Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

anjan
BRFite
Posts: 448
Joined: 08 Jan 2010 02:42

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby anjan » 22 Apr 2010 03:08

Viv S wrote:Its basically logistics and 'lets not rock the boat'. The army brass while as patriotic as they come, are rather set in their ways. They have certain preconceived notions and its takes an effort to change that view. But, the fact to take away is that news is getting around and the Arjun is here to stay. I remember speaking to one officer(now a brigadier) who informed me in the course of our discussion, that the T-90 can even fire a missile through its barrel now. He's was ofcourse a bit surprised to learn of the LAHAT. Heck... Col. Ajai Shukla aka Broadsword is the most prominent example of how the army is coming around to our 'jingo' POV. Give it time. For now another two regiments are more or less certain, I fervently hope the DRDO doesn't do a ... well 'DRDO' on the Arjun MkII.


Part of it is "once bitten, twice shy" atleast with the DRDO and specifically with the Arjun. My impression is that the armed forces in general have a rather poor opinion of the Arjun. While I don't know about the Arjun I do know (from panwallah sources) that ASTE evaluations/recommendation on aircraft/helicopter are classified. I see no reason this wouldn't be equally true for the Arjun. Since I don't know enough to make a judgement I'm quite happy leaving it to the people who actually have to use the equipment. The other thing I'd like to note is that the officers I spoke to were as enthusiastic as anyone else about Indeginization. It's just that there is a reluctance to put their lives on the line for it.

Certainly there is corruption in weapons deals. The armed forces has its share of the greedy, venal and even the purely opportunistic. Prosecute them. The armed forces atleast have a record of doing so faster than any other org in the country. At the end of the day I don't believe that men should be sent to war with what they believe is inferior equipment.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Viv S » 22 Apr 2010 06:14

anjan wrote:Part of it is "once bitten, twice shy" atleast with the DRDO and specifically with the Arjun. My impression is that the armed forces in general have a rather poor opinion of the Arjun. While I don't know about the Arjun I do know (from panwallah sources) that ASTE evaluations/recommendation on aircraft/helicopter are classified. I see no reason this wouldn't be equally true for the Arjun. Since I don't know enough to make a judgement I'm quite happy leaving it to the people who actually have to use the equipment. The other thing I'd like to note is that the officers I spoke to were as enthusiastic as anyone else about Indeginization. It's just that there is a reluctance to put their lives on the line for it.


The Arjun has had a chequered history to say the least. Nevertheless what matters is how its performing today. Yes, technically speaking the evaluations are confidential, but its not unheard off to have officers speaking off-the-record to journalists. The level of enforced confidentiality is not akin to that of .. say India's missile program. Its pretty evident at this point that the Arjun did trump the T-90 in the recent comparative trials. Which isn't surprising if you consider the fact that the DRDO has been shouting itself hoarse to get these trials conducted.

Certainly there is corruption in weapons deals. The armed forces has its share of the greedy, venal and even the purely opportunistic. Prosecute them. The armed forces atleast have a record of doing so faster than any other org in the country.


I think its unfair to talk of corruption as things stand. When the CBI or Vigilance Dept. announce or even insinuate that something's amiss, we can crank up the rumour mill, but until then its baseless futile speculation.

At the end of the day I don't believe that men should be sent to war with what they believe is inferior equipment.


Absolutely. And the men who'll actually be sent to war in it, i.e. the ORs, JCOs and officers of the Arjun regiments are very pleased and satisfied with the tank(and this includes veterans).
Last edited by Viv S on 22 Apr 2010 08:38, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 22 Apr 2010 08:05

Concept Russian FMBT at 2010 V Day Parade
Pic1
Pic2

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Misraji » 22 Apr 2010 08:34

Austin wrote:Concept Russian FMBT at 2010 V Day Parade
Pic1
Pic2


Austin Saar,

Bit confused... :|
Isn't that the Su-85/Su-100 Self propelled gun and T-34-85 MBT of WW2??

~Ashish

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Viv S » 22 Apr 2010 08:37

Austin wrote:What I am asking is a simple question , what could be PA option if IA deploys Arjun in huge numbers , Abrams seems to me a logical choice.


Same thing they're doing in response of deployment of the Su-30MKI in huge numbers. Sucking it up relying on (relatively) affordable Chinese products.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 22 Apr 2010 08:39

Misraji wrote:Austin Saar,

Bit confused... :|
Isn't that the Su-85/Su-100 Self propelled gun and T-34-85 MBT of WW2??

