Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

chiru
BRFite
Posts: 204
Joined: 17 Jun 2009 12:46
Location: mahishooru

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby chiru » 11 May 2010 12:07

^^^ it was me but its as close to a traditional digital camo as one can get

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby vina » 11 May 2010 16:06

Another rumor: the Army refused to buy the non-upgraded T-90A after 2011, so hopefully the new autoloader will enter serial production.


Ah good. However, the Indian Army will continue to buy a couple of hundred T90S more , even though it cannot fire the upto date ammunition. :rotfl: ..

However, since the folks in this thread have decided that it "can" (uh. well, sure theoretically yes, if you throw out the turrent and gun and autoloader and put another one in place) and so it "must" and therefore we should go for a "120/125mm smoothbore on the Arjun" for "commonality" . I am gob smacked by the "alice in wonderland dumbness" of that argument and still reeling from trying to connect the dots here between "commonality" and "autoloader" and T-90S and T72 and the new mythical beast T-90X that will fire a "long rod".Sounds like a smoke and mirror show.

The Indian Army has a tank right now that can fire the "long rod" and do a lot more. Induct that in numbers. Simple. :rotfl:

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 11 May 2010 16:29

Vina the T-90 Bishma can fire the 125 mm Mk2 rounds from DRDO and thats sufficient to take out what we would face, I do not think long rod is such a death wish for the IA unless they think they would face Abrams some day.

If IA desperately needs the long rod they can produce the T-90M or opt for Burlak or well Arjun ;)

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 11 May 2010 16:31

Vina, if I were you, I would be a little circumspect in building a whole story around a simple post which begins with

>>> No reliable information due to the secrecy of the issue. Only contradicting rumors

Just a suggestion.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 11 May 2010 18:39

Vina the T-90 Bishma can fire the 125 mm Mk2 rounds from DRDO and thats sufficient to take out what we would face
,


We do not know

The locally produced ammo was not hitting targets because the Ballistic computer was not calibrated for that and the Russians have been at best relecutant to help.

Igorr
BRFite
Posts: 598
Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Igorr » 11 May 2010 22:24

More one picture with the same T-90S cammo:
Image

Brahmananda
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 21 Mar 2010 22:09

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Brahmananda » 11 May 2010 22:40

http://kbptula.ru/eng/multi/hermesk.htm

http://kbptula.ru/eng/multi/hermes.htm

http://kbptula.ru/eng/multi/hermesa.htm

nice missile top speed mach 3.5 max. range upto 100km for land to land version.

nice pic of the t-90 digi camo, looks cool


Ankit Desai
BRFite
Posts: 520
Joined: 05 May 2006 21:28
Location: Gujarat

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Ankit Desai » 12 May 2010 00:57

ARJUN MBT: A Retrospective On Its Transmission System

Courtesy:- Shiv Aroor's Blog (Livefist)

Ankit

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 12 May 2010 11:26

@interesting grabs above.

We wanted to compete with Leopard's transmission in the first transmission we ever tried our hand at?

I applaud the vision and can do attitude, and I despair at the project planning.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 12 May 2010 12:41

Brahmananda wrote:nice missile top speed mach 3.5 max. range upto 100km for land to land version


The issue with Hermes is while it tries to solve some limitations of existing ATGM by introducing supersonic missile ~ M 3 , F&F capability with various guidance options.

The problem it introduces is that its existing calliber of booster and sustainer is too large to be accommodated with existing caliber MG which is 120 and 125 mm.

While the idea of have a large booster and sustainer is understandable of achieving longer range and standoff as possible , it clearly needs a modification of calliber to atleast 125 mm for sustainer and booster which will probably reduce its range to under 10 km but will solve the issue of time to target ( ~ 4 sec at max range ) and do away with lasing for guidance.

I am fairly certain we will see a supersonic ATGM with F&F while MMW RF will be a part of future tanks.

wilson_th
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 53
Joined: 03 Jul 2009 14:16

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby wilson_th » 12 May 2010 17:16

some news item when I googled on Arjun.

http://www.sakaaltimes.com/SakaalTimesBeta/20100512/5185078272408252160.htm

Director, HEMRL, Dr. A Subhananda Rao, who presided over the function, highlighted the significant achievements made by India in the fields of nuclear and defence technologies.

He also narrated the recent successes of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) like induction of Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT) in Army, successful test firings of BrahMos missile and launching of India’s indigenously built Nuclear Powered Submarine INS Arihant in the sea.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Singha » 12 May 2010 17:44

we should position 4 brigades of armour in north sikkim and 8 in ladakh on all axes where entry is feasible in the high tibetan plateau.

this will also promote peace and stability on the Indo-Pak border and give usa more of a stick to beat the pakis with wrt foot dragging.

operating armour divs and fighter wings in the bitter cold on a sustained offensive is something we have NEVER done. to some extent Russian army did in afghanistan and they have decades of expertise in extreme cold weather operations of siberia and central asia.

what we need is try things and learn what works and what doesnt and needs changes. these must be done in peacetime , so that we dont suffer a sound thrashing and learn the lessons later.

giant stockpiles of materials in secure caves will need building up as war wastage reserve given the logistical bottlenecks.

alejandro_
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 12
Joined: 28 Apr 2008 00:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby alejandro_ » 12 May 2010 18:21

Only contradicting rumors. In general, the long rod APFSDS are developed, but needed an autoloader upgrade, while the last batches of T-90A are still without.


As you said information is hard to find. Latest I heard was that several rounds were being developed, some fitted autoloader and others did not. T-90A should have modified autoloader according to what I read. There was also talk about new round (Mango-2) introduced recently into service.

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby vina » 12 May 2010 19:25

Vina the T-90 Bishma can fire the 125 mm Mk2 rounds from DRDO and thats sufficient to take out what we would face


Net-Net, the 120mm rifled gun in the Arjun fires a far better and effective APFSDS than the 125mm smooth bore on the T90. That blows a massive hole in your theory of T-90 smooth bore and "hence" "automatically" ,"better" APFSDS than the Arjun , doesn't it, eh laddies ? And APFSDS is the ONLY area where a smoothbore will hve theoretical advantage.

Problem is that you guys forgot to read all the fine print about autoloader , 2 piece ammo, FCS and all the rest of it. Of course, of course, we will be enlightened with how, the "Gun" "Ammo", "Autoloader" and "FCS" are all different pieces.. but again will miss the elephant in the room that when you integrate those pieces, it becomes a "system" and at a system level it barely cuts the mustard today and without massive changes, wont do so at all tomorrow!.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RoyG » 12 May 2010 21:18

vina wrote:
Vina the T-90 Bishma can fire the 125 mm Mk2 rounds from DRDO and thats sufficient to take out what we would face


Net-Net, the 120mm rifled gun in the Arjun fires a far better and effective APFSDS than the 125mm smooth bore on the T90. That blows a massive hole in your theory of T-90 smooth bore and "hence" "automatically" ,"better" APFSDS than the Arjun , doesn't it, eh laddies ? And APFSDS is the ONLY area where a smoothbore will hve theoretical advantage.

Problem is that you guys forgot to read all the fine print about autoloader , 2 piece ammo, FCS and all the rest of it. Of course, of course, we will be enlightened with how, the "Gun" "Ammo", "Autoloader" and "FCS" are all different pieces.. but again will miss the elephant in the room that when you integrate those pieces, it becomes a "system" and at a system level it barely cuts the mustard today and without massive changes, wont do so at all tomorrow!.


I agree with you Vina. I've been trying to make the same point for a while. The firing system overall on the Arjun has demonstrated its superiority in the recent trials. Moreover, this was developed in house so I feel like it has greater upgrade potential. I honestly don't understand where the debate is going anymore b/c the arjun overall is a qualitatively better tank than the T-90 and should therefore form the backbone of our armor. The T-90 meanwhile should be upgraded with Arjun tech, and should eventually be phased out for the most part by Arjun MKI and II's.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 12 May 2010 21:20

Vina, since you insist on repeating points shown to be incorrect, allow me once more

1) Smooth bore vs Rifled is a discussion for A Indian gun for Arjun vs B Indian gun for Arjun

2) This simple fact may cause you terrible pain, but the entire world including the Uber tank makes, Germans have seen that for tanks a smooth bore is better for APFSDS and HEAT and missiles. Sorry thats how it is, thats not theory, the fact that 9000 Abhrams + 1000 Leos + 10000 Ts are all smooth bore is not because some read in a book that it is theoretically advantageous.

3) No open source info exists that just the Canon+ammunition on Arjun is *better* than one on T 90.

4) Let me also remind you a simple thing, FCS+autoloader+Gun+ammo ARE different components. Fine there will be system integration effort, but hey tomorrow Arjun May anyway have a different FCS, then wont there be changes?

5) Guns can be changed on tanks and are case in point being Chally and Abhrams (and leopards even)

Such changes are part of continuing evolution of systems and are not by any stretch of imagination, a revolutionary concept.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 12 May 2010 21:22

RoyG wrote: I honestly don't understand where the debate is going anymore b/c the arjun overall is a qualitatively better tank than the T-90 and should therefore form the backbone of our armor. .


Because it was never a T 90 vs Arjun discussion ever.

I fail to see why something so obvious is being missed.

Thomas_S
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 14
Joined: 06 May 2010 23:15

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Thomas_S » 12 May 2010 21:51

Sanku wrote:
RoyG wrote: I honestly don't understand where the debate is going anymore b/c the arjun overall is a qualitatively better tank than the T-90 and should therefore form the backbone of our armor. .


Because it was never a T 90 vs Arjun discussion ever.

I fail to see why something so obvious is being missed.



I think you are saying this because Arjun is obviously the better system and there is no more discussion required on that :) ....i agree with you on this.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 12 May 2010 21:55

Thomas_S wrote:I think you are saying this because Arjun is obviously the better system and there is no more discussion required on that :) ....i agree with you on this.


There was never any doubt that tank to tank Arjun would be a better machine, the specs made sure of that.

The only issue had been in translating the specs into reality, it took longer than we hoped for (for known and understood reasons)

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

This does not mean that T 90 is not a good tank btw. It is a very good and a very potent tank especially in the Indian context.

T 90 does not have be bad mouthed to say Arjun is better. T 90 is very good, Arjun is even better. :D

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 12 May 2010 22:09

Sanku wrote:This does not mean that T 90 is not a good tank btw. It is a very good and a very potent tank especially in the Indian context.

T 90 does not have be bad mouthed to say Arjun is better. T 90 is very good, Arjun is even better. :D


You said it Sanku . Kudos for bringing facts out consistently .......Hats off to you 8)

Thomas_S
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 14
Joined: 06 May 2010 23:15

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Thomas_S » 12 May 2010 22:10

Sanku wrote:
Thomas_S wrote:I think you are saying this because Arjun is obviously the better system and there is no more discussion required on that :) ....i agree with you on this.


There was never any doubt that tank to tank Arjun would be a better machine, the specs made sure of that.

The only issue had been in translating the specs into reality, it took longer than we hoped for (for known and understood reasons)

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

This does not mean that T 90 is not a good tank btw. It is a very good and a very potent tank especially in the Indian context.

T 90 does not have be bad mouthed to say Arjun is better. T 90 is very good, Arjun is even better. :D




Well the 'better' one got 124 orders and the other one got 1600 orders.....what an irony..... :roll:

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 12 May 2010 22:22

Thomas_S wrote:
Sanku wrote:
There was never any doubt that tank to tank Arjun would be a better machine, the specs made sure of that.

The only issue had been in translating the specs into reality, it took longer than we hoped for (for known and understood reasons)

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

This does not mean that T 90 is not a good tank btw. It is a very good and a very potent tank especially in the Indian context.

T 90 does not have be bad mouthed to say Arjun is better. T 90 is very good, Arjun is even better. :D


Well the 'better' one got 124 orders and the other one got 1600 orders.....what an irony..... :roll:


Not at all, aren't you missing this very obvious part of the answer?

The only issue had been in translating the specs into reality, it took longer than we hoped for (for known and understood reasons)


The specs have been realized only now, and as per chaiwalla reports, GoI (not IA) is discussing on the way ahead (note it has time to discuss because Avadi is still making the old order)

So it will happen. For sure.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 12 May 2010 22:23

Austin wrote:You said it Sanku . Kudos for bringing facts out consistently .......Hats off to you 8)


Thanks Austin, I really appreciate it.

Venkarl
BRFite
Posts: 961
Joined: 27 Mar 2008 02:50
Location: India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Venkarl » 12 May 2010 22:35

Sorry to butt in in the middle....was there any accident 2-3 months ago inside the Arjun tank during the tests in Mahajan range, Rajasthan? heard that the round blew up inside the turret killing 2 tank crew....this chennai guy from army(co passenger in train) wasn't sure if it was the Gun's problem or the round's(he also wasn't sure if it was HESH or Armour Piercing one)...I couldn't believe him :shock: ...he ended up saying..tank is good but quality is lacking....

Venkat

Thomas_S
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 14
Joined: 06 May 2010 23:15

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Thomas_S » 13 May 2010 00:07

Sanku wrote:
2) This simple fact may cause you terrible pain, but the entire world including the Uber tank makes, Germans have seen that for tanks a smooth bore is better for APFSDS and HEAT and missiles. Sorry thats how it is, thats not theory, the fact that 9000 Abhrams + 1000 Leos + 10000 Ts are all smooth bore is not because some read in a book that it is theoretically advantageous.



Sir capability to fire Hesh round was a requirement of the end user. Can a smooth bore fire a hesh round? I think not.
So it does not matter even if there are one billion smooth bores out there. Those did not have this specific requirement which was valid in the indian context. So we went for a rifled gun which anyways is a better one than the current T-90's smooth bore.
Is this so difficult to understand?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 13 May 2010 00:16

Sanku wrote:
Austin wrote:You said it Sanku . Kudos for bringing facts out consistently .......Hats off to you 8)


Thanks Austin, I really appreciate it.


The Tag Team champions..... :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Thomas_S
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 14
Joined: 06 May 2010 23:15

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Thomas_S » 13 May 2010 00:19

Sanku wrote:
4) Let me also remind you a simple thing, FCS+autoloader+Gun+ammo ARE different components. Fine there will be system integration effort, but hey tomorrow Arjun May anyway have a different FCS, then wont there be changes?


Well at least we need not have to ask anyones help/permission to modify Arjuns FCS in future.
The inability to fire indian manufactured ammo from T-90 was posted here before i think....they didnt share the FCS code.
How long did we had to go after them for the gun barrel technology....
Will any of the above problem have happend with arjun ?

Thomas_S
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 14
Joined: 06 May 2010 23:15

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Thomas_S » 13 May 2010 00:23


The specs have been realized only now, and as per chaiwalla reports, GoI (not IA) is discussing on the way ahead (note it has time to discuss because Avadi is still making the old order)

So it will happen. For sure.


Oh you mean the specs has been realized in 2010 or was it in december 2009?
Lets all keep discussing...at the same time keep importing the tin cans.... :D

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 13 May 2010 00:35

Sanku wrote:

<SNIP>

This does not mean that T 90 is not a good tank btw. It is a very good and a very potent tank especially in the Indian context.

T 90 does not have be bad mouthed to say Arjun is better. T 90 is very good, Arjun is even better. :D


So good, in fact, that the TI Conks off in high temprature environment and engine actually produces lesser than the "brochure" claims - heat or no heat.......and needs a modified auto-loader to fire a some what western comparable APFSDS from Russian stable...requires "enivormental control system" to allow it to use it's TI.......and it's engine siezed in the trials.... :rotfl:

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17005
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 13 May 2010 03:57

Venkarl wrote:Sorry to butt in in the middle....was there any accident 2-3 months ago inside the Arjun tank during the tests in Mahajan range, Rajasthan? heard that the round blew up inside the turret killing 2 tank crew....this chennai guy from army(co passenger in train) wasn't sure if it was the Gun's problem or the round's(he also wasn't sure if it was HESH or Armour Piercing one)...I couldn't believe him :shock: ...he ended up saying..tank is good but quality is lacking....

Venkat

patent BS, had it happened we would have heard it by now. the blowing up incidents that killed crew happened in the T-72 and that was at least a couple of years back.
the accident he refers to is this viewtopic.php?p=853375#p853375

the said gent has badly mixed up his tanks.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby chackojoseph » 13 May 2010 08:24

Rahul M wrote:patent BS, had it happened we would have heard it by now.


It would have been more deafening that Hiroshima and Nagasaki put together.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Misraji » 13 May 2010 08:31

Sanku wrote:
Austin wrote:You said it Sanku . Kudos for bringing facts out consistently .......Hats off to you 8)

Thanks Austin, I really appreciate it.


Frankly you guys should get a room.
This public displays of affection is becoming embarrassing.... :mrgreen:

~Ashish.

pralay
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 517
Joined: 24 May 2009 23:07
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby pralay » 13 May 2010 11:31

Venkarl wrote:Sorry to butt in in the middle....was there any accident 2-3 months ago inside the Arjun tank during the tests in Mahajan range, Rajasthan? heard that the round blew up inside the turret killing 2 tank crew....this chennai guy from army(co passenger in train) wasn't sure if it was the Gun's problem or the round's(he also wasn't sure if it was HESH or Armour Piercing one)...I couldn't believe him :shock: ...he ended up saying..tank is good but quality is lacking....

Venkat


bro,
if that had happened with Arjun it would be in all the newspapers, magazines, tv news, blogs, forums...., and many respected people here would have raised that point for defending their favorite toy :D :rotfl:


The specs have been realized only now, and as per chaiwalla reports, GoI (not IA) is discussing on the way ahead (note it has time to discuss because Avadi is still making the old order)
So it will happen. For sure.


Why don't they make new specs for tin cans?
avadi is still making old order too :D
i hope they don't make specs just to kill Arjun project once for all and forever.

symontk
BRFite
Posts: 920
Joined: 01 Nov 2001 12:31
Location: Bangalore

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby symontk » 13 May 2010 12:49

isnt it because T-72 was originally called Arjun and the name Ajeya being a later addition?

Is it possible that ground level folks in IA still think T-72 is the Arjun?

Venkarl
BRFite
Posts: 961
Joined: 27 Mar 2008 02:50
Location: India
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Venkarl » 13 May 2010 13:12

Rahul and Sameer.....I couldn't believe what he said...when he said that..it hurt me bad and spoke to him in defense of Arjun...was curious if BRF was aware of it..I don't login much these days so thought I missed it...apologies to you Sirs.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 13 May 2010 13:58

Sorry folks, broke up the "IA bad, T 90 bad rah rah rah...." and repeat party here did I? With facts and data?

:lol:

Thomas_S dear; you are mixing up issues.

1) Arjun readiness, only in 2008-2009 time frame. Shown the readiness only now that too according to Chaiwalla reports. Official word awaited. The last order still not completed.
2) Gun ToT issue, it took one year, between 2007-2008, part of negotiations.
3) Sure we can change the FCS why not, and thats why we should keep changing things to ensure evolution, why not.
4) HESH vs disadvantages of Rifled gun trade off? -- Personally I think 100% of all modern tanks (Arjun are 50 of 20000 modern tanks) to me is a pretty clear indication of the trade off. Sure IA is different. But not THAT different. IA should seriously look at whether then need the HESH round w.r.t. Arjun.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Viv S » 13 May 2010 15:18

ARJUN MKII SANCTIONED

Finally, Govt Orders Full Revamp Of DRDO, Formally Sanctions Mark-II Versions Of MBT Arjun & Akash SAM

Significantly, the decisions also include continuation of Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) for design and development of combat aircraft, continuation of the Kaveri aero-engine programme, development of MBT Arjun Mk-II and Akash Mk-II by DRDO and selection of industry partners by DRDO through a transparent process by evolving a suitable mechanism.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 13 May 2010 15:26

Viv S wrote:ARJUN MKII SANCTIONED


There are times when the lack of the lungi dance icon is sorely missed.

Viv S, bless you, old egg!!

David Siegel
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 60
Joined: 14 Apr 2010 07:40

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby David Siegel » 13 May 2010 16:02

Viv S wrote:ARJUN MKII SANCTIONED

Finally, Govt Orders Full Revamp Of DRDO, Formally Sanctions Mark-II Versions Of MBT Arjun & Akash SAM

Significantly, the decisions also include continuation of Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) for design and development of combat aircraft, continuation of the Kaveri aero-engine programme, development of MBT Arjun Mk-II and Akash Mk-II by DRDO and selection of industry partners by DRDO through a transparent process by evolving a suitable mechanism.


All Izzz Well !!


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest