FH-77 guns to 52 cal barrels and new sights . And god forbid tomorrow if someone pulls up a bofors on Rosonboronexport then IA will have to wait for their MBTs until eternity .
Also if you look at similar MBT programmes they have taken more or less similar time for development and final acceptance by the user and in most of the cases the military brass and political establishment in those countries was supportive of home grown MBT infact foreign tank was never an option . M1 Abrams and Leo2 A1 entered service with L7 105mm guns it was only after the 73's Yom Kippur war that NATO forces pursued a larger caliber gun ; the British Chally 2 despite being the most massive in its class had a rifled gun and powered by a 1200HP engine until recently.
My point was Arjun's development and growth as a MBT would have been faster had IA been more supportive of the programme specially when the initial batch of 6 was inducted as early as in 1996 .
Last edited by negi on 01 Mar 2010 12:42, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
Friend, it is time you know the history of the development of the Arjun before you feel that IA wanted a heavy tank etc.sameer_shelavale wrote:I strongly feel its Army's fault to make a GSQR for HEAVY tank in old days.
If the bridges today can't take 60ton Arjun tank, Then in old days when GSQR was made, it would surely not allow 60ton tank on their bridges.
It means Army or whoever made the GSQR failed to note that the tank will be over weighted.
Also it raises another question, why didn't they made any effort to improve the bridges in these past 3-4 decades? They knew they want heavy tank, then why sleep till the tank is near the bridge?
And how did it become heavy? Research and then educate us.
Bridges are not only on our side. What about those of Pakistan where it will be critical?
Can we legislate for Pakistan?
If we could, then it would be paradise.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
Negi,negi wrote:Brigadier my pet peeve with IA is with regards to its procurement process and seemingly agnostic stance on MoD's indifference/callousness when it comes to closing the deals in time or sanctioning funds for a project. Reason why Arjun comes up is it is a matured product already in service with IA so questioning its abilities or effectiveness as a platform somehow does not make sense to me unless IA accepted those 124 for the heck of it and not since it met its GSQRs.
You say 30 years of development (I guess GSQR came in early 70's , 1972 ?) well do we have a date for original GSQR for the ARTY tender for sake of comparasion , at least Arjun today can be built/maintained/upgraded on demand as per IA's reqs but it struggles to even upgrade FH-77 guns to 52 cal barrels and new sights . And god forbid tomorrow if someone pulls up a bofors on Rosonboronexport then IA will have to wait for their MBTs until eternity .
Also if you look at similar MBT programmes they have taken more or less similar time for development and final acceptance by the user and in most of the cases the military brass and political establishment in those countries was supportive of home grown MBT infact foreign tank was never an option . M1 Abrams and Leo2 A1 entered service with L7 105mm guns it was only after the 73's Yom Kippur war that NATO forces pursued a larger caliber gun ; the British Chally 2 despite being the most massive in its class had a rifled gun and powered by a 1200HP engine until recently.
My point was Arjun's development and growth as a MBT would have been faster had IA been more supportive of the programme specially when the initial batch of 6 was inducted as early as in 1996 .
I am a mere poster. So please leave the rank out. It inhibits me to respond openly.
I am no longer in the Forces and so I don't know what are the pulls and pressures that made IA accept the Arjun. But this much I am sure is that if it was a lemon, it would have not been accepted. Mens' lives and the national prestige is involved!
As far as the Arjun development read its history and the issues involved and then comment.
India had no idea of tank designing and IA wanted state of art of the time and DRDO said it could. And so it happened as the time went by and environments changed and upgrades decided. To me, it is an exciting time of indigenous development. I don't take it as a failure.
In the final analysis, I think India has won and has come of age.
I am sure we will produce better tanks for the future.
As far as Arty is concerned, it surprises me too! We designed the Gurdial Gun (mountain arty) way back when Col Gurdial's daughter, Mickey was in my school (Barnes High). So, where have we lagged behind? 105 IFG had problems, not because it was badly designed, it was because the IFG factory was having power cuts that ruined the Autofrettage and hence the barrel could not take the pressure.
We have the knowledge and talent, but sadly, the backup is awful!
If you Have Defence Ministers and MPs who cannot differentiate a donkey from a Bofors, you will have all these issues being discussed in BRF.
Last edited by RayC on 01 Mar 2010 12:57, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
I dont have to be close to them to know this. Different set of rules for Arjun and T-90 acceptance is good enough reason to believe such.RayC wrote:In close touch with them, are you?UPrabhu wrote:The current Army leadership like that generation believes in anything imported is Good philosophy. Only time will cure us of this disease.
I am going for the Bengal Area Raising Day today and if I remember, I will ask the Army Commander who is to be the next Chief as to if that is right even though you are close to the top brass of the IA.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
UPrabhu wrote:
I dont have to be close to them to know this. Different set of rules for Arjun and T-90 acceptance is good enough reason to believe such.
Really?
Bofors are a proven gun.
Why are they not being imported or manufactured and why was the ToT stopped?
Army did it?
It is time to realise that the top brass are not totally daft. Our lives are involved and if the top brass is daft, they will get it in their neck. It is a modern armed forces and an army that realises its due.
People are no longer ready to be gun fodders!
It is for the politicians and the GOI to realise it!
The Army I joined and the Army today are a generation apart. Today, none take the nonsense. They understand the difference between being patriotic and being gun fodder of politician's whims and fancies!
Last edited by RayC on 01 Mar 2010 13:23, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
I understand your concern about the quality,RayC wrote: Friend, it is time you know the history of the development of the Arjun before you feel that IA wanted a heavy tank etc.
And how did it become heavy? Research and then educate us.
Bridges are not only on our side. What about those of Pakistan where it will be critical?
Can we legislate for Pakistan?
If we could, then it would be paradise.
but if they knew paki bridges will not sustain 60tons then why should we make it a requirement for the tank to be 60ton?
I just want to say that its falut of Army people who made the GSQR and took 30 years to realize that the bridges will not sustain 60ton tank.
They should have dumped the design first time they saw it going above 50tons.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
Good point.sameer_shelavale wrote:I understand your concern about the quality,RayC wrote: Friend, it is time you know the history of the development of the Arjun before you feel that IA wanted a heavy tank etc.
And how did it become heavy? Research and then educate us.
Bridges are not only on our side. What about those of Pakistan where it will be critical?
Can we legislate for Pakistan?
If we could, then it would be paradise.
but if they knew paki bridges will not sustain 60tons then why should we make it a requirement for the tank to be 60ton?
I just want to say that its falut of Army people who made the GSQR and took 30 years to realize that the bridges will not sustain 60ton tank.
They should have dumped the design first time they saw it going above 50tons.
Do we have the total details of Pakistani bridges and culverts?
What is the reason why the weight went up?
It did not take 30 years plus for the IA to realise. It happened because it took 30 year plus to develop and things kept changing.
IA is slow I will agree, but not Rip Van Winkle, if you don't mind!
I am not aware of why they did not dump, maybe they were being patriotic as you all in the BRF to allow indigenous development and industry! Who knows? Why get nasty with them when they have your sentiments?
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
I am Not talking about any X or Y tankRayC wrote: And why so?
Would you be in a tank that is not upto the mark?
If so, go ahead get more like you and form a regiment of such tanks.
Your dying will not be lamented.
i am talking about T-90 or Arjun. I dont think that Arjun is not upto the mark. I know people who have worked in this project and i my self have seen and been inside it once in an exibition.
As for T-90 i dont think the army selected it just for namesake (T80 & T90) without any trials etc. That is why i cameup with that statement
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
is the current arjun built to 1972 GSQR ? how many times did IA have to change GSQR ? once every 6 years ? a GSQR is expected to stay current for the next 25-30 years at a minimum and then for another 10-15 years with upgrades. changing GSQR every 6-7 years for the first 15 years of development followed by asking for n number of incremental refinements without ever committing for a sizeable number would be far worse than even paki generals can manage. in most places this would be called gross incompetence.RayC wrote:GSQR was issued in Aug 1972.Rahul M wrote:one wonders if the army had forgotten about the load bearing capability of canals when forming up the GSQR.
Today is 2010.
http://frontierindia.net/history-of-arj ... evelopment
and then the fun and games really started, every time CVRDE completed a set of improvements army asked for, in stead of ordering the tank army asked for further improvements, none of which were major aka design flaws that couldn't be ironed out in a limited series production while the army gave further bulk orders.>>> The first draft of Qualitative Requirement (QR) was prepared by Armoured Corps Directorate and discussed with Vice Chief of Army Staff (VCOAS).
The first General Staff Qualitative Requirement (GSQR) was issued in August 1972 as QR No. 326 for the design and development of MBT. The QR 326 was not exhaustive and with regard to specifications but featured only skeleton specifications.
The design and development of MBT based on GSQR No. 326 was taken up by the Combat Vehicle Research and Development Establishment (CVRDE). The initial outlay of Rs. 15.50 Crore was sanctioned vide the Government of India (GOI) letter dated 02 May, 1974. Project Development Certification (PDC) of the project was 10 years from the date of sanction.
>>> In April 1978, the Indian Army called DRDO for a meeting for mutual discussions. The aim was to change the GSQR No. 326. A series of meetings between DRDO and Indian Army, chaired by VCOAS resulted in change in GSQR. The new GSQR bearing the number 431 was issued in August 1982.
The changes in the GSQR No. 431 were
a)Increase in width and weight
b)110/115mm gun was to be replaced with a 120mm gun.
c)Improved Sighting and Fire Control system.
>>>This prompted Indian Army to change its GSQR and in November 1985, third GSQR No. 467 was issued. The changes in GSQR were:
a)More lethal gun of 120mm caliber.
b)Requirement of Fin Stabilized Armour Piercing Discarding Sabot (FSAPDS)
c)Development of Semi Combustible Cartridge cases and high energy propellant.
d)Integrated Fire Control System based on sight stabilized system with periscopic gunner sight.
e)Thermal Imaging system for gunner’s main sight for night fighting capabilities.
f)Provision of “Kanchan Armour” for enhanced immunity.
in the meantime they bought hundreds of an untested lemon of a tank called the T-90, which is little more than a fiery grave on wheels to safeguard the 'lives' of soldiers. this would have been the height of sarcastic humour were it not real.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
I don't understand why RayC sir are against Supporting Indigenous Production. That thing is going to help us in long term.
Ofcourse there must be a balance in our long term strategy and short term strategy.
If we insist on going for imported products then eventually
- we will kill indigenous skills, production lines, research and expertise.
- We will be sending out our money outside, resulting in less money being left for indigenous R&D as no foreign product comes cheaper.
- we will be more dependent on foreign powers for supplies and spares and support which we can not risk when the war will be on us.
- we will have to pay more for upgrades, watch the prices for mirage2000 upgrades and ofcourse we will have to be looking at the foreign vendors for the upgrades again.
- we will not be able to sustain war for long periods due to dependency on foreign powers for spares and support and transport delays.
- we will be creating jobs in foreign countries at expense from Indian taxpayers
In short it will give us a quick edge on our enemy but only for a short period of time. As we are not following any aggressive strategy so far that edge will not materialize.
On the other hand if we only focus on indigenous products
- we may not have very uptodate products initially which may make us vulnerable for short period of time.
- we may have to spend more(which is unlikely) but still the money will remain in our country and further facilitate the indigenous R&D and production which will result in better quality for indigenous products.
- the upgrades will be cheaper and can be carried out more reliably and quickly.
- we will be able to sustain war for longer times as we can expand production and production lines quickly
- we will be creating jobs locally
We right now need a balance of Foreign and Indian products.
But sooner or later support for indigenous products is essential.
Ofcourse there must be a balance in our long term strategy and short term strategy.
If we insist on going for imported products then eventually
- we will kill indigenous skills, production lines, research and expertise.
- We will be sending out our money outside, resulting in less money being left for indigenous R&D as no foreign product comes cheaper.
- we will be more dependent on foreign powers for supplies and spares and support which we can not risk when the war will be on us.
- we will have to pay more for upgrades, watch the prices for mirage2000 upgrades and ofcourse we will have to be looking at the foreign vendors for the upgrades again.
- we will not be able to sustain war for long periods due to dependency on foreign powers for spares and support and transport delays.
- we will be creating jobs in foreign countries at expense from Indian taxpayers
In short it will give us a quick edge on our enemy but only for a short period of time. As we are not following any aggressive strategy so far that edge will not materialize.
On the other hand if we only focus on indigenous products
- we may not have very uptodate products initially which may make us vulnerable for short period of time.
- we may have to spend more(which is unlikely) but still the money will remain in our country and further facilitate the indigenous R&D and production which will result in better quality for indigenous products.
- the upgrades will be cheaper and can be carried out more reliably and quickly.
- we will be able to sustain war for longer times as we can expand production and production lines quickly
- we will be creating jobs locally
We right now need a balance of Foreign and Indian products.
But sooner or later support for indigenous products is essential.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
is the current arjun built to 1972 GSQR ? how many times did IA have to change GSQR ? once every 6 years ? a GSQR is expected to stay current for the next 25-30 years at a minimum and then for another 10-15 years with upgrades. changing GSQR every 6-7 years for the first 15 years of development followed by asking for n number of incremental refinements without ever committing for a sizeable number
Rahul, you just hit the nail on the head. I believe most of those here share those feelings about the Arjun program. There is just one catch - the availability of the said product in the said timelines, saves the army undue risks. If the Arjuns were made ready at the expected time, may be we would not have gone for the Tin cans.in the meantime they bought hundreds of an untested lemon of a tank called the T-90, which is little more than a fiery grave on wheels to safeguard the 'lives' of soldiers. this would have been the height of sarcastic humour were it not real.
After all when it comes to choosing between pseudo pride and the life of a jawan, its definitely the latter I would like to save.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
sameer bhai... i dont think RayC is against indigenous dev.. all he is saying is that there are many factors which dictate introduction of any system, many of which are not immediately obvious to people not in know of things. and that only a functioning and reasonably good system needs to be introduced. he gives ex of a 105 IFG which is a good gun but suffers from manufacturing defects.
i met a gunner of ICV BMP recently in rajasthan and he was saying that the indian made barrel tends to get red hot while the ruskie one does not ..he said "india ka loha aacha quality ka nahi hai saar' !! he then commented on the simulator for the BMP... "saar ye kaise simulator banaya hai... humara ICV to itna hilta hai chalte hue .. ye simulator to sofa mein baithkar video game ki tarah banaya hai... ye simulator asli BMP ki tarah kyon nahi hil sakta?? ". i think he has a point.
but he was quite appreciative of DRDO chaps.. 'saar, ye drdo wale aate hain.. humse poochte hain ki koi issue to nahi hai ...sab fit kar dete hain... "
i met a gunner of ICV BMP recently in rajasthan and he was saying that the indian made barrel tends to get red hot while the ruskie one does not ..he said "india ka loha aacha quality ka nahi hai saar' !! he then commented on the simulator for the BMP... "saar ye kaise simulator banaya hai... humara ICV to itna hilta hai chalte hue .. ye simulator to sofa mein baithkar video game ki tarah banaya hai... ye simulator asli BMP ki tarah kyon nahi hil sakta?? ". i think he has a point.
but he was quite appreciative of DRDO chaps.. 'saar, ye drdo wale aate hain.. humse poochte hain ki koi issue to nahi hai ...sab fit kar dete hain... "
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
deleted - copyright
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
The first draft of Qualitative Requirement (QR) was prepared by Armoured Corps Directorate and discussed with Vice Chief of Army Staff (VCOAS).
The first General Staff Qualitative Requirement (GSQR) was issued in August 1972 as QR No. 326 for the design and development of MBT. The QR 326 was not exhaustive and with regard to specifications but featured only skeleton specifications.
The design and development of MBT based on GSQR No. 326 was taken up by the Combat Vehicle Research and Development Establishment (CVRDE). The initial outlay of Rs. 15.50 Crore was sanctioned vide the Government of India (GOI) letter dated 02 May, 1974. Project Development Certification (PDC) of the project was 10 years from the date of sanction.
>>> In April 1978, the Indian Army called DRDO for a meeting for mutual discussions. The aim was to change the GSQR No. 326. A series of meetings between DRDO and Indian Army, chaired by VCOAS resulted in change in GSQR. The new GSQR bearing the number 431 was issued in August 1982.
The changes in the GSQR No. 431 were
a)Increase in width and weight
b)110/115mm gun was to be replaced with a 120mm gun.
c)Improved Sighting and Fire Control system.
>>>This prompted Indian Army to change its GSQR and in November 1985, third GSQR No. 467 was issued. The changes in GSQR were:
a)More lethal gun of 120mm caliber.
b)Requirement of Fin Stabilized Armour Piercing Discarding Sabot (FSAPDS)
c)Development of Semi Combustible Cartridge cases and high energy propellant.
d)Integrated Fire Control System based on sight stabilized system with periscopic gunner sight.
e)Thermal Imaging system for gunner’s main sight for night fighting capabilities.
f)Provision of “Kanchan Armour” for enhanced immunity.
Rahoul any Idea if GSQR was changed after 85 also or not ? so is the current ARJUN as per GSQR No. 467 (1985).
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
The fact that Arjun has/will have a/c now does not compensate for the failing of TI on T-90 during the excercises. The same TI and FCS works without a/c in Arjun. Remember, now the Arjun has 'hardened electronics' to withstand the heat in summers. And this after the electronics failed to perform in desert trials. And please don't bring in the 'excessive usage' of TI as the reason for failure of TI on T-90. Because not only did the TI conk off, the time for 'booting up' the system was more than the brochure claims. If it was as simple as that, IA and DGMF would not be running after the OME and DRDO to install the 'environment management' system.Now you will say it did - but the evidence is contradictory!!! We will come back to other bits andpieces later :mrgreen:i know where ur emotions are.... i respect that.... and i dont want to start another mindless discussion....- even ARJUN has a AC now which it did not have 3 yrs bk (all front-line MBT) in IA will have AC for better troop comfort and need for upkeep of sensitive equipment which is getting integrated in them (BMS, TI, FCS etc)
we can goo on and on ..
We all know the reason for the purchase of T-90 - induction of T-80UD by PA and lack of Arjun during the period. But the later order of T-90 when the Arjun was ready, is pure BS.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
GSQR is to stay current if need be for life!Rahul M wrote:
is the current arjun built to 1972 GSQR ? how many times did IA have to change GSQR ? once every 6 years ? a GSQR is expected to stay current for the next 25-30 years at a minimum and then for another 10-15 years with upgrades. changing GSQR every 6-7 years for the first 15 years of development followed by asking for n number of incremental refinements without ever committing for a sizeable number would be far worse than even paki generals can manage. in most places this would be called gross incompetence.
http://frontierindia.net/history-of-arj ... evelopmentand then the fun and games really started, every time CVRDE completed a set of improvements army asked for, in stead of ordering the tank army asked for further improvements, none of which were major aka design flaws that couldn't be ironed out in a limited series production while the army gave further bulk orders.>>> The first draft of Qualitative Requirement (QR) was prepared by Armoured Corps Directorate and discussed with Vice Chief of Army Staff (VCOAS).
The first General Staff Qualitative Requirement (GSQR) was issued in August 1972 as QR No. 326 for the design and development of MBT. The QR 326 was not exhaustive and with regard to specifications but featured only skeleton specifications.
The design and development of MBT based on GSQR No. 326 was taken up by the Combat Vehicle Research and Development Establishment (CVRDE). The initial outlay of Rs. 15.50 Crore was sanctioned vide the Government of India (GOI) letter dated 02 May, 1974. Project Development Certification (PDC) of the project was 10 years from the date of sanction.
>>> In April 1978, the Indian Army called DRDO for a meeting for mutual discussions. The aim was to change the GSQR No. 326. A series of meetings between DRDO and Indian Army, chaired by VCOAS resulted in change in GSQR. The new GSQR bearing the number 431 was issued in August 1982.
The changes in the GSQR No. 431 were
a)Increase in width and weight
b)110/115mm gun was to be replaced with a 120mm gun.
c)Improved Sighting and Fire Control system.
>>>This prompted Indian Army to change its GSQR and in November 1985, third GSQR No. 467 was issued. The changes in GSQR were:
a)More lethal gun of 120mm caliber.
b)Requirement of Fin Stabilized Armour Piercing Discarding Sabot (FSAPDS)
c)Development of Semi Combustible Cartridge cases and high energy propellant.
d)Integrated Fire Control System based on sight stabilized system with periscopic gunner sight.
e)Thermal Imaging system for gunner’s main sight for night fighting capabilities.
f)Provision of “Kanchan Armour” for enhanced immunity.
in the meantime they bought hundreds of an untested lemon of a tank called the T-90, which is little more than a fiery grave on wheels to safeguard the 'lives' of soldiers. this would have been the height of sarcastic humour were it not real.
However, India had no experience in tank designing and the first GSQR was more of a technology demonstrator (if one reads the Frontier India article carefully) and supporting indigenisation and then it developed as it was and people found that things were working out.
I am extremely surprised to hear that over 30 PLUS years that it took to get Arjun to what it is today, there should not have been a change to the GSQR.
It is like stating that I should still possess my father's ECTV since it works and even it is black and white and is not capable to having so many channels that I have on my 'fancy' TV!!
It is equally ridiculous a statement that one commits x numbers even before an equipment is accepted for introduction. Very odd logic indeed!
Can one fault the IA to keep pace with the change in environment, ne technological, geopolitical, geostrategical, topographical et al? If so, why are we not satisfied with our Ambassador cars? They also take us places!
Have you ridden (let alone be in a exercise) a T 90 to call it a lemon and which war were you into to decide? IA has not used it in a war.
Those who have no idea or real war have no idea that every tank is a fiery grave on wheels!
Last edited by RayC on 01 Mar 2010 17:52, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
Kakarat wrote:I am Not talking about any X or Y tankRayC wrote: And why so?
Would you be in a tank that is not upto the mark?
If so, go ahead get more like you and form a regiment of such tanks.
Your dying will not be lamented.
i am talking about T-90 or Arjun. I dont think that Arjun is not upto the mark. I know people who have worked in this project and i my self have seen and been inside it once in an exibition.
As for T-90 i dont think the army selected it just for namesake (T80 & T90) without any trials etc. That is why i cameup with that statement
Getting inside a tank in exhibitions and riding it in operational environment are different issue.
Holding an INSAS in NCC and holding one when the enemy is charging at you, is a different issue.
Last edited by RayC on 01 Mar 2010 17:59, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
let me put it this way, is the arjun same as the one asked by army in 1985 ? hardly, an army that has problems figuring out what it needs 6 years into the future (going by the rate at which GSQRs were being revised) can't be expected to create one that lasts 25 years. anyway, there have been many revisions in the requirements since then, as I have also mentioned in my post. as to whether there has been formal GSQRs been issued or not I don't know, I'll need to ask a few people on that.Rahoul any Idea if GSQR was changed after 85 also or not ? so is the current ARJUN as per GSQR No. 467 (1985).
why do you ask ?
p.s. everytime this saga crops up we keep hearing "hint-hint nudge nudge, are you in the know ? there are valid reasons why the T-90 was chosen etc". well, is there ?
so why is the army not forthcoming on this issue and give the general public and govt alike one valid reason (that actually makes sense unlike the "oh I forgot to tell you this tank is too heavy") as to why the T-90 was chosen over the arjun. this is hardly something 'hush-hush' like nuclear weapons launch details that can't be shared.
even if I assume that there is the (extremely slim IMHO) chance that the army did have a valid reason, it is doing much more harm to itself by not coming out openly with the reasons, this, at a time when the media anyway has enough fuel to slow-roast the institution. by not clearing the air IA is only adding to the fuel. in stead we keep hearing of all the infighting between this and that lobby, IOW dirty linen being washed in public that is better kept away from public eyes.
given all this, I really find hard to believe that IA does have some valid reason for this insipid management of the armoured forces.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
One of my folks was the CFO of P&G.manjgu wrote:sameer bhai... i dont think RayC is against indigenous dev.. all he is saying is that there are many factors which dictate introduction of any system, many of which are not immediately obvious to people not in know of things. and that only a functioning and reasonably good system needs to be introduced. he gives ex of a 105 IFG which is a good gun but suffers from manufacturing defects.
i met a gunner of ICV BMP recently in rajasthan and he was saying that the indian made barrel tends to get red hot while the ruskie one does not ..he said "india ka loha aacha quality ka nahi hai saar' !! he then commented on the simulator for the BMP... "saar ye kaise simulator banaya hai... humara ICV to itna hilta hai chalte hue .. ye simulator to sofa mein baithkar video game ki tarah banaya hai... ye simulator asli BMP ki tarah kyon nahi hil sakta?? ". i think he has a point.
but he was quite appreciative of DRDO chaps.. 'saar, ye drdo wale aate hain.. humse poochte hain ki koi issue to nahi hai ...sab fit kar dete hain... "
I asked him why the perfume of Old Spice made in Ponda Goa did not last as long as the imported one.
After much remonstrating that it was not so, he finally said it was because the water base was different in India and aborad!
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
Interesting issue.We all know the reason for the purchase of T-90 - induction of T-80UD by PA and lack of Arjun during the period. But the later order of T-90 when the Arjun was ready, is pure BS.
When will Arjun be ready in the numbers required?
How does one fill the void till then?
Why is the Short Service entry being increased when Permanent Commission should have sufficed? To fill the void.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
Guess what?Rahul M wrote:let me put it this way, is the arjun same as the one asked by army in 1985 ? hardly, an army that has problems figuring out what it needs 6 years into the future (going by the rate at which GSQRs were being revised) can't be expected to create one that lasts 25 years. anyway, there have been many revisions in the requirements since then, as I have also mentioned in my post. as to whether there has been formal GSQRs been issued or not I don't know, I'll need to ask a few people on that.Rahoul any Idea if GSQR was changed after 85 also or not ? so is the current ARJUN as per GSQR No. 467 (1985).
why do you ask ?
p.s. everytime this saga crops up we keep hearing "hint-hint nudge nudge, are you in the know ? there are valid reasons why the T-90 was chosen etc". well, is there ?
so why is the army not forthcoming on this issue and give the general public and govt alike one valid reason (that actually makes sense unlike the "oh I forgot to tell you this tank is too heavy") as to why the T-90 was chosen over the arjun. this is hardly something 'hush-hush' like nuclear weapons launch details that can't be shared.
even if I assume that there is the (extremely slim IMHO) chance that the army did have a valid reason, it is doing much more harm to itself by not coming out openly with the reasons, this, at a time when the media anyway has enough fuel to slow-roast the institution. by not clearing the air IA is only adding to the fuel. in stead we keep hearing of all the infighting between this and that lobby, IOW dirty linen being washed in public that is better kept away from public eyes.
given all this, I really find hard to believe that IA does have some valid reason for this insipid management of the armoured forces.
Why is not the Army opening the War Book to the general public?
After all, we have a right to know. We pay the taxes that supports them!
We informed lot can always tell them how to run their army and their armoured forces since we know more than them.
It astounds me that those who have not even worn the uniform are the greatest Daniel come to Judgement and consider every one tasked to do a job is a fool or sniff a conspiracy in everything!
T 90 is to fill the void, till the Arjun is accepted in service and the OFB can manage the numbers.
The OFB cannot meet the the requirement of INSAS or Carl Gustav and we are talking of Tanks!!
And then, we run for cover for lack of tanks when Pakistan attacks, which cannot be ruled out!
Wow! and Double Wow!!
Great pundits!
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
You've actually indirectly hit the crux of the whole debate on T-90 induction. Now answering your question:RayC wrote:Interesting issue.We all know the reason for the purchase of T-90 - induction of T-80UD by PA and lack of Arjun during the period. But the later order of T-90 when the Arjun was ready, is pure BS.
When will Arjun be ready in the numbers required?
How does one fill the void till then?
Why is the Short Service entry being increased when Permanent Commission should have sufficed? To fill the void.
--The T-90 is not being inducted to fill the void due to lack of Arjun. It is proposed to be "THE MBT" of the IA. As and when the IA places orders for Arjun, the HVF can ramp up the production rate of Arjun from current 20 per annum to around 68 per annum (one regiment worth)When will Arjun be ready in the numbers required? How does one fill the void till then?
--As for the induction of T-90, it came in as a reaction for purchase of 320 T-80UD by PA. And guess what, PA has capped the T-80UD number at that. The reason they bought T-80UD was because there was serious shortfall in PA armor versus IA and their Al-Khalid program was not upto speed. The T-80UD was a stop gap measure, something to fill the void as you've said. The Al-Kahlid program is upto speed and has already delivred around 300 tanks. They are working on Al-Khalid MKII version as we speak. That is iterative development for you.
--As for the IA, it went ahead and purchased 310 T-90 as countermeasure in 2001. The specs of the tank were kept low to keep the cost/tank as low so as to pass the MOD and FinMin bean counters. The total cost of tank with all the necessary bells and whistles is quite high as compared to the plain jane version we bought. The deals for these additional bells and whistles will be signed shortly. We signed up for another 1000 T-90 along with TOT. But our dear russian freinds played spoil sport and hung up on the tech transfer part. So, no indegineous T-90 roll out till 2009 (10 tanks in all). And what do we do: Order more off the shelf T-90 (347).
--With 1,657 T-90 (operational and on order), I think the IA has more or less filled the void. There are still 2400 T-72+~1000 T-55 and Vijayantas in service which need to be upgraded and replaced. Internet serach tells me that close to 1200 T-72 are to be upgraded. That still leaves the void for another ~1200 odd tanks. Unless, the IA intends to import more foreign armor, these numbers can be easily filled up by ARJUN production.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
Arjun vs T 90: Tank trials to kick off next month
First of all get you facts right, Pubby. It is not 1000 km but 2000km between 4 tanks and that made changes to the "power pack" 4 times. Go ask anyone in Auto-industry did they ever heard of such a failure. Even "lorry" tata indica never faced such problem to change the "power pack" every 500 km, i guess. What ? last nail in the coffin ?...yes not for the Arjun but for the lobby that sabotaged this trial. You should ask why this happened only in AUCRT and what are the data in other usage of Arjun?This, after the Army has virtually ruled out the Arjun for further orders and instead wants DRDO to use it as a base for a new tank that would find a place in its war plans. For the Army, the last nail in the Arjun coffin came after the accelerated user trials in 2008 that resulted in a massive setback after the power pack failed four times during just 1,000 km of running. ???
Army's mind ? Dont give this shit again. MoS defence called that as sabotage. Renk/DRDO installed tamper proof device after this sabotage. You think public memory fades fast ?The outcome of the 2008 Accelerated Usage cum Reliability Trials (AUCRT) (crucial to clear it for bulk production), where the German engine failed four times, is still fresh in the Army’s mind.
Arre Pubby, did it every occur to you will the Pak Army keep it ready their bridges for the T90 or any other tank to cross over ? So if it all about weight why IA didnt even considered the offer of Tank Ex upgrade of T-72 which is less than 50 tons and gives the benefit of Arjun gun and protection while retaining the mobility of T-72? Next time before writing any critical analysis especially on defence, try to do some homework, and dont be like Aroor.The T 90’s weight is crucial to the Army’s war plans along the long Indo-Pak border, especially in the plains of Punjab. The T 90 as well as the older T 72 were ordered because they weighed below 50 ton — the load carrying capacity of thousands of canal and river crossings all along the border.At close to 60 tons, the Army would find it impossible to deploy the Arjun in the Punjab sector as well as parts of the Jammu region.
Ok now comes the DG. Mr. Shekhawat, do you know Arjun project was started as futuristic tank project of Vijayanta ? What happened to that project? Before talking abt futuristic project did IA finalized on the GSQR of the futuristic tank? Hope it wont be like a super duper RFP for the Artillery which leads to cancellation upon prompt denial by vendor as unrealistic. You see, even those vendors...hmm.“Tanks have a certain shelf life and now we need a new deign looking into the future. We now have a base and expertise to start on the futuristic tank,” Lt Gen KDS Shekhawat
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
Sir, the Arjun took 30years to develop due to change in GSQR and not the other way around.I am extremely surprised to hear that over 30 PLUS years that it took to get Arjun to what it is today, there should not have been a change to the GSQR.
And, how is the induction of T-90 an affirmation of IA keeping pace with the above mentioned variables? And topographical parameter is not in the same class as others. IA was aware of this parameter before the GSQR was drafted. If PA had inducted the Abrams in late 1980s....what would have the IA inducted then? The trials of which, btw,set the cat amongst pigeons and Arjun is what it is today in terms of design and weight (a western tank)Can one fault the IA to keep pace with the change in environment, ne technological, geopolitical, geostrategical, topographical et al? If so, why are we not satisfied with our Ambassador cars? They also take us places!
There is enough documented proof of the shortcoming of T-XX design. Let me quote this from a site which maintains comprehensive data on Russian Armor and is maintained by a russian. The url for the site is this: http://www.russianarmor.info/Those who have no idea or real war have no idea that every tank is a fiery grave on wheels!
Let not make virtue out of neccessity.Note however, that opposite to a common belief the carousel is well protected from above. During loading, the round passes through the door that closes after the tray has retracted, and therefore in the case of turret penetration the incandescent splinters will land on the autoloader roof and not ignite the carousel. Nevertheless, the extra rounds stored in the fighting compartment are very likely to ignite in this case, and of course the lower hull penetration is quite deadly.
In other words, not the autoloader per se, but the whole notion of placing ammunition inside a fighting compartment makes the tank very susceptible to catastrophic fire if penetrated from virtually any angle. This has been amply illustrated by the conflicts in which T-72s and T-80s have participated.
As a result, the current Russian desings move away from a 40-year-old autoloader model. Both the Black Eagle MBT and the new N.Tagil MBT have other types of autoloaders and different ammunition layouts, the former having a traditional Western turret bustle and the latter - so far unknown layout
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
Last time in an argument against DRDO you quoted the example BEL radar unit as a spectacular one, without knowing that they manufacture the products developed by DRDO. Now you are comparing the DRDO which is basically a research org and the commercial industry which concentrates on production in the same context. That put me to ask you a question, do you know the basic difference between the research org and the factory which only produces products ?RayC wrote:I have visited DRDO establishment in the line of duty and I have also visited commercial industries, not in the line of duty out of curiosity and inquisitive interest. There is a vast difference! One is bureaucratic and lazy and the other is out to make the finest product and be competitive.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
Rahul M wrote:
is the current arjun built to 1972 GSQR ? how many times did IA have to change GSQR ? once every 6 years ? a GSQR is expected to stay current for the next 25-30 years at a minimum and then for another 10-15 years with upgrades. changing GSQR every 6-7 years for the first 15 years of development followed by asking for n number of incremental refinements without ever committing for a sizeable number would be far worse than even paki generals can manage. in most places this would be called gross incompetence.
http://frontierindia.net/history-of-arj ... evelopmentand then the fun and games really started, every time CVRDE completed a set of improvements army asked for, in stead of ordering the tank army asked for further improvements, none of which were major aka design flaws that couldn't be ironed out in a limited series production while the army gave further bulk orders.>>> The first draft of Qualitative Requirement (QR) was prepared by Armoured Corps Directorate and discussed with Vice Chief of Army Staff (VCOAS).
The first General Staff Qualitative Requirement (GSQR) was issued in August 1972 as QR No. 326 for the design and development of MBT. The QR 326 was not exhaustive and with regard to specifications but featured only skeleton specifications.
The design and development of MBT based on GSQR No. 326 was taken up by the Combat Vehicle Research and Development Establishment (CVRDE). The initial outlay of Rs. 15.50 Crore was sanctioned vide the Government of India (GOI) letter dated 02 May, 1974. Project Development Certification (PDC) of the project was 10 years from the date of sanction.
>>> In April 1978, the Indian Army called DRDO for a meeting for mutual discussions. The aim was to change the GSQR No. 326. A series of meetings between DRDO and Indian Army, chaired by VCOAS resulted in change in GSQR. The new GSQR bearing the number 431 was issued in August 1982.
The changes in the GSQR No. 431 were
a)Increase in width and weight
b)110/115mm gun was to be replaced with a 120mm gun.
c)Improved Sighting and Fire Control system.
>>>This prompted Indian Army to change its GSQR and in November 1985, third GSQR No. 467 was issued. The changes in GSQR were:
a)More lethal gun of 120mm caliber.
b)Requirement of Fin Stabilized Armour Piercing Discarding Sabot (FSAPDS)
c)Development of Semi Combustible Cartridge cases and high energy propellant.
d)Integrated Fire Control System based on sight stabilized system with periscopic gunner sight.
e)Thermal Imaging system for gunner’s main sight for night fighting capabilities.
f)Provision of “Kanchan Armour” for enhanced immunity.
in the meantime they bought hundreds of an untested lemon of a tank called the T-90, which is little more than a fiery grave on wheels to safeguard the 'lives' of soldiers. this would have been the height of sarcastic humour were it not real.
_____________________________________RayC wrote: .................
I am extremely surprised to hear that over 30 PLUS years that it took to get Arjun to what it is today, there should not have been a change to the GSQR.
{it took 30 years precisely because IA kept shifting goalposts.}
It is like stating that I should still possess my father's ECTV since it works and even it is black and white and is not capable to having so many channels that I have on my 'fancy' TV!!
{it's nothing like that. check out the dates yourself, a single GSQR took 4 years to complete by IA and once completed became obsolete in 6-7 years ! forget DRDO, even the best tank makers won't have been able to complete a project with this approach !}
It is equally ridiculous a statement that one commits x numbers even before an equipment is accepted for introduction. Very odd logic indeed!
{what standard constitutes "accepted for introduction" is the very point I was making. armies all over the world accept products that are a little rough around the edges when the basic design is robust enough. (arjun of the late 90's fits that description to a T) further refinements are incorporated from user feedback while small orders are executed. in fact, IA itself accepts incomplete products with the promise that improvements will be done over time. case in point, the T-90 or even the tungushka systems. BUT, not if the product is Indian, then another standard applies, the product has to be significantly better than what is available from abroad and available by yesterday ! }
Can one fault the IA to keep pace with the change in environment, ne technological, geopolitical, geostrategical, topographical et al? If so, why are we not satisfied with our Ambassador cars? They also take us places!
so the improved version of T-72( first produced 1971 ) was bought to do all that !
Have you ridden (let alone be in a exercise) a T 90 to call it a lemon and which war were you into to decide? IA has not used it in a war.
{there are other ways to be informed than simple riding a vehicle. otherwise we all would have been aeronautical engineers by now ! are we ?
the T-90 is nothing more than a souped up T-72, whose design flaws make it precisely that (fiery grave on wheels). even in the recent russia georgia war the upgraded T-72's whose protection levels are similar to the T-90's (a tad lower perhaps) proved very vulnerable. in most cases the crew perished as well. I find it really strange that people go on supporting this tin can out of misguided emotions like guarding the honour of the army rather than actually caring about the soldiers who go to war in them. }
Those who have no idea or real war have no idea that every tank is a fiery grave on wheels!
{no sir they are not. and it is not my idea btw but of one who was closely associated with both the army and the program. well protected tanks like the abrams have been known to be hit and their crew more often than not survived to tell the tale. how many T-72 crew members survived being hit ?
should we just sit on our **** and be happy that the same fate awaits IA armoured force men in case of a war ? especially when a better option was available, at a lower cost ? }
ah, "have you held a gun at a border post" argument ! well, no I haven't. but the very fact that ad hominem attacks and appeals to authority are being used as a substitute for hard logic proves my point.Guess what?
Why is not the Army opening the War Book to the general public?
After all, we have a right to know. We pay the taxes that supports them!
We informed lot can always tell them how to run their army and their armoured forces since we know more than them.
It astounds me that those who have not even worn the uniform are the greatest Daniel come to Judgement and consider every one tasked to do a job is a fool or sniff a conspiracy in everything!
T 90 is to fill the void, till the Arjun is accepted in service and the OFB can manage the numbers.
The OFB cannot meet the the requirement of INSAS or Carl Gustav and we are talking of Tanks!!
And then, we run for cover for lack of tanks when Pakistan attacks, which cannot be ruled out!
Wow! and Double Wow!!
Great pundits!
the army is not a particularly media-shy organisation, we hear of many topics that are much more sensitive than the problems with arjun tank, not to mention many that we would rather not hear from the media (the mud-slinging going on at the top)
so why the sudden reticence on this topic ? because there is nothing intelligent to add ?
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
Refining the requirement is a regular feature.
Tell me didn’t the requirement of LCA, ALH, SU-30, F-22, changed from the first TD built to the production model ?
IA accepted the MBT in 2000 and gave production order of 124 numbers.
10 yrs to deliver first lot. That is acceptable. If the war happened in between we can ask IA to suspend it for 10-15 yrs so DRDO- AVDHI can produce a quality product.
As a technology ARJUN was accepted 10 yrs back but as a product out of production line the quality was so poor that IA had to rejact the complete lot of 14 MBT. This is where the tamasha started, DDM/ DRDO/ AVDHI projected that IA is not accepting ARJUN because of T-90., had these ppl made sure that 14 MBT built passed through the quality control we would not see the tamasha.... but insted of accepting the quality issue.. they have managed to show it in a diff picture altogether because it would have shown their incompentency.
What would u do if u buy a new car lets say TATA MANZA, u pay the money, on the delivery date u go pick up the car and do paper work... and take it out, 1km ur car stops... u go back to dealer and tell him the issue.... he tell u Sir... u have sabotaged the car... because u wanted to buy new SKODA that was launched yest. Next car u buy from us we will make sure this problem will not be there
Had the MBT been delivered as per promise we would see more number of ARJUNS..
Tell me didn’t the requirement of LCA, ALH, SU-30, F-22, changed from the first TD built to the production model ?
IA accepted the MBT in 2000 and gave production order of 124 numbers.
10 yrs to deliver first lot. That is acceptable. If the war happened in between we can ask IA to suspend it for 10-15 yrs so DRDO- AVDHI can produce a quality product.
As a technology ARJUN was accepted 10 yrs back but as a product out of production line the quality was so poor that IA had to rejact the complete lot of 14 MBT. This is where the tamasha started, DDM/ DRDO/ AVDHI projected that IA is not accepting ARJUN because of T-90., had these ppl made sure that 14 MBT built passed through the quality control we would not see the tamasha.... but insted of accepting the quality issue.. they have managed to show it in a diff picture altogether because it would have shown their incompentency.
What would u do if u buy a new car lets say TATA MANZA, u pay the money, on the delivery date u go pick up the car and do paper work... and take it out, 1km ur car stops... u go back to dealer and tell him the issue.... he tell u Sir... u have sabotaged the car... because u wanted to buy new SKODA that was launched yest. Next car u buy from us we will make sure this problem will not be there
Had the MBT been delivered as per promise we would see more number of ARJUNS..
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
cough cough
I am waiting for open source info on T series in combat with the Indian Army after IPKF???
I am waiting for open source info on T series in combat with the Indian Army after IPKF???
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
Surya wrote:cough cough
I am waiting for open source info on T series in combat with the Indian Army after IPKF???
read what i had written in my post, i never said its open source, but what is open source is how many wars we have had after IPKF....
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
So the great defence of T series in combat comes down to - what your chaiwallah said.
So that leaves the IPKF as the only combat the Tin cans saw.
And that involved a certain Col Kaul who said this to BR
So that leaves the IPKF as the only combat the Tin cans saw.
And that involved a certain Col Kaul who said this to BR
Now while we Arjun proponents accept the initial problems with DRDO \QC etc we see no such acceptance from the anti Arjun lobby of all the Army's faults.Q. Lastly, an off the topic question - which may be of interest to our website visitors - as an armoured corps officer, were you ever involved with the Arjun MBT? If so what is your view on it?
A. In fact after the Sri-Lanka episode, I was called by the Project Director of the Arjun MBT to give my views on the Arjun vis-a-vis the T-72. The Arjun is a fine piece of engineering. Unfortunately it has got stuck between the proponents of the Eastern equipment vs Western equipment in the Army itself. Its failure to appear as front line equipment can be narrowed down to who is in the decision making chair. One who has grown up with the PT-76/T-54/T-55 background or one who has cut his teeth with the AMX-13/Centurion/Vijayanta mix. At the end of the day, the taxpayer is down by thousands of crores while the DRDO carries on constructing five star facilities for itself from the funds meant for such projects. See the new DRDO office near South Block and compare it with its poor cousin, Sena Bhavan, or its below-poverty-line hutments housing EME personnel. They are the ones who initially designed the Arjun MBT as an uprated version and successor to the Vijayanta MBT.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
What would u do if u buy a new car lets say TATA MANZA, u pay the money, on the delivery date u go pick up the car and do paper work... and take it out, 1km ur car stops... u go back to dealer and tell him the issue.... he tell u Sir... u have sabotaged the car...
now now
Correct analogy would be you buy Merc, drive it for a thousand miles and claim the transmission is shot or broke down. That would be one suspicious dealer
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
when did i say that?... that is your understanding of what i have written.!!!Marten wrote:So d_berwal saab, what you're saying is that if the program managers are unable to meet the delivery schedules (because the client keeps changing the scope), we should abandon the project? If the net result is better than the imported product, and saves you money, and save lives, and is available now, and will not be obsoleted before your imported product, would it still make sense to continue importing the foreign product instead of trying to build the skills so the next version is even better? You are getting a Jaguar for the price of a Skoda now, aren't you? The MoD has the responsibility of ensuring public funds are being used to enhance local capability as well (instead of just Natashas!).
Net result is that we're looking at an Indian version of the Mil-Ind complex where retired Army decision-makers will look forward to cushy jobs if they whole-heartedly support the import of supposedly superior death traps. And then we wonder why people suspect Army officers dance to the tune of Natashas?
Would we seriously want our folks to not gain from the expertise now that the Arjun is considered better than the T-90? The past is done and gone, and if the Arjun fits the bill for the next 20, why wouldn't we want it in the mix? Is there a reason there should only be one MBT? The earlier comments about DRDO are too general to be true or reflective of the considerable intelligence of the postor.
1st the manufactured cannot even built 1000 ARJUNS in 20 yrs time, that is the fact. The quality standards are soo poor that out of 3 built 1 is rejected... (in case of ARJUN 1st lot of 14 was completely rejected)
ARJUN is any way comming in IA but not at the cost of T-90, there is enough space for both T-90 and ARJUN.
And blaming IA for delay in ARJUN induction is wrong, when the product was not available for Induction how can some one induct it?
(Why dont we place more order for LCA insted of MMRCA)
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
d_berwal, if you have anything to back up your claim , lease post it. If you don't then we will consider your point as being unsupportable. Also, RayC Sir, it is good to support your former institution. However, now the complaints against the Arjun are getting to be ridiculous. All the tricks used by the IA to not induct the Arjun are the tank's fault. If first order was released in 2000 then why did the IA refuse to accept the first five tanks when they could accept hundreds of defective T-90s with defective TIs? D_berwal what would IA do if Pakistan attacked at night in the 2000-2010 period? The Army stubbornly even refused to take delivery and now the Arjun is being balmed for late supply.
RayC sir - so much defense of a foreign tank and none for an Indian one - sad!
RayC sir - so much defense of a foreign tank and none for an Indian one - sad!
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
furthen to correct :Surya wrote:What would u do if u buy a new car lets say TATA MANZA, u pay the money, on the delivery date u go pick up the car and do paper work... and take it out, 1km ur car stops... u go back to dealer and tell him the issue.... he tell u Sir... u have sabotaged the car...
now now
Correct analogy would be you buy Merc, drive it for a thousand miles and claim the transmission is shot or broke down. That would be one suspicious dealer
you buy merc latest model... u drive it for 1000km and every 250 km the transimission failed... each time the merc engineer supporting the 1000km test drive had to come and do replacement..... no after this u go back to the dealer/mfg and ask him why did it fail..... MFG/Dealer tell u be built it right... (because actully its from the worlds best OEM RENK, it has to be good) its u the user who broke it ..... u sabotaged it... because u wanna buy the new JAGUAR that is launched in the market...
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
BTW d_berwal read up on the Autocar test drive of the Arjun and how well it performed quite unlike the analogy that you are using. The Arjun has probably run more miles flawlessly in testing than the T-90 in anger.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
Why not ?? Looking at all the other half assed explanations given out
It does not fail in 1000 kms anywhere else?? So why did that mysteriously go away - as soon as monitoring was added??
.
It does not fail in 1000 kms anywhere else?? So why did that mysteriously go away - as soon as monitoring was added??
.
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
Vivek K wrote:d_berwal, if you have anything to back up your claim , lease post it. If you don't then we will consider your point as being unsupportable. Also, RayC Sir, it is good to support your former institution. However, now the complaints against the Arjun are getting to be ridiculous. All the tricks used by the IA to not induct the Arjun are the tank's fault. If first order was released in 2000 then why did the IA refuse to accept the first five tanks when they could accept hundreds of defective T-90s with defective TIs? D_berwal what would IA do if Pakistan attacked at night in the 2000-2010 period? The Army stubbornly even refused to take delivery and now the Arjun is being balmed for late supply.
RayC sir - so much defense of a foreign tank and none for an Indian one - sad!
Ask any IA person who has ever been to AVDHI for taking new tank deliver.... even in case of T-90 out of ever 3 assembled 1 is rejected b7y IA.
The first 5 were rejected because of Quality issue its there in open source ... google it. Or reed archive thread.
For u T90 is defective but not for IA...
for Night fighting T-90 and CIA Ajey will be used ... ((600+ T-90 and 300+ CIA (TISA))
Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread
Yeah right! 80% of the Tanks are night blind so you will field 20% against Pakistan? How many of these 20% will be serviceable at a given time? Remarkable job!
And let me say this - the Arjun is rejected because of a personal vendetta by the brass. Pray list the defects in the first 5 Arjuns if they are open source.
And let me say this - the Arjun is rejected because of a personal vendetta by the brass. Pray list the defects in the first 5 Arjuns if they are open source.