Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby amit » 23 Apr 2010 12:41

rohitvats wrote:amit babu, the beauty of the situation is, the Russians who designed T-90, are to use it as MBT for one purpose onleeee...fight the godamm heavy MBT of bhestern bhorld..... :mrgreen:


Rohit Boss,

The beauty of it is how some folks use very clever arguments to slowly shift the discussion point till it comes to a stage that the main issue is sidestepped and some inane side issue or a different topic becomes the focus of argument.

Otherwise how can someone pithily write something as preposterous as this: GSQRs for T90 and Arjun are different? :eek:

Added later: I see Arnab's post has pointed out the obvious, something that was slowly being brushed under the carpet: GSQRs are framed by the Armed forces and not by the MoD for some super secret reasons that the common people can never get to know about.
Last edited by amit on 23 Apr 2010 12:47, edited 1 time in total.

a_kumar
BRFite
Posts: 481
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 23:53
Location: what about it?

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby a_kumar » 23 Apr 2010 12:44

Sanku wrote:
Since you say apple to apple, can you please provide sources pointing to how T-90 came out with flying colors (2000) on aspects that Arjun succeeded and failed (2007) with respect to respective GSQRs


Hello why does T 90 need to pass Arjun GSQRs?

Arent you like very confused?

T 90 needed to pass T 90 GSQRs which it did.

Now as to why T 90 had T 90 GSQRs and not Arjun GSQRs I have listed hazarr factors and clearly since I have too much time on my hands to muck about, I will again if you dont know.

:lol:



I am embarrassed that it needs me to point this out... I said "respective GSQRs"? :oops: Am sure you agree there will be overlapping requirement, they are both tanks afterall!

Now, Arjun is there, but it made it there "in spite of IA's resistance" rather than "because of IAs support" to it. Sad really!


Boss if IA did not support it. It would have died like 20 years back. IA has done a lot it could to support it.


Somehow the encouraging words I see (from IA) in any press reports are from those who you now discredit (because they are ironically critical of IA)!! I can definitely see that DRDO/IA egos might have clashed a lot, but since 2005, IA takes the cake.

Sanku wrote:THE REAL FACT IS THAT THE MIL_IND COMPLEX IS NOT SET UP TO SUCCEED QUICKLY.
Blaming IA is short-cut "lose 15 kilos in 10 days" scheme and not the solution.


Actually thank you for that. You probably don't see the contradiction there...

- "Lose 15K in 10 days option" : Dreaming about a MIL_IND complex like it going to magically appear from nowhere.
- "Lose 15K in 90 days option" : Build a MIL_IND complex by providing resources and unwavering support/patience from the end-users to take it to fruition.

Being proponent for domestic industry rings hollow when we do not support the patient effort to build the MIL_IND complex, but wish that a MIL_IND complex just appear. Because without consistent support from end-users there will never be a MIL_IND complex, just like without patient and strong regime, loosing 15K is not going to be easy.

There is a reason why MIL_IND complex is great for shipbuilding and sucks big time for armoured vehicles.

IN went through the 90 day option painstakingly in the past decades (building its MIL_IND complex), while IA is demanding a 10 days option (that MIL_IND complex should be there).
Last edited by a_kumar on 23 Apr 2010 12:49, edited 1 time in total.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 23 Apr 2010 12:46

amit wrote:
Sanku wrote: In fact the difference goes beyond GSQR (that is Army requirements) the directives come from MoD directly even before GSQRs are made.

They include a whole host of factors including a deal to obtain ToT.


Source please? And please no Urban legends that it's been posted before - if it indeed has, please point to the post.


Go to MoD site, read the process etc of acquisition etc. Posted about a hazar times here.

But I see that you've very skilfully sidestepped the actual question. Let me repeat it for you and for Austin. Are the T90s and Arjuns supposed to fight two different wars, with two different armies on two different types of terrains? If not why the hell should the GSQRs for two MBTs be different?


Well I though you would be able to figure it out on your own, terrain etc is certainly one factor (w.r.t. Bridges canals etc)

GSQRs take into account a whole host of things, other than what you mention.

They include existing logistical support, existing familiarity with system. Ease of induction. Commonality with other systems and interoperability.

They include requirements on what types of FOL support is needed, how easy or hard it is to repair how many KMs are they expected to go to.

Costs including running costs.

For example Germans during WW II had many tanks operating simultaneously, as some one pointed out the germans had a tactic of a few heavy tigers backed up with many Pz IVs.

Why for example, does the IAF have one set of GSQRs which are being applied for all six MRCA contenders?


You actually answered your own question here.
:wink:

No one has yet managed to figure out what single GSQRs are filled by aircrafts which are so vastly different a a light Gripen to the EF bomb truck.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 23 Apr 2010 12:49

a_kumar wrote:I am not sure if its helping your case wrt IA's treatment of Arjun.


I did not made those statement in context of Arjun or for that matter T-90 , it was a general statement that tropicalisation is an issue which defence forces have to face and that it is a fact of life.

So if imported system like T-90 or MMRCA or AJT face these issue during trials or post induction it should not come as a surprise.

The fact that Jags do face this issue in very hot condition ( derating of engine ) and the IAF operated it for couple of decades with this known issue and it will only be rectified when IAF opts for new engine, thats nearly 3 decades of Jag operation in IAF.

On the contrary IN was very stringent and as soon as it realized that Kilo gave performance issue post commisioning ( before commisioning IN was not aware of the seriousness of this issue nor was Kilo trialled extensively in Indian waters before accepting , its a political decision to buy kilo and we got it virtually free ) in Indian condition , it rectified it as soon as it could and did not wait for more than a decade till Kilo went for a major upgrade to rectify those issues.

Probably Ops requirement demended that Kilo issue should be sorted out immediately while IAF did not think of reengining the Jags was critical for ops reason , that is something each service decides whats best for them

So, Austin, why didn't IA allow Arjun its equivalent of "tropicalization" after the AUCRT trials? Is it because it cannot be called "Tropicalization"?


I do not know sir , I am not the IA or GOI to make that decision , May be there were other issues that needed to be sorted out and now that it has been and trials conducted , GOI would certainly go ahead with Arjun , the only question now is what will be the numbers of Arjun Mk2 that GOI/IA will approve of

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 23 Apr 2010 12:54

arnab wrote:I don't think MoD has a role in determining waiver of GSQR, it has to be from SHQ. Infact once MoD has agreed to 'Acceptance of Necessity' the 'technical side' is pretty much IA's (SHQ) baby.

From Defence Procurement Procedure (Capital) 2006

http://mod.nic.in/dpm/welcome.html


No Sir this is not what I am talking of, what I mean is this
http://mod.nic.in/aboutus/welcome.html

Defence Technology Council (DTC) : Defence Technology Council has been constituted under the Chairmanship of Raksha Mantri by the Government to provide guidance and supervision of growth and promotion of research, development and production related to Defence Technologies. DTC will assist the Defence Acquisition Council in taking holistic decisions on specific Defence Projects related to long term perspective plans and five year plans.


Long Term Integrated Perspective Plan (LTIPP): A LTIPP focusing on the Joint Conventional Edge, capabilities to be achieved, aspects of commonality of equipment; inter-Service prioritization and indigenization has been prepared to cover the 11th, 12th and 13th Plan periods.


MoD gives long term and overall policy inputs which are precursors to the GSQR process being kick started.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 23 Apr 2010 12:58

a_kumar wrote:..................
IN went through the 90 day option painstakingly in the past decades (building its MIL_IND complex), while IA is demanding a 10 days option (that MIL_IND complex should be there).


A kumar you are again falling in the trap of making unsubstantiated statements out of nothing.

IA is not demanding anything like you have said or making any such statements.

IA has been constantly engaged in the Arjun process, made GSQR, taught CVRDE that a tank did not mean the one in local temple (I am talking 30 years back), devoted a regiment for it. Carried out trials sent up reports invested energy and effort.

What do you want IA to do differently? Specific examples please in specific time lines.

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby amit » 23 Apr 2010 12:59

Sanku wrote:Go to MoD site, read the process etc of acquisition etc. Posted about a hazar times here.


:rotfl: :rotfl:

I'm enjoying this.

So "process of acquisition" is the same as Armed forces framing GSQRs for a particular weapons system? Bullshit does not become edible just because its mucked around with "hazar times"

GSQRs take into account a whole host of things, other than what you mention.


Just to clear your mind, I did not mention anything about what the GSQRs specified. My point is simple and that is if two MBTs are to operate in the same terrain, climatic conditions and against the same enemy, it seems strange and rather dubious, if two different set of GSQRs - in other words standards - are set for them.

Is that so hard to understand? The rest of your points on this issue, I'm sorry to say, are irrelevant drivel.

No one has yet managed to figure out what single GSQRs are filled by aircrafts which are so vastly different a a light Gripen to the EF bomb truck.


So what are you trying to say here? The IAF has six set of GSQRs for the six contenders?

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 23 Apr 2010 13:01

amit wrote:
rohitvats wrote:amit babu, the beauty of the situation is, the Russians who designed T-90, are to use it as MBT for one purpose onleeee...fight the godamm heavy MBT of bhestern bhorld..... :mrgreen:


Rohit Boss,

The beauty of it is how some folks use very clever arguments to slowly shift the discussion point till it comes to a stage that the main issue is sidestepped and some inane side issue or a different topic becomes the focus of argument.

Otherwise how can someone pithily write something as preposterous as this: GSQRs for T90 and Arjun are different? :eek:

Added later: I see Arnab's post has pointed out the obvious, something that was slowly being brushed under the carpet: GSQRs are framed by the Armed forces and not by the MoD for some super secret reasons that the common people can never get to know about.


Amit, are you here to make inane posts to raise the temperature?

You HAVE ZERO knowledge about anything as per your own admission yet you are beating the drum.

The REAL issue is simple. MoD is not investing enough in domestic production.
In terms of Decision making, management manpower, Ruppess etc etc...

The rest is all ill informed speculation masquerading as care for Defence :evil:

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 23 Apr 2010 13:05

amit wrote:
Sanku wrote:Go to MoD site, read the process etc of acquisition etc. Posted about a hazar times here.


:rotfl: :rotfl:

I'm enjoying this.


Clearly I know understand that this is the sort of stuff you enjoy.

Its as usual contribution is of the same quality. Jump in with zero knowledge and even lower logical skills and bandy about ignorance as PoV.

What YOU can not understand is purely your limitation, fix that first otherwise you are wasting everyones time.

As it is this thread has become a haunt for those who compare T 72 without a TI to a tank with a TI to make a judgement on a poor quality of a third TI.

Rahul Ms advise to ignore you is good. I make a mistake at my own peril.

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby amit » 23 Apr 2010 13:07

Sanku wrote:[MoD gives long term and overall policy inputs which are precursors to the GSQR process being kick started.


OK, taking this forward, after MoD gives a long-term overall policy inputs, who then frames the GSQRs? In this case the Army or the MoD?

However, I do hope you realise this policy input thingy does not resolve the issue of why T90 and Arjun should have two sets of GSQRs. Why for example Arjun's electronics are hardened (presumably a requirement of the GSQR) and T90s are not? Or why T90 GSQRs did not factor in the need to tropicalise the tank (that is the same, hardened electronics). And why after induction a tender has to be floated to ari-condition the tanks?

Was all this a part of the MoD's long term and overall policy planning?

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby amit » 23 Apr 2010 13:12

Sanku wrote:Jump in with zero knowledge and even lower logical skills and bandy about ignorance as PoV.


A very valid point Sanku. Only problem is, that you seem to think a whole host of posters on this thread who are discussing this specific topic have zero knowledge since they are essentially saying the same thing I'm but maybe in a more erudite manner. You've have used the phrase: "knows jack shit" a lot of time.

... otherwise you are wasting everyones time.


OK guys, I'd like to know, Am I wasting your time?

Rahul Ms advise to ignore you is good. I make a mistake at my own peril.


Clutching at straws are we? :wink:

Anyway, I'll give it a rest. I think I've raised the point I wanted to and I see you don't have an answer for the question. Hence all this rhona dhona and obfustication.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 23 Apr 2010 14:19

amit wrote:
Anyway, I'll give it a rest. I think I've raised the point I wanted to and I see you don't have an answer for the question. Hence all this rhona dhona and obfustication.


Boss try our shoot and scoot tactics else where as well as petty attempts to fire from others shoulders. You are here to just try and inflame passions and nothing else.

You think I am going to fall for such a amateurish attempt as you have shown? With chief tacit of ignoring an answer and repeating the question with a wide eyed wonder as if it was the first time the question was asked.

But on the flip side I must admit to the possibility of the above happening -- probably because you dont have the background to understand it, for example the point of "interoperability with existing units" as a point in one GSQR vs the other is something you wont be able to understand short of Mil-Ind background.

Was all this a part of the MoD's long term and overall policy planning?


Since you are a late lateef in 1001th iteration of the problem, it is no ones case that MoD has displayed a long term planning. :lol:

What you dont understand is that there are two groups here, (1) who think everything that has gone wrong or they think has gone wrong or will go wrong is IAs fault.

The second group points out who the system is a Joint effort between 4 major players with larger control being with MoD babu's, we also are trying to say that this is the reality, i.e. the current level of ability with the national system as a whole.

No one has ever made a case that no improvements are needed.

Had you actually bothered to educate yourself on the basics, the thread would not have been getting into a "define the debate 101"

Anyway, my only appeal to you is educate yourself before feeling the compelling need to ask kindergarten variety questions, you may enjoy the banality of revisiting the basics but a lot of us dont.

bhavik
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 26 Aug 2009 02:02

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby bhavik » 23 Apr 2010 14:31

I guess IA (or MoD as some would claim) does not admit that it made mistakes on many fronts
1. Artillery
2. Logistics - esp. Borders roads - Ladakh, NE.
3. and most of all MBT - chose just T90 .
And it is definitely clear by now that it never faced as stringent GSQR's as Arjun.
, probably was inducted as knee jerk to Pak T80UD.
But most weird highlight of sorry state - before GSQR / Arjun prototyping it is blind enough to see that it is heavy to fit its war doctrine? Some excuse.
Imagine a country not able to manufacture its own MBT wanting a UNSC permanent seat.

4. Modern Soldier equipments
5. Anti-Tank Missiles (Nag)
6. Anti Air Missiles (recently looking for Akash)
It seems it has become overconfident after 1971.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 23 Apr 2010 14:35

bhavik wrote:I guess IA (or MoD as some would claim) does not admit that it made mistakes on many fronts
.


What is their to claim? That is how the system is, period.

And it is not any particular secret that their the armed forces need a strong boost and so does the Mil-Ind complex. That is stating the really obvious frankly (at least by BR standards)

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby amit » 23 Apr 2010 14:45

Whatever happened to "I will ignore you posts like .... said..." protestations? :D

Anyway choro. No point in debating stuff with experts with Mil-Ind background I suppose. Even folks like Ajai Shukla, who happen to have driven around in tanks for a living should, I suppose, stand up and give a "salute" to such "experts".

Jai Hind!

Since you are a late lateef in 1001th iteration of the problem, it is no ones case that MoD has displayed a long term planning.


Oh, by the way, I'm glad it's not part of MoD's long term planning to induct a tank which needs so much $$$ to be spent to make it usable in Indian conditions. The question is, who's planning did result in this tank becoming the tank of choice, while an indigenous product was obstructed in every way possible. Please forgive if hoi polli with no Mil-Ind background raise this questions again and again despite the attempt to shut them up.
Last edited by amit on 23 Apr 2010 14:50, edited 1 time in total.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 23 Apr 2010 14:46

Is it a system issue when the DGMF goes around berating 43 AR for praising the Arjun?? Essentially trying to browbeat 43 AR into falsifying the results. Mind you what Shukla has mentioned barely scratches the surface.

Maybe one day some of the other gems of this DGMF will come out.

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby amit » 23 Apr 2010 14:53

Surya wrote:Is it a system issue when the DGMF goes around berating 43 AR for praising the Arjun?? Essentially trying to browbeat 43 AR into falsifying the results. Mind you what Shukla has mentioned barely scratches the surface.

Maybe one day some of the other gems of this DGMF will come out.


Surya ji,

I suppose anyone who raises these very valid points are classified as folks with no Mil-Ind background (and hence fools who should not open their mouths).

I'm indeed sorry that the wonderful news of a home grown product finally proving itself and decisively outperforming a foreign product from one of the foremost producers of this line of armament meets with this kind of response in a supposedly pro-India jingo forum. :(

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 23 Apr 2010 14:53

Surya wrote:Is it a system issue when the DGMF goes around berating 43 AR for praising the Arjun?? Essentially trying to browbeat 43 AR into falsifying the results. Mind you what Shukla has mentioned barely scratches the surface.

Maybe one day some of the other gems of this DGMF will come out.


Till then shall we give it a miss? Because you know where do chaiwalla based debates end up on sensitive topics.

And if indeed the DGMF did that, he should be taken to task, and I am sure he was. He is not running his personal fiefdom there. I am sure a couple of rockets would have been sent.

However in the long run (and this saga is indeed long running) the matter goes beyond the individual influence stage to a systems behavior stage. What we see is the systems behavior as a whole.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 23 Apr 2010 15:05

Needs to be cross posted every where. Conference on future munitions for tanks etc.

viewtopic.php?p=861051#p861051

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 23 Apr 2010 15:09

No you cannot give it a miss.

Because Shukla as a journalist has published this also in a newspaper before it comes into his blog

Enough opportunities for the ex DGMF to refute it which he has not done so far.

Thats the diff - Shukla is not a pure blog (which itself is not bad)

And it also matches all the non open info I and others have. (Just like we had the T 90 AUCRT cock ups which we had to wait till it came into open)


Yes rockets were sent - by MOD afterwards - on something else but imagine how many years this sort of nonsense might have been going on.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17050
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 23 Apr 2010 15:13

sanku ji, would you mind elaborating for us what the different GSQRs for T-90 and arjun are ? or better yet, what are the different roles these 'different' GSQR's are supposed to fill in ? if you want to go even wider, what are the different categories of modern MBT's ? from my little understanding I thought there was only one category for MBT's in modern armies ?

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 23 Apr 2010 15:14

Sanku wrote:...<SNIP> Had you actually bothered to educate yourself on the basics, the thread would not have been getting into a "define the debate 101"

Anyway, my only appeal to you is educate yourself before feeling the compelling need to ask kindergarten variety questions, you may enjoy the banality of revisiting the basics but a lot of us dont.


How about applying the same advise to yourself?.....coming from you that is pretty rich.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 23 Apr 2010 15:15

Surya wrote:No you cannot give it a miss.

Because Shukla as a journalist has published this also in a newspaper before it comes into his blog

Enough opportunities for the ex DGMF to refute it which he has not done so far.

Thats the diff - Shukla is not a pure blog (which itself is not bad)

And it also matches all the non open info I and others have. (Just like we had the T 90 AUCRT cock ups which we had to wait till it came into open)


Yes rockets were sent - by MOD afterwards - on something else but imagine how many years this sort of nonsense might have been going on.


Two things, short of definite info nudge nudge wink wink can go anywhere. The fact the rocket was sent means that this was a one off case and IA as a institution did not like it and checks and balances are working. At best it is one unreliable and minor data point.

Secondly what are the AUCRT cock ups in the open? T 90 ones I mean? Can you provide sources?

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby amit » 23 Apr 2010 15:19

Rahul M wrote:sanku ji, would you mind elaborating for us what the different GSQRs for T-90 and arjun are ? or better yet, what are the different roles these 'different' GSQR's are supposed to fill in ? if you want to go even wider, what are the different categories of modern MBT's ? from my little understanding I thought there was only one category for MBT's in modern armies ?


Rahul,

This is exactly the same question that I asked before Sanku ji scolded me for having:

zero knowledge and even lower logical skills


:roll:

BTW didn't get how logical skills can be below zero, meaning how can anyone have minus logical skills! But I guess you get to observe something new everyday - that's the beauty of BRF, all sorts of people strut their stuff here! :)

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 23 Apr 2010 15:27

rohitvats wrote:
Sanku wrote:...<SNIP> Had you actually bothered to educate yourself on the basics, the thread would not have been getting into a "define the debate 101"

Anyway, my only appeal to you is educate yourself before feeling the compelling need to ask kindergarten variety questions, you may enjoy the banality of revisiting the basics but a lot of us dont.


How about applying the same advise to yourself?.....coming from you that is pretty rich.


Let me know when both of you guys grow up and move beyond attacking me personally because my points can not be countered.
:lol:

--------------------------------------------------

sanku ji, would you mind elaborating for us what the different GSQRs for T-90 and arjun are ? or better yet, what are the different roles these 'different' GSQR's are supposed to fill in ? if you want to go even wider, what are the different categories of modern MBT's ? from my little understanding I thought there was only one category for MBT's in modern armies ?


Rahul M, first and foremost I or any one else can not have claimed to seen GSQRs since they are not public. I can however make educated guesses on the questions based on overall understanding.

1) Trade off between Armor and weight, with impact on fuel consumption. What do you chose a better protected vehicle or one which can move further on less fuel?

2) Number of crewmen w.r.t. rate of fire.

3) Baggage trail, tonnage of spares required for per tank per km run.

4) Use of existing logistical faculties to service the new tanks.

5) Terrain of use? Marshy, sandy, with canals etc. how does it fit in with existing infrastructure.

6) Will it also be used for close infantry support in enclosed conditions? Can it then use ERA?

etc..

What is the point? The point is that there is no A solution for tanks. Many possible solutions exist which will give slightly different tanks as a result.

One will be a 40 ton tank one will be a 60 ton. It is a question of where does one chose the sweet spot of design trade off.

It is indeed IAs prerogative to chose one or more such solutions. We may or may not agree but does not change anything.

------------------

Specifically w.r.t. T 90 vs Arjun, to me IAs approach is clear -- We have a Arjun type solution for tanks, as it comes, let us also have latest of T series types solution. There is space aplenty for both.

Its not either/or. Even if Arjun was ordered in large numbers, it is quite possible that T 90s would also be ordered. We do not know for sure, we can not make a definite claim.
Last edited by Sanku on 23 Apr 2010 15:38, edited 1 time in total.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17050
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 23 Apr 2010 15:28

@ Misraji, debate with the postor, not about the postor. anything else should be reported and not used as a point of argument in the thread.
regards.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 23 Apr 2010 15:49

Sanku I agree with the reason that there is no A solution for a tank.

But in your opinion why would IA continue to choose a medium ( ~ 46 T ) Tank over a Heavy ( ~ 58 T ) tank , what is the trade off and benefit of say choosing T-90 in the numbers they did over Indian designed and GSQR certified Arjun tank in Indo-Pak context ?

If you leave the logistics issue aside , eventually wouldnt it be in IA interest to move toward an indian designed tank , so for eg canceling 800 T-90's and opting for 800 more Arjuns Mk2 would make sense ?

Now that Arjun is known to work , cant we just look forward towards gradual replacement of T-72's by Arjun rather then investing in modernizing T-72 ?

What sort of investment will be needed and is HVF the real bottleneck for large scale Arjun production and deployment ?

Thanks

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby amit » 23 Apr 2010 15:53

Sanku wrote:Specifically w.r.t. T 90 vs Arjun, to me IAs approach is clear -- We have a Arjun type solution for tanks, as it comes, let us also have latest of T series types solution. There is space aplenty for both.

Its not either/or. Even if Arjun was ordered in large numbers, it is quite possible that T 90s would also be ordered. We do not know for sure, we can not make a definite claim.


Sanku,

I don't think anyone is saying that the IA cannot have both the T90 and Arjun. I personally think that would be a good mix and all the T72s can be gradually amortized instead of modernised.

However, the grouse is whether we like it or not the IA has given the picture that it has set the bar higher for the Arjun and seemed more accommodating for the T90s.

Is that a correct assessment? I really don't know but many people in the DRDO and some Army officers have given the impression that it indeed is.

What the Army needs to do IMO is to either categorically state that Arjun does not meet its requirements and why. Or if it now meets its requirements (the much bandied GSQRs) it must show the same kind of enthusiasm and support for the tank's induction that it has shown on T90. Not wanting the tank because the IA would have to build the logistics chain is a specious argument. Such a chain would be long-term investment on future generations of tanks derived from the Arjun.

In these cases appearances count for a lot. And whether you like it or not, the IA has so far given an appearance that it has been brought kicking and screaming to the table to accept Arjun. In short it should publicly show that it is a stake holder in Arjun's success so that India can build it's own family of tanks including a future MBT derived from the Arjun.

Look at how the LCA programme has changed both qualitatively as well as quantitatively once IAF publicly acknowledged that it's behind the Tejas and became a stake holder.

Has the Army done that? It's not a question of corruption, Natashas etc. It's a question of change of mindset, don't take the easy option of import but help to build the Mil-Ind complex, its just not in GoI's interest to do so but it should be in the Armed forces interest too. Look at what the Navy has achieved with meagre (in relation to the Army) resources.

IMHO, I think behind all the anger this is what most posters are trying to say.
Last edited by amit on 23 Apr 2010 16:01, edited 1 time in total.

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 23 Apr 2010 16:00

Sanku :eek:

Did you develop amnesia ?? :)

There is a link in one of the preceding pages (Collaege of management or something). It was a study of T 90 induction and mentioned 2 of the 3 machines conking their engines etc.


1. So at least you agree that Shukla is not a blog per se - first its a newspaper article. If not challenged then what can one say. Its more than nudge nudge because it has clearly identified the person. no hints of senior afsar etc

2. Regarding

The fact the rocket was sent means that this was a one off case and IA as a institution did not like it and checks and balances are working. At best it is one unreliable and minor data point.


- Rocket came from MOD - IA (assuming you mean IA HQ) sat it out as no one likes to make green on green public.
- Not one off - as this has been a big part of problem once we were past the initial Arjun troubles (as I said hopefully one day it willcome out)
- IA HQ can be idiotic- eg. when SF and Para had issues because of the genius Para general's decision to convert Paras into SF wholesale. IA HQ told them that it is an internal para family matter and they will not intervene. :eek:

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4701
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Manish_Sharma » 23 Apr 2010 16:07

Image

A happy breaking news awaits on LCA Thread to all the Rakshaks between this Garma Garam Manthan!

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 23 Apr 2010 16:22

Austin wrote:But in your opinion why would IA continue to choose a medium ( ~ 46 T ) Tank over a Heavy ( ~ 58 T ) tank , what is the trade off and benefit of say choosing T-90 in the numbers they did over Indian designed and GSQR certified Arjun tank in Indo-Pak context ?


Austin, I also believe that IA never really had a choice till now. Now finally IA has a choice of T 90 vs Arjun. What will be their choices? I believe they will opt of roughly equal numbers of both. Personally I would chose to keep both, two reasons

1) IA understand T 90s well, how will they behave strong points, weakness etc etc.
2) Logistics, you say lets keep it aside. I would say that WE CANT. Logistics are as critical to the choice as the tank itself.
3) Cost, (specific part from logistics for highlighting the same) including number of crew.
4) T 90 induction is already paid for. The capital costs are already sunk in terms of ToT and setting up lines etc. I would like to use it to full.

Given the above as I move to Arjun systems, I would keep T 90s too. This would be my 10-20 year plan. I really cant see it further than this right now.

Arjuns would anyway be ramping up on their own speed.

Now that Arjun is known to work , cant we just look forward towards gradual replacement of T-72's by Arjun rather then investing in modernizing T-72 ?


This appears to be what I would suspect, but again some of the factors mentioned earlier would come in action. Do we have enough Arjuns quickly? Or should we make the most out of T 72s?

I expect that some T 72s would be upgraded, and some others be moved to reserves instead of T 55s and Vijayanatas. Perhaps even upgraded T 72s can be moved there.

A lot of upgraded T 72s can perhaps move to semi-static positions in the NE sector.

What sort of investment will be needed and is HVF the real bottleneck for large scale Arjun production and deployment


HVF is clearly the bottleneck as of now considering the public information. As far investment is concerned I am afraid I am out of my depth there.

It will depend a lot on how much of the currently 60% import content of Arjun can be localized and how soon (and what orders are needed for it)

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 23 Apr 2010 16:33

amit wrote:However, the grouse is whether we like it or not the IA has given the picture that it has set the bar higher for the Arjun and seemed more accommodating for the T90s.


Thats a very intresting question. I personally do not think the bar was set higher. Yes the GSQRs were for a 60 ton tank with all the attendant bells and whistles and thus perhaps more of a challenge than 40 ton tanks. But that was known from day 1.

The question is should have we tried for a 40 ton tank only? Or having chosen a 60 ton tank GSQR, why persist with 40 ton tank.

The answer as I think lies in a mix of history and fait accompli due to various unplanned events (Pakistan moving to T 80) as well as inherent weakness. (Arjun taking longer than hoped for)

There is no great conspiracy, just how it played out.

I really don't know but many people in the DRDO and some Army officers have given the impression that it indeed is.


I believe they are making too much a little thing. A comfort factor with T series does not mean a overarching bias. Particularly when all sorts of checks and balances are built in with involvement of other arms.

What the Army needs to do IMO is to either categorically state that Arjun does not meet its requirements and why. Or if it now meets its requirements (the much bandied GSQRs) it must show the same kind of enthusiasm and support for the tank's induction that it has shown on T90.


I have always maintained that IA will move towards Arjun when it is ready. Now finally it is getting ready for induction with first LSP getting fulfilled. I believe more tanks will be ordered as we can already see whispers of.


Not wanting the tank because the IA would have to build the logistics chain is a specious argument. Such a chain would be long-term investment on future generations of tanks derived from the Arjun.


I agree they need to make that investment.

In these cases appearances count for a lot.


Yes and no.

Frankly apart from BRF no one has this appearance, an avg person on the street who knowns a little think DRDO has goofed up (for better or for worse)

The IA needs to do nothing to correct the image because outside a very small group that image does not hold.


Look at what the Navy has achieved with meagre (in relation to the Army) resources.


Navy has been discussed extensively and the reasons have been given too, it is beyond a mindset issue it is because the IN was tasked by MoD for internal development particularly.

LCA too has a advantage in terms of ADA being a node center and mission mode operation.

Where Arjun has suffered the most is lack of owner. It has no owner. It gets bounced about between a whole bunch of folks -- that in my view is the problem.

IMHO, I think behind all the anger this is what most posters are trying to say.


I understand the anger, all I am saying is that its misplaced. Their intentions may be good, but they seek to make 1+1==11.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 23 Apr 2010 16:38

Surya wrote:Sanku :eek:

Did you develop amnesia ?? :)

There is a link in one of the preceding pages (Collaege of management or something). It was a study of T 90 induction and mentioned 2 of the 3 machines conking their engines etc.


Surya without going into the other non open source stuff let me just take this part.

I believe you are reading the report wrong (the one you mentioned)

The AUCRT is designed to take a set of tanks and run them into ground. That is take a tank run it till something breaks and count the number of breakages. The same report said as much.

The whole exercise is to find out WHEN things conk off. That is true for all such tests.

So the engines conked off is no big deal since they were trying to find when they will conk off. The interesting figure in this exercise is "how many Km before the engine conks" and NOT "Did the engine conk"

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 23 Apr 2010 17:26

Sanku

The interesting part is NOT one mention of this ever while every one of Arjun issues in AUCRT was tom tommed to the press by "army sources". Till Shukla got into the act on some areas of T 90.

Of course we know what happened once Renk installed the datalogger and send its report to MOD. The aforementioned rocket.

Now coming back to the report

just look at what snippets show about the T 90

Early problems (one) with engines.

An engine which even the Russians would not certify anywhere near 1000 Hp. (never mind derating as some friends want to talk about)

All sort of obstructions to inspect.

None of this ever came out and still has not come out except for us tank nuts finding it unexpectedly .

All this points to a certain vested segment in the DGMF (I repeat in DGMF and armor procurement AT that time). This has nothing to do with MOD.

In fact MOD (and NOT IA HQ) actually restored some sense to this debacle.



Now I am going to enjoy LSP 3 and MMR

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby amit » 23 Apr 2010 19:33

Sanku wrote:
Where Arjun has suffered the most is lack of owner. It has no owner. It gets bounced about between a whole bunch of folks -- that in my view is the problem.


Aha Sanku, finally the start of comprehension of what folks here are trying to say. And who do you suppose was supposed to be the "owner" of a tank being built to strict specifications? The IA, na?

Interesting the IA framed the specifications (the famous GSQRs), changed them mid course and yet refused to be the "owner". You see the problem here?

Even more interesting is that IA has never ditched responsibility of being the "owner" of T90.

I suppose now you understand the angst?

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 23 Apr 2010 21:22

Thanks Sanku for your views.

BTW this T-72 has ERA ,any idea any one if this is the K-5 or DRDO developed ERA ?

If the T-72 is totally covered with ERA like the one you see in the pics , what is the total weight ERA adds to the tank ?

T-72 Pics

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 23 Apr 2010 21:25

Sanku wrote:<SNIP>The AUCRT is designed to take a set of tanks and run them into ground. That is take a tank run it till something breaks and count the number of breakages....The whole exercise is to find out WHEN things conk off. That is true for all such tests.

So the engines conked off is no big deal since they were trying to find when they will conk off. The interesting figure in this exercise is "how many Km before the engine conks" and NOT "Did the engine conk"


When did this reality about nature of AUCRT dawn on you?

Misraji
BRFite
Posts: 401
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 11:53
Location: USA

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Misraji » 23 Apr 2010 22:42

Sanku wrote:Indian GSQR for T 90 != Indian GSQR for Arjun.
Clearly the need for the two was driven by two very different requirements.



Sanku wrote:Rahul M, first and foremost I or any one else can not have claimed to seen GSQRs since they are not public. I can however make educated guesses on the questions based on overall understanding.


:mrgreen: ....

Awesome. This is the one to be remembered.


~Ashish

Misraji
BRFite
Posts: 401
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 11:53
Location: USA

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Misraji » 23 Apr 2010 22:44

Rahul M wrote:@ Misraji, debate with the postor, not about the postor. anything else should be reported and not used as a point of argument in the thread.
regards.


Understood and agreed, Sir.
And yet I felt it was a point that needed to be made.

~Ashish

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Viv S » 23 Apr 2010 23:40

Sanku wrote:
1) Trade off between Armor and weight, with impact on fuel consumption. What do you chose a better protected vehicle or one which can move further on less fuel?


The Army's new doctrine calls for shallow thrusts across a broad frontage, so the better protected vehicle would be the obvious choice. Also given the proliferation of ATGMs on the other side, it reinforces the need for decent protection below the ERA.

2) Number of crewmen w.r.t. rate of fire.


Four man crew with manual loading is faster than the three man + autoloader system.

3) Baggage trail, tonnage of spares required for per tank per km run.


The Arjun with its modular construction is better from a maintenance viewpoint.

4) Use of existing logistical faculties to service the new tanks.


The T-90 has an advantage, but fact is we'd still be operating the Shermans today if existing facilities determined future arms purchases.

5) Terrain of use? Marshy, sandy, with canals etc. how does it fit in with existing infrastructure.


The Arjun's lower ground pressure and higher available power gives it better flexibility of deployment.

6) Will it also be used for close infantry support in enclosed conditions? Can it then use ERA?


I have never seen a T-90 without ERA, which leads me to conclude it isn't optional. The T-90's protection would be severely compromised without its ERA. The Arjun on the other, can employ ERA while going up against armoured units and still have sufficient protection without ERA while supporting infantry.


What is the point? The point is that there is no A solution for tanks. Many possible solutions exist which will give slightly different tanks as a result.

One will be a 40 ton tank one will be a 60 ton. It is a question of where does one chose the sweet spot of design trade off.

It is indeed IAs prerogative to chose one or more such solutions. We may or may not agree but does not change anything.


The solution is to retain whatever T-90s we've bought or are contractually obliged to buy, field them with the Strike Corps and let the remaining fleet comprise solely of Arjun variants especially the proposed IBGs.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests