Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 20 Mar 2010 11:35

This Gurdial Singh would not be Col Gurdial Singh who was the designer of the gun

He was an Artillery man.

And I don't think he would be alive by the dateline when India Today quoted him as being NOW in the DRDO.

There is no shortage of Gurdials in the Armed Forces.

And notwithstanding the saying, one cannot say Natha Singh and Bant Singh, both are the same thing!
:)

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby chackojoseph » 20 Mar 2010 11:51

RayC wrote:Notwithstanding, if Arjun silhouette is too high, then it is an error in formulating the GSQR.


As I can see, people still have not grasped the magnitude of the issue. The Army GSQR does not say that they want a heavy tank with a high silhouette. It is wrong to say that the GSQR was wrong.

The entire issue as I highlighted before " the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing.'

The annual reviews and the glossy magazine university graduate generals have recommended so much that "it lead to a product that had higher weight (baring a GSQR which wanted it) and high silhouette.

The generals who are on the ground are of the idea that its DRDO's fault.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 20 Mar 2010 11:54

chackojoseph wrote:
RayC wrote:Notwithstanding, if Arjun silhouette is too high, then it is an error in formulating the GSQR.


As I can see, people still have not grasped the magnitude of the issue. The Army GSQR does not say that they want a heavy tank with a high silhouette. It is wrong to say that the GSQR was wrong.

The entire issue as I highlighted before " the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing.'

The annual reviews and the glossy magazine university graduate generals have recommended so much that "it lead to a product that had higher weight (baring a GSQR which wanted it) and high silhouette.

The generals who are on the ground are of the idea that its DRDO's fault.


What does the GSQR state?


Are you privy to it? I am not. No specifications given? No general parameters even?

The GSQR is vague on the specifications?

The GSQR my group had initiated in other weapons, mentioned the general parameters desirable.

For instance for a UAV, the following would be important for mention:

Range

Endurance Time

Loiter time.

Picture definition.

Time lag of info flow

Range of Control mechanism
Last edited by RayC on 20 Mar 2010 12:03, edited 1 time in total.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21563
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 20 Mar 2010 11:59

a_kumar wrote:That would be wrong!

Arjun is Rs. 16.8 Crore and going down with scale.

T-90 is settling at Rs. 17.5 Crore, if it doesn't go higher.

From broadsword
No reasons were given for that delay. Nor did the Ministry of Defence (MoD) reveal the T-90’s ballooning cost, now a whopping Rs 17.5 crore. On November 30, 2006, the MoD told the Lok Sabha that the T-90 tank cost Rs 12 crore apiece. Parliament does not yet know about the 50 per cent rise in cost.


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.


On cost factor we need to wait till MOD puts a figure on Arjun and T-90 for 2010 , Ajai is quite reliable but we need some official numbers.

Wont the cost go down when the 1000 odd T-90 starts getting churning out of Avadi and indigenous content rises ?

So did Ajai Shukla did a run down between T-80UD and T-90 Bishma to come to that conclusion that T-90 barely matches competition ? Chances are we will never find such things out unless we meet face to face with T-80UD on some ideal battle grounds

But better tactics , training , logistics and over all anti-armour superiority ( not just tank vs tank ) will win the day for IA , if we ever see a great Tank vs Tank battle in a nuclear environment.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby chackojoseph » 20 Mar 2010 12:02

RayC wrote:What does the GSQR state?

Are you privy to it? I am not. No specifications given?

The GSQR is vague on the specifications?

The GSQR my group had initiated in other weapons, mentioned the general parameters desirable.


The wider points of the GSQR's that can be in the public has been already put up on the article History of Arjun Tank.

Arjun Tank GSQR is a pointed one. Please read the History of the Tank as wrote it. The first GSQR was also kept slippery.

The final laid down requirement was in 1994. It does not ask for a high weight and high high silhouette etc.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 20 Mar 2010 12:10

chackojoseph wrote:The wider points of the GSQR's that can be in the public has been already put up on the article History of Arjun Tank.

Arjun Tank GSQR is a pointed one. Please read the History of the Tank as wrote it. The first GSQR was also kept slippery.

The final laid down requirement was in 1994. It does not ask for a high weight and high high silhouette etc.


No tank designer would not understand the terrain the tank is to operate in and the combat conditions.

There are many who are from the Army seconded to the DRDO and they are all Armament Technology qualified and have also experience in the field.

Therefore, even if there is a vague GSQR, they will never design a tank that high ground pressure or a high silhouette.

But if what you say is right that the Army did not specify anything in their GSQR, then obviously the design may fail muster of Army's requirement. I would not like to comment.

Every cm counts. Tank battles that are visualised are not stand off battles, given the experience. It is tank vs tank.

Imagine a tank in a sugarcane field and a wee bit of the tank can be seen!

Likewise, for any infantry weapon, the weight matters, even at the expense of other issues.

As far as I am concerned, let the best equipment be fielded for the Army, nay Armed Forces.

What distresses me is the gleeful abandon displayed to indicate that there are conspiracies, wilful obstruction and the IN has intelligent people while the Army has only numbskulls!

Such inanity does not indicate sane and logical discussion.

I am not meaning you or anyone in particular, but in general.
Last edited by RayC on 20 Mar 2010 12:19, edited 1 time in total.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby chackojoseph » 20 Mar 2010 12:17

You have answered the maladies of this program by counter questioning me.

I have kept repeating that the left hand does not know what the right hand has been doing.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 20 Mar 2010 12:20

chackojoseph wrote:You have answered the maladies of this program by counter questioning me.

I have kept repeating that the left hand does not know what the right hand has been doing.


That is what I am trying to tell you.

There is a procedure where the left hand meets the right hand periodically to review.

And yet, owing to various reasons, things don't iron out. I will not go into that.

I have not counter questioned you. It is just that since you appeared to know more, I thought I could update myself through your good offices.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby chackojoseph » 20 Mar 2010 12:24

RayC wrote:
That is what I am trying to tell you.

There is a procedure where the left hand meets the right hand periodically to review.


I understand your point. But, you are looking at the core issue here. You are from Army, you will know whom to ask. Why the goof ups have happened. Provided they tell the truth.

At the same time, you have been admitting that Army men were actually involved in the project, it was not an DRDo project alone.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 20 Mar 2010 12:32

chackojoseph wrote:
RayC wrote:
That is what I am trying to tell you.

There is a procedure where the left hand meets the right hand periodically to review.


I understand your point. But, you are looking at the core issue here. You are from Army, you will know whom to ask. Why the goof ups have happened. Provided they tell the truth.

At the same time, you have been admitting that Army men were actually involved in the project, it was not an DRDo project alone.


Yes, interaction does occur.

But the work is of the DRDO.

Let me give you an example. The DRDO was reverse engineering a US rifle cleaning fluid called the Boreclap - a very elementary item.

This was to replace/augment the time consuming process of cleaning small arms with the 'chindi' (flannel piece) and the pull through.

They could not achieve the result since the Indian Boreclap left a yellow residue. Over time, it would it was surmised by some military men that it would be like 'plaque' on the human teeth and may reduce the barrel inner diameter and would lead to accidents. Yet, there was immense pressure that it should be accepted!

The point is indigenous equipment must be encouraged and even accepted, but not at the cost of lives!

Or take the reverse engineering of the ANPPS 6. Not only was it more expensive than import, one could not make out the rustle of the trees for an armada of tanks!

Again, there was pressure that it should be accepted and things rectified during production. What was the guarantee?

The project was abandoned.

It resurfaced after Kargil, I believe, and the new BFSR is of standard!

Goof ups, why do they happen? Each organisation lives in the Cuckooland, dreaming of Plymouth Ho! We are made to believe that we are on the threshold of becoming a superpower and so we are in a hurry to prove to the world without realising our capabilities and limitations.

We are the world!
Such a feelin�s comin� over me

There is wonder in most everything I see

Not a cloud in the sky

Got the sun in my eyes

And I won't be surprised if its a dream
Last edited by RayC on 20 Mar 2010 12:41, edited 1 time in total.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby chackojoseph » 20 Mar 2010 12:39

RayC wrote:Yes, interaction does occur.

But the work is of the DRDO.

Let me give you an example. The DRDO was reverse engineering a US rifle cleaning fluid called the Boreclap - a very elementary item.

This was to replace/augment the time consuming process of cleaning small arms with the 'chindi' (flannel piece) and the pull through.

They could not achieve the result since the Indian Boreclap left a yellow residue. Over time, it would it was surmised by some military men that it would be like 'plaque' on the human teeth and may reduce the barrel inner diameter and would lead to accidents. Yet, there was immense pressure that it should be accepted!

The point is indigenous equipment must be encouraged and even accepted, but not at the cost of lives!


I will jog your memory. There are 2 generals known for rescuing the project. They have been responsible for entire setup, even vendor selection. One is a COAS, mind you.

I understand about the lives being lost. Its because of shoddy equipment from DPSU's. Why blame DRDO? DRDO has had hits and misses. I understand that. I have examples when the synergy between army and DRDO has worked (besides being not being enough). I am talking specific about Arjun project. Lets stick to that.

You are an ex Army man and that too an officer. You have resources to fid what went wrong. Ask, infer. I also realise that am debating with someone who has the means to verify.

Also ask your comrades why the weight and other issues are being addressed now? And how much success they have got trying to reduce? Why did they sleep when they were laying final requirements in 1994? why was PPS 1 accepted as production standard?

ask them for medium fording issue? Why has it been taken after the PPS designation?
Last edited by chackojoseph on 20 Mar 2010 12:45, edited 1 time in total.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16331
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: woh log gawad hai, unpad hai !
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 20 Mar 2010 12:44

Austin wrote:Wont the cost go down when the 1000 odd T-90 starts getting churning out of Avadi and indigenous content rises ?

would it ? consider that the quoted price is that of an incomplete T-90 without much of its essential add-ons. there is little chance that tech for those components will be ever supplied. SKD will be as much as it gets.

So did Ajai Shukla did a run down between T-80UD and T-90 Bishma to come to that conclusion that T-90 barely matches competition ? Chances are we will never find such things out unless we meet face to face with T-80UD on some ideal battle grounds

you don't need to put faith in ajai shukla, both T-90 and T-80's armours are well documented as are their records. check up fofanov's site.

But better tactics , training , logistics and over all anti-armour superiority ( not just tank vs tank ) will win the day for IA , if we ever see a great Tank vs Tank battle in a nuclear environment.
that is the very point, tank vs tank is but one component, the current tin-can series is plain unsurvivable against infantry-based ATGMs as well.
even with all the tactics and logistics backing up, the tank still has to fight doesn't it, whether against tanks of the adversary or his ATGM armed troops ?
in neither case T-90 gives an advantage, in fact in the second case it is at a horrible disadvantage.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 20 Mar 2010 12:54

chackojoseph wrote:
I will jog your memory. There are 2 generals known for rescuing the project. They have been responsible for entire setup, even vendor selection. One is a COAS, mind you.

I understand about the lives being lost. Its because of shoddy equipment from DPSU's. Why blame DRDO? DRDO has had hits and misses. I understand that. I have examples when the synergy between army and DRDO has worked (besides being not being enough). I am talking specific about Arjun project. Lets stick to that.

You are an ex Army man and that too an officer. You have resources to fid what went wrong. Ask, infer. I also realise that am debating with someone who has the means to verify.

Also ask your comrades why the weight and other issues are being addressed now? And how much success they have got trying to reduce? Why did they sleep when they were laying final requirements in 1994? why was PPS 1 accepted as production standard?


Yes I was in the Army. Guess what? I was an officer. Thank you for discovering that; maybe you felt that I could not be one! Maybe you are right. I, however, am satisfied with my Army life and even as an officer, since not only I did good for my country in wars and also be recognised for my contribution. Quite a satisfying experience. I would not trade it for any other profession or calling.

I live in Kolkata. It is the Thar desert as far as military information is involved. It is a moribund area to keep abreast with the latest of defence. Therefore, to ask me to ask anyone is asking me to step on the Moon without astronaut training! :)

That is the reason why I visit BRF. It educates me of the latest.

On the Arjun, I did ask an ex COAS because of the raging controversy here. He was cryptic. He said Arjun is a good tank, but it is Mark I (whatever that means). Since it was a social gathering I did not want to ask more, which anyway he would have done a hop skip and jump!

I am not blaming DRDO. I have interacted with them and visited their establishments. There are excellent brains out there, but the bureaucracy overwhelms the talent. My own cousin was a Chief Scientist and I know his heartbreaks.

Keep a project hanging and more funds come you way. Got the drift?

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby chackojoseph » 20 Mar 2010 13:00

RayC wrote:Yes I was in the Army. Guess what? I was an officer. Thank you for discovering that; maybe you felt that I could not be one! Maybe you are right. I, however, am satisfied with my Army life and even as an officer, since not only I did good for my country in wars and also be recognised for my contribution. Quite a satisfying experience. I would not trade it for any other profession or calling.

I live in Kolkata. It is the Thar desert as far as military information is involved. It is a moribund area to keep abreast with the latest of defence. Therefore, to ask me to ask anyone is asking me to step on the Moon without astronaut training! :)

That is the reason why I visit BRF. It educates me of the latest.

On the Arjun, I did ask an ex COAS because of the raging controversy here. He was cryptic. He said Arjun is a good tank, but it is Mark I (whatever that means). Since it was a social gathering I did not want to ask more, which anyway he would have done a hop skip and jump!

I am not blaming DRDO. I have interacted with them and visited their establishments. There are excellent brains out there, but the bureaucracy overwhelms the talent. My own cousin was a Chief Scientist and I know his heartbreaks.

Keep a project hanging and more funds come you way. Got the drift?


I still have kept the mail sent to you and the reply you sent to me when I admired the literary skills, almost 1.5 years back. So, there is no discovery.

The project hanging for more funds is a point which I find it hard to believe? India would have shut down CVRDE after Arjun induction?

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 20 Mar 2010 13:02

52 IDF Merkava tanks were damaged during the war against Hizbullah in Lebanon. 50 tanks were hit by anti-tank missiles and two were damaged by roadside bombs, according to the Ministry of Defense Merkava tank program administration.
Happens

Will not happen to Arjun or T 90?

When you wear the uniform, you fight with what your government gives you and life is a gamble.

Dropping recruitment rates. All because of poor pay? It was there before too! ;)

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 20 Mar 2010 13:05

chackojoseph wrote:
I still have kept the mail sent to you and the reply you sent to me when I admired the literary skills, almost 1.5 years back. So, there is no discovery.

The project hanging for more funds is a point which I find it hard to believe? India would have shut down CVRDE after Arjun induction?


Send me an email so that I can renew contact.

I am not too sure under what name it is registered in my e mail addresses.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 20 Mar 2010 13:06

chackojoseph wrote:The project hanging for more funds is a point which I find it hard to believe? India would have shut down CVRDE after Arjun induction?


Join the gravy train to realise it! ;)

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5037
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 20 Mar 2010 13:18

the question is what happened to the crews of the Merkava

And what happens to the crew of T series when the same firepower is rained on them

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 20 Mar 2010 13:20

I would like to just say one thing.

Unlike those who have been attuned to the psychological affliction of the body bag syndrome, this has still not permeated to the officers and soldiers of the IA. Namak, Nam and Nishan is still our credo. We believe that the Govt is trying its best to equip us and we also understand that it has to also alleviate the poverty that afflicts our Nation. It might appear incredible, but that is the Gospel Truth. If it were not so, would so many have embraced death in the various wars including Kargil?

Why should we have gone into 1965 with WW II Shermans when Pakistan had the state of the art tanks - Pattons?

Therefore, if the Arjun is good, it will be acceptable and if T 90 is OK that is also acceptable.

Actually, we want the Moon. Can you give it? If so, good!

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 20 Mar 2010 13:24

Surya wrote:the question is what happened to the crews of the Merkava

And what happens to the crew of T series when the same firepower is rained on them


We are soldiers and not chocolate cream soldiers. (GB Shaw Arms and the Man).

Sure, we don't want to die fruitlessly. But then it is upto the Govt!

Even if the govt fails us, we will not fail the Nation!

Simple!

We did a raid 9 miles inside POK and there was no arty cover. Did we say we will not go? No sir, that is not a part of our training or motivation!

As the American say - Remember the Alamo! We say remember Kargil! How many died!

It is not that Kargil was the Mother of Battle, but at least it was in the drawing room of Nations.

The other Wars and sacrifices were greater but not in the drawing rooms to see and hence one does not understand their magnitude!

In each war we had inferior equipment. Where were you all then?

In case you feel that someone is short-changing on the Arjun, become Mamta Bannerjee instead of spewing bile over all and sundry under the protection of incognito of the cyberspace, be it the Army or the DRDO.
Last edited by RayC on 20 Mar 2010 13:39, edited 1 time in total.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21563
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 20 Mar 2010 13:39

RayC wrote:Actually, we want the Moon. Can you give it? If so, good!


Moon may be not , But do you want more Arjun ? :D

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 20 Mar 2010 13:39

Austin wrote:
RayC wrote:Actually, we want the Moon. Can you give it? If so, good!


Moon may be not , But do you want more Arjun ? :D


That is for the Govt to decide.

Has this Govt done anything to bridge the yawning gap that the deficiencies indicate that Indian Armed Force are 'nude'?

Rajiv Gandhi and the Congress may have allegedly made a cut in the Bofors deal, but why was the Nation penalised from having a weapon that delivers?

Anthony maybe clean as a whistle, but does it mean that the Armed Force are kept cleaned of its requirement so that Pakistan can clean India as a whistle?

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21563
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 20 Mar 2010 13:47

^^^ Well the GOI in its "right divine wisdom" opted for 1000+ T-90 Bishma and the IA called it the new MBT , I say problem solved :wink:
Last edited by Austin on 20 Mar 2010 13:48, edited 1 time in total.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby chackojoseph » 20 Mar 2010 13:47

RayC wrote:Join the gravy train to realise it! ;)


I have heard from the services that. DRDO has different explanation. So, I do not want to get into that.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 20 Mar 2010 13:57

chackojoseph wrote:
RayC wrote:Join the gravy train to realise it! ;)


I have heard from the services that. DRDO has different explanation. So, I do not want to get into that.


Just visit their establishment and enjoy their hospitality.

Visit Army establishment and check their hospitality. It is lousy compared to the DRDO.

In the Army they make you pay. DRDO, it is as good as being a son in law, UP style!

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5037
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 20 Mar 2010 14:42

In case you feel that someone is short-changing on the Arjun, become Mamta Bannerjee instead of spewing bile over all and sundry under the protection of incognito of the cyberspace, be it the Army or the DRDO.


EDITED
Last edited by Jagan on 20 Mar 2010 16:48, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: Unnecessary, You shoulda ignored it

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 20 Mar 2010 14:45

DELETED
Last edited by Jagan on 20 Mar 2010 16:48, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Report - dont retaliate

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby chackojoseph » 20 Mar 2010 14:57

RayC wrote:In the Army they make you pay. DRDO, it is as good as being a son in law, UP style!


:D We are on the armour thread. I lived in Army and visited DRDO. Will mail you.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5037
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 20 Mar 2010 15:33

not only did the low silhoutte Tin cans got roasted in all wars - it di d not help them even when they were half submerged in the sand and hiding.


from Broadsword

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2008/06/ ... -club.html

but also the ability of its computer-controlled gun to consistently blow away suitcase-sized targets placed more than a kilometre away.


Business Standard has evidence of many more such incidents. 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)


So yeah T 90 chaiwallah keep hoping for your smaller silhoutte to save you.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 20 Mar 2010 20:46

chackojoseph wrote:
:D We are on the armour thread. I lived in Army and visited DRDO. Will mail you.


Awaiting you mail.

Lived? or Worked?

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RayC » 20 Mar 2010 20:49

One does not get submerged in sand, no matter what tank is used.

One does not go into soft sand. These areas are known on both sides of the border.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21563
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 20 Mar 2010 22:12

Rahul M wrote:would it ? consider that the quoted price is that of an incomplete T-90 without much of its essential add-ons. there is little chance that tech for those components will be ever supplied. SKD will be as much as it gets


Quoted price ? Did we have GOI confirming on that or is that Ajai information which may be true but cannot be verified .Can any one provide GOI sourced price of T-90 and Arjun for 2010 or previous year if such info is available ?

If not we should consider such prices speculative based on individual source.

With ~ 1500 Tank in the pipeline , the price of Bhishma will eventually come down due to the scale of the order and the gradual indigenous content on T-90

you don't need to put faith in ajai shukla, both T-90 and T-80's armours are well documented as are their records. check up fofanov's site.


Did the Indian Army knew about this website :wink:

Unless the IA conducts a fair trial between these two tanks and GOI makes the result public to the extent it does not revel any sensitive information,we will never know the truth and it will be speculative in nature.

even with all the tactics and logistics backing up, the tank still has to fight doesn't it, whether against tanks of the adversary or his ATGM armed troops ?
in neither case T-90 gives an advantage, in fact in the second case it is at a horrible disadvantage.


Again this is just speculation about its advantage or horrible disadvantage.

Since the IA is going to fight the next great tank battle if that happens and knows what it wants let GOI/IA decide how many Arjun and T-90 do they need , if IA needs more Arjun the GOI will certainly oblige , if they do not need any more Arjun there is no point shoving off their throat for all we know they will just end up rotting in some maintenance depot.

EDIT
Last edited by Rahul M on 20 Mar 2010 23:06, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: it is this type of generalized comments that takes this thread downhill everytime. can we please cut those out and restrict ourselves to discussing comments only, minus speculation about motive of postors and all ?

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16331
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: woh log gawad hai, unpad hai !
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 20 Mar 2010 23:06

Quoted price ? Did we have GOI confirming on that or is that Ajai information which may be true but cannot be verified .Can any one provide GOI sourced price of T-90 and Arjun for 2010 or previous year if such info is available ?
I'm talking about the price of the T-90 that was provided to the parliamentary standing committee on defence. it should be in the MOD report or the PSC report. that the T-90 comes without many of its must-have features (shtora for example) is also well known. do you think the price of the T-90 will come down as all those new features are added ?
by how much will the price come down if the production is done in India ? and why does the mass production = lower price theory not apply to arjun as well ? if anything the infrastructure for making arjun is already there, while it is still being completed in case of the T-90. we don't yet know how much that will cost.
Did the Indian Army knew about this website :wink:
I sure hope so ! :twisted:
Unless the IA conducts a fair trial between these two tanks and GOI makes the result public to the extent it does not revel any sensitive information,we will never know the truth and it will be speculative in nature.

we can always argue that unless manmohan singh himself states the exact information on the parliaments floor to the 4th decimal place it is somehow "not official enough".
that disallows a plethora of information from very credible non-govt sources and many MOD/army sources as well. by this approach 99% of what we discuss on BR is speculation. before I forget I seem to remember that you tended to go with santy's story in the nuke fizzle affair, against the line taken by GOI. why the different standards ? why not take GOI's stand as gospel in that case as well ?

let me answer why, because there are sources, whom you consider reliable even though they may not be GOI mouthpieces who say otherwise. it's the same in case of arjun, only it being a much lesser sensitive topic than nuke weapons, much more public info is available.
Again this is just speculation about its advantage or horrible disadvantage.

to say that this is speculation is also a kind of speculation. the information is widely availabe. at the end of the day, numbers do not lie and till date we haven't had a single case where the detractors from IA's side put forward a fact based rebuttal. and it isn't the case that the army is particularly media-shy by any stretch of imagination.

again, it is very wrong to say that the army is against the arjun, no, there are still sections that would want this tank to be IA's cutting-edge MBT. if you read the last page you'll find the very strong support arjun MBT project had at one time from people at the very top : Gen AS Vaidya, Gen BC Joshi, Gen Sankar Roychoudhury etc.
the problem I suppose,
[/speculation alert] is that most of the current elite of armoured forces have been brought up on the T-series philosophy. the vijayanta fleet has long ceased to be the cutting edge and consequently there are almost no one left at the top with exposure to the quite different western tank philosophy. most of these people have a very difficult time admitting that the T-72 type idea is an evolutionary dead-end, even the russian blackeagle/FMBT idea is much closer to the western tank design than russian one. a type of cognitive dissonance if you will. it is difficult to accept that the tank you have sworn by is in fact inferior in philosophy. acquiring a tank designed to western design just confirms that assertion.
in fact, Gen RoyC indicated something like that in an interview IIRC. [/end speculation]

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15298
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 20 Mar 2010 23:50

Quoted price ? Did we have GOI confirming on that or is that Ajai information which may be true but cannot be verified .Can any one provide GOI sourced price of T-90 and Arjun for 2010 or previous year if such info is available ?


Why would GOI release this information if it goes against the decision to procure the T-90. So far Shuklas data bears out what is available from public sources and plain logic. As far as we recall, original price of tank T-90 was based on certain assumptions, including then year price of material plus belief that TOT would allow for smooth manufacture. Inflationary costs in Russia and materials are now to be factored in, plus issue that the Russians have been stalling on TOT.

Again this is just speculation about its advantage or horrible disadvantage.

Since the IA is going to fight the next great tank battle if that happens and knows what it wants let GOI/IA decide how many Arjun and T-90 do they need , if IA needs more Arjun the GOI will certainly oblige , if they do not need any more Arjun there is no point shoving off their throat for all we know they will just end up rotting in some maintenance depot.

There is this mysterious sympathy for DRDO at BR the general view seems to be , if they develop something and defense forces do not accept it then there must be something wrong with the defense force , if they do then DRDO develops world class product because defense forces have accepted it.

If DRDO chief says some thing he must be proclaiming gospel truth , if the defence service do not accept with DRDO view then they must be corrupt or anti-DRDO


Why not we stick to the facts about what is known about the T-90 versus trying to debate about DRDO or the Army? It is irrelevant to the facts of the matter which is about the tank itself. That the Indian forces do not accept DRDO equipment which is subpar is also a fact, but that is irrelevant right now as the issue is of the T-90 itself.

It is not speculation but fact that the T-90 design has very bad limitations.

The T-90 acquisition should be criticized on the grounds that it is a dated design, nothing less nothing more. If the Indian Army had standardized on a superior design to the Arjun then much of the criticism of the T-90 would be absent.

Unfortunately despite much of the support of the T-90 so far here and elsewhere, the basic issues remain the same, about the tank design being obsolete.

Worst part of issue is that the T-90 tank bears no real comparative advantage over Chinese tank development which are also derived from the basic tank T-72 platform. Russia has even licensed them same Refleks missile (Janes, 2006) which is on T-90. And these are likely to be inducted in Indian subcontinent, suitably painted green, as Al Khalid MK2, MK3 or thereafter, further eroding Indian advantage.

So let us consider the basic facts:

Technology related problems:

-Critical lack of volume affecting tank electronics and heat issues - documented by abnormal wastage rate of Catherine imagers in trials and thereafter; how will India fit advanced electronics into the tank, like its Battle Management systems?

-Dated auto-loader design affecting tank round designs from progressing. What will IA do when next gen rounds need to be purchased and is the case worldwide, need longer penetrator?

- No APU, more wear and tear of the system; engine already does less than 1000 Hp as documented in IA trials itself.

- Dated design with ammunition stored all over tank, exposed to hit from anti tank ammunition, chances of crew survivability are bleak, as documented in several conflict T-72 tank has taken part in

- Firecontrol system with poorer Pk than other tanks today, including Arjuns.

Supply chain issues:

- As of 2008, for tank T-72 OFB was holding supplier conferences for indigenizing parts which Russia had not given access to, the belief that tank T-90 will be indigenized rapidly is moonshine.

- As of 2009, Ministry of Defence was forced to acknowledge that due to slow availabity of parts and assemblies for tank T-72, overhaul and upgrade was massively behind schedule and has invited pvt sector to participate, incidentally which mentions parts sourcing to be done by overhaul specialist as well. This is nothing but money back to Russia.

-Lack of TOT. Why is it that India is making its own armor for Tank T-90 and has to request Russia for TOT of gun barrels which was part of the original deal? Why does India still have to run behind DRDO/Pvt sector to develop items such as ballistic computer to use own ammunition? This is blatant arm twisting by Russians.

Procurement mistakes:

- No offsets for tank purchase and follow on orders? What has happened to the DPP-2008/2009 POLICY of at least 30% offsets in all purchases beyond Rs. 300 Crores?

- In case of tank T-90, the tank suffers from issues which are still not rectified many years on, but which were considered grounds for stalling the Arjun tank production. Given same standards of probity, tank T-90 acquisition should have been stopped at 310 units till issues were resolved and not rewarded by further 1347 units.

Bottomline:
- This is a obsolete design which Russia itself is planning to dump once it gets something better. Also has significant supplier issues which will come back to haunt us later.

- India seems to have a habit of buying obsolete equipment from the world over and then regretting its decision much later, and Russia seems to have acquired a taste for taking India to the cleaners, as seen in Gorshkov case. Why should we defend such a poor acquisition.

- It is also not unpatriotic or being anti-Army to point out that of various directorates of Army, Armoured Corp and Artilerry have had significant lack of vision and foresight in planning acquisitions and improving capabilities or having risk mitigation strategies in case of any plan delay.

-Various other procurement goofups in Army acquisition are handled here:
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2007/05/ ... chase.html
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2007/05/ ... needs.html

A pertinent quote:

The CAG report No 4 of 2007, which minutely examines 37 separate defence acquisitions between the period 2003 and 2006, is particularly critical about the way the army takes the very first step towards buying military equipment: deciding exactly what it needs.

Any householder buying an expensive item first decides what she needs. If the purchase is a refrigerator, she chooses a size that fits the number of family members and the space she has to install the refrigerator. Functions like frost-free and bottle space depend on household usage. And, importantly, there's the element of opportunity cost; choosing a fancy model with an ice dispenser means having to go without that blender she also needs.

The military's Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP) is supposed to start with an identical process, identifying precise requirements for the equipment proposed to be purchased. Laying down those requirements in the form of General Staff Qualitative Requirements (GSQR) is the first, and the most vital, part of any procurement. According to the CAG, the army goes wrong from this very first step.

The CAG report, in unusually blunt terms, points out that GSQRs have been wrongly formulated, reflecting neither the army's own requirements, nor the reality of the market. In the GSQRs for 11 purchases that were scrutinised, the CAG found that four spelt out requirements that were unavailable anywhere in the world. In four cases, the requirements "were unrealistic with respect to the actual requirements on the ground," which means that they did not meet the army's operational needs. And in seven cases, there was no way of testing whether the equipment met the parameters specified in the GSQRs.

The CAB observed that unrealistic GSQRs meant that, "in 66% of the cases, only a single vendor was pre-qualified." In "single-vendor" cases, the vendor's monopoly means that he can virtually dictate his own price. Even more serious was the CAG's observation that GSQRs were formulated "sometimes merely on the basis of manufacturer's brochure." Global vendors, admittedly with vested interests, have long alleged that Indian GSQRs are formulated to favour particular vendors. The CAG comes close to confirming that.


The MoD admits that its procurement regulations lay down that in single-vendor situations, the GSQRs are supposed to be reformulated and fresh tenders issued. This procedure, however, was not observed in a single case under audit.

The CAG's report also illustrates that GSQRs did not differentiate between essential and inessential requirements in a piece of equipment. Amongst several examples provided by the CAG is the purchase of High Resolution (HR) Binoculars, procured to keep a watch on Pakistani and militant activities across the LoC. Indian suppliers, Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) and Ordnance Factories Board (OFB), lost out to a foreign vendor, despite their HR Binoculars meeting all the GSQRs during user trials, and having proved themselves superior to the foreign suppliers in the three vital aspects of clarity, resolution, and magnification. Ignoring those important aspects, (and, in fact, incorrectly citing "good resolution and clarity" and "better magnification" as reasons for buying the foreign binoculars) the contract was awarded to the foreign company on the grounds of extraneous reasons like "eye-piece movement" and "minimum focusing distance", which barely figured in the GSQRs.

This was just one of many such cases in which, "parameters were specified which were unimportant, unverifiable and non-measurable. There was no grading of the parameters as critical and non-critical and nor was there an inter-se priority or weightage of the parameters."

The CAG also criticises the army's tendency to place orders piece-meal, without first determining the quantities it needs, disqualifying itself from economies of scale. In one example cited in the report, the army's 9th Plan included the procurement of 4700 rocket launchers (RL Mk III). The army eventually bought rocket launchers in three separate contracts for smaller amounts, in a space of just ten months, incurring a loss of almost Rs 10 crores.


Again, see virtually identical issues with T-90 versus Arjun:

1. Unrealistic GSQRs specified for Arjun, asking for maximum extent of technology possible. When achieved, same GSQR ignored for tank T-90, leading to a single vendor situation, subsequent arm twisting by vendor
2. No clear idea of what is essential vs non essential. Depending on author, report, litany of charges against Arjun, which is again designed according to 1 but if one criteria is met, another is introduced.
3. Piecemeal orders of the Arjun, and then no further orders which basically means cost of batch 1 is high and if batch 2 is ever decided prices will be definitely higher. Also, piecemeal orders of T-90, despite basic issue rectification not having taken place allowing prices to be hiked further, when manufacturer has not even met standard of fault free equipment.

This is not about corruption per se (as we dont have any information to state that the decision maker who chose T-90 dis so for personal gain) but ad hocism, poor procedures in purchase decisions which lead to poor decision making.

Subsequently institutional inertia makes these decisions near irreversible for something like the tank T-90.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1214
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby sudeepj » 21 Mar 2010 00:08

Austin wrote:
So did Ajai Shukla did a run down between T-80UD and T-90 Bishma to come to that conclusion that T-90 barely matches competition ? Chances are we will never find such things out unless we meet face to face with T-80UD on some ideal battle grounds

Most probably Ajai did not do that, but inferring the same conclusion is not difficult from publicly available details.


The Russian T80 was never meant for export, it had the status of a secret weapon, unlike the T72 series (T90 included) derived Tanks that were meant for export from day 1. For a very long time after the tanks development, Russia never exported the T80 to any country. The T80s in service around the world are exported by Ukraine, not Russia.

Further, the Russian army maintains a tank fleet the core of which is T80, not the T90. The largest operator of the T90 in the world today is India, not the country where it was made!

All this information is widely available in open source lit. Wikipedia might be a good place to start, if you are not aware of such commonly accepted facts.

Austin wrote:But better tactics , training , logistics and over all anti-armour superiority ( not just tank vs tank ) will win the day for IA , if we ever see a great Tank vs Tank battle in a nuclear environment.


Sure, and if not that the redoubtable Indian diplomatic core will surely pull things in our favour! Even if against all odds, we manage to pull such a great victory off, we will still be left with Avadi as our source for cutting edge armor technology.

How long will the Indian Army persist with a line of thought that it can influence strategic events through might that is basically begged, borrowed or bought?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15298
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 21 Mar 2010 00:16

Austin quote: "But better tactics , training , logistics and over all anti-armour superiority ( not just tank vs tank ) will win the day for IA , if we ever see a great Tank vs Tank battle in a nuclear environment"

How will Indian have drastically different tactics to drastically affect course of battle, when tanks T-80 UD, T-90, T-72 and Al Khalid have similar platforms, performance overall and will require similar tactics, if not the same, to operationally exploit in similar terrain. On researching, tanks Al Khalid & T-80 reportedly even have similar generation French Thermal Imagers with Thales same as T-90 first chosen by Pak:
http://antisystemic.org/satribune/www.s ... _tank2.htm

Kanwa Defense Review Article (ignore chest thumping aspect and focus on details, which is that the AL Khalid was getting same Thermal Imagers from Thales as T-90 or that it has other options as well.

A source from the Heavy Industries Taxila (HIT) told KDR that the production of AL-Khalid MBT has been going on very smoothly. Apart from Pakistan, there are a number of other countries also interested in this MBT, including Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Iraq and Indonesia. Other sources from the Pakistani Army disclosed to KDR that the Pakistani Army ordered an initial batch of 300 Al-Khalid MBTs, and a total of 200 have already been produced.

There is a plan to further enlarge the production line to the scale of manufacturing 100 Al-Khalid every year. The Saudi Arabian delegations paid field visit twice to HIT and tested Al-Khalid. Saudi Arabia plans to have an Al-Khalid delivered in 2007 for further testing. A source from the Pakistani Army confirmed that China has participated in the promotion of Al-Khalid MBT to Saudi Arabia.

A source from French THALES told KDR that Pakistan has signed the contract of importing 900 sets of Catherine-FC thermal imaging systems to be fitted on the Al-Khalid MBTs of the Pakistani Army. Delivery of these thermal imaging systems is expected to start in March 2007. As an integrated plan, the same type of thermal imaging systems will also be used to upgrade the T85IIAP MBTs currently in service. A source from HIT told KDR that the reason they did not choose the Chinese-made thermal imaging systems was that they did not meet the demands of the Pakistani Army. Kanwa has learned that even the latest upgraded 99G MBTs use mechanical scanning thermal imaging system. Catherine-FC thermal imaging system works at 8-12μm band, weight smaller than 5.5kg, image resolution 754X576, wide field of view (WFOV) 9ºX6.7º, and narrow field of view (NFOV) 3ºX2.2º. Catherine-FC has a detection range of 10,000m for tanks, recognition range 4,500m, and identification range 2,300m.

In order to promote Al-Khalid MBTs to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan has also used Matis thermal imaging system produced by French SAGEM for testing purpose, mainly because the armored forces of the Saudi Arabian Army are currently using Sagem’s thermal imaging systems. The third generation Matis thermal imaging system works at 3-5μm band, weight smaller than 4.5kg, WFOV 12ºX8º, NFOV 2.5ºX1.7º, detection range for tanks 11,000m, recognition range 5,300m. The identification range of the system is not yet revealed.

The Chinese tank experts told KDR that Pakistan has made rapid progress in tank design. The Chinese side is also very impressed by the new Integrated Battlefield Management System (IBMS) fitted on Al-Khalid. This IBMS is designed and produced by the Pakistani Integrated Defense Systems, and the system is already installed on some Al-Khalid command MBTs in effective service. With this IBMS, the battlefield situations between the two sides of confrontation can be transmitted through the video camera and unmanned aerial vehicle. This transmission system is capable of processing data and transmitting command orders as well as displaying different 3D topographical images and maps. The designer of the system stressed that they have also planned to connect the IBMS with satellite in the future.

An upgrading plan for Al-Khalid MBT is in the making. The first step will be replacing the engine system. Experts from HIT say that they are right now considering using the German-made 1,500hp engines to replace the Ukraine-made 6TD2 engines. For this purpose, Al-Khalid’s engine compartment has reserved a 1m space for the installation of greater power engine. Meanwhile, Pakistan has decided to outfit active protection system on Al-Khalid, similar to the Russian Shtora system. Pakistan has obtained at least one such system respectively from Ukraine and China for testing purpose. The Ukrainian version Shtora has already been tested on one Al-Khalid MBT. This system is composed of the laser detection and IR detection subsystems. In addition, Pakistan has also designed independently a laser detection system for Al-Halid for exercises and training. This system can perform laser beam detection and is composed of 8 units of laser detectors which are fitted on the two sides of Al-Khalid turret and on the front as well, providing a 180 deg forward-coverage.

Pakistan does not have a plan to fit gun launched ATMs on Al-Khalid MBT at the moment. The source also said that the plan of installing new engines and gun launched ATMs will be determined by the demands of respective clients, and Pakistan has the capability to undertake such upgrading for the clients.

Other sources from the Pakistani Army say that the plan of installing gun launched ATMs on the tanks of the Pakistani Army will be first tested on T80UD. Nonetheless, the Pakistani Army has much greater expectation for Al-Khalid MBTs than for T80UD. General Ehsan-ul-Haq, Chairman of Joint Staff of the Pakistani Military, says that Al-Khalid’s performance is much better than T80UD.

As it was mentioned above, the upgrading plan of T85IIAP is related to the installation of Catherine-FC thermal imaging system produced by Thales Company on Al-Halid MBTs. A source from the Pakistani Army stresses that in addition to outfitting thermal imaging system on T85IIAP, there are no other major upgrading plans. Pakistan once considered using the T serial tank upgraded thermal imaging system produced by the British Maconi Company. Since 2001, Pakistan has conducted winter and summer tests of the above two systems and Maconi eventually lost to Thales.

The upgrading of Al-Zarrar MBT has been going on very smoothly. A source from the Pakistani Army says that up to the present, they have finished upgrading 300 of them. The Army plans to upgrade a total of 611 T59 tanks so that they can reach the standard of Al-Zarrar. The direction of future upgrading of these T59 tanks will be the same as that for T85IIAP and Al-Khalid MBTs, i.e. to further upgrade the fire control system. For the A1-Zarrar upgrading project, Pakistan has chosen the THETIS thermal imaging system produced by Italian Galileo Avionica Company. A source from Galileo Avionica told KDR that THETIS thermal imaging system originated from ARES gunner sight system, but THETIS did not include the laser range finder. The fire control system of Al-Zarrar is still made by China in order to lower cost, and Pakistan has only selected the Italian thermal imaging system. As a 2nd generation thermal imaging system, THETIS works at 8-12μm band and uses digital signal processing system. Other technical details of this system have not been revealed. The source told KDR that Galileo Avionica has delivered to Pakistan 10 sets of THETIS thermal imaging systems for testing purpose, a total of 200 such systems will be delivered, indicating that not all Al-Zarrar tanks will be fitted with THETIS. The full upgrading plan will start in 2007.

As for the engine system, Al-Zarrar is powered by the 730hp diesel engines. This 730hp engine can give a power to weight ratio of 18.3hp/t and a maximum speed of 55km.

In summary, the basic technologies of the Pakistani tank industry indeed came from China, but in the course of constant upgrading, Pakistan is now enjoying much greater independence. More western fire control systems have been fitted on the Pakistani tanks


Again considering that even if the contract was cancelled, it is either Sagem or Thales imagers on Pak tanks, not really inferior to Indian ones. And likely that they are not conking out either given Al Khalid boxy interior has more space than T-90.

About training and logistics, Russia does not even like us getting simulator from third party:
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2010/02/ ... ators.html

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15298
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 21 Mar 2010 00:40

Austin quote:"Nuclear environment"

A key fact of nuclear environment is operating in closed tanks, where ergonomics, crew comfort are of critical importaance. Arjun interior was designed for Indian crews, and on youtube you have a tank crewman of Arjun from Army saying "this tank is great, I simply dont feel exhausted after driving it for long".

Now let us consider the record of the T-90:

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2008/07/ ... -t-90.html

Meanwhile, the 310 T-90s, which have been delivered by Russia and introduced into service, are far from battle worthy. The crucial tank Fire Control System (FCS), especially the Thermal Imaging Sight, through which the crew aims and fires at the enemy, has failed to function in Indian summers. An obliging Russian industry body, Rosoboronexport, offered to sell India “tank air conditioners”, even though no other tank in our inventory needs or uses air-conditioning.

The Russian air-conditioners were put through trials, which were a miserable failure. The driver of the trial tank fainted from heatstroke. Now the MoD has floated a global tender for air-conditioning the T-90s, as well as the T-72s which have functioned without air-conditioners for the last 29 years.


I must also point out this is also related to another Army procurement failure. In 2001, when Indian Army mobilized to borders for a long period, again there were issues with tank crews having heat related problems. Has Indian Army fixed this? No it has not, in fact it rushed to import icepacks for troops then at last moment. Also even if you are now putting air conditioners what will happen to fuel consumption and mobility of vehicle? No APU also.

Now this time, in "nuclear environment" where tank hatch cannot even be opened post combat in a zone, what will tank crews do.

Simple thing is that Arjun "which has so much space inside" can be upgraded to whatever T-90 has (LAHAT missile), but reverse is not true.

I am afraid that if Indian Armor really has to operate in "nuclear environment" with tank T-90, they will face huge issues. Since this tank was designed for operations in Europe (and heater included in tank) whereas our case is reverse with operations in desert in blistering heat.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15298
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Karan M » 21 Mar 2010 05:52

Rohitvats,

Interesting points raised by you in this thread. Would like to hear your insight on -

- Why the Indian Army is going for light tanks now
- What would they be used for and by whom
- Their likely area of operations
- Any personal comments/insights that you may have vis a vis what they should or should not do.

somnath
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3416
Joined: 29 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: Singapore

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby somnath » 21 Mar 2010 06:31

This discussion is really good - new nuggets of "old" info (!) coming out all the time...Unfortunately, its a bit irrelevant now, because IMO the Arjun project is well and truly dead, at least in its current avatar..

Many weeks back I had posted some of my thoughts on why it is so..

The biggest reason probably though is the fact that neither the govt, nor the Indian Army really thinks that a large scale armour battle is redundant in the threat scenario faced by India...The Cold Start literature is reasonably unanimous on the following axioms:

1. Quick mobilisation
2. No objective of capturing and holding large swathes of real estate
3. "Overwhelming" firepower
4. "Limited", focused objectives of destroying Pak military capacities


In these scenarios, maybe a new tank doctrine is now considered too much of a pain to bother about....The army is interested in quickly mobilising - given that the T90 is so similar to T72, the existing logistics chain would perhaps be more suited..Large increase in firepower - that in our context would be a function of numbers, and there is greater certainty on building up numbers through the known Russian devil than the unknown (or very bitterly known) Avadi with Arjun....This is especially true as Pakistan is not bringing to bear the sort of situational awareness capabilities or firepower that the Americans did against the Iraqis - our biggest weapon against them would be overhwlem them simply with numbers..Last, and probably most important, the war is expected to end pretty quickly, within 5-7 days...What sort of tank battles can we envisage within those time frames? Pretty small ones, I would hazard..In which case, why bother with a brand new tank with new doctrinal requirements and an unreliable supplier?

To me, and I am repeating myself, there is no value add in the ongoing "tu tu main main" on Arjun, neither for DRDO , nor for the IA, nor for arm chair generals...DRDO should pronto get into a discussion on the FMBT with the Army...Get someone like Ashok Leyland or Tata Motors as partners on day 1 - preferably keep Avadi out completely to build credibility with the Army...In fact nothing stops Tata Motors from acquiring Rhinemetall itself in case the project is large enough!!!that way the lessons and key tech from Arjun can be deployed fruitfully...Else, T90 will be followed in due course by T95, or T-105, who knows?

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4379
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby putnanja » 21 Mar 2010 06:47

somnath wrote:...
In which case, why bother with a brand new tank with new doctrinal requirements and an unreliable supplier.
...
DRDO should pronto get into a discussion on the FMBT with the Army...Get someone like Ashok Leyland or Tata Motors as partners on day 1 - preferably keep Avadi out completely to build credibility with the Army...
...


If Army doesn't want to bother with new tank and new doctrinal requirements, just stick with Russian armor, with whatever comes up after T-90. Maybe they will maintain commonality. Else the army will come up asking for all features of western tanks in a T-90 sized tank. Better get it done through Russian companies. They will also not have to worry about logistics then :lol:

As for Avadi or Tata or AL, it doesn't matter. The design is done by DRDO and Avadi is just the implementation/integration agency. Remember, the problem isn't with production yet. It is the entire tank design/philosophy itself (too heavy, bigger sillhoute, extra person reqd, etc). For you to get Tata or AL to participate, you need to assure them of decent returns. Do you think they will work on it for 10-15 years and just give up because the army isn't satisfied?


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests