Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 11 Mar 2010 17:22

Wait...

As I understand this report, it does say that the Army is willing to try out the Arjun II isnt it?
Wasnt that the plan all along? Arjun I, and then follow on with Arjun II? I wasnt aware that we were planning more than 124 of Arjun I?

Hopefully Arjun I will prove itself to be a success in service, and Arjun II will be requested!

Besides, this sounds a lot like water kooler gossip anyway. If it were true, the news would definitely have reported it, and Headlines Today would have broken the news for sure!

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 11 Mar 2010 17:58

Once again keep repeating

you cannot order a block of tanks

then sit back and come up with a brand new set of cut and paste huffy and tuffy specs and expect a great new tank.

These guys do not even know what their future needs are for some time.

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 11 Mar 2010 18:09

Why would DRDO invest Mk-II when Mk-1 fails to get orders ?? There would be no guarantee that the Army would take this project more seriously. DRDO is yet to even recover half of the costs spent of developing Arjun and why would they spend thousands of crores on a follow-o project which might be rejected like Arjun.

DRDO is investing in LCA Mk-II because they know that this time around there is a lot of support and enthusiasm from the end user (IAF) but the same cannot be said about IA in case of Arjun Mk-II, atleast from what we have known till now.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 11 Mar 2010 18:35

aditp wrote:chocolate will be fantastic. There is a lot of good news that is going to flow. I am working on confirmations. After that more chocolates can flow.

So what's the credibility of the news in Arroor's blog. Has the army really capped the Arjun at 124?

[/quote]

let everybody say what they want. Just wait for the end of trials and the developments subsequent. You should understand that if the "logistics" is the original problem, they would not test T-90 against Arjun Tank at all.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 11 Mar 2010 19:28

^^ we are all waiting for the good news, chacko !

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 11 Mar 2010 21:03

KrishG wrote:Why would DRDO invest Mk-II when Mk-1 fails to get orders ?? .

DRDO does not invest in projects, MoD does, also the investment often is not necessarily consumate with an order in commercial sense, since a lot of money needs to spent in seeding the country's knowledge base as an investment for future.

Exactly the same thing is happening with LCA Mk II -- Its called an upgrade path.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 11 Mar 2010 21:25

Look at the article that I posted in the previous page, where the DGMF says that they want to start with a clean slate for the next FMBT.

The army already has plans to induct T-90s till 2020, whereas they could have ordered more Arjuns Mk1 while refining and developing Mk-II.

There is a big difference between LCA Mk1-II and Arjun. The IAF is fully backing the LCA all the way to the top, and the IAF will have at least around 80-100 Mk-1 LCA while developing Mk-II. Even the IAF is realistic and understands that Mk-II will take at least 5-6 years to enter IOC after Mk-I does. And the large number of LCAs will give give good feedback to ADA too.

It is funny comparing LCA to Arjun, when both in the Mk-I versions will probably be ordered in the same numbers, around 100. While 100 aircrft is a big number, 100 tanks is puny!

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 11 Mar 2010 21:26

MoD does, also the investment often is not necessarily consumate with an order in commercial sense, since a lot of money needs to spent in seeding the country's knowledge base as an investment for future.

But without a constant stream of orders, with feedback for incremenatal improvements - the knowledge is lost - happened with Marut, happened with HDW subs will happen with Arjun.

secondly LCA Mk2 is not a comparison - IAF knows the incremental needs of LCA -2.

Nothing is known about what they want for FMBT or Arjun Mk2 or whatever??

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 11 Mar 2010 21:41

Incremental Improvements!

huh!~ for our beloved bros, they only know

Incremental Orders

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 11 Mar 2010 21:43

Exactly the same thing is happening with LCA Mk II -- Its called an upgrade path.

err no use comparing oranges and apples. in arjun's case it's called the wild goose chase or shifting the goalposts.

>> the IAF has ordered a sizable number first and then asked for the Mk2, 40 is a large number for a fighter, for an AF of 500 fighters, that is a sizable figure. for an army that has around 3500 tanks, 124 is less than a pittance. that too, let's not forget, was force fed by govt.

>> in any case LCA MK2 is only an incremental improvement over the Mk1, in major aspects (electronics apart) it still is more or less as the same level as required by the original ASR. IAF did not say "build a MCA" while not even knowing what the MCA will have, which is what the IA is doing (if the news is correct).

lastly, defending the indefensible are we ? a T-90 based on a 60's design is modern enough but the "army feels arjun is a old design". if a DGMF goes on record saying this, is it any wonder he is not going to earn any respect in India ? if a politician makes a blatantly false statement he is taken to task, why should the rules be different in case of an army officer ?

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 11 Mar 2010 21:56

If you look carefully on the parliamentary defence committee's, they are very concerned about this project. Also 3 very competent politicians are behind this project. I won't be disappointed in either way. My perspective is that, a debate has been stimulated on the Arjun project. Once upon a time, it was one sided.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 11 Mar 2010 22:17

Rahul M wrote:
Exactly the same thing is happening with LCA Mk II -- Its called an upgrade path.

. IAF did not say "build a MCA" while not even knowing what the MCA will have, which is what the IA is doing (if the news is correct).

Rahul, Surya -- considering that we know NOTHING about what IA wants or does not want, isnt it a little early to say that IA wants nothing?

Lack of knowledge of IAs PoV on our part does not mean that IA does not yet have a PoV?

Meanwhile please note that only 20 LCAs have a firm order yet. (yes it does say that 20 more are intended but thats not a order yet)

I was fully expecting for positive further developments on Arjun by IA once the remaining issues are ironed out -- which seems to be happening now, a litte (2-3 years) later than I expected but happening never the less.

I do agree with Chacko in one aspect, the Parliamentary review committee is fully grasped of the situation and they are still asking for 3000 tanks from Arjun lineage. That is good.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 11 Mar 2010 22:21

chackojoseph wrote:If you look carefully on the parliamentary defence committee's, they are very concerned about this project. Also 3 very competent politicians are behind this project. I won't be disappointed in either way. My perspective is that, a debate has been stimulated on the Arjun project. Once upon a time, it was one sided.

Amen to that...I've read all the PSC on Defence Reports from 1999-2000 to present which cover the ARJUN and T-90 issue.Yes, there is concern in the reports about the delay and inducion of ARJUN. The committee reports talk ephatically about the need for indigenization and development of domestic products. BUT, what I'm not aware of is the level of weightage such reports carry in India. In a country where reports and committees are dime a dozen, what weight does the PSC on Defence have? I really hope that it is as you say above.....

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 11 Mar 2010 23:18

Surya wrote: then sit back and come up with a brand new set of cut and paste huffy and tuffy specs and expect a great new tank.

These guys do not even know what their future needs are for some time.

In lighter vein, Surya, dont you think by hitting at revolutionary desing instead of evolutionary, they talk abt the turrent less russian tank. How could they come up in any specification until their "masters" comeup first with their's.

But seriously, IIRC, before the conference conducted on future MBT by the Indian Armoured Corps, Russians tried selling this "evolutionary design" to indian gullible crowd. I think Russians offered, joint development of this tank in the form of FMBT. That is how, i think, Indians started talking abt FMBT and revolutionary design.

They way i see it, the moves of inducting the Russian T-90 and future tank started in 1996 onwards. Thats is the time, Russians started coming with T-90. Just by comparison, this is also the time `96-`97, there erupts a serious difference between DRDO, the Arjun developer, and Indian Army on the perception of sucess and failure of Arjun tank and Army asked for further improvements[there exits document proof]. And around this time Army wanted for T-90S tank quoted between 200 - 400. This was the intial deal. Further, things will be very clear if take the statement issues by Gen. Vij circa 2004.
Report 1:

After production of 100 T-90s, indigenisation would commence from the year 2006-07. Dispelling rumours that the Arjun tanks would henceforth be used only for ceremonial purposes, Gen Vij said, "The T-90 and Arjun tanks will be our main battle tanks. Both are exceedingly good and we would like to depend on both of them." Describing the T-90 tank as 'a marvelous piece of work', Gen Vij said they would constitute 30 per cent of the country's combat tank force.

Report 2:

The Army wanted 30 per cent of its equipment to be state-of-the-art, another 40 per cent contemporary, said Gen. Vij. The T-90 S would form the large chunk of the state-of-the-art machines, along with the indigenous `Arjun'. The Army would depend on both `Bhishma' and `Arjun'.

It is very clear from both the news report that, Army wanted only 30% of their tank as state-of-art,i.e. T-90S and Arjun. 30% of then inventory of 4000 tanks is 1300. Of this larger chunk will be T-90S and remaining will be Arjun. And what is that amount?

Between 1999 - 2001, requirement of T-90S moved from 200 to 310 + further licence production with technology transfer considered to be for ~1000 units and the licence production will commence from 2006 onwards after the completion of assembling ~ 180 CKD kits. Around the same time 124 Arjun were ordered. So from the beginning, it is very clear that Army wanted to cap the production of Arjun to not more than 124 units.

Learning that limitation and indifference by the Army to Arjun tanks, by 2005-06 DRDO called for the comparision trial and made known that they are expecting more orders of Arjun. Since then the problem for Arjun started.

After first agreeing — and even issuing a detailed trail directive in 2005 — the army has backed away from comparative trials. Instead, it told the MoD that it was buying 124 Arjuns, and trials were needed only to ascertain its requirements for spares. While doing these trials — which have nothing to do with the Arjun’s performance — the army has testified before the Standing Committee on Defence that the tank’s performance was suspect.

and further

Subsequently, the Sagem officials and DRDO worked on the entire electronics and presented it for trials in 2006. The guns performed, however the Army came up with another observation of the higher fuel consumption in Arjun Tank compared to T-72. The Fuel consumption issue was proven wrong during the later trials meant for the purpose. Indian Army refused to bring in a T-72 for comparative fuel consumption trials. Subsequently Indian Army came up with another observation that water was leaking into Arjun Tank. As per the standard norm, 1 tank in 10 production tank is to be tested for medium fording. However the loophole is that there are no standards mentioned in GSQR for Medium Fording. The problem identified was that Heavy vehicles Factory and Indian Army use different standards for testing T-72 tanks. However, DRDO ran Arjun Tanks 20 minutes in water to demonstrate medium fording. Now since the CVRDE is calling the Indian Army for the challenge, Indian Army is out to go in for AUCRT. Unfortunately there is no third party watchdog for AUCRT. It’s now a open fact that the drivers and officers of the Indian Army armoured corps but its induction is held at bay for some reason or the other.

In between 2006/07, Army/MoD ordered for another ~340 T-90S tank and it was signed during 2008. DRDO was asking for ~ 500 tanks to amortize the cost incurred for the Arjun development. Before the signing, Army made it clear that it will not order more than 124 Arjun units. And whatever reason for this sudden order, as i see it, it eventually took the breath of ~ 300 tanks that DRDO was hoping for the break-even.

From what one can see, from the beginning even when Arjun was ordered for 124 units, Arjun was never considered for any bulk induction as confirmed by Gen. Vij assertion of 30% of tank fleet as state of the art with large chunk for T-90S. Later when DRDO demonstrated the Arjun effectiveness, there were reasons and excuses. Maj. Gen. HM Singh, associated with Arjun developement, states that, Army in 2006 gave the summer trial report as satisfactor over the performance with firing accuracy and mobility which was also confirmed by Ajai Shukla. When DRDO was hoping for the repeat order all the tamashas happened and we are here stuck at 124 Arjun units.

Unless any mircale can happen, we cant expect more than 124 units for the Arjun.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 11 Mar 2010 23:24

The best way to solve Arjun puzzle is to privatize the associated R&D and Manufacturing section to one of the large industrial houses. They know how to work with IA selection committee

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 11 Mar 2010 23:27

They way i see it, the moves of inducting the Russian T-90 and future tank started in 1996 onwards. Thats is the time, Russians started coming with T-90. Just by comparison, [i'm indulging in bit of conspiracy theory, anyone feel uncomfortable, pls excuse me and i really cant help it], this is also the time `96-`98, there erupts a serious difference between DRDO, the Arjun developer, and Indian Army on the perception of sucess and failure of Arjun tank and Army asked for further improvements. And around this time Army wanted for T-90S tank quoted between 200 - 400.

not at all !!!! that period, which more or less coincides with Gen RoyC's was the best period for the arjun project as far as army's attitude was concerned.

-edit. thanks kanson.-

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 12 Mar 2010 00:07

Old news:
http://news.outlookindia.com/item.aspx?600951
"

Russians have finally agreed to supply specifications of the T-90 tank barrels by end of this year," a top Defence ministry official said here today after the two-day long intensive deliberations between the two countries.

India and Russia have signed agreements for delivery of almost 1,200 T-90 tanks at a cost of a staggering US 1.2 billion dollars.

The deal, concluded in three tranches over the past five years, also specifies transfer of technology for production of another 1,000 to 1,500 tanks in India.

At the 8th meeting of the Indo-Russian working group on shipbuilding, aviation and land systems, Moscow also agreed to full product support for indigenous production of these tanks.

Is the production is for 1000 or 1500?

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 12 Mar 2010 00:20

Ajai Shukla on the price of T-90S - old news.
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2010/02/ ... ur-of.html

The story of the T-90 has been coloured by deception and obfuscation from even before the tank was procured. Business Standard has pieced together, from internal documents and multiple interviews with MoD sources, an account of how the Indian Army has saddled itself with an underperforming, yet overpriced, version of the Russian T-90.

The deception stemmed from the army’s determination to push through the T-90 contract despite vocal opposition from sections of Parliament. Former Prime Minister H D Deve Gowda argued — allegedly because a close associate had a commercial interest in continuing with T-72 production — that fitting the T-72 with modern fire control systems and night vision devices would be cheaper than buying the T-90. Deve Gowda correctly pointed out that even Russia’s army had spurned the T-90.

To bypass his opposition, the MoD and the army reached an understanding with Rosvoorouzhenie, Russia’s arms export agency. The T-90 would be priced only marginally higher than the T-72 by removing key T-90 systems; India would procure those through supplementary contracts after the T-90 entered service. Excluded from India’s T-90s was the Shtora active protection system, which protects the T-90 from incoming enemy missiles. This was done knowing well that Pakistan’s anti-tank defences are based heavily on missiles.

All this allowed the government to declare before Parliament that the Russian T-90s cost just Rs 11 crore, while the assembled-in-India T-90s were Rs 12 crore apiece.

The MoD did not mention that these prices would rise when the supplementary contracts were negotiated. Nor did it reveal that India’s pared-down T-90s barely matched the performance of the Pakistan Army’s recently acquired T-80 UD tank, which India had cited as the threat that demanded the T-90.

Even more alarmingly, the army discovered that the T-90 sighting systems could not fire Indian tank ammunition, which was falling short of the targets. So, even as a panicked MoD appealed to the DRDO and other research institutions to re-orient the T-90’s fire control computer for firing Indian ammunition, Russian ammunition was bought.

Nor has the MoD managed to procure the Shtora anti-missile system. The Directorate General of Mechanised Forces now plans to equip India’s eventual 1,657-tank T-90 fleet with the advanced ARENA active protection system, for which it has budgeted Rs 2,500 crore in the Army Acquisition Plan for 2009-11.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Mar 2010 00:22

It might be useful to understand why those tactics were adopted by IA?

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 12 Mar 2010 06:48

I'm not sure abt the usefulness of getting to know abt their tactics.
Gen. Roy Chowdhury talked that as difference between Western and Eastern philosophy of tank warfare in the Indian amy - this seems to be the so far only official acceptable answer for the reason of stepmotherly treatment to Arjun project.

If i like to add a chartiable view, i'm may add, IA, doesnt have the culture to build and use their own tank as they were not conditioned & trained to do that under British Army and they failed to overcome that inertia in their 60 yrs of existence. FrontinerIndia called that as Indian Army doesnt have "scientific temper". And Ajai Shukla has similar views.

The military's inertia on the light tank is matched by its foot-dragging over the heavy Arjun MBT. Compared to the 42-ton T-72 and the 46-ton T-90, the muscular 58-ton Arjun is just the right bully for a battlefield where tank killing is an increasingly popular activity. Its Kanchan armour (named after Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad, where it was designed) adds weight; but provides reassuring protection against enemy aircraft, artillery, attack helicopters, tanks, missile carriers and shoulder-fired rocket launchers, all of which are seeking to make their day by destroying a tank.

While the weight of the Arjun would be a liability in the canal-crossed plains of Punjab, it would be transformed into an asset in the open deserts of southern Rajasthan, where one of India's strike corps invariably operates. Equipping that formation with the Arjun would dramatically increase its punch. Such a decision would also provide the tank's designers with a clear idea of what strengths they must build into future variations of the Arjun[and they are not still clear on what their future MBT is all about].

One reason for the army’s judgemental approach to the Arjun is its lack of involvement in the tank’s development. Unlike the navy, which has its own directorate of naval design, and which produces itself the conceptual blueprints of any new warship, the army has no technical expertise — nor any department — that designs its tanks. The Directorate General of Mechanised Warfare (DGMF) is staffed by combat officers from the mechanised forces, most of whom see the Arjun not as a national defence project, but as a tank that they must drive into battle. A whole new approach is needed.

But i think, Gen. Roy's view take precedence, considering that when Russia started to make T-90 tank(believed to be in the period of '93-'96) and decided to make T-90 as the mainstay by 1996 against the T-80U, our Indian tankmen's support for the Arjun started to diminish. Becoz, it is only in 1994, Army asked for blow-off panels, high accuracy FCS in the Arjun as part of GSQR and insisted these as the baseline parameters which Army cannot dilute further to qualify Arjun for the acceptance & production[CAG reports talks about that].
But the same army, insisting such parameters as baseline for the acceptance of Arjun went ahead with T-90 without these basic ones. Even trials were not properly conducted[Outlook-CVC report]. Endurance limit of the engine was not fully tested in Indian condition. It values are taken at face value from the Russians[CDM report linked by Surya]. One wonders why such double standard. Now even for their FMBT, they want a revolutionary design putting their bets on russian future tank projects rather than an evolutionary from the likes of Arjun.

And if one go further and take account of DeveGowda's outburst in the parliament on the selection of T-90 and the high price;
and further talk of saag paper of ~20% commission to Russian arms export agency in the tank deal;
damning CVC report whose excerpts published by Outlook on the price and the procedure involved in the selection of tank;
current report by Ajai Shukla on the obfsucation of price on T-90 and how MoD and Army went to town without adding the price of bells and whistles needed for the T-90S to be considered as state of the art;
utterance of the word "sabotage" by then MoS defence;
misreporting to the parliament about the Arjun problem;
Astonishment of the members of standing committee of defence on the Army's indifference to Arjun[I was told Arjun is Army's project];
and finally this piece from Ajai Shukla:

On 29th June 2006, the commander of the elite 31 Armoured Division, Major General BS Grewal, visited the Mahajan Ranges along with a colleague, Major General Shiv Jaswal. Both drove and fired the Arjun for the first time that day; the two rounds that each fired punched holes through targets almost two kilometres away. (see picture)

That same month, 43 Armoured Regiment, which is the first army tank unit equipped with the Arjun, pronounced itself delighted with the Arjun’s firing performance. After firing trials in summer 2006, 43 Armoured Regiment endorsed, “The accuracy and consistency of the Arjun has been proved beyond doubt.”[pls note the date, it is summer 2006, and Army/MoD rushed to order another 340 T-90S by Oct 2006 to 07 with not any explicit reasons even while 1000 tanks are in pipeline for licence production]

But the establishment was quick to strike back. Barely three months after that report, the commanding officer of 43 Armoured Regiment, Colonel D Thakur, was confronted by then Director General of Mechanised Forces, Lt Gen DS Shekhawat. Eyewitnesses describe how he was upbraided for “not conducting the trials properly”. But in a career-threatening display of professional integrity, Colonel Thakur’s brigade commander, Brigadier Chandra Mukesh, intervened to insist that the trials had been conducted correctly.

Such an extreme measure and these anomalies give credence to the theory that there is more to this than meets the eye. I leave it anyone's imagination of what it could be.

vina · Post by **vina** » 12 Mar 2010 06:53

considering that we know NOTHING about what IA wants or does not want, isnt it a little early to say that IA wants nothing

.. That is easy. THE ARMY DOESN"T KNOW WHAT IT WANTS .

The army is like a typical woman who goes shopping. Nothing specific in mind, just "looking" around, hoping to find something, pretty, chic and "nice", will try on nearly every dress around, then go to the next shop and do it in 10 other shops and finally "select" something and tut.. tutt. and feel guility over the "price" and then give you a "sweet" look.. by that time, you are literally tearing your hair out in frustration and boredom and literally going nuts and to put yourself out of the misery, you agree to buy it regardless of the price..... and then you get a big hug and thank you and kiss and all that. Same thing saar.

Like Sigmund Frued said.

After all these years of study, I still have not been able to figure out what is it that a woman wants!

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 12 Mar 2010 07:44

Any official confirmation of Shiv Aroor's contention?

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 12 Mar 2010 07:46

I encountered in this thread more than one time what made Ajai Shukla to change his mind. His own reply below:

Ajai said...
Anonymous,

Your comment: "When I read you accusing the Army as corrupt baffons who chase Russian Lolitas at the expense of Indian beuty, I just don't know whether you have become wiser in the "new world" or the effect of T-72 has waned off."

Surely you realise that situations change? And that a tank which is under development can be sub-standard in 2003... and become acceptable in 2007?

Or are you of the viewpoint of most of the posters in BR: India = Good; and Foreign = Bad; and it doesn't matter what system or what context we are talking about?

I talk logic. In a dynamic world, a position which you hold today will almost certainly have to be abandoned a few years down the line. The Arjun was developed into an acceptable weapon system... and so I changed my position on it. The Trishul didn't make the cut... so I still hold onto my views on that.

To quote a well-regarded thinker on tank warfare, Captain Basil Liddel-Hart: The only people who don't EVER change their minds are those who have stopped thinking altogether.

PS: Next question which appeared abruptly on the tip of my tongue is, what abt the Army, are they....anyway time to move

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Mar 2010 08:55

IA might not know spec writing but the do know how to fight. I think the usefulness is in understanding what made them decide to cold shoulder a local development?

The entire IA modernization program was in abeyance due to the long delays and when the first models show up they have logistics issues. The world was not waiting for DRDO to develop their tank. The 90s were perilous decade starting with nuke threats in 1990s and ended up exercising the nuke option.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 12 Mar 2010 09:00

Kanson wrote:I encountered in this thread more than one time what made Ajai Shukla to change his mind. His own reply below:

Ajai said...
Anonymous,

Your comment: "When I read you accusing the Army as corrupt baffons who chase Russian Lolitas at the expense of Indian beuty, I just don't know whether you have become wiser in the "new world" or the effect of T-72 has waned off."

Surely you realise that situations change? And that a tank which is under development can be sub-standard in 2003... and become acceptable in 2007?

I talk logic. In a dynamic world, a position which you hold today will almost certainly have to be abandoned a few years down the line. The Arjun was developed into an acceptable weapon system... and so I changed my position on it. The Trishul didn't make the cut... so I still hold onto my views on that.

No problem of changing one's mind if an eqpt comes upto standard.

However, having been a bitter critic, including on the BRF, at least one could know what made him change his mind.

In the same way, the Army should indicate what is still to be rectified to be acceptable. Or is that rectification to be called Mk II?

Or are you of the viewpoint of most of the posters in BR: India = Good; and Foreign = Bad; and it doesn't matter what system or what context we are talking about?

Not quite, there are many Indian defene eqpt which are really good. I have myself brought out such example. Therefore, the issue should be logically debated and with proven facts and not on surmises, rumour, things heard in drawing room chit chat and gossip is my view.

Shiv Aroor in his blog quoting an unnamed source states that the Army has rejected the Arjun. All hell broke loose on this thread, accusing all and sundry.

Has been there any official confirmation of Shiv Aroor's contention?

If not, what the thunder and brimstone all about?

To quote a well-regarded thinker on tank warfare, Captain Basil Liddel-Hart: The only people who don't EVER change their minds are those who have stopped thinking altogether.

PS: Next question which appeared abruptly on the tip of my tongue is, what abt the Army, are they....anyway time to move

The manner you have structured your post, one doesn't understand what is being quoted from Shukla and what is your part of the post.

I tried to decipher and if my deciphering is wrong, then my post can be disregard.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 12 Mar 2010 09:40

ramana wrote:IA might not know spec writing but the do know how to fight. I think the usefulness is in understanding what made them decide to cold shoulder a local development?

My opinion is that this is simply a case of bad blood and is now a prestige issue. IA attitude towards DRDO is that they are a "khadi gram udyog" organization and this opinion will not change until the people holding this attitude in IA retire and more don't take their place

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 12 Mar 2010 10:03

Merlin is very correct. This is now a personal vendetta and some folks are letting personal emotions cloud their judgement. Irrespective of what some of us say this whole episode will give a bad name to both IA and the scientific community.

Introduction of Arjun MK1 marketing by a pvt player may have brought about a different result. But since peronal emotions are involved, logic would not have won.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 12 Mar 2010 10:18

I would like to disagree that the IA can disregard a good eqpt manufactured in India.

The explanation is simple. If we had not botched up the Bofors case because of political shenanigans, we would not have the sorry state we are in today over our arty and its ammunition because it would be produced in India and the adequate number of guns would have been there with ample ammunition.

Likewise, there are those who felt that in the Kargil War, India could have enlarged the conflict. Indeed, it could have been. However, the fact was that the Bofors that were used were not integral to 8 Div and was from other formations not located in the Valley. That meant that there was voids in formations that would be used in case of an enlarged conflict. And that would cause a serious drawback in the outcome of the operation and its progress.

It is not a fair view that the Army is cussed or prefer foreign eqpt.

The Battlefield Surveillance Radar was initially rejected. And it remained so till a very good one was produced. It was immediately accepted and is in service.

There are many indigenously designed and produced equipment that have replaced foreign imports.

The GOI, IA, DRDO must come clean and give the reason for what's up or what is alleged to be up. The confusion and doubt requires to be cleared.

Ashutosh Malik · Post by **Ashutosh Malik** » 12 Mar 2010 10:26

Merlin's point is probably a key one.

Any large system, particularly like an Army, which is largely conservative in its thought process, is going to take a lot of time to change its basic approach. And if the doctrinaire issues are the key ones in the Arjun Saga, even after getting the base product right, then change is even more difficult. It will take some key individuals, in key positions, to bring about the change.

Just one example - have we built up war wastage reserves for 6 months, till date? If we havent, then it shows that we in any case do not intend to fight a war to the finish with Pakistan. This must be an appreciation and an agreement at both the Political and Military policy making levels in India. At a different level, interestingly, developing a war wastage reserve of 6 months, will provide a very interesting communication to both Pakistan and US.

As for DRDO and the Army both the parties seem to spend more time talking at each other, rather than to each other

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 12 Mar 2010 10:29

^^^^^ you are right. Even samyukta was accepted by Army. Ironies remain. for example, Army accepts that the Tanks is good and a base for FMBT. I am not sure if lot many people know this. While inducting T-72, Arjun Tank was pushed into similar situation those days. The history is repeating itself if Army manages this feat.

Added later................

The Samrat is the new version of Samyukta being developed. This is because of the nature of the particular army outfit. They are known for innovating.

Armoured corps has been the bane of the Armyin this respect. Some sections are very good especially SIGINT and Engineering services.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 12 Mar 2010 11:23

Ashutosh Malik wrote:
Just one example - have we built up war wastage reserves for 6 months, till date? If we havent, then it shows that we in any case do not intend to fight a war to the finish with Pakistan.

At a different level, interestingly, developing a war wastage reserve of 6 months, will provide a very interesting communication to both Pakistan and US.

WWR is not calculated on months. Therefore, there is no six month WWR.

It is based on statistics gained from the various war experiences in terms of duration, attrition in various modes i.e. intense, high, intermittent, the strategic intent, the operational plans, national resources and production time, problems in emergency and the time to be taken to reach India and the time to reach the troops etc.

It is believed to be current based on 30 days.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 12 Mar 2010 12:28

Puar,

While I agree with you, yet this is free forum and all this shenanigans maybe OK for the effect to show nationalism and patriotism.

While it might appear surprising that I am batting for the Mods, I would like to inform that since I know the Mods and behind the Bookshelf, most of them are steady people. Some maybe not, but then it makes all types to make the world.

Don't worry there is enough cuckoos around.

Until one learns of the issue officially, cuckoos shall fly.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 12 Mar 2010 12:31

How is that everone speculating in vacuum ? atleast speaking for myself, enough reports are cited and facts are stated. Prove that these facts are false and then make claim that everyone is speculating in the vacuum.

Kanson.

Since you know why the latest Arjun has been rejected (India still does not know), do be good enough to let us know.

We don't know of the latest that you and Aroor knows.

Do share.

If not, do be good enough not to slander and throw mud!

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 12 Mar 2010 12:42

ASPuar sahab, much as I respect your views, kindly do not give moderation advices on the threads. reporting is the way to go and it should be restricted to that.
and no, a thread should not be closed down just because we don't agree with the views expressed therein, that's called thought policing. if you think a viewpoint is wrong, then the correct option is to rebut it, point by point.

just on another note, IA's acquisition policy does look very muddled, I am not sure how one can think the planning side of things is well executed after the multiple fiascoes in virtually every department, starting from armour and artillery to air defence systems and small arms.
at any rate, it is not blasphemous as such as is being alleged.
the inept decision making is hurting the army MUCH more than this thread ever will.

I am with deep regret answering this without any offence. Having served in uniform for a small period of time, I find that shying away to save my bacon just to be allowed on this formum, is doing disservice to an organisation that has done me well. And so this post.

It is rather surprising such a venerated forum is allowing speculation to throw bile on the Armed Forces and it is being justified by those who run it.

I agree it is their prerogative and their right. However Bharat Rakshak is the watchword. I concede that it mean rooting for Bharat, but I would be astonished if it means that it means no fair deal to the Rakshaks of Bharat!

Is there any official confirmation of Shiv Aroor’s blog? If not, can that be taken as the bottom line to tar and feather the Army? Is that what the BRF suggesting as we see from responsible BRF personality’s posts?

If indeed things appear muddled, are we clear headed? If so, why are we not there in govt to unmuddle the muddled?

Why can we not wait for the official view, before we tar and feather and slander all concerned?

I am sure BRF is beyond all this muck!

What astounds me why are we not in govt to correct this errors of the military or contest as MPs to save this country from ruins!

Let us not be Pontius Pilates!

It is humorous as to who is harming whom!

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 12 Mar 2010 12:53

ramana wrote:IA might not know spec writing but the do know how to fight. I think the usefulness is in understanding what made them decide to cold shoulder a local development?

Can i read the statement as, even though IA might not know the exact requirement of equipments for war fighting, it can know how to win the war with whatever equipements it have or it purchases ? If that is the meaning, then i fail to see any usefulness in cold shouldering the local development.

The entire IA modernization program was in abeyance due to the long delays and when the first models show up they have logistics issues. The world was not waiting for DRDO to develop their tank. The 90s were perilous decade starting with nuke threats in 1990s and ended up exercising the nuke option.

Ramana ji, best way is to compare IA's its own action in this two cases.
Ok lets talk abt 90s. Arjun GSQR changes were made in '90. New addition were added in 1994. And further, Army sort some modification in 1998. And IIRC, one of modification in 98 is for ordering new FCS for Arjun demanding that first shot hit probability is to be 90% and above. Timeline when this happened is in 1998. This is the time, Army went for T-90S. Why not same yardstick applied in T-90S ? It is the same nuclear era, and it the same army formulating the GSQR for Arjun and going for T-90S and time is almost same?

Even if lets say, somehow a different demand creep happened in the sametime, why Army in 2005 onwards demanded the same accuracy from Arjun which it is not expected in T-90S? Where is difference and urgency in 2005/06?

Ok 90s is the decade with nuke threats, so what is stopping from ordering more Arjun in 2005/06 or later in 2008 ? Is it not the DGMF, proclaimed in 2008 that no more than 124 Arjun?

Logistics: The situation is much more murky. Even the Army's own CDM report says, T-90S engine was not tested to get any meanigful wastage pattern in ACURT trial conducted for T-90S. How you compare the logistics requirement? what data you have? Take this example of barrel bursting case, media went frenzy saying only Indian made barrel had problem. Parliamentary report says, both Indian and Russian made barrel faced the problem and only thing is russian case was not reported previously. So how factually you can compare the data...

Do you think other services are not working with DRDO to get the projects done.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 12 Mar 2010 12:55

RayC wrote:
How is that everone speculating in vacuum ? atleast speaking for myself, enough reports are cited and facts are stated. Prove that these facts are false and then make claim that everyone is speculating in the vacuum.
Kanson.

Since you know why the latest Arjun has been rejected (India still does not know), do be good enough to let us know.
We don't know of the latest that you and Aroor knows.
Do share.
If not, do be good enough not to slander and throw mud!

Sir, I guess you misunderstood my post. I request you to re-read them. I'm talking abt myself only. I didnt posted the Shiv aroor news here.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 12 Mar 2010 13:07

Kanson wrote:
ramana wrote:IA might not know spec writing but the do know how to fight. I think the usefulness is in understanding what made them decide to cold shoulder a local development?
Can i read the statement as, even though IA might not know the exact requirement of equipments for war fighting, it can know how to win the war with whatever equipements it have or it purchases ? If that is the meaning, then i fail to see any usefulness in cold shouldering the local development.
The entire IA modernization program was in abeyance due to the long delays and when the first models show up they have logistics issues. The world was not waiting for DRDO to develop their tank. The 90s were perilous decade starting with nuke threats in 1990s and ended up exercising the nuke option.
Ramana ji, best way is to compare IA's its own action in this two cases.
Ok lets talk abt 90s. Arjun GSQR changes were made in '90. New addition were added in 1994. And further, Army sort some modification in 1998. And IIRC, one of modification in 98 is for ordering new FCS for Arjun demanding that first shot hit probability is to be 90% and above. Timeline when this happened is in 1998. This is the time, Army went for T-90S. Why not same yardstick applied in T-90S ? It is the same nuclear era, and it the same army formulating the GSQR for Arjun and going for T-90S and time is almost same?

Even if lets say, somehow a different demand creep happened in the sametime, why Army in 2005 onwards demanded the same accuracy from Arjun which it is not expected in T-90S? Where is difference and urgency in 2005/06?

Ok 90s is the decade with nuke threats, so what is stopping from ordering more Arjun in 2005/06 or later in 2008 ? Is it not the DGMF, proclaimed in 2008 that no more than 124 Arjun?

Logistics: The situation is much more murky. Even the Army's own CDM report says, T-90S engine was not tested to get any meanigful wastage pattern in ACURT trial conducted for T-90S. How you compare the logistics requirement? what data you have? Take this example of barrel bursting case, media went frenzy saying only Indian made barrel had problem. Parliamentary report says, both Indian and Russian made barrel faced the problem and only thing is russian case was not reported previously. So how factually you can compare the data...

Do you think other services are not working with DRDO to get the projects done.

Kanson,

Forget about eqpt for war, the Indian Armed Forces have accepted everything the govt said and did right from Independence when there rations were reduced and pay cut. It is when the Sixth ay Commission occurred did they protest and even then nothing has happened as such!

Yes, the IA has fought with what they had. Imagine WWII Shermans against Patons of Pakistan in 1965!

No one is cold shouldering local products. In fact, it is required. Since no one can blackmail us. Yet, a lemon?

Let’s look at the GSQR. Yes, it has undergone change. Would you accept a car of 1970 machinery to that of today, more so, when your reputation, nation and life is at stake?

When you send your car to the garage, would you accept a six month wait for it to be repaired?

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 12 Mar 2010 13:10

manjgu wrote:when the thread starts resembling the 'blind men of hindoostan' ( and the elephant) then its time for a thread to be closed.

Rahul, I wonder how we will ever lay our fingers on the truth and conclude on the real cause, problem.

I agree.

But then we miss the Diwali fireworks by the Blind Men of Hindoosthan.

It is fun to talk in thin air and pretend we now all (including me!).

Ashutosh Malik · Post by **Ashutosh Malik** » 12 Mar 2010 13:18

[quote="RayC]

[/quote]

WWR is not calculated on months. Therefore, there is no six month WWR.

It is based on statistics gained from the various war experiences in terms of duration, attrition in various modes i.e. intense, high, intermittent, the strategic intent, the operational plans, national resources and production time, problems in emergency and the time to be taken to reach India and the time to reach the troops etc.

It is believed to be current based on 30 days.[/quote]

Brig. Ray

I appreciate your point, Sir. I meant 6 months in line with what you have meant. Probably I didnt communicate it properly. I am not making a value judgement on the decision to keep it 30 days, as you have mentioned above. It is what the Government and Armed forces have decided in line with their current thoughts. What I meant was that, the decision to keep it at 30 days or so communicates one perspective, and the decision to increase it to 60/90/180 days will communicate another perspective.

In any case I am going OT here.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 12 Mar 2010 13:18

RayC wrote: Let’s look at the GSQR. Yes, it has undergone change. Would you accept a car of 1970 machinery to that of today, more so, when your reputation, nation and life is at stake?

The problem sir is that the T-90 which is basically a souped up T-72 is as much a piece of 1970s machinery as the Arjun. In fact it is more so. A T-90 facing a Chinese Type 99 is exactly like a Sherman facing an M-47 Patton.