~Ashish


Saaar ... look through the eyes of IA and MOD ......its FMBT :lol: :wink:

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Misraji » 22 Apr 2010 09:48

Austin wrote:Saaar ... look through the eyes of IA and MOD ......its FMBT :lol: :wink:


You mean GOI .... :mrgreen:

~Ashish.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 22 Apr 2010 11:02

Misraji wrote:Amrikhans could do that much damage because they possessed superior night-fighting-equipment
(sigh ... unlike our dear Catherine.... :cry: )


Catherine is a French TI AND one of the latest and best.

That TI is already tested and works very well in conditions which would be like

On the night of 23/24 February
In Iraq.

The TI conking off in THAR SUMMER AFTERNOON is hardly a benchmark for systems, it is probably THE most extreme condition possible.

The reason that Arjun does well their is also because the Army GSQRs (much maligned copy pasted) were irritatingly obsessed about Tank performance in Thar in summer afternoon, no doubt a result of their fascination with Jane's and the European tank warfare doctrines along the lines of battle of Kursk in Russian winters.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7737
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 22 Apr 2010 11:11

Sanku wrote: The TI conking off in THAR SUMMER AFTERNOON is hardly a benchmark for systems, it is probably THE most extreme condition possible.

The reason that Arjun does well there is also because the Army GSQRs (much maligned copy pasted) were irritatingly obsessed about Tank performance in Thar in summer afternoon, no doubt a result of their fascination with Jane's and the European tank warfare doctrines along the lines of battle of Kursk in Russian winters.


It is not hardly a "benchmark for systems"......it is THE BENCHMARK. Benchmark establsihed by the Indian Army...for it knows that bulk of it's larger armor battles will be fought South of Fazilka-Abohar. And that is why it got the Arjun electronics to function in those conditions - "hardened electronics" as some would say. And that is why it is looking for "Environment Control System" to be installed on T-90 - to ensure that T-90 does not flunk this benchmark in future (which it has done till now).

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 22 Apr 2010 11:15

rohitvats wrote:
Sanku wrote: The TI conking off in THAR SUMMER AFTERNOON is hardly a benchmark for systems, it is probably THE most extreme condition possible.

The reason that Arjun does well there is also because the Army GSQRs (much maligned copy pasted) were irritatingly obsessed about Tank performance in Thar in summer afternoon, no doubt a result of their fascination with Jane's and the European tank warfare doctrines along the lines of battle of Kursk in Russian winters.


It is not hardly a "benchmark for systems"......it is THE BENCHMARK. Benchmark establsihed by the Indian Army...for it knows that bulk of it's larger armor battles will be fought South of Fazilka-Abohar. And that is why it got the Arjun electronics to function in those conditions - "hardened electronics" as some would say. And that is why it is looking for "Environment Control System" to be installed on T-90 - to ensure that T-90 does not flunk this benchmark in future (which it has done till now).


But I said precisely the same thing!!

Benchmark for systems and benchmark for Indian systems are two very different things are they not?

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7737
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 22 Apr 2010 11:16

SandeepS wrote:
1. FOL (Fuel, Oil, Lubricants) requirements will be different (except for fuel) for Arjun and T-90 given their different engines, transmissions and other sub-systems. As a result, based on consumption patterns worked out during Arjun's AUCRT, their FOL stocks and supply logistics will be different too. Some of these FOL might be common but in case different OL are used on Arjun then the same will require supply-chain to be organised and sometimes even imported

2. Support vehicles can be broadly classified as general/admin and technical vehicles. The general veh like 1-ton, 3-ton, m/c, etc are obviously not an issue and are common across IA. Its some of the technical vehicles like ARV (Armoured Recovery Veh) which provide repair and recovery in battlefield conditions which need to be different based on the type and class of eqpt that they are supporting. These veh have to be able to winch, tow and lift Arjun and its innards and hence, it is possible that existing ARV for T-90 might not be suitable especially their ancillary fitments like air compressors, generators, cutting and welding eqpt, etc.<SNIP>........


Thank you for the great and detailed post.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17062
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Rahul M » 22 Apr 2010 11:18

@ sanku maharaj, hey, no one said anything bad about the final shape of GSQRs, what arjun is today i.e a credible weapons system owes a lot to the final form of GSQR from late 90's which underwent a medium modification in mid 90's IIRC. it's the handling of the project before and after this period that is the source of the problem.

@ anjan, why are then ex -IA officers like Gen RoyC supporting the arjun project ? by your post it would seem as if he is eager to put the lives of soldiers on the line unnecessarily ? may be the real reason is because the t-series itself is a threat to soldier's lives ?

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7737
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 22 Apr 2010 11:27

Austin wrote:Right in that context I was thinking how PA will react and Abrams seems to me easier and logical choice , both are heavy tanks and worthy competitor.


Very unlikely. PA has a well defined Armor induction and modernization plan in place - the same is in progress pretty well. At the same time, let us not forget the perennial lack of funds - uncle's generosity not withstanding. Their main aim is to increase the number of Al-Khalid MBT in service and gradually replace the older ones - T-59 still forms the bulk of their inventory. The plan of action is to upgrade ~800 odd T-59 under the Al-Zarrar programme and simultaneously induct the Al-Kahlid. At the same time, they're working on the Mk2 version of Al-Khalid. They also have other makes of Chinese tanks - T-69 and Type-85IIAP in service - which again will be replaced by Al-Kahlid in due time. BTW, T-80UD was a stop gap measure when the Al-Khalid programme was not on course.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 22 Apr 2010 12:19

^^^ Point Taken , but pindi plan can change if they find two capable Tanks being inducted simultaneously in large numbers by its onlee enemy , they may look towards buying new type of heavy tanks.

At the least they can qualitatively improve anti-tank defenses by opting for Javelin and Trigat/Pars 3 type anti-tank weapon with F&F capability and tandem shaped charged warhead.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7737
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 22 Apr 2010 13:06

Austin wrote:^^^ Point Taken , but pindi plan can change if they find two capable Tanks being inducted simultaneously in large numbers by its onlee enemy , they may look towards buying new type of heavy tanks.

At the least they can qualitatively improve anti-tank defenses by opting for Javelin and Trigat/Pars 3 type anti-tank weapon with F&F capability and tandem shaped charged warhead.


I really don't see M1A in PA Service. As for ATGM, PA has already paid lot of attention to this aspect and proliferated the ATGM across the army. ATGM allows them to take on the Indian Armour and free majority of modern MBT for offensive formations. Considering the nature of strong fixed defences on Pakistan side, ATGM fit the bill perfectly. They even have Light Mechanized Brigades and Anit-Tank Brigades - whose main task and equipment profile is anti-armor in nature.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby chackojoseph » 22 Apr 2010 13:11

It ij pojjible. Afghanistan may have Abrams or likes. Just like Iraq. Mian Musharraf's pindi berathers might salivate. Ask unkil for parity.

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 » 22 Apr 2010 14:08

The reason that Arjun does well their is also because the Army GSQRs (much maligned copy pasted) were irritatingly obsessed about Tank performance in Thar in summer afternoon


Why was there no "irritating obsession about tank performance in Thar in summer afternoon" for the T-90 ?. Is the Army going to go for a siesta in the afternoons and the are T-90s to fight only in the first hours of the day and in the evenings and the Arjuns are supposed to hold the fort in the afternoon while the T-90s take their 40 winks?.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 22 Apr 2010 14:16

vina wrote:
The reason that Arjun does well their is also because the Army GSQRs (much maligned copy pasted) were irritatingly obsessed about Tank performance in Thar in summer afternoon


Why was there no "irritating obsession about tank performance in Thar in summer afternoon" for the T-90 ?. Is the Army going to go for a siesta in the afternoons and the are T-90s to fight only in the first hours of the day and in the evenings and the Arjuns are supposed to hold the fort in the afternoon while the T-90s take their 40 winks?.


There is, T 90s did go through their paces in all conditions.

The TI does not always konk off in the summer afternoons either -- only some times.

But naturally where the IA has more say and better control they have tried to make sure their requirements are incorporated.

If Arjun is better in some aspects because IA shaped it to be better (through GSQR and tests), it does not mean
1) T 90 becomes bad because Arjun is better in those respects. It just means both tanks do their jobs and some of those are done better by one vs other.
2) Those issues are THE issues limiting Arjun induction.

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 » 22 Apr 2010 14:19

Nice. T-90 TI conks off "sometimes" (well 25% of TIs were conked out sometime back as per reports) and ,so

Those issues are THE issues limiting Arjun induction.


Nice indeed. :x

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 22 Apr 2010 14:22

Wouldnt any Russian tanks have issue with extreme heat ( like Thar ) , though I am not aware but I think Russian climate tend to be on the opposite side which is extreme cold and most likely their tanks are throughly tested in those climate that they face or likely to face then our.

So any system procured from russia has to be get the appropriate change done ( minor or major ) to meet Indian requirement.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 22 Apr 2010 14:25

vina wrote:Nice. T-90 TI conks off "sometimes" (well 25% of TIs were conked out sometime back as per reports) and ,so


Which reports?

According to some reports, OFBs cant even make a hair pin.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Misraji » 22 Apr 2010 16:27

The TI does not always konk off in the summer afternoons either -- only some times.

What do you even say to something like this??

Sanku wrote:
vina wrote:Nice. T-90 TI conks off "sometimes" (well 25% of TIs were conked out sometime back as per reports) and ,so


Which reports?

According to some reports, OFBs cant even make a hair pin.


Flaws in Indian T-90
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
Don't worry. T-90 best, Army best, all is bhell.

Regards,
Ashish.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 22 Apr 2010 16:32

^^^ Its 2006 news , do those flaws still exists or has been rectified , As per Sanku post presently there are no known flaws in T-90's except for the rare TI issue due to extreme heat.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 22 Apr 2010 16:36

Surprisingly, the T-90’s gun has not been configured to fire the Indian-made AMK-340 shells. These shells have turned out rather dubious in quality, with over 150,000 rounds having to be destroyed, leading to the loss of over Rs 700 crores. Some AMK-340 shells have even burst inside the tanks, killing crew members, in at least one instance at Babina. Armoured Corps officers said many tank crews, who feared the shells would explode inside the barrel, had refused to use the faulty ammunition, and when forced to do so went to elaborate lengths, enabling them to fire from outside the tank.

According to the Armoured Corps officers, the ordnance factory board had triple-packed the 125 mm AMK-340 shells with propellant, but without adequate packing in between the layers to prevent leakage at high temperatures in which they are stored, often under the open sun. This had led not only to a near-complete freeze on regular firings but also "severely dented" the confidence of tank crews, sources said.


Precious loss of life and loss of 700 Cr from Indian Made Shell ( OFB (?) ) due to faulty shell , was any one held for this criminal negligence and any action against the organisation that made this shell.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 22 Apr 2010 16:46

Misraji;

Thats a Indian defence review quoting unnamed sources and this problem and that problem and what not.

Why refer to such dubious sources when the official GoI reports have been posted time and again?

And BTW many issues there were simply poor T 90 manufacture in Avadi due to a bunch of issues (which have since then been rectified)

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Misraji » 22 Apr 2010 16:47

Austin wrote:^^^ Its 2006 news , do those flaws still exists or has been rectified , As per Sanku post presently there are no known flaws in T-90's except for the rare TI issue due to extreme heat.


There is, T 90s did go through their paces in all conditions.

The TI does not always konk off in the summer afternoons either -- only some times.


But naturally where the IA has more say and better control they have tried to make sure their requirements are incorporated.

If Arjun is better in some aspects because IA shaped it to be better (through GSQR and tests), it does not mean
1) T 90 becomes bad because Arjun is better in those respects. It just means both tanks do their jobs and some of those are done better by one vs other.
2) Those issues are THE issues limiting Arjun induction.

--- edited ---
--- Misread the point. Point has been clarified later ---
~Ashish.
Last edited by Misraji on 23 Apr 2010 04:24, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Misraji » 22 Apr 2010 16:54

Sanku wrote:Misraji;

Thats a Indian defence review quoting unnamed sources and this problem and that problem and what not.
Why refer to such dubious sources when the official GoI reports have been posted time and again?
And BTW many issues there were simply poor T 90 manufacture in Avadi due to a bunch of issues (which have since then been rectified)


You think GOI will come straight on this issue?
How about Ajai Shukla? Is he a dubious source too?

Worse was to follow when the initial batch of 310 T-90s entered service (124 bought off-the-shelf and 186 as knocked-down kits). It quickly became evident — and that too during Operation Parakram, with India poised for battle against Pakistan — that the T-90s were not battleworthy. The T-90’s thermal imaging (TI) sights, through which the tank aims its 125mm gun, proved unable to function in Indian summer temperatures. And, the INVAR missiles assembled in India simply didn’t work. Since nobody knew why, they were sent back to Russia.

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

Piercing the Army's armour of deception.

Are you going to discredit every source/article reporting something uncomfortable
So, everybody has an agenda except the GOI/Army/DGMF/MoD

If you have made up your mind about the non-culpability of the Army in this, lets not waste time.

Regards,
Ashish.
Last edited by Misraji on 22 Apr 2010 16:57, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 22 Apr 2010 16:57

Irrespective of the merits of news from Janes ( could be the infamous Rahul Bedi ) , Tropicalisation of imported equipment has always been a challange for Indian Defence Force.

Case to point is the IN which purchased Foxtrot originally from SU faced major issue with its capability due to warmer Arabian sea and had to order a modified Foxtrot essentially Tropicalised with better cooling for men and machine , Ditto problem with Kilo as well as they were designed for cold waters.

Similarly there were report where Jags engine faced high derating in high temp of Rajasthan as high as 40 % ,hence the need now to reengine Jags , similarly flat rated requirement for Kaveri.

So I think it wont be uncommon for many imported stuff to be adquately tropicalised for Indian condition as and when they find issues during trials.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 22 Apr 2010 17:01

If GOI report does not show serious flaw on equipment purchased then we should give more credibility to GOI report than to any blog-wlog ,Janes Wanes, agera wagera.

I am fairly certain I will find much more hits and more credibility in the eyes of bloggers if I put a blog which states " IAF responsible for not accepting LCA , ADA says LCA is World beater "

Some how rightly or wrongly DRDO generates more sympathy , I remember those days at BR where Kaveri and GTRE was so much defended till the hilt , till reality sinked in and skeletons began to tumble from GTRE , similarly Trishul generated tremendous sympathy on the internet and BR forums specially from Biggies till reality sinked in.
Last edited by Austin on 22 Apr 2010 17:10, edited 2 times in total.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 22 Apr 2010 17:06

Misraji wrote:Lets not waste time.


Absolutely what do you talk to some one who decides that earth is flat because some blog claimed it so.

EVEN ASSUMING that Col Shukla's point are valid you will see that the problems of T 90s are problems of T 90 components made in India. Not of the T 90 tank itself as tested in in 1997-2000 time frame. It is well KNOWN that Avadi had trouble making T 90s in 2006-2008 time frame. The problems were finally resolved in 2008 end after which many of the above problems were solved. (Note I am actually accepting these not based on a blog because they have since then been reported in detail by GoI too)

Also note some others are general OFB problems (poor shells etc) Yet some others are because BDL had issues making INVAR rockets. etc.

These are not T 90 problems :roll: but teething problems in establishing its in house manufacture and ToT.

To compare apple to apple Arjun had issues in 2007 (AUCRT) that T 90 passed before 2000.

We will of course see far many more problems with Arjun as they are inducted and deployed, and they will be solved. That is simple engineering.

There is nothing deep or drastic here, only some lack of understanding and some jumping about at DDM sensationalize.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Misraji » 22 Apr 2010 17:11

Austin wrote:If GOI report does show serious flaw for equipment then we should give more credibility to GOI report than to any blog-wlog ,Janes Wanes, agera wagera.


^^^
Austin Saar,
Any more comments on how ordinary mortals should be interpreting Sanku's posts??
No ? .... :mrgreen:
Lets move on then.

EVEN ASSUMING that Col Shukla's point are valid you will see that the problems of T 90s are problems of T 90 components made in India. Not of the T 90 tank itself as tested in in 1997-2000 time frame. It is well KNOWN that Avadi had trouble making T 90s in 2006-2008 time frame. The problems were finally resolved in 2008 end after which many of the above problems were solved. (Note I am actually accepting these not based on a blog because they have since then been reported in detail by GoI too)


Shukla talks about Op Parakram's T-90 problems. That was 2004.
Really, lets not waste time.

~Ashish

pankaj
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 26
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 19:21

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby pankaj » 22 Apr 2010 17:26

problems of T 90s are problems of T 90 components made in India


Is Catherine TI made in India?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 22 Apr 2010 17:31

Misraji wrote:Shukla talks about Op Parakram's T-90 problems. That was 2004.
Really, lets not waste time.


Yes, but then learn the right thing and dont flog dead horses. That is the right way of not wasting time not to prop up and make statements about 2004 issues of Indian ammunition as T 90 problems. That is wasting time. Next if a ERA is sought to be put on T 90 today and initial issues are seen you will say that T 90 had problems so should not have been brought in 2000?
:roll:

Look at the context Meanwhile I repeat
T 90s did go through their paces in all conditions.

The TI does not always konk off in the summer afternoons either -- only some times.

But naturally where the IA has more say and better control they have tried to make sure their requirements are incorporated.

If Arjun is better in some aspects because IA shaped it to be better (through GSQR and tests), it does not mean
1) T 90 becomes bad because Arjun is better in those respects. It just means both tanks do their jobs and some of those are done better by one vs other.
2) Those issues are THE issues limiting Arjun induction.



The need to bring up T 90 every time Arjun is mentioned is as misplaced as deciding IA is single handedly driving Arjun's destiny.

Both are misplaced statements.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 22 Apr 2010 17:32

pankaj wrote:
problems of T 90s are problems of T 90 components made in India


Is Catherine TI made in India?


Can you explain why have you taken that one statement out of the context of the paragraph? That statement was specifically in the context of "other" problems with T 90 mentioned in a blog.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Misraji » 22 Apr 2010 18:25

Sanku wrote:Yes, but then learn the right thing and dont flog dead horses. That is the right way of not wasting time not to prop up and make statements about 2004 issues of Indian ammunition as T 90 problems.
Look at the context Meanwhile I repeat


Who is talking about any ammunition circa 2004?? ... :evil:
The entire discussion is about Catherine TI only. Is there any confusion about that?

This is what Shukla said and what I quoted too:
The T-90’s thermal imaging (TI) sights, through which the tank aims its 125mm gun, proved unable to function in Indian summer temperatures.


What was being pointed out was, that problem was not in Indian made T-90 of period 2006-2008.
The above problem was with respect to T-90s in Op-Parakram 2004, the Russian made T-90.

Sanku wrote:Yes, but then learn the right thing and dont flog dead horses. That is the right way of not wasting time not to prop up and make statements about 2004 issues of Indian ammunition as T 90 problems.
Look at the context Meanwhile I repeat


This is one for the books.
First. The problem is with Indian made T-90 of 2006-2008.
When pointed out that we are talking about problems in 2004, then it becomes the case of flogging a dead-horse .... :mrgreen:

~Ashish.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 22 Apr 2010 19:43

Misraji wrote:....


Why are you jumping from one end to another.

I made a specific statement -- there are no known issues with T 90 barring the TI konking some times in Summer heat.

Right now
Please provide a single proof of T 90 issues.

NOT of
1) Indian made ammunition
2) BDL issues in assembling Invars
3) Assembly issues in Avadi in 2006

I hope that was not TOO hard to understand?

One issue related to the Tank itself backed up by a single quote from ANY official source. Not too much to ask for?

Otherwise please refrain from creating FUD by comparing the performance of

T 72 of 1970s vintage without TI
with
Abrams M1 of 1990 vintage with TI

and use that wonderful statistic to conclude that a TI is bad because the American TI worked at Iraq in Feb night whereas French TI failed a few times in THAR in JUNE afternoon.

A modicum of sense and logic will go a long way in not wasting time.

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1383
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Kersi D » 22 Apr 2010 19:51

Austin wrote:

Precious loss of life and loss of 700 Cr from Indian Made Shell ( OFB (?) ) due to faulty shell , was any one held for this criminal negligence and any action against the organisation that made this shell.


How dare you amkle such a suggestion ? How can you hold the OFB or am OFB company or an OFB man guilty of negligence ?

K

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2580
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Vivek K » 22 Apr 2010 20:09

Admins, can you please lock the thread? It is going around in circles. Till we get some useful news there is no point in wasting bandwidth. Thanks for your consideration.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 22 Apr 2010 20:46

Lock thread why ? Sanku has done an excellent task on clearing FUD's on T-90 procurement by GOI by consistently putting up facts.

Although I agree we need to have some kind of self imposed restrictions on this debate and wait for GOI decision on Arjun .

Coming back to the topic , since shaped charge are claimed to be very effective in dealing with modern armour , has US tested any of its modern anti-tank weapon like Javelin with shaped charge against its tank with Composite armor ? Any similar test done by Europe or Russian on its tank ?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 22 Apr 2010 20:54

Kersi D wrote:How dare you amkle such a suggestion ? How can you hold the OFB or am OFB company or an OFB man guilty of negligence ?

K


Kersi I agree no one will ever be held accountable for the criminal negligence specially for the loss of life due to defective ammo , not to mention the hundreds of crore of loss to the country , GOI will protect these PSU.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests