Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1302
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RKumar » 28 Apr 2010 13:47

I will ignore other points as it seems we agree on them more or less.

Austin wrote:The Burlak program is not the T-95 program that is rumoured to be cancelled but a variant of T-90 being built for Russian Army.
The T-90M was shown to public recently Dec 2009 , Igorr blog has pics and info on T-90M


Still those are prototypes and years away from completing development, so until then lets build more T-90 and induct them (still 1000 to go). When these system are available of course we will perform trials and decide. It is just speculation at this moment.

I totally agree that if GOI decides to replace 1:1 T-72 with Arjun it will be dream run.

But you see no one here makes decision , the GOI/IA will jointly decide the fate of Arjun in days ahead lets hope it gets a fair deal.


Personally I don't favour 1:1 replacement of T-72, may be 4:3 is good. But it should be decided by IA/MoD/GoI.

PS: What I always missed from your posts is your and IA lack of support for Arjun, when ever it is regarding T-90x you always mention IA/GoI and in case of Arjun it is always GoI.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 28 Apr 2010 14:01

PS: What I always missed from your posts is your and IA lack of support for Arjun, when ever it is regarding T-90x you always mention IA/GoI and in case of Arjun it is always GoI.
I will ignore other points as it seems we agree on them more or less.


The IA can only recommend , the GOI can accept the decision based on those recommendation , modify those or simply reject those recommendations.

So in case of T-90 or Arjun , it will be combined GOI/IA decision ...... the latter does not have the veto right but GOI has it as it has to look at many aspect then mere field result,funding is one key aspect.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1302
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RKumar » 28 Apr 2010 14:06

Austin wrote:
PS: What I always missed from your posts is your and IA lack of support for Arjun, when ever it is regarding T-90x you always mention IA/GoI and in case of Arjun it is always GoI.
I will ignore other points as it seems we agree on them more or less.


The IA can only recommend , the GOI can accept the decision based on those recommendation , modify those or simply reject those recommendations.

So in case of T-90 or Arjun , it will be combined GOI/IA decision ...... the latter does not have the veto right but GOI has it as it has to look at many aspect then mere field result,funding is one key aspect.


Funding :rotfl: :rotfl: when we can buy 10 C-xx for 5.8 billion $, I dont see any problem with 1 billion $ for Arjuns just peanuts :mrgreen: and anyways IA also return lot of unused money back to FM.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 28 Apr 2010 14:14

RKumar 'Burlak' program is a classified one but it is known to exist and there are reports that by late this year they will display prototypes of the same.

So information naturally is far few and scanty , the T-90M certainly exists in prototype form and even pics of the same was shown during Putin Dec 2009 visit.


There is conflicting information about the Burlak upgrade. One source says that the same was cancelled along with T-95 in the recent cut announced by Putin. However, if they are to persist with T-90 upgrade rather than T-95 (the reason for T-95 cut), I don't know then what is point of cancelling the Burlak programme? Also, from what I gathered from reading on the topic, Burlak programme has (had?) some sort official backing and hence, there are(were?) more chances of it seeing the light of the day. However, the timelines were not clear at all and then we hear this.

As for T-90M, it might well be the planned upgrade for domestic as well as export customers - the days of distinction between product for Russian (Soviet) and export customers are over (except for customization). The irony of the situation is that with the planned uprades, the T-90 will be T-90 in all but name. And let us see, what level the cost reaches....

Since India has purchased ~ 1650 T-90 tanks , its obvious these two program will generate interest and will have implications on new purchase or upgrades.


So much for the super-duper T-90. The existing fleet of T-90 will need every major system replaced to bring it to T-90M Standard. The turret itself will have to be completely new to accomodate the aft auto-loader..something necessary to allow the T-90 to fire the longer AFPSDS. By the time this update matures and is finalized, IA will have well ~800-900 tanks in service - >=50% of the fleet.....good luck with updating the whole set with such deep upgrade. And add the cost for APS.....one expensive piece of equipment we're going to have. Might as well buy a new T-90M tanks onlee...

Vina , the FMBT is a very future concept and there is nothing more on this then talks and IA is exploring all options available , but I do not see any serious initiative happening on FMBT till 2015 , since T-90 will be our MBT till 2040


What will happen by 2015 to warrant a new FMBT?
Last edited by rohitvats on 28 Apr 2010 14:48, edited 3 times in total.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 28 Apr 2010 14:16

RKumar wrote:Funding :rotfl: :rotfl: when we can buy 10 C-xx for 5.8 billion $, I dont see any problem with 1 billion $ for Arjuns just peanuts :mrgreen: and anyways IA also return lot of unused money back to FM.


Yep but $5.8 billion can mean lot of $$$ for GOI stashed in swiss account and party fund , $ 1 billion on Arjun has no ROI for netas :rotfl:

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 28 Apr 2010 14:21

Austin wrote:
The IA can only recommend ......<SNIP>


Has the Indian Army reccomended the induction of Arjun? For a change, give me a straight answer.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 28 Apr 2010 14:27

rohitvats wrote:
Austin wrote:
The IA can only recommend ......<SNIP>


Has the Indian Army reccomended the induction of Arjun? For a change, give me a straight answer.


How do you think the first batch of 124 Arjun entered into service without IA approving the same , who cares by the way if IA recommends or not , if GOI wants they can fund the entire replacement of T-72 by Arjun ....... there has to be will to do it.

In the corridors of Delhi power , the Defence Chief and DRDO chief recommendation are as good as a paper that GOI can use any time to shit upon.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1302
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RKumar » 28 Apr 2010 14:36

Austin wrote:How do you think the first batch of 124 Arjun entered into service without IA approving the same ....


Ramayan ki katha puri ho gayi aur yeah pooch rahe hai Sita Ram ki behan thi kiya??? :rotfl: :rotfl:

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 28 Apr 2010 14:45

Austin wrote:
How do you think the first batch of 124 Arjun entered into service without IA approving the same , who cares by the way if IA recommends or not , if GOI wants they can fund the entire replacement of T-72 by Arjun ....... there has to be will to do it.

In the corridors of Delhi power , the Defence Chief and DRDO chief recommendation are as good as a paper that GOI can use any time to shit upon.



I don't need to think how Arjun came into service - I know exactly how it came to be inducted. It was a very unique set of circumstances of pro-Arjun (and indegenious products) COAS, the economic situation and lack of resources for import, strong personality like Kalam as SA to RM, looming political situation (general elections) and PM who wanted things Indian.

Let me state this for your knowledge - IA did not reccomend induction of Arjun then also.

Rest of your reply is usual hogwash about the big bad GOI and MOD- Tell me a weapon system that GOI wanted the IA to buy with out IA putting forth requirement for the same? GOI going for the 2nd best option (in IA's eyes) is different matter altogether - and Bofors is the most stark example of that.
Last edited by rohitvats on 28 Apr 2010 14:47, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby rohitvats » 28 Apr 2010 14:47

RKumar wrote:
Austin wrote:How do you think the first batch of 124 Arjun entered into service without IA approving the same ....


Ramayan ki katha puri ho gayi aur yeah pooch rahe hai Sita Ram ki behan thi kiya??? :rotfl: :rotfl:


The problem is a bit different here - they haven't heard the Katha but will say with upmost confidence that "Sita Ram ki behan thi"

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 28 Apr 2010 14:50

Well you kids will soon hear the news on Arjun and you will realize if Sita ram ke behen thee ya kuch aur :rotfl:

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 28 Apr 2010 14:50

Once again

dear austin

pray tell me what futuristic concept the IA has come up with in the past pertaining to technology that gives you so much confidence about it coming with FMBT??

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 28 Apr 2010 15:21

Surya , the FMBT program is almost a decade away from conception but the IA has to make noise on this till GOI wakes up from its deep sleep and takes note of it.

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1302
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RKumar » 28 Apr 2010 15:58

Austin wrote:How do you think the first batch of 124 Arjun entered into service without IA approving the same


To answer above question asked by you, we dont need to hear new news on Arjun...

Austin wrote:Well you kids will soon hear the news on Arjun and you will realize if Sita ram ke behen thee ya kuch aur :rotfl:


lagta hai budda 60ya giya hai :rotfl: :rotfl: (Sorry for bad manner in advance, it is OT so is your above comment)

Please stop de-railing the thread... I will not comment anymore on it, as it has nothing to do with useful and productive discussion.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 28 Apr 2010 16:03

RKumar wrote:lagta hai budda 60ya giya hai :rotfl: :rotfl: (Sorry for bad manner in advance, it is OT so is your above comment)


:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Ok lets stick to T-90 ............errrr Arjun

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 28 Apr 2010 16:45

Does nto matter if it is 50 years away.

Since the word FMBT has been used to try and derail Arjun acquisition - I keep asking the question

pray tell me what futuristic concept the IA has come up with in the past pertaining to technology that gives you so much confidence about it coming with FMBT??

and the answer is nada - and hence nothing but an attempt to follow the Rodina.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 28 Apr 2010 17:08

What is wrong if we co-develop FMBT with Russia ?

karan_mc
BRFite
Posts: 700
Joined: 02 Dec 2006 20:53

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby karan_mc » 28 Apr 2010 17:13

Since Black Eagle and T-95 Natasha programs have been canceled , Army might be looking out if some one has come up with laser firing guns or hovering Tanks so they can demand that for Arjun MK-2 and probably my grand kids will be able to see them in production , why do we even need FMBT to fight pakis ? what are they coming up with Star trek tanks ?

RKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1302
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 12:29
Location: Evolution is invention, explosion is destruction.

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RKumar » 28 Apr 2010 17:28

Austin wrote:What is wrong if we co-develop FMBT with Russia ?


Nothing wrong with co-developing with Russia\Germany\USA but point is what are the requirements and which roles it should perform.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 28 Apr 2010 17:59

What is wrong ??? :eek:

Because one as you admit we have zero ideas and zero tracrecord of what the FMBT is so it will be Rodinas vision of FMBT ie. extension of crapola.

Just another excuse to kill local development.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 28 Apr 2010 18:04

It would take IA another decade to come with its vision and GSQR on FMBT , Considering Arjun and T-90 are relatively new entrant and have their entire upgrade cycle in the pipeline , talks of FMBT is too premature , although it is good to generate concept ideas which will help later on in firming up the GSQR

aditp
BRFite
Posts: 447
Joined: 15 Jul 2008 07:25
Location: Autoland

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby aditp » 28 Apr 2010 18:14

Austin wrote:What is wrong if we co-develop FMBT with Russia ?


The Arjun was designed with the GSQR calling for a western philosophy tank. DRDO has developed expertise according to this requirement. That's why the development partner should also be from the west. And is it not one of our goals to reduce dependence on Rodina?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Surya » 28 Apr 2010 19:25

It would take IA another decade to come with its vision and GSQR on FMBT , Considering Arjun and T-90 are relatively new entrant and have their entire upgrade cycle in the pipeline , talks of FMBT is too premature , although it is good to generate concept ideas which will help later on in firming up the GSQR


So why bring up the FMBT in lieu of more Arjun ??


concepts??? again what track record do they have for concepts?? other than tired old Rodina concepts

Huffy and Tuffy??

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 28 Apr 2010 20:38

aditp wrote:The Arjun was designed with the GSQR calling for a western philosophy tank. DRDO has developed expertise according to this requirement. That's why the development partner should also be from the west. And is it not one of our goals to reduce dependence on Rodina?


Well it is best left for IA and GOI to decide who should be our development partner East or West

Surya, the FMBT concept was put forward by the IA and right now its just concept , its always good to talk about FMBT with their peers in East and West and that is what IA is doing.

The FMBT has nothing to do with killing Arjun , thats like saying FGFA will kill the Tejas.

The fate of Arjun is best left decided by GOI/IA.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 28 Apr 2010 20:39

No discussion about Smooth bores? Advantages, disadvantages?

How about some discussion on whats next for Arjun, specific upgrades and how they will be done?

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 28 Apr 2010 20:47

My wish list for Arjun

1 ) New 1,500 HP engine to compensate for the increased in weight by couple of Tons
2 ) New 125 mm Smooth Bore which can bring in standardization of ammo that T-90,72 and Arjun can fire
3 ) ERA , Active Protection System and BMS system
4 ) Ability to fire F&F type ATGM from its MG
5) Get rid of one guy from that tank ( 3 crew ) and go for a full auto loader .

All wish list will depend on GOI/IA decision to procure Arjun in the numbers they want. If the number is small then Mk2 as mentioned in Ajai blog should suffice.

Picklu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2112
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Picklu » 28 Apr 2010 21:32

Austin wrote:My wish list for Arjun

1 ) New 1,500 HP engine to compensate for the increased in weight by couple of Tons
2 ) New 125 mm Smooth Bore which can bring in standardization of ammo that T-90,72 and Arjun can fire
3 ) ERA , Active Protection System and BMS system
4 ) Ability to fire F&F type ATGM from its MG
5) Get rid of one guy from that tank ( 3 crew ) and go for a full auto loader .

All wish list will depend on GOI/IA decision to procure Arjun in the numbers they want. If the number is small then Mk2 as mentioned in Ajai blog should suffice.


In other words, redevelop T-90 and call it Arjun. Thanks for the honest post.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby RoyG » 28 Apr 2010 21:45

^^lolol.

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2578
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Vivek K » 28 Apr 2010 21:49

So Austin, after reading the whole Ramayan, we start at the beginning saying that in all fairness, Bharat should have been crowned the King.
Last edited by Vivek K on 28 Apr 2010 21:50, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Austin » 28 Apr 2010 21:49

Picklu wrote:
Austin wrote:My wish list for Arjun

1 ) New 1,500 HP engine to compensate for the increased in weight by couple of Tons
2 ) New 125 mm Smooth Bore which can bring in standardization of ammo that T-90,72 and Arjun can fire
3 ) ERA , Active Protection System and BMS system
4 ) Ability to fire F&F type ATGM from its MG
5) Get rid of one guy from that tank ( 3 crew ) and go for a full auto loader .

All wish list will depend on GOI/IA decision to procure Arjun in the numbers they want. If the number is small then Mk2 as mentioned in Ajai blog should suffice.


In other words, redevelop T-90 and call it Arjun. Thanks for the honest post.


Can you get our your insecurity and view every thing good mentioned for Arjun from T's lens :roll:

You mention T-90 here and suddenly there is panicky and it gets labeled as anti-Arjun and Rodina and what not :-?

Picklu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2112
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Picklu » 28 Apr 2010 22:01

Let me ask you around a different question.
We paid and did not utilize
a. bofors TOT
b. extended infrastructure for Mirage 2000
c. HDW subs
So we have ample precendence.
So what if we have paid license fee for 1000 T-90, why don't we cut our loss and go for Arjun all out with only 310+347+10 T-90? Arjun is chepaer than T-90 with all bells and whistles so we actually save money other than the license fee.
What do you think about this proposal? Don't you think this is more cost-effective than your proposal of re-engineering Arjun to downgrade it to T-90 level?

Vivek K
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2578
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Vivek K » 28 Apr 2010 22:18

Picklu the effort is to keep Arjun in the future and T-90 in the present. It is taking a while for some to overcome their love for the T-90 and accept that Arjun is better.

We should expect something similar from the IA -

Hey DRDO
Bah Humbug!

Yeah the Arjun is good but here is how it could be made even better. Till that is done, we will import/assemble the 1000 T-90s. Come back with your concept in 2015. Attached is GSQR xyz2025.

'Bye!!

Signed abc
(Bah Humbug)

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 28 Apr 2010 23:44

Austin wrote:All wish list will depend on GOI/IA decision to procure Arjun in the numbers they want. If the number is small then Mk2 as mentioned in Ajai blog should suffice.


Austin, could you please add some thought behind the various items on the wish list.

For example, why would you like to see a auto-loader on Arjun etc?

pralay
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 519
Joined: 24 May 2009 23:07
Contact:

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby pralay » 29 Apr 2010 00:15

Austin wrote:My wish list for Arjun

1 ) New 1,500 HP engine to compensate for the increased in weight by couple of Tons
2 ) New 125 mm Smooth Bore which can bring in standardization of ammo that T-90,72 and Arjun can fire
3 ) ERA , Active Protection System and BMS system
4 ) Ability to fire F&F type ATGM from its MG
5) Get rid of one guy from that tank ( 3 crew ) and go for a full auto loader .


Austin Saar
What are the available F&F ATGMs available which can fit in 120/125mm gun ?
Also why smoothbore ? Rifiled gun is more accurate than smoothbore guns.

Active Protection System will be good and viable add-on, as we can use it on current t90 s as well. I think its is already a part of proposed add-ons and DRDO had said that its working on it and will be ready by 2012.

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7009
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Anujan » 29 Apr 2010 00:53

I have one suggestion for a major change to Arjun to rectify shortcomings for it to be adopted in numbers

1. Rename it to T-100

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 29 Apr 2010 00:57

Anujan wrote:I have one suggestion for a major change to Arjun to rectify shortcomings for it to be adopted in numbers

1. Rename it to T-100


I have a better one, call its new ERA Shikhandi. :mrgreen:

Picklu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2112
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Picklu » 29 Apr 2010 03:17

Sanku wrote:
Anujan wrote:I have one suggestion for a major change to Arjun to rectify shortcomings for it to be adopted in numbers

1. Rename it to T-100


I have a better one, call its new ERA Shikhandi. :mrgreen:


This is after Arjun has taken T-90 to task in the comparative trial as came out in the open source.
You won the argument no doubt. You also raised the quality of the debate in the forum to a new height.

arnab
BRFite
Posts: 1136
Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby arnab » 29 Apr 2010 04:40

Sanku wrote:
vina wrote:Mark my words. This canard will be floated soon. Whether it comes from the Army side or the Natashas needs to be seen.


And what if it does not come? I think this forum should have some marks against a poster for which speculation/allegation does /does not bear fruit.

Arnab thanks for the link, but I fail see to your point

In case of T-90 Tank, the indigenisation
percentage in the current year is 30% is likely to go up 70% by 2010-11


ToT was cleared in 2008 after the decision to licence manufacture in 2006.
In 2008 the ToT was done.
In 2009, 10 tanks were made with 30% content.
In 2010 100 tanks are expected (thats the line strength) with 70% Indian content. (if they are saying that in March they already know that the Tech for 70% is there)

So just what is the problem here? I mentioned that ToT was done deal. Yes, ToT is done and its already moved towards manufacturing phase??



Heh heh Sir, please recall that T-90s are basically a souped up version of T-72. One does not need ToT to achieve 30 % indegenisation in T-90. Rather than depending on obscure news outlets which report that ToT issues have been resolved, I think it is best to stick to facts and past history. I think the 70% 'expected' indegenisation by 2011 is wildly optimistic going by past history..

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

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby Sanku » 29 Apr 2010 09:11

arnab wrote:Heh heh Sir, please recall that T-90s are basically a souped up version of T-72. One does not need ToT to achieve 30 % indegenisation in T-90.


And I should take your word for it? Despite the fact that the official sources maintain that the because the ToT did not happen the program was delayed for one year?

Rather than depending on obscure news outlets which report that ToT issues have been resolved, I think it is best to stick to facts and past history. I think the 70% 'expected' indegenisation by 2011 is wildly optimistic going by past history..


Hello the news outlets range from Hindu to Defence India and the like, quoting the Minister of state for defence Pallam Raju as well as heads of production unit. I only picked up the first one which appeared in google. There are plenty more.

You want me to take your word over DRDO+Avadi as mentioned before a parliamentary committee?

arnab
BRFite
Posts: 1136
Joined: 13 Dec 2005 09:08

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread

Postby arnab » 29 Apr 2010 09:17

Sanku wrote:And I should take your word for it? Despite the fact that the official sources maintain that the because the ToT did not happen the program was delayed for one year?



Hello the news outlets range from Hindu to Defence India and the like, quoting the Minister of state for defence Pallam Raju as well as heads of production unit. I only picked up the first one which appeared in google. There are plenty more.

You want me to take your word over DRDO+Avadi as mentioned before a parliamentary committee?


Well - you were the one who has been claiming that ToT has been absorbed and Tanks are rolling out today. I have produced a report which shows that the extent of indigenisation today is 30 %. So clearly it has not been absorbed - no matter what newspapers or politicians say for soundbites. The devil is always in the details.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